Bureaucracy modernises without change

THE Indian bureaucracy — the permanent machinery of the state — has long been the backbone of governance. It ensures continuity across political transitions and implements policies that touch every citizen’s life. Yet it also remains one of the least directly accountable parts of government, shielded by hierarchy, opacity and procedural rigidity. Each new wave of reform promises to make the bureaucracy leaner and cleaner, but in practice, the changes often make it appear more modern without making it more responsible.

At the heart of this paradox lies the difference between reform as performance and reform as transformation. Too often, reforms in India prioritise appearances — new websites, mobile applications and digital dashboards — without altering the incentive structures that shape bureaucratic behaviour. The Digital India programme, launched with the noble intent of bringing services online, has undoubtedly expanded access and connectivity. Yet digitisation alone cannot create accountability.

A file that once travelled from one desk to another now shifts between digital inboxes. Hierarchies remain intact. Technology has made processes faster, but not necessarily fairer or more responsive. In many departments, digitisation has spawned new bureaucratic rituals — targets, dashboards and key performance metrics — that risk making officials more accountable to data than to the public they serve. The paperwork has become electronic, but the mindset remains manual. India’s bureaucracy often confuses accountability with responsibility. Accountability is about being answerable for actions; responsibility is about moral ownership of outcomes. A civil servant can be accountable for filling reports and meeting procedural requirements, yet remain untouched by the real-world consequences of inaction or poor decisions.

The Right to Information Act 2005 was a landmark in making government answerable to citizens. It opened access to public records and empowered people to question authority. Yet, over time, it has become another layer of procedure. Officials follow the letter of the law, but not always its spirit. Replies are partial, delayed or transferred indefinitely. Everyone in the chain can claim to have “followed the process”, even when justice or service delivery fails.

This culture of procedural accountability without personal responsibility has hollowed out the spirit of reform. When everyone is involved in approving a file, no one is truly responsible if the outcome is flawed. The system rewards those who play safe, not those who take initiative. Administrative reform cannot succeed without confronting the cultural foundations of India’s bureaucracy. The system still bears a colonial imprint: rules are sacred, hierarchy is absolute, and innovation is risky. Promotions often depend on seniority rather than performance. Transfers are frequent and, at times, politically motivated, discouraging long-term learning and institutional memory.

This culture breeds what many describe as defensive governance. Mistakes are punished, and caution is rewarded. Even well-meaning officers hesitate to take bold decisions because blame is more certain than recognition. Consequently, reforms end up reinforcing a compliance mentality, with officials focusing on checklists and processes rather than outcomes.

The Mission Karmayogi initiative, launched in 2020 to build a future-ready, citizen-centric bureaucracy, aims to shift this mindset. It seeks to train officers not only in technical skills but also in ethics, empathy and public service orientation. Whether it succeeds will depend on whether officials are truly empowered to act responsibly—and protected when they do.

Technology has been at the centre of India’s administrative reform drive. Programmes such as the Public Financial Management System and the JAM trinity (Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, Mobile) have revolutionised welfare delivery by enabling direct benefit transfers and reducing leakages. These are undeniable successes. Yet technology remains a tool, not a cure.

When introduced into a system lacking transparency, technology can automate opacity. Citizens may now submit applications or grievances online, but many find their issues marked as “disposed of” without genuine resolution. The system counts this as success, but the citizen feels ignored. A digital portal can improve access but cannot replace empathy, discretion or integrity. India’s next phase of administrative modernisation must therefore focus on digital responsibility rather than digital ritualism. Technology should simplify citizens’ lives—not merely the government’s paperwork.

Bureaucratic accountability in India is further shaped by its complex relationship with politics. In theory, bureaucrats implement policy while elected representatives set direction. In practice, political interference often undermines administrative autonomy. Transfers are used as levers of control, with postings becoming rewards or punishments. This dynamic erodes accountability in both directions: officers learn to prioritise pleasing political masters, while politicians bypass formal systems to expedite their agendas.

True accountability requires what might be called insulated autonomy—the freedom for honest officers to act within a transparent framework, without fear of arbitrary punishment. Without this balance, reforms will continue to oscillate between rhetoric and reality.

India does not lack reform initiatives; it lacks consistent enforcement of accountability. To bridge that gap, four shifts are essential.

First, citizen feedback must become central to evaluating bureaucratic performance. Ministries and departments should measure not just the number of files cleared, but the satisfaction levels of the citizens served. Second, independent institutions—such as the Central Vigilance Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and Information Commissions—must be strengthened and insulated from political influence to uphold integrity in governance.

Third, training and organisational culture require transformation. Bureaucrats must learn systems thinking, ethics and empathy, not merely procedural mastery. Programmes like Mission Karmayogi can help—but only if accompanied by a genuine commitment to merit-based evaluation.

Finally, political will must align with reform. Leaders must resist the urge to micromanage and instead build an environment where civil servants can act with both efficiency and integrity.

India’s administrative future will not be defined by how many portals are launched or dashboards displayed, but by the lived experience of its citizens. Does a ration card application get processed faster? Is a grievance resolved fairly? Does the citizen feel heard and respected? These are the true metrics of reform.

Technology can make government faster; only responsibility can make it fair. Procedures can create order; only accountability can build trust. India’s bureaucracy has the strength of continuity and institutional depth—but it must rediscover its purpose: serving the citizen, not merely the system.

Administrative reform in India must now move beyond modernising paperwork. The real challenge is to reform the reformers—to nurture a culture in which public servants see themselves as custodians of the public good. Only then can the Indian state move from compliance to commitment, from control to service, and from reform to true responsibility. The author writes on economic affairs and public policy, with a focus on taxation, governance, and inclusive growth.