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
Comments
Post a Comment