The Iron Man Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel called the bureaucracy the 'steel frame' of India's government machinery. But 73 years after independence, India's bureaucratic termite has become a wooden frame. Among politicians and bureaucrats, he was no longer a natural relationship, as Sardar Patel had imagined. The opposition is almost absent in India's democracy, so the executive has a big responsibility on its shoulders. But these shoulders have become so weak that the Taj Mahal of civil service in India is being filled. Some groups of officers have remained as part of the kitchen cabinet of the politicians in power. Neither they have anything to do with the public nor service. Many surveys around the world have stated that India's bureaucracy is widely notorious for its wavering policies, poor law and order, and its negativity. In the new generation too, there are officers who are like comets on social media and are soon caught in the quagmire of corruption.
India inherited the structure of civil service from the British. Before leaving India, the British rulers had pledged to the leaders of India that even after independence all the privileges of the Indian Civil Service would be retained, and then India would have to be guaranteed in the Constitution. The Constituent Assembly debated this in 1949. Then Deputy Speaker M. Ananthasayanam Iyengar had said that when the Government of India cannot guarantee the poor people of our country for bread, cloth and house, how can these officers be guaranteed? Many members believed that most of the IAS even today, after independence, think that they are the owners of the country and will continue to rule the people. They should change their behavior and attitude so that the public realizes that they are not there to suppress and rule them but to serve and protect them.
This was a time when ministers used to get a salary of Rs 750 to 1,000, while the Secretary of the Indian Civil Service received a salary of Rs 2,000 to 3,000. Rohini Kumar Chaudhary, the Assam member of the Constituent Assembly, then drew an interesting picture and said - 'The minister pushes on the road to drive his old car, as he is not in a position to get a new car, while his secretary is in his new beautiful Pass by them in a motor car. ' Seeing this opposition, Patel advised his ministers in the Constituent Assembly - 'If you are a minister or a chief minister, it is your duty to allow your secretary or chief secretary to express your opinion impartially without fear. Patel said - 'Today my secretary can write a comment that does not match my views. I have given this freedom to all my secretaries. I have kept telling them that if you do not express your opinion honestly because of any fear, then it will make your minister unhappy, in such a situation it is better that you leave. I'll take the other secretary. ' This was the democratic attitude of a politician and the moral force of his subordinate officer. Today this vision is not seen in any leader or officer.
In fact, since independence, no popular government has shown the courage to reform the structure of civil administration. Our civil servants are not ready to change nor want any interference in their rights. In that historic speech, Patel had said one more thing - 'If the kings-maharajas can be persuaded to leave their kingdom, why can't the officers of the services be prepared to change this system. ' Is that the time? This question is worth considering.