Latasinha's Weblog

Social and political Values and Systems in India.

Objectives of governance in Independent India

 

Since India became a Republic (1950), the aims, objectives and the role of government changed completely. The Constitution lays emphasis on national reconstruction and development—a shift from the traditional task of maintenance of law and order. The objectives of the Government were to launch a massive attach on five major evils of the society—Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness—and to secure to all its citizens “Justice—social, economic and political”.

This change had brought about many new responsibilities pertaining to economic development and social welfare on the shoulders of its civil services. The civil service was supposed to come closer to masses and feel the agony of the millions of underfed, under-read and under-clothed citizens and then design strategies, formulate and execute policies, take right and timely decisions, initiate action and remedial measures for improving the lot of masses and upliftment of the country as a whole. For fulfilling all these responsibilities, the civil administration had to be organized as follows:

(a) work in Secretariat for policy making, and

(b) work in field organizations for implementation of policies and plans.

Secretariat Working

Secretaries function as the nerve Centre of the Government, both at the Centre as well a in the States. While the State Secretariat is located in the capital of India, New Delhi. It consists of the Council of Ministers (elected representatives), the Secretaries (top level civil servants), Additional Secretaries, Joint Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries and other supporting staff. Here all the policies and programmes get formulated and executive orders originate. It also keeps a watch over the programme implementation and presents a correct appraisal of it to the government, from time to time. According to the Punjab Administrative Reforms Commission, the following are important functions of the Secretariat:

  • Obtaining decisions on policy matters and enunciating policy decisions in clear language;

  • Overall planning and finance;

  • Legislative business;

  • Personnel management policies;

  • Legal advice;

  • Coordination and cross-clearance among the administrative departments in the Secretariat;

  • Communication with the Central Institutions, like Planning Commission, etc.; and

  • Overall evaluation, supervision, control and coordination of the work being done by the field organisations.

Directly under the Minister comes the Secretary of Department Secretaries may head one or more departments and can be under more than one Minster. All matters to the Cabinet are routed through him. He is the Chief Functionary of his Department(s). Joint Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and Under Secretaries help the Secretary in the discharge of his work. In Secretariat, taking of decision normally starts at the level of Deputy Secretary. He puts up proposal for policy-decisions to the Secretary. The work in the Secretariat requires talented officers having experience and knowledge in relevant areas.

Field Work

Working in the field can be divided into two groups, namely, working in the field departments or head offices and working in the District. The head offices are to supervise, coordinate and watch the implementation of policies in their own field. Their administrative and financial powers are defined in financial rules, civil service rules, the budget manual and other codes. It is their responsibility to set their machinery—men, money and material—in order, to keep their men in good spirit for bringing about the desired results according to the Plan. Therefore, administration at field level requires men of drive and initiative possessing leadership capability.

The District Civil Administration occupies a key position. It is the most convenient geographical unit, where the total apparatus of Civil Administration can be concentrated and where it comes into direct contact with people. Its importance arises from the fact that it is at this level that bulk of people come in close contact with the governmental policies, programmes and their implementation. It is here that the people judge the quality and efficiency of the governmental administration. It has regulatory as well as developmental tasks. The Collector continues to play a pivotal role in the District Administration. Besides collection of revenue and maintenance of law and order, he is responsible for coordinating the activities of various Departments at District level. He still enjoys immense power and prestige. Each District has several District officers, who head their respective units at district level. There are some technical departments also, which are entrusted with functions, which require knowledge and experience in a defined field.

Thus, both kinds of work—work at the Secretariat and in the field—have their distinctive challenges. For efficient performance of work in both the areas, there is need for flow of knowledge, experience and continuous consultation between the Secretariat and the field agencies.

 

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Bureaucracy/Civil Services | | Leave a comment

All India Services After Independence

In order to make All India Services more lasting and less vulnerable, a Constitutional base has been given to them. The Constitution framers decided as follows: “Without depriving the States of their right to form their own Civil Services, there shall be All India Services recruited on an all India basis with common qualifications, with uniform scale of pay and members of which alone could be appointed to these Strategic Posts throughout the Union.”

Article 312(2) of the Constitution States: “The Services known at the commencement of this Constitution, as the Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service shall be deemed to be services created by Parliament under this Article.”

There is also a provision in the Constitution for creation of one or more All India Services. Article 312(2) says: “If The Council of States declares by Resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest to do so.”

In accordance with the above provision, and seeing the need for more All India Services, the Rajya Sabha, on December 6, 1961, adopted a resolution for creating the following three All India Services on technical side: Indian Services of Engineers Indian Medical and Health Services, and Indian Forest Service. Out of these three, only one service—Indian Forest Service—came into existence from July 1, 1966. Others could not because the State Governments of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam and Himachal Pradesh revised their stand mainly on the ground of State autonomy.

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Bureaucracy/Civil Services | 5 Comments

Fate of All India Services after indepndence

After independence in 1947, Pt. Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Independent india and many other important leaders like Pt. G.B. Pant, etc., did not like the idea that for building up a new India, the very machinery that was till now hampering and countering the freedom movement should be used. Pt. Nehru is on record to have said:

But of one thing I am quite sure that no new order can be built up in India, so long as the spirit of ICS pervades our Administrative Public Service. That spirit of authoritarianism is the ally of imperialism and it cannot coexist with freedom. It will either succeed in crushing freedom or will be swept away by itself. Only with one type of State, it is likely to fit in and that is the Fascist type. Therefore, it seems quite essential that the ICS and similar services must disappear completely, much before we can start real work on a new order.”

However, Sardar Patel, the then Home Minster, however, held an opposite view. He foresaw the dire necessity of “All India Services” in independent India. Therefore, he convened a “Provincial Premiers Conference” in October, 1946 to take a decision on All India Services. While presiding over the Conference, he said:

My own view, as I have told you, is that it is not only advisable, but essential, if you want to have an efficient service, to have a Central Administrative Service, in which, we fix the strength as the Provinces would require them and we draw a certain number of officers at the Centre, as we are doing at present. This will give experience to the personnel at the Centre leading to efficiency and administrative experience of the district, which will give them an opportunity to contact with the people. They will thus keep themselves in touch with the situation in the country and their practical experience will be most useful to them. Besides their coming to the Centre will give them a different experience and wider outlook in a larger sphere. A combination of these two experiences will make the service more efficient. They will also serve as liaison between the Provinces and the Government and introduce certain amount of freshness and vigour in the administration, both at the Centre and in the Provinces. Therefore, my advice is that we should have an All India Service.”

Again speaking in the Constituent Assembly, he warned:

There is no alternative to this administrative system…The Union will go, you will not have a united India, if you have not a good All India Service, which has the independence to speak out its mind, which has a sense of security that you will stand by your work…. If you do not adopt this course, then do not follow the present Constitution. Substitute something else…This Constitution is meant to be worked by a ring of service, which will keep the country intact. There are many impediments in this constitution, which will hamper us. But in spite of that, we have in our collective wisdom come to a decision that we shall have this model, which in the ring of a service will be such that will keep, the country intact….. these people are the instrument. Remove them and I see nothing, but a picture of chaos all round the country.”

Despite the strong arguments put forward by Sardar Patel, it was not an easy job to gain provincial acceptance for the proposed All India Services. Some important national leaders like Nehru, G.B. Pant, etc, and a few states like Punjab, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir were very critical of it. They preferred to have their own `Superior Services’. However, All India Services were pushed down their reluctant throats by Vallabhbhai Patel. With great efforts, Sardar Patel succeeded in securing an agreement for two All India Services—namely the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS)—as successors to ICS and IP, respectively.

Another reason for continuation of All India Services was that during the last days of British rule, many problems, such an communal tension, lawlessness, Railway and Postal strikes, short-supply of goods and the danger of another famine in near future, arose. This was followed by departure of British and Muslim officers from higher services, partition of the country, Pakistan’s incursion into Kashmir and annexation of widely spread conglomeration of provinces and princely states in the Union of India, which made the situation worst at the dawn of independence. Events, invariably unplanned, were moving so fast that there was no question of even attempting to supervise their course.

Therefore, the nation had no alternative but to leave the things to time. Besides, British Government also insisted that the Government of free India should give guarantee to safeguard the interest of the then existing All India Services.

 

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Bureaucracy/Civil Services | Leave a comment

Bureaucracy in India Under Provincial Autonomy (Post 1935 Period)

 

 

The Indian Nationalists were not satisfied with the changes brought about by the Act of 1919 in regards to the All India Services. Three points of view emerged. These were:

  • One section was in favour of retaining status quo in the matter of All India Services, such as to Muslims of the Provinces, where they were in a minority, the British element in all India Services offered protection against domination by the Hindus.

  • Another group desired to retain the ICS and IP, but wanted the Government of India to recruit and control the members of these services.

  • Yet another section of the Indian public opinion was averse to the retention of All India Services and insisted on its provincialisation.

    Chetty, a member of the Central Legislative Assembly, said that the control of the Secretary of State authorised its officers: “To escape effective control either by Provincial Executive or by the Provincial Legislature. An All India Service, with these extraordinary privileges, is an anachronism in any system of provincial responsible government and we would add, is a violation in the spirit of the Government of India Act, 1919”.

    In 1928, the Committee under the Chairmanship of Moti Lal Nehru, appointed the All Parties Conference, recommended discontinuance of all the All India Services and pressed for their provincialisation. Similar were the views of the Committee appointed by the United Provinces Legislative Council, which asserted: “We hold that retention of these services (i.e. All India Services) in a system of full provincial autonomy would unnecessarily complicate matters”. Shiva Rao said: “I do not think it would be satisfactory to work these services on an All India basis and at the same time ensure a proper relationship between the Services and the Ministry.” Bheemarao Ambedkar also said: “No Province can be deemed to have provincial autonomy, if it has not the right to regulate the civil services that is going to work in its area”

    In 1933-34, in the Joint Committee on Indian Constitution Reforms, some leaders again urged the provincialisation of All India Services, but it did not accept it, because it regarded the need for a regular supply of officers, both Indian and British, of the highest quality as vital to the stability of the proposed Constitution itself. “It is of the first importance that in the early days of `New Order’ and indeed until the course of events in the future can be more clearly foreseen, the new Constitution should not be exposed to risk and hazard by radical changes in the system which has for so many generations produced men of the calibre.

    The net effect of all this turmoil was that India Act of 1935 allowed the continuance of only three All India Services, namely, Indian Civil Service, Indian Police Service and Indian Medical Service (Civil). Other services were not abolished abruptly or altogether. Only fresh recruitment into these services was discontinued, thus enabling its painless extinction through the natural process of retirement, resignation and causalities of its members.

With the advent of provincial autonomy, ICS, the main amongst the All India Services, underwent a change in its role. The Governor’s Executive Council was replaced by a Council of Ministers. The officials of All India Services ceased to be the members of Legislature or to have any share in the determination of policy of the government except in advisory capacity.

The ICS officials undertook diverse type of rural developmental activities and had to function more and more through Village Panchayats, District Boards and Cooperative Societies. During the war time, they looked after supplies, regulation and promotion of trade and industry, etc. In all these spheres, the officials proved their metal and competence.

During this period, the ICS officials had lost much of its past authority and, therefore, showed a noticeable fall in standards. The Rowland Committee remarked: “The present position, in our judgement, is thoroughly unsatisfactory both from the point of view of the district officer himself as well as from the point of view of the efficiency of the governmental machine and welfare of the people in the district…He is expected to see that nothing goes wrong in his district, but he has little power outside. The Magistrate and Collector failed to see that things go right. He is supposed to compose differences between other officers, but he has no power to impose his will upon the recalcitrant. He can cajole and persuade, he cannot compel…In our view, the situation, if left to itself, can only deteriorate further because activities of the government in the mofussil will increase and practically every department is thinking in terms of a “Provincialised service” and makes little attempt to disguise its determination to go ahead with its own plans, without reference to any other part of the government.

Now onwards, the officials learnt to tolerate the elected representatives and ministers. Those, who were still thinking in terms of their previous status and authority, took premature retirement. Others surrendered themselves to the new circumstances. The process of rapid Indianisation also made, to some extent, the harmony possible between the two.

Still this period witnessed frequent clashes between the Indian Ministers and British officials and former’s helplessness in regard to All India Services as is evident from Sardar Patel’s Statement: “I tried to get the District Magistrate of Gurgaon transferred. I could not succeed…I tried hard. I wrote to the then Government of Punjab: I pleaded with the Viceroy, but I found it difficult to remove him”.

Pt. Nehru had the impression that “Not only the Viceroy, but the British Members of his Council, the Governor’s and even the smaller fry who functioned as Secretaries of Departments or Magistrate speak from a noble and attainable height, secure not only in the conviction that what they say or do is right, but hat it will have to be accepted as right, whatever lesser mortals may imagine, for theirs is the power and glory.”

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Bureaucracy/Civil Services | Leave a comment

Bureaucracy in India Under Dyarchy (1919-35)

 

As the movement for Indianisation gained momentum, Indian public and leaders became allergic to All India Services, not on the basis of their actual performance, but because they were controlled by the Secretary of State and were a living symbol of foreign rule.

Intensification of national movement, growing demand for Indianisation of higher civil services and introduction of Dyarchy (which promised progressive realization of responsible and self-government in India) in the post 1919 period brought about many changes in All India Services. Criticism of the individual members of the services by questions in the provincial and Central legislatures, the `ignominy’ of working under Indian Ministers in provinces, the non-cooperation movement of 1920-22, the insufficiency of salaries due to high price-rise in the wake of the World War I, etc., left a dampening effect on the attraction of All India Services as a career service for British Youth. All efforts to attract them fell flat and the number of British Officers began to decline.

In 1923, the Lee Commission recommended abolition of certain All India Services, particularly, those dealing with subjects that had been transferred to Indian hands, namely, Indian Education Service, Indian Agriculture Service, Indian Veterinary Service and the roads and Building branch of the Indian Service of Engineers. It, however, recommended retention of Indian Civil Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Forest Service, Indian Medical Service and the Irrigation branch of Indian Service of Engineers. It recommended increasing Indianisation of these services as well as any British Official belonging to the services of transferred subjects would be free to take voluntary retirement on a proportionate pension at any time. Effect was given to these recommendations.

These changes during Dyarchy adversrly affected the “The E-spirit de Corps” of these services. With the gradual Indianisation of All India Services, the class consciousness of these services became dim. The Indian element was imbued with a national spirit which looked forward to a day when Indian would be independent. It had nothing in common with the British element in the service, which, having lost its old sense of mission, was feeling frustrated. Thus, the solidarity of these services was weakened. And along with it faded the spirit of mild paternalism in them.

In the words of K.M. Pannikar: “The Lee Commission (1923) was the first evidence of the breakdown of the spirit of the civil services in India, for after that there was no claim that the British Civil Service in India, competent though they continued to be to the end, was anything more than a group of officers doing their work for purely material considerations. The idealism of the past had vanished.”

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Bureaucracy/Civil Services | 8 Comments

Why All India Services?

In every administrative set-up, there are certain positions or posts, which might be called strategic from the point of view of maintaining the standard of administration. This is more true in a large country like India, where there have been perplexing diversities in geography, language, race and culture, which have existed through ages and pervaded every aspect of life. In such a situation, it becomes necessary to evolve some standards and guidelines, whereby the interest of the nation, as a whole, is taken care of. The standard of administration itself depends on the calibre of officials, who are appointed to these strategic posts. In the words of Shri C. Rajagopalachari, “For any administration to be good and efficient, as a whole, we want right type of men. The quality of men placed in position is more important than laying down of rules and methods of operation “.1 Fortunately India, along with Pakistan, has inherited, from the past, a unique administrative system which knows what are those strategic posts and who are the persons to hold them. The institution of All India Services provides such officers, who could man the strategic posts throughout the nation, both at the Centre and in the states. Though originated under the British rule, it has been able to survive and prosper even in independent India.

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | | Leave a comment

Bureaucracy in India Under the Crown -1858 to 1935

 

Civil Services during under the Crown were exclusively made to suit the special needs of British Imperial Power. It developed into one of the most efficient and powerful civil services in the world. Its members exercised and enjoyed immense power. Initiative and actions were the aims sought. They developed certain traditions of independence, integrity, and hard work, though these qualities served the British interest. They travelled to grass-roots at regular basis, keeping a constant check on corruption and in case of any slip, officials responsible were punished on the spot.

The British Government was very clear about its aims and objectives. These were to maintain law and order, to collect revenue and to perpetuate British rule in India as long as possible. The British Government in India did not favour its indulgence in any kind of social welfare activity, which would, later on, pose problems for Imperial rule in India. In accordance with these objectives, the ICS responsible for law and order situation and revenue collection, was conceived and propped up as the elite service meant predominantly for British citizens and was bestowed with all kinds of authority, favours, concessions and privileges. Owing to its high prestige, remuneration and enormous authority, it was nicknamed as the “Heaven Born Service”. At the level of local administration, ICS officers were dubbed as “Little Napoleans”. They occupied key positions in specialist departments as well. Aichinson Commission report comments. The control of certain specialist departments should always be retained into the hands of ICS officers, so as to secure that the operation of these departments could be conducted in conformity with the principle governing the general administration and to avoid inter-departmental frictions.

Due to its decisive role, these services, particularly the ICS, came to be called “Steelframe of the whole structure”, which reared and sustained the British rule in India. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, in his historic `Steel-frame’ speech, said that: “the British civil servants were the very basis of the Empire in India and so he could not imagine of any period, when they can dispense with the guidance and assistance of a small nucleus of the British civil servants. He, therefore, stated emphatically as follows:” I do not care what you build on it. If you take that steel-frame out of the fabric, it would collapse. There is one institution we will not cripple, there is one institution we will not deprive of its functions or of its privileges; and that is that institution, which built-up the British Raj—the British Civil Service in India”.

From 1858 to 1919, the All India Services, specially the ICS, attracted the best talent of British Society, who graduated from Oxford or Cambridge. Though Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of 1858 declared that her subjects, of whatever race or creed, were entitled to be appointed in all her public services, the British Rulers wanted the appointments in All India Services by the dictum of “White-man’s superiority”. Lord Kimberley, the Secretary of State wrote in 1893, “It is indispensably that an adequate number of members of the civil services shall always be Europeans”. Viceroy Lord Landsdown stressed: “The absolute necessity of keeping the government of this widespread empire into European hands, if the empire is to be maintained.” Lord Curzon also justified this policy by stating as follows:

The highest ranks of the civil employee in India, those in the Imperial Civil Service, the members of which are entrusted with the responsible task of carrying on the general administration of the country, though open to such Indians who proceed to England and pass the requisite tests, must nevertheless, as a general rule, be held by the Englishmen for the reasons that they possess partly by heredity, partly by upbringing and partly by education that knowledge of the principles of government, the habits of mind and vigour of character, which are essential for the task and the rule of India, being a British rule, and any other rule, being in the circumstances of the case impossible. The tone and standard should be set by those who have created it and are responsible for it.”

ICS Officers and other All India Service officers were so nurtured that they were gently but very quickly pushed up high in the society to a ruling position by the colonial bureaucracy and accepted as such by the Indian society. This, however, was shocking to some officers in the beginning, such as Humphery Trevelyan (ICS, Madras, 1929), who said:

I was keen to work, to improve my knowledge in Tamil, to get to know and understood my new Indian surroundings. I was told to get to know only the station… The stock was severe. I was rude, precocious, arrogant and insecure, unwilling to adjust myself to new surroundings or to understand this little British community, however limited their outlook, was doing their jobs ably and conscientiously.”

Iyengar, a senior ICS Officer, joining the Executive side, was made aware on the very first day in the service that he was “a member of anew caste, which had its own rigid rules and regulations and lived a life far remote from that of common people”. Edward Wakefield (ICS, Punjab, 1921) was shocked to find that in the meetings with local councillors, nobody would express a view until he had given a lead. He said, “This difference annoyed and embarrassed me. I had come to India to serve—but I was not permitted to serve, I was permitted only to lead”.

They, however, become accustomed to such way of life slowly and gradually. Sir Edmund Blunt expressed: “The superior Indian Civil Servants were the practical owners of India, irrepressible and amenable to no authority, but that of their fellow members.” Dr.Fisher also confirmed it by saying “it is the government”. According to Moilley: “In reality the ultimate voice is that of the Indian official opinion, in the sense that a measure would not be forced on India against the united opposition of the Indian bureaucracy.” Cohen remarked: “The British Officers in India formed most unusual kind of society with a fossil culture, cut-off from close contact with home, recruited from several groups in English middle and upper class society and with diverse education. Cut-off also from the most real contact with Indian Society, they had to carry out the complex administrative tasks and constantly had to make decisions”.

Later on, slowly but steadily, Civil Services under the Crown not only became rigid in its class structure, but also became bureaucratic in methods and procedure of work. Unlike the decentralised administration during the East India Company, the growth of rapid means of communication made centralisation of administration possible. The whole system, from top to bottom, became well-knit, highly centralised and behaved like an unbreakable steel frame with all the characteristics of a full-fledged Autocracy. Centralisation tightened the regulatory functions of the officials to supervise and control the subordinate officials and made the office procedure elaborate and cumbersome. Sir William Hunter commented, “He governed most, who wrote most”. Thus came into being multiplication of reports, returns and correspondence and obsession for office work.

Routine work and cumbersome office procedures severely affected the power of initiative and enterprise which were found in abundance in the older generation of the civil service. So much so that it was said – “those officers, who once wielded the sword so fearlessly began to grumble under the tyranny of pen.”

 

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Civil Services Under the Crown (1858-1919)

1858 to1919 was the golden period of All Indian Services. During this period, the civil services were institutionalised. The civil services were classified into Convenanted (Higher-Imperial and Provincial) and Uncovenanted (Subordinate), on the basis of the nature of work, appointing authority and pay-scales. Imperial services, occupying the higher rungs of civil services and controlled by the Secretary of State, was further divided into All India Services and Central Services. On the eve of the Government of India Act, the following nine All India Services existed (strength  of personnel of each service is also given):

SL No

Name of service

Popular name

Strength

1

Indian Civil Service

ICS

1,350

2

Indian Police Service

IP

732

3

Indian Forest Service

IFS

417

4

Indian Service of Engineers

ISE

728

5

Indian Medical Service (Civil)

 

420

6

Indian Education Service

 

421

7

Indian Civil Veterinary Service

 

53

8

Indian Forest Engineering Service

 

9

Indian Agriculture Service

 

157

 

The oldest and the most important amongst the All India Services was the ICS, which owes its origin to Lord Machulay Report submitted in 1854. The last to be added to the list of All India Services was the Indian Agriculture Service in 1906. All these services were grouped into Security All India Services (ICS and IP) and Other All India Services. Appointment and control of these services rested with the Secretary of State as it was thought necessary to hold British control over the country.

As the movement for Indianisation gained momentum, Indian public and leaders became allergic to All India Services, not on the basis of their actual performance, but because they were controlled by the Secretary of State and were a living symbol of foreign rule. Intensification of national movement, growing demand for Indianisation of higher civil services and introduction of Dyarchy (which promised progressive realisation of responsible and self-government in India) in the post 1919 period brought about many changes in All India Services. Criticism of the individual members of the services by questions in the provincial and Central legislatures, the `ignominy’ of working under Indian Ministers in provinces, the non-cooperation movement of 1920-22, the insufficiency of salaries due to high price-rise in the wake of the World War I, etc., left a dampening effect on the attraction of All India Services as a career service for British Youth. All efforts to attract them fell flat and the number of British Officers began to decline. In 1923, the Lee Commission recommended abolition of certain All India Services, particularly, those dealing with subjects that had been transferred to Indian hands, namely, Indian Education Service, Indian Agriculture Service, Indian Veterinary Service and the roads and Building branch of the Indian Service of Engineers. It, however, recommended retention of Indian Civil Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Forest Service, Indian Medical Service and the Irrigation branch of Indian Service of Engineers. It also recommended increasing Indianisation of these services as also that any British Official belonging to the services of transferred subjects would be free to take voluntary retirement on a proportionate pension at any time. Effect was given to these recommendations. These changes affected the “The Espirit de Corps” of these services. With the gradual Indianisation of All India Services, the class consciousness of these services became dim. The Indian element was imbued with a national spirit which looked forward to a day when Indian would be independent. It had nothing in common with the British element in the service, which, having lost its old sense of mission, was feeling frustrated. Thus, the solidarity of these services was weakened.

3 Report of the Royal Commission on Superior Services in India, Government of India Press, 1924, p.4.

4 Report of the Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I, P.268.

June 18, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: