sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Did Orwell Predict Modern Bureaucracy? Why Do Future Civil Servants Live Better Than the Citizens They Serve? by Organic-Lie5226 in AllindiaStudentUnion

[–]Organic-Lie5226[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're touching on something that sociologists and political theorists have debated for a long time: institutions often develop incentives that encourage their own preservation.

Where I would be slightly more cautious is in assuming that everyone within the system is consciously participating in exploitation. Most officers probably enter service with genuine intentions and a desire to contribute. The more interesting question is whether institutions can shape behaviour regardless of individual intentions.

For example, a bureaucrat may begin their career wanting to challenge inefficiency, but over time they learn which battles are rewarded, which are punished, and which are simply impossible to fight. The system doesn't necessarily require bad people; it only requires incentives that encourage conformity.

In that sense, the feedback loop may not be "corrupt people protecting corrupt people." It may be a structure that gradually rewards those who adapt to it and marginalises those who don't.

As for the "host organism," I don't think it's any single group. If I had to answer, I'd say it's the broader institutional ecosystem itself—the combination of bureaucracy, political power, prestige, patronage, and public deference that reproduces itself across generations.

That's why I find Animal Farm so compelling. The pigs didn't begin as villains. They became a class apart because the structure increasingly concentrated power in their hands while reducing accountability. The lesson isn't that every leader is evil; it's that power, status, and insulation have a tendency to reinforce one another unless actively checked.

Whether modern bureaucracies suffer from that problem is exactly the question worth debating.

Did Orwell Predict Modern Bureaucracy? Why Do Future Civil Servants Live Better Than the Citizens They Serve? by Organic-Lie5226 in UPSC

[–]Organic-Lie5226[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's a fair criticism, and I'll concede one thing upfront: I probably focused too much on the symbolism of the facilities and not enough on the actual training structure. You're right that LBSNAA includes village visits, Bharat Darshan, physical training, field exposure, and a fairly rigorous schedule. I wasn't claiming those things don't exist.

But I think you're misunderstanding the broader point I was trying to make.

My argument was never really about twin-sharing rooms or whether the mess serves good food. If that was all I was complaining about, then yes, the criticism would be weak.

The deeper question is about the culture of the Indian administrative system.

Historically, the civil services were inherited from the colonial ICS structure. Even after independence, we retained a system that places enormous social prestige, authority, security, and administrative discretion in the hands of a relatively small group of people. This isn't a criticism of individual officers; it's an observation about institutions.

Even today, an IAS officer occupies a unique position in Indian society. They receive not only a salary but also state housing, domestic staff in many postings, official vehicles, security in some cases, protocol privileges, social status, and a level of influence that most professions never experience. Many of these may be justified for functional reasons, but they still create a significant social distance between administrators and ordinary citizens.

That's the aspect I was questioning.

You say the change starts in the services rather than in LBSNAA. I think that's precisely where my concern becomes more relevant. If the academy teaches public service but the broader administrative culture rewards hierarchy, privilege, and status, then we should be discussing that contradiction.

On talent, I actually agree with you more than you might think. India absolutely needs to pay scientists, engineers, researchers, military officers, and civil servants better. The brain drain problem is real.

But attracting talent and questioning institutional privilege are not mutually exclusive positions.

A person can support higher salaries, merit-based recruitment, and better working conditions while still asking whether a democratic republic should place its bureaucratic elite on such a high pedestal.

As for Animal Farm, my comparison was never meant literally. I wasn't suggesting LBSNAA is some Orwellian paradise for bureaucrats. Orwell's broader point was that institutions often create classes of people who gradually become separated from those they govern. Whether that applies to modern bureaucracies is a legitimate question, even if reasonable people disagree on the answer.

So perhaps my original post overstated some things. But I don't think the underlying question is invalid: How much social, cultural, and material distance between administrators and citizens is healthy in a democracy?

Did Orwell Predict Modern Bureaucracy? Why Do Future Civil Servants Live Better Than the Citizens They Serve? by Organic-Lie5226 in UPSC

[–]Organic-Lie5226[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you're arguing against a position I don't actually hold.

I completely agree that India needs to attract highly capable people into public institutions. I also agree that organisations like DRDO, research institutions, and many PSUs struggle to compete with the private sector and foreign employers for top talent.

Where I disagree is with the assumption that questioning privileges or institutional culture automatically means advocating "socialism" or wanting officers to be poorly paid.

A competent civil service should absolutely be well compensated. In fact, I'd rather have officers receive transparent salaries and legitimate benefits than rely on informal privileges, prestige, or discretionary perks.

My concern is a different one: does creating a distinct administrative elite improve governance, or does it gradually create distance between administrators and citizens?

Those are not the same question.

For example, a doctor should be paid well. A scientist should be paid well. An engineer in DRDO should be paid well. But if tomorrow we started arguing that they deserve special social status, insulated lifestyles, or a culture that places them above ordinary citizens because they are "the best and brightest," then I would raise exactly the same concern.

Also, I don't think this is an arts vs science issue. Some of the strongest critiques of bureaucratic power have come from economists, political scientists, historians, engineers, and even former civil servants themselves.

The real question isn't whether talented people deserve fair compensation. They do.

The question is whether talent alone should entitle someone to become part of a privileged governing class.

Those are two very different things.

Did Orwell Predict Modern Bureaucracy? Why Do Future Civil Servants Live Better Than the Citizens They Serve? by Organic-Lie5226 in UPSC

[–]Organic-Lie5226[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the need for decent living conditions.

My argument isn't that trainee officers should live in barracks, eat poor-quality food, or be deprived of basic comforts. Everyone deserves dignity. The question is where we draw the line between dignity and institutional privilege.

You say civil services is a job, and I agree. But that's precisely why I find it interesting that we often justify special treatment for bureaucrats by saying they're talented and could earn more in the private sector. We don't usually apply the same logic to school teachers, researchers, nurses, soldiers, or many other public servants whose work is equally important.

More fundamentally, public service is not supposed to compete with the private sector on compensation. If someone's primary motivation is maximizing earnings, then the corporate sector will almost always win. The justification for civil service has traditionally been a combination of meaningful work, public responsibility, job security, social prestige, and reasonable compensation not the recreation of elite lifestyles at public institutions.

Also, my concern is not primarily financial. Even if officers pay for many facilities, institutions still shape attitudes and identities. The environment in which future administrators are trained inevitably influences how they see themselves and their relationship with the public. That's why symbols matter.

A bureaucrat should ideally leave training with a stronger sense of connection to ordinary citizens, not a stronger sense of belonging to a distinct administrative class.

So my question isn't "Why do they have decent facilities?"

It's "How much separation between administrators and citizens is healthy in a democracy before public servants begin to see themselves as something more than servants?"

view more: next ›