Written by Srinath Sridharan
The noted economist Surjit Bhalla, in his recent writings, attributes the inefficiencies in India’s governance primarily to the bureaucracy, suggesting that bureaucrats are the main impediments to an effective administration. This seems like an attempt to shield the political class by portraying them as victims of an entrenched bureaucratic system.
The argument misses a key point, which is the political leadership’s deliberate choice to adopt a centralised, bureaucrat-driven governance model. The government has consistently relied on a powerful PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) to drive priority projects and policy implementation. While this approach has led to successes like the Jan Dhan Yojana and Swachh Bharat, it shows the political intent to empower bureaucrats as the primary execution agents.
The same leadership that entrusts bureaucrats with implementing its vision cannot shift the blame when the outcomes fall short. If the political leadership opts for a top-down, bureaucrat-led governance model, then the responsibility for economic challenges rests equally on political decisions as it does on the administrative machinery.
While the bureaucracy bears responsibility for administrative inefficiencies, it is disingenuous to absolve the political class of its role. The resistance to change is deeply rooted in bureaucratic traditions that are slow to adapt. During periods of economic growth, the bureaucracy was rarely mentioned—successes were hailed as political triumphs, and failures overlooked. Now, as the economy slows, the focus conveniently shifts to the bureaucracy, while the political class deflects responsibility.
Why has India’s political leadership consistently avoided comprehensive administrative reforms? Politicians often blame bureaucratic inefficiency, but it’s no secret that many benefit from the current system. Political interference in administrative appointments, frequent transfers of honest officers, and the patronage system undermine the autonomy and effectiveness of the bureaucracy.
The political class must recognise that the responsibility for systemic reform rests squarely with them. Parliament, as the supreme legislative body, has the authority to overhaul administrative frameworks, simplify outdated rules, and streamline governance.
Since Independence, India has convened numerous commissions and committees aimed at much-needed administrative reform. The 1949 Gopal Swami Ayyangar Committee called for improved personnel practices and ministry structures, while the Gorwala Committee of 1951 focused on system development and planning. In 1953, the Paul H Appleby Committee proposed the creation of an Organisation & Methods (O&M) division to improve administrative processes. The first Administrative Reforms Commission, formed in 1966 under Morarji Desai and later K Hanumanthaiah, produced 20 reports and 537 recommendations, including the establishment of the Lokpal and the Lokayukta. The second Administrative Reforms Commission, formed in 2005, brought forward 15 reports with over 1,500 recommendations, addressing issues like financial management, personnel administration, e-governance, regulatory frameworks, and crisis management.
Why has the political leadership then, despite multiple calls for reform, not made the necessary legislative changes to address India’s bureaucratic inefficiencies ? Unlike countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, which have long benefited from robust administrative laws, India faces a significant disadvantage in global investment competition. Administrative machinery, at its core, is just a tool—its effectiveness hinges on the clarity of vision and policy direction set by the political leadership.
While the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments outlined a clear pathway for decentralisation, the promises of devolved power remain largely unfulfilled. Local governments, particularly at the panchayat and municipality levels, continue to struggle with a lack of financial autonomy and decision-making authority. Power remains concentrated in the hands of state and central governments, exacerbating inefficiency and creating unnecessary bureaucratic layers. Genuine decentralisation would lead to more responsive and effective governance, but this requires more than just rhetoric. It demands the political will to distribute power, allocate resources effectively, and ensure real local autonomy.
India urgently needs a comprehensive overhaul of its administrative law. This overhaul must include constitutional provisions that clearly define the structure and powers of administrative bodies, grant delegated authority and financial independence to local administrations such as gram panchayats and municipalities, uphold principles of natural justice in administrative actions, establish clear and consistent rules for public servants, and standardise procedures for decision-making by administrative authorities.
Political freebies and fiscal creativity without necessary livelihood safety nets for a large young demographic, are major drivers of India’s economic slowdown. While policies that support the vulnerable are necessary for humanitarian reasons, India cannot afford to become a freebie and subsidy state. Promises of free electricity, water, and other handouts, often without fiscal backing, divert resources from essential sectors like infrastructure, healthcare, and education. With India’s GDP growth rate now at 5.4 per cent, far below the 8 per cent needed to achieve long-term development goals, the impact of unsustainable populism is evident. Yet, the political class remains in denial, refusing to acknowledge the severity of the economic challenges ahead.
To move forward, India must recognise that effective governance requires a complete recodification of administrative law, greater decentralisation, and a commitment to fiscal responsibility. Can the political system summon the resolve to act before these challenges become insurmountable?
The writer is a corporate advisor and independent director on corporate boards
