Having pledged her troth to one of the species, my spouse has scant respect for bureaucrats in general, a measured judgement that is hard to refute. A few days back, she forwarded a piece from The Wire by a civil servant titled “Where does loyalty end and complicity begin? A civil servant’s question” with the dismissive comment: “Another apologia by the mercenary, criminal class!”I was intrigued that a serving civil servant had finally plucked up the courage to confront the administration and say it like it is. Given the vengeful nature of the dispensation, I can understand the author writing under a pseudonym. A series of interrogations and reference to Pol Pot and Nazi Germany promised a devastating expose’ of this malevolent regime, but disappointingly, the piece is little more than a cry of anguish at the impotence of civil servants. An abject exercise in self-flagellation, the only direct criticism levelled is a tame, euphemistic assessment of the tyrannical authority as “ethically ambiguous.” Seeking to assuage the guilt of being a pusillanimous collaborator, the author’s argument for playing ball is this ridiculous, self-serving excuse: “If you remain within the system, you can do some good – the choice is between imperfect compromise and complete irrelevance.” Doing good by being zealous yes-men of the regime? Clearly, pragmatism and self-preservation are the better part of valour!So allow a former bureaucrat who believes that his pension is not hush money from the government, to meditate on the rot in the system.The ‘steel frame’ – a paper tiger?Considering how easily the bureaucracy capitulates to the political executive, one has the sneaking suspicion that the term “steel frame” to reference bureaucrats has been coined in mocking jest. However etymologically, the term has distinguished antecedents; it’s provenance can be traced back to British prime minister David Lloyd George who, in 1922, used the term to describe the Indian Civil Service (ICS) and its critical role in shoring up the colonial structure. Post-Independence, Sardar Patel repurposed the term to apply to the administrative services in the newly created nation. In his interaction with the first batch of IAS officers in 1947, the great man was unequivocal that civil servants were duty bound to express their views with assiduity and without fear, just as it was the moral responsibility of the political executive to create an environment that provided the freedom for civil servants to express their views fearlessly.Sadly, the rectitude, public spiritedness and courage demanded of civil servants by Sardar Patel has been almost completely absent in independent India. The Indian bureaucrat is renowned for wrapping himself in rules, procedures and red tape, fixated on process rather than delivery, thereby causing frustrating delays and stalemates in decision-making and citizens’ welfare. A den of mediocrity, the bureaucracy is notorious for protecting the status quo and stifling innovation.The sweeping assessment by scholars and critics is that bureaucrats, with their elitist, self-serving ways are a fetid hangover from the colonial era. A typical instance of the ugly colonial mindset is the case of the IAS officer who had young sportspersons evicted from the Thyagraj stadium in Delhi so that he, his wife and their pet dog could have their evening stroll undisturbed. To quote Franz Kafka: “Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.”Emergency and the test of civil servicesPost-Independence, there have been two fraught periods when our democracy and freedoms have been threatened, times when the country needed the civil servants to stand up and act with courage and integrity to protect the constitution and our democratic institutions. But on both occasions, the alleged “steel frame” turned out to be putty in the hands of tyrants. The first dark period for democracy was when Indira Gandhi declared a state of internal emergency in 1975, zoomed in on political opponents, trade unionists and student activists, packing them into overcrowded jails, even as all civil liberties were suspended. The Shah Commission roundly condemned bureaucrats and law enforcement agencies of that period for subverting the constitution, for performing as ”pliable instruments” of the rogue government and for choosing to obey verbal, extra-constitutional and down-right illegal orders rather than act as protectors of the law. As a junior functionary of the Indian Railways at that fraught time, what was apparent to me and others in various departments was that so long as there was no active dissidence against the government, the management across the board could function without hindrances and with complete freedom, a licence which was often misused to oppress the workers. The emergency saw brazen fascism with the straightforward intent of holding onto power through intimidation and fear but it was certainly not a creeping, insidious authoritarianism grounded in an ideology of targeted hate and polarisation of society.‘Lumpenisation’ of the bureaucracyWe have that today! Since 2014, this regime has waged war on the nation’s soul, attacking, with remarkable success, the idea of India so clearly expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution. The majoritarian impulse whipped up by this government threatens the entire secular and democratic foundation of our republic.Just as Adolf Hitler had his SS squads evolve into a giant bureaucratic enterprise that merged party and the state and combined administrative, economic and police functions, bypassing the traditional rules of the bureaucracy, this regime has engendered a new breed of bureaucratic beast who has flourished by selling their soul to the powers that be!In earlier times, the majority of bureaucrats toed the line to save their skin and advance their careers without a hitch. But what we are witnessing today is nothing short of lumpenisation of the bureaucracy. The overpowering stench of political patronage is everywhere, the rewarding of personal loyalty and ideological affiliation over merit, competence and integrity. The order authorising government officials to be swayam sevaks (volunteer) too, has affixed the official seal on the “saffronisation” of the polity. Mass supersessions at senior management levels entirely based on such dishonourable considerations is the norm. As a result, there has emerged a dangerous class of bureaucrats who are ideologically committed to ‘the’ regime and are actively collaborating in the state-sponsored oppression, subversion of the law, violence and all-pervasive corruption. This period has seen the systematic evisceration of institutions, vandalism for which the bureaucrats are largely culpable as they not only provide the inputs and advice based on which the political leadership takes decisions, but are also responsible for their execution. The most egregious has been the role of the faceless functionaries of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Income Tax (IT) department who have been functioning as hatchet men of the regime, misusing the law to terrorise and punish political opponents and dissidents. The work culture in government offices has never been exemplary but employees were respected and felt they had a say in the organisation. But under the present dispensation, they live in fear of unchecked bullying and threats, where asking questions is viewed as insubordination, where there is no discussion but only peremptory orders from above. There is a complete absence of economy in expenditure. In my professional alma mater, the Indian Railways, there has been a severe erosion in the work ethic, with divisional executives spending most of their time in contract management instead of on operations and safety. As a consequence, efficiency has dropped precipitously and corruption increased manifold.What is it about a certain class of superannuated bureaucrats that have made them so well favoured with the top political leadership of this regime – the likes of Ajit Doval, Amod Kant, Kanwal Sibal and Gyanesh Kumar? These amoral dyed-in-wool bureaucrats have been prime enablers of the tyrant’s totalitarian impulse, even guilty of sinister public declamations about democracy and freedom. One of them lamented the fact that tough reforms were difficult as “we are too much of a democracy”! The National Security Advisor (NSA) on one occasion warned law enforcers about the threat posed by a civil society “that is manipulated to hurt the interest of the nation.” He further added: “The quintessence of democracy does not lie in the ballot box but in the laws made by the people who are elected through these ballot boxes.” His clear implication is that once a law is enacted, civil society is duty bound to obey it. His advice is straight out of the recipe book of a police state. In his watch, India is now seen as a rogue state that is indulging in trans-national assassination of dissidents – a la Russia, North Korea, China and Saudi Arabia.On top of all the tyrant’s many existential troubles, the latest buzz is about a showdown between Amit Shah and the Home Secretary (HS) on the handling of the Cockroach Janta Protests (CJP) protests at Jantar Mantar. The HS expressed objections to drastic action against the protesters, but Shah overruled him. Subsequently, despite Shah’s objections, the HS was given a year’s extension by Narendra Modi, which is seen as a victory for a bureaucrat who was willing to stand up for what is right. Even as many people celebrated the HS’s rare courage in standing up for what he considered was right, I was sceptical of his motives. I recalled the cautionary warning of the editor of The Wire that this may be another “Modi-Shah good cop bad cop routine” aimed at refurbishing Modi’s tattered image. By supporting the HS even against his own alter ego, Modi was being projected as a leader who did what was right and just. But like the editor wryly remarked, “Putting lipstick on a pig is a major preoccupation of this regime!”Mathew John is a former civil servant. The views expressed are personal.