The bureaucratic inheritance

It often seems to me that, whether or not they are related by blood, people living together begin to resemble one another over time. Perhaps in eating the same foods and breathing the same air, sameness pervades. We might assume that people unconnected by blood or proximity, differ widely. And yet, in similar organizational structures, members begin to look alike, think alike and behave alike although separated geographically. Those that go before must leave behind something lasting in the structure to anchor time, because the sameness prevails over generations.

The bureaucratic structure, for instance, is our colonial legacy. In organizational shape, it is pyramidal, a hierarchy of levels. The flow of authority and information is top down, and bottom up, obedience is norm. The bureaucratic structure is meant to be impersonal, and the process theoretically, is to be rational, logical and impartial in governance. It was introduced into India by British colonizers. But the very nature of colonization superimposes the concept of the alpha male onto the organizational pyramid. In tune with the ascent of man on the evolutionary chart, the higher echelons of the hierarchical structure are considered superior to people on the rungs below.

The colonial bureaucracies overlaid superiority of race onto the caste hierarchy already prevalent in the region. The Indians realized that despite their knowledge and experience, their organizational aspirations were limited because even junior officers of the British civil service would lord it over the local populace.

The bureaucracies enabled imperialism keep a tight rein on their empire spreading overseas. Educated Indians were inducted to clerk for the colonizers, and to liaison between cultures in the sub-continent. They were called the ‘Baboos’ that looked and dressed Indian, but protected the Crown, furthering the imperialistic goals. Rather like the ‘trusties’ of the prison system, wherein certain prisoners elevated fractionally above others, serve to keep them in line. The Baboo culture was likewise despised by either side.

The colonizers used the Baboos to do their dirty work but hardly respected their racial differences, while the rest of the country hated them as stooges of the foreign establishments. The Baboos responded to the negativity by creating their own fiefdoms within the structure. They became the backbone of the system, indispensable to its functioning. On the one hand, they could interpret and translate communications as they wish, and on the other, withhold information and benefits to the public at large.

Indians are good with cultural traditions; we are loath to disturb the continuity with the past. Customs, practices, norms and habits handed down generation to generation are perceived sacrosanct. Despite the complete change in the social environment, bureaucracies in India meticulously preserve their 200-year old colonial traditions. They thus socialize into disrespect for subordinates, while the ordinary public is the common enemy to protect against.

Consequent to the colonial influence, the character of the pyramidal structure transforms to unfriendly, intimidating and prohibitive. Up and down the bureaucratic hierarchy, countenances are as grim and unbending today as they have been during the British Raj. Especially in the public interface, mistrust and impatience radiate. Communications base on anger management - that is, the lack of self-control characterize the hierarchy. Imagine a blend of parent-child behaviours, rigid and willful at the same time. Obviously, manners get lost in the upward mobility, and often also the work ethics.

Fact is technology thrives, but the traditional mindsets remain entrenched. The change with democracy and independence of the nation, is simply that nobody wants to be the low man on the totem pole anymore. As noted Indian entrepreneur Narayan Murti observes:

In India, we tend to look down on people who do jobs that require physical work or involve disciplined execution and accountability.

As a result, the first impression of any bureaucratic setup in India is poor. The ambience carries a general air of neglect. Governmental or government-related organizations in India may have expensive machinery or other goods strewn carelessly along the corridors. They may have the financial resources to fund other organizations. And yet, black cobwebs sway from the ceilings in the buildings, dust settles on every surface, and the stench of bathrooms hangs thick. Heaps of files, spill their contents onto desks, shelves and floor. Spatters of betel nut juice stain wall corners in the stairwell, while potted plants serve as ashtrays.

The dirty, unkempt look is likely also a façade to put off the public. The disorganization may be intentional, because almost hidden from view behind the mountains of paper files, the Baboos of today continue to protect their territory. Emotions otherwise denied, flow down and out in angry outbursts as individuals seek to assert themselves in the new India by demeaning others. The beat postmen express their angst by delaying or losing mail. The staffs in government offices pretend to be too busy to entertain queries or move files along. Railways employees mess with reservations, even on complimentary passes awarded to the elderly freedom fighters of India’s independence.

The lateral relationships within the pyramid are tight, however. These informal connections are assiduously cultivated to form the social buffer zones, safe to download in. Large numbers of employees unionize together. By themselves the unions may be weak, but they forge outside political affiliations, whose patronage strongly back their workplace confrontations. The attraction to employment in the bureaucracy is job permanence. Employees are confident they cannot be fired because of swift retaliatory union strikes; hence irrespective of actual work done, their wages shall be paid at fixed intervals. Further, the lack of conflict on the lateral plane ensures that the organizational boat remains on an even keel, with little competition between peers.

The Diva writes elsewhere:

For many organizations, conflict is bad - by definition - and they go out of their way to prevent it. The word ‘challenge’ itself becomes sensitive because it may question premises and upset comfort zones. However, the elimination of all discord has consequences. The organization may rarely or even never question its assumptions. It may turn off and lose its creative sparks … The ultimate danger is the rise of the mediocre, rewarded for lacking the ‘superstar quality’ to rock the boat.

The point is this carried forward in time existence tends to atrophy faculties of effective decision-making. The bureaucratic runaround is thus born as indecision is passed around, desk to desk. Members of the organization become champions at dithering. With sudden, unexpected changes in the global scenario, they are invariably caught on the wrong foot. Thus, the most recent downslide in the Indian markets has been attributed to faulty decisions and planning. India's much touted economic ascendancy is now falling behind.  

Bureaucratic structures in India need to wake up to the reality of their increasing incompetence with competition. Their people need to challenge outdated assumptions of leadership styles, philosophies and value systems that have become the unquestioned organizational traditions over the last couple of centuries. Unless the dependence on these outmoded systems and processes is changed, the colonial inheritance will ensure that bureaucracies in India remain locked in the mindsets of a different age.