My gener-ation grew up under British rule, deeply resenting our subject status as a nation. Our sense of national pride demanded that the sooner we got rid of the shackles of colonial rule, the better. The British had exploited our country and ruined its once flourishing economy, reducing us to penury.

Many of my friends at college joined the Quit India Movement. On attaining the age of 18, when the movement appeared to have died down with most of our leaders in jail, I joined the Army.
Though British rule was an unmitigated disaster, the British connection also did some good to us. Lord Macaulay may have introduced English for his own reasons, but it proved to be a boon in some respects. It opened the doors of modern and scientific knowledge. Today this gives us an edge over all non-English-speaking countries, including China. The freedom struggle gave us a sense of nationhood. Our political leaders were all educated in English medium institutions, most having studied in England. Mountbatten would say that he was up against a battery of barristers. The British also established excellent institutions of governance — the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the Army and the police.
By the 18th century, the Mughals had become decrepit. There was rampant corruption and the British were happy to put their hand in the till. Robert Clive, whose victory in Plassey set up British rule in India, was highly corrupt and so were the Company civil servants, carrying out private trade. Clive was impeached in Parliament. In his defence he claimed that in view of all the temptations, “he was astounded by his own moderation”. Warren Hastings, despite his contribution in promoting Indian culture and civilisation, including establishing the School of Oriental Studies, was also corrupt. He too was impeached in Parliament. Lord Cornwallis introduced land and administrative reforms towards the end of the 18th century. Civil servants were given higher emoluments and denied private trade. After the 1857 Uprising, to improve the quality of administration, recruitment to the Indian Civil Service (ICS) on nomination by the directors of the East India Company was abolished and competitive examination introduced. Candidates from leading English public schools and graduates from Oxford and Cambridge started being recruited into the service. They were encouraged to play the role of benevolent administrators, carrying what came to be known as “white man’s burden”. They discharged their duties faithfully and also contributed to Indian history through their exploratory efforts, particularly the ancient period and Indian culture and civilisation, including various tribal languages. In Punjab, Sir Henry Lawrence insisted that deputy commissioners administer their districts.
In nine years after the Anglo-Sikh wars, the bloodiest ones fought by the British in India, they won the loyalty of the Sikhs, which became a major factor in British success in quelling the 1857 rebellion. Qualified Indians could also take the competitive examinations in London for the ICS. Satyendranath Tagore, an elder brother of Rabindranath Tagore, was the first Indian to be taken into the ICS in 1863. R.C. Dutt, recruited in the service in 1869, rose to become commissioner of Dacca Division in 1903. He was like a mini governor administering the whole of present West Bengal and Bangladesh. He even wrote a book criticising the Famine Code. Although small in number, some Indians in the ICS rose to higher positions than their British contemporaries. Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, after holding the key position of finance secretary, was appointed India’s agent-general in Washington during the Second World War. British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated in Parliament that the ICS was “the steel frame on which rested the whole structure of our government and of our administration in India”. At the time of Independence there were 1,000 ICS officers, of whom 322 were Indians. The hallmark of the ICS was its integrity, impartiality, loyalty, anonymity and commitment. They were encouraged to give opinions to their superiors without fear or favour.
There was a strong prejudice against the ICS and the Indian Police (IP) who had faithfully carried out their duties during the freedom struggle. Within the Congress Party there was a demand that these services be abolished and replaced by provincial services and, in the Central Secretariat, by a central service. Jawaharlal Nehru had referred to the ICS as neither Indian, nor civil, nor a service.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was not only the unique integrator of the nation but a great administrator, too. He insisted that the ICS and the IP be retained and their high salaries protected. The British officers had to quit suddenly. India badly needed the services of these experienced and able Indian officers. They became the backbone of administration in those chaotic and disturbed days, in the wake of Partition. Many rose to key top positions — governors, Cabinet ministers. The Indian bureaucracy was considered as one of the ablest in the world. Patel also felt that for national integrity, India must have All-India Services like the ICS and IP. Their successor services, the Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service, were to work on the same lines but with lower emoluments. He told bureaucrats to freely and fearlessly give their opinion, but once a decision was taken, to implement it faithfully. He lived up to what he said. Home secretary H.V.R. Iyenger represented in principle to Sardar Patel as home minister overruling his advice on the basis of the recommendation of his private secretary and offered to resign. The Sardar saw his point and rescinded his decision.
During the Emergency, Indira Gandhi dealt a death blow to the civil service by demanding a committed bureaucracy. The bureaucracy soon became a malleable frame. Gone were the days of its old shine. Bending to the wishes of their political masters and even participating in their shenanigans, it has reached its present pathetic state. Many have fallen prey to temptation and become active partners in corruption and misdeeds of politicians in power. The cream of youth join the IAS but many have to succumb to their political bosses and unscrupulous seniors. There are rare exceptions, like P.S. Appu, director of Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. One of the probationers had scandalously misbehaved with a lady probationer. He recommended his withdrawal from the academy and the government approved this. The probationer, who had political pull, managed to get back to the academy. Appu immediately resigned.
There are several maladies affecting our bureaucracy which need to be addressed. Today we have a most bloated bureaucracy operating from their offices and politicking without supervising work in the field. The arrogance of power of the politicians in our feudal democracy as a result of dynastic rule has also affected the bureaucracy. In the past the bureaucrats implemented rules faithfully. Today they want to see the individual and then show the rule! Another very important requirement is to introduce a three-year cooling period after retirement for reemployment in government service, as is the practice in the United States. This will help retiring bureaucrats to assert themselves and not compromise for post-retirement crumbs.

The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir