Serving the People

As the East India Company grew from a small trading company to a political entity, it not only had its own armies, but created a judiciary system, enacted laws, and had its own civil service. When the British Government took over the reins of India from the Company in 1857, it adopted and expanded these systems. The British Administration had three pillars to sustain their rule : A civil service, an army and a police force.   The main objective of these three entities was to protect the interests of the British Raj   by maintaining law, and ensuring continuity of their rule. They had no interest in serving or winning the support of the people, but merely to control them.

Lower level staff became very corrupt, oppressing merchants, artisans and zamindars, accepting bribes and gifts from Nawabs and Rajas, and earned large sums of money from illegal trade.

Once the British were ousted from India, their administrative system was adopted by both India and Pakistan. The top positions in the civil service are inducted separately from an administrative elite rather than through promotions from lower levels. The highest promotion a constable can attain is a DSP.

The civil service, with its roots in representing and managing the needs of citizens, soon became a bureaucracy, a word that has earned negative connotations and that J.S. Mill called “That vast net-work of administrative tyranny”.  Bureaucracy is rigid, self-absorbed, overly complex and more concerned with following procedure and protecting the system, than solving issues of citizens.  

Turning back the clock to pre British times, one finds administrative systems that were vastly different. It was only under the British that India became one administrative unit. Prior to that, kingdoms with ever changing borders that were based on the political allegiances of smaller kingdoms, needed to establish a more cooperative system of administration.  Little is known of the administrative systems of ancient India except through the guidelines of Kautilya’s Arthshastar, but the Muslim kingdoms have left many written records.

The early Muslim kingdoms followed  Abbasi, Ghaznavi and Seljuk systems and  incorporated local traditions, such as  village panchayats. Sher Shah Suri established a well-planned administrative system that was adopted by the Mughals. In a highly centralized system, all the Sultans and Emperor personally administered all the departments and every branch of state with advice from their ministers or Diwans.

 However, these auto crats had a paternal relationship with the people they ruled. Villages were left to self-govern. State officers were transferred every two to three years, and great care was taken to protect crops during conflicts. Any member of the public had direct access to the king with complaints and grievances.  The duty of the Kotwal or police chief, was to safeguard the life and property of the people. The Mohtasib  regulated the prices in the markets, checked weights and measures and ensured cleanliness and moral conduct.  As in the Ottoman Empire, the subjects or re’aya were “the protected flock” of the Sultan or Emperor.  

The inspiration for these practices came from the administrative principles set in place by Hazrat Umar (R A), the second Khalifa of Islam, who held his office responsible for the welfare of all under his command: 'If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty.'  He would undertake personal investigations by travelling incognito.

Early Islamic statehood built upon pre-Islamic traditions of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Bedouins that did not contradict Islamic principles and values. A concept of “servant leadership” evolved, a guardian role - protecting those one is responsible for from harm and promoting justice. Leaders were selected because of their qualities not their lineage. If he had the best qualities for leadership, a slave could become a minister or even a king.

While the worst of Muslim rulers were tyrannical and despotic, the best of them embraced a role of dispensation of justice, of personal honesty, responsibility and accountability. They expected the same from their appointed administrators who were selected on merit, education and qualifications and shared the common goal of a stable society which maintains a balance of individuality and community.

A far cry from the reality of today, dislocated as we are by colonization and redirected by capitalism. But as someone once wisely said  - perhaps our future lies in our past.

 Durriya Kazi

Karachi

October 22, 2022

 durriyakazi1918@gmail.com