Abstract

The evolution of the Indian administration reflects a historical continuum shaped by civilizational values and transformative changes. Each phase of the Mauryan, Mughal, and British eras contributed to distinct institutional structures and governance philosophies. Kautilya’s Arthashastra laid early foundations for statecraft, emphasising centralised authority, fiscal management, and welfare, which the Mauryan Empire exemplified. The Mughal administration introduced decentralised governance through systems such as mananhari and jagirdar, blending Persian and Indian traditions. British colonial rule imposed a rigid bureaucratic model centred on control, creating enduring institutions such as the Indian Civil Services and district administration. After independence, India pursued the Indianization of public services and the revival of local self-governance, embedding democratic and indigenous values into its administration. Today, the Indian administration is anchored in constitutional principles, such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, while continuing to balance bureaucratic structures with democratic aspirations. This historical journey highlights the continuities and disruptions that have shaped the theory and practice of contemporary public administration in India.

Keywords: Civilisation, Continuum, Spanning, Exemplified, Enduring, Indigenous, Fraternity, Aspirations, Contemporary, Disruptions.    

Introduction

The evolution of Indian administration is a rich tapestry woven through centuries of political and cultural transformations, reflecting the changing dynamics of governance in the subcontinent. Ancient India witnessed the formulation of a structured and pragmatic administrative system under Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which emphasised centralised authority, espionage, revenue collection and the welfare of the people. The Mughals introduced a sophisticated administrative hierarchy with institutions like the Mansabdari system and an efficient revenue framework during the medieval period. The advent of British colonial rule marked a significant shift, as it brought about the codification of laws, the establishment of civil services, and the centralisation of authority, leaving a lasting legacy on Indian politics and administration. India embarked on a process of Indianization of public services to align governance with democratic and nationalistic ideals after independence. Revenue administration reforms, district collector empowerment, and local self-government institution strengthening, particularly through the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, have been crucial in deepening administrative decentralisation and participatory governance in the country.

Evolution of Indian Administration During the Ancient Period

During the ancient period, India’s administrative structure was remarkably sophisticated, reflecting a well-organised and hierarchical system of governance. The Mauryan Empire, particularly under Emperor Ashoka, showcased a centralised bureaucratic system with a well-defined chain of command. The king stood at the apex of authority, supported by a council of ministers (Mantriparishad), provincial governors, and district officials (Sthanika and Gopa) who ensured efficient tax collection, law enforcement, and public welfare (Sharma, 1991). The Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya (Chanakya), provides a detailed account of statecraft, administration, espionage, and economic policy, underscoring the emphasis on discipline, control, and surveillance in governance (Rangarajan, 1992). Moreover, inscriptions such as the Ashokan edicts reflect a commitment to moral governance (Dhamma) and welfare administration, highlighting public communication and social justice as state functions (Thapar, 2002). This structured administrative framework laid the foundation for governance practices in the following periods. Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative structures and functions that characterised governance during the ancient period, highlighting the foundational elements of early public administration.

Table-1: Administrative Structures and Functions during the Ancient Period

Source: Majumdar, R. C. (1977). Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass. & Puri, B. N. (1968). History of Indian Administration Vol. 1: Ancient Period Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan

Kautilya’s Arthashastra

Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a profound theoretical work on the state and statecraft. Written in ancient India, it offers a comprehensive treatise on governance, administration, law, economy, diplomacy, and military strategy. It conceptualises the state as comprising the king, ministers, territory, fort, treasury, army, and allies, collectively known as the Saptanga theory. Kautilya emphasises the ruler’s duty to ensure the people’s welfare and prosperity through ethical and pragmatic governance. Arthashastra remains relevant today for its insights into realpolitik, governance ethics, and public administration, making it a foundational work on statecraft, though rooted in its time. Kautilya attributed it to a well-organised model of governance characterised by a highly centralised administration. The king was the supreme authority, wielding absolute power and being guided by a council of ministers to ensure effective decision-making. A key feature of this governance model is its systematic revenue system, where taxation is meticulously structured to fund state functions and maintain economic stability. In addition, law and order were upheld through a structured judicial system designed to deliver justice and regulate societal conduct. Another crucial aspect was the use of espionage and intelligence, with an extensive secret service network playing a pivotal role in maintaining internal security and preventing threats to the state (Rangarajan, 1992). Kautilya’s administrative framework was highly structured, displaying characteristics that align with modern bureaucratic principles, making it a significant precursor to contemporary governance models (Roy, 2017). In the Arthashastra, Kautilya presents the state as a welfare-oriented and ethically grounded institution, not merely a police or tax-collecting entity. While maintaining law and order (policing) and collecting revenue are essential functions, the state’s goal is the people’s prosperity, protection, and well-being. The ruler is seen as a guardian of dharma (justice) and economic welfare, responsible for public goods, social justice, and ethical governance. This holistic view aligns with the modern ideas of a welfare state, emphasising that governance must balance authority with compassion and development. Table 2 outlines the administrative structures and functions during the Kautilya (Mauryan) period, reflecting the sophisticated and centralised governance model advocated in the Arthashastra.

Table-2: Administrative Structures and Functions During the Kautilya Period

Source: R. P. Kangle (1965). The Kautiliya Arthashastra (Part 1). Motilal Banarsidass.

Kautilya’s vision of governance-centred on a ruler’s accountability, ethical conduct, and justice delivery, reflects the core principles of good governance today. These ideas translate into transparent institutions, responsible leadership, and citizen-centric policies in an era of democratic administration. Kautilya’s focus on justice as the foundation of state legitimacy resonates with the modern need for equitable governance and the rule of law. His principles offer timeless guidance for ethical and effective administration in India.

During the ancient period in India, public administration was not only practised but also studied and codified as an academic discipline within the broader frameworks of statecraft and governance. The most notable academic contribution to public administration came from the Arthashastra. This treatise systematically articulated administrative principles, the organisation of government departments, officials’ roles and duties, revenue administration, law enforcement, and foreign policy (Rangarajan, 1992). It laid the foundation for administrative theory in ancient India by providing a detailed model of governance. Administration education was often imparted in Gurukulas and Takshashila University (Altekar, 1951). Dharmashastras and Smritis also influenced administration, which outlined the moral and legal duties of rulers and officials, emphasising justice, duty, and welfare as essential to good governance (Kane, 1968). Table 3 presents the books of Kautilya’s Arthashastra that are directly related to public administration, highlighting the foundational principles, departmental structures, and governance mechanisms articulated in this ancient treatise.

Table-3: Books of Kautilya’s Arthashastra Related to Public Administration

Mughal Administration

The Mughal Empire established a centralised and hierarchical administration that significantly influenced later governance models (Habib, 1999). At its core, the empire was governed by a system of centralised authority, with the emperor wielding supreme power, aided by a council of ministers (Wazirs) responsible for key state functions. A distinctive feature of the Mughal administration was the Mansabdari System, which ranked officials (mansabdars) according to their military and administrative responsibilities, ensuring an organised bureaucratic structure. Revenue administration, particularly under Akbar, became highly methodical through the Zabt and Dahsala systems, where land measurement, productivity, and classification were used to assess taxes. This required trained officials capable of surveying land and maintaining meticulous records (Moosvi, 1987). The administrative framework extended to provincial and district governance, with the empire being divided into Subahs (provinces), each headed by a Subedar, and further subdivided into Sarkars (districts) and Parganas (local units) (Chandra, 2008). The Mughal administrative structure laid the foundation for many aspects of modern Indian bureaucracy, particularly in revenue collection and district governance, which influenced the governance models that followed (Majumdar, 2005). The Mughal administration was a unique blend of Indian and extra-Indian (mainly Persian and Central Asian) elements. From the Indian tradition, it adopted systems such as land revenue collection (inspired by Sher Shah Suri), local governance practices, and the integration of Rajput chiefs into the administrative structure. From extra-Indian sources, it incorporated Persian as the official language, the mananhari system (a Central Asian military-administrative structure), and a strong emphasis on imperial absolutism. This fusion created a centralised yet accommodative governance model, contributing to the Mughal Empire’s administrative stability and cultural synthesis. Table 4 presents the administrative structures and functions during the Mughal period, illustrating the hierarchical and elaborate system of governance that evolved under imperial rule.

Table-4: Administrative Structures and Functions during the Mughal Period

Source: Sarkar, J. (1920). Mughal administration. Sarkar & Sons.

During the Mughal period, India developed a highly centralised and sophisticated bureaucratic administration system. Drawing on Persian-Islamic traditions and blending them with Indian practices, especially under Emperor Akbar, the Mughal administration emphasised both governance and scholarship. Abul Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari is a monumental record of administrative structures, revenue systems, official roles, and justice principles (Fazl, 1873). Public administration education was imparted through madrasas, focusing on Persian and Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), logic, governance, and record-keeping. Future administrators, nobles, and scribes (Munshis) were trained academically and refined through practical experience at court (Rizvi, 1975). A robust system of documentation was maintained through daftars (departments), demonstrating an advanced information management approach. 

The Legacy of British Rule in Politics and Administration

The British colonial period profoundly shaped India’s political and administrative structures. They introduced a formal bureaucracy through the ICS, laying the groundwork for a professional administration (Metcalf, 1994). Legal reforms included the Indian Penal Code (1860) and Criminal Procedure Code (1861), establishing a codified legal system (Banerjee, 2010). In revenue administration, systems such as the Permanent Settlement (1793) and Ryotwari significantly changed land relations. The British also promoted local governance through the Local Self-Government Acts of 1882 and 1919 (Khilnani, 2003). Despite its exploitative aims, British rule created administrative, legal, and political institutions that continue to influence India’s governance (Bose & Jalal, 2017). Early administrative structures emerged, including the office of District Collector, the Judicial Department (with Warren Hastings’ Judicial Plan of 1772), and the Military and Commercial Departments. Diplomatic relations were managed informally through a developing political department. The Regulating Act of 1773 and the formation of the Governor-General’s Council began formalising executive governance, while company servants evolved into a proto-civil service (Thakore, 1922).

The Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt’s India Act of 1784 introduced "Double Government," with the East India Company managing commerce and the British Crown overseeing political matters via the Board of Control. This system centralised administration under the Governor-General and institutionalised departments like Revenue, Judicial, and Military. The Permanent Settlement (1793) and the Cornwallis Code (1793) were key reforms that structured district administration, judicial hierarchies, and codified laws. Although complex and often conflict-ridden, this phase strengthened centralised British control over India, setting the stage for direct Crown rule. After 1858, power was transferred directly to the British Crown, with the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India at the helm. The ICS became the elite administrative body, while legislative councils gradually included limited Indian participation through reforms such as the Indian Councils Acts (1861, 1892) and the Government of India Acts (1909, 1919, 1935). Key departments developed during this period: the Home Department, Finance Department, Public Works Department, Education Department, Police Department, Judicial Department (High Courts Act of 1861), Health and Sanitation, and Railway and Telegraph Departments. The Political Department continued to manage relations between princely states. This period saw the emergence of a centralised, hierarchical bureaucracy that would heavily influence India’s governance systems. Table 5 depicts the administrative structures and functions during the British period, showcasing the colonial framework that significantly influenced the evolution of modern public administration in India (Joshi, 1937).

Table-5: Administrative Structures and Functions during the British Empire

Source: Palande, M. R. (1937). Introduction to the Indian Administration, Oxford University Press.

During the British period in India, the academic study of public administration began to take shape under colonial educational reforms. The Charter Act of 1813 and Macaulay’s Minute on Indian Education (1835) promoted Western-style education, introducing English as the medium of instruction and European political thought into Indian universities. Indian students, particularly in institutions such as the University of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, were exposed to political science, law, and constitutional government, which laid the foundation for academic inquiry into administration and governance. The literature spanning the early 20th century offers a rich tapestry of insights into India’s public administration’s evolution and complexities. These works provide invaluable insights into the evolution of public administration in India during the British colonial period, shaping modern governance frameworks. 

Table-6: Classification of Indian Public Administration Literature during the British Period

Source: The Author

The Indianization of Public Services

Macaulay’s ideas on the Indian Civil Service closely align with the elite theory of bureaucracy, and this influence persists in India today. Macaulay envisioned a highly educated, merit-based civil service drawn from the upper strata of society, believing that a small, intellectually superior elite could effectively govern. This created a hierarchical, top-down administrative structure with limited grassroots connections. Even after independence, the civil services retained this elitist character, often criticised for being aloof, centralised, and resistant to change. While reforms have aimed at inclusivity and responsiveness, the legacy of an elite-driven bureaucracy still shapes India’s public administration.

Table-7: Brief Recommendations of Major Commissions on Civil Services during the British Empire

Source: Palande, M. R. (1947). A textbook on Indian administration, Oxford University Press.

The Indianization of Public Services was a gradual process aimed at increasing Indian participation in the colonial bureaucratic structure, which was initially dominated by British officials. During British rule, the Indian Civil Service (ICS) remained largely exclusive to Europeans, despite early demands for greater Indian representation. The Government of India Act, 1919, and later the Government of India Act, 1935, marked significant steps towards the Indianization of public services by reserving a proportion of civil service positions for Indians (Metcalf, 1994). However, progress was slow due to discriminatory recruitment policies and stringent selection criteria that favoured British candidates. The establishment of the Public Service Commission of India in 1926 was another critical development that laid the foundation for a more inclusive bureaucratic framework (Ghosh, 2013). By the 1930s, increased Indian representation in administrative roles reflected growing nationalist pressure and the British acknowledgement of India’s demand for self-governance. After independence in 1947, the process of Indianization was fully realised, with the transformation of the ICS into the IAS and other allied services. Under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the newly formed Indian government sought to develop a professional, merit-based bureaucracy while ensuring that it aligned with the nation’s socioeconomic goals (Maheshwari, 2005). The All India Services Act of 1951 reinforced the commitment to a unified administrative structure, ensuring continuity from the colonial system while making it more representative of India’s diverse population (Kapur & Mehta, 2005). Today’s public services reflect a blend of colonial administrative legacy and Indian constitutional values, aimed at public welfare and nation-building.

Revenue Administration

The evolution of revenue administration in India has been shaped by various historical rulers and governance models, each of which contributes to the development of a structured system for resource mobilisation. In ancient India, revenue collection was primarily based on agricultural surplus, with Kautilya’s Arthashastra outlining a well-organised taxation system that included land revenue, trade duties, and fines (Sharma, 2005). During the medieval period, the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire introduced a more systematic approach to land revenue, with rulers such as Sher Shah Suri implementing standardised measurements for taxation (Habib, 1999). However, the most significant reforms occurred during Akbar’s reign, when Raja Todar Mal developed the Zabt system, which assessed land revenue based on productivity and fixed rates, ensuring a stable and predictable source of income for the empire (Ali, 2006). This structured system laid the foundation for revenue administration in subsequent periods, even under colonial rule. Revenue administration underwent profound changes under British rule, with the introduction of the Permanent Settlement (1793), Ryotwari, and Mahalwari systems, which fundamentally altered agrarian relations (Bose & Jalal, 2017). Lord Cornwallis’s Permanent Settlement fixed land revenue in perpetuity but led to the rise of absentee landlords and rural distress. In contrast, Thomas Munro’s Ryotwari system, implemented in South India, established direct taxation between the government and cultivators, while the Mahalwari system, applied in North India, maintained village-based revenue collection (Banerjee, 2010). These colonial policies not only shaped modern land revenue structures but also influenced post-independence revenue administration, with the Government of India adopting land reforms, taxation policies, and financial decentralisation to create a more equitable and efficient system (Kumar, 2011). Today, India’s revenue administration is a blend of historical influences and modern governance principles, ensuring economic sustainability and resource mobilisation.

Table-8: Key Developments in India’s Revenue Administration Evolution

District Administration

The evolution of district administration in India can be traced back to ancient and medieval governance structures, where local administration played a crucial role in maintaining law and order, revenue collection, and public welfare. The Mauryan and Gupta empires had well-defined administrative units in ancient India, with districts (Ahara or Vishaya) governed by officials responsible for taxation and justice (Thapar, 2004). The Mughal Empire (1526–1857) further refined district administration by dividing the empire into Subahs (provinces), Sarkars (districts), and Parganas (local units), with officials such as the Subedar, Faujdar, and Shiqdar managing law enforcement and revenue collection (Habib, 1999). This hierarchical structure ensured effective governance, allowing the central authority to maintain control over local administration while delegating responsibilities to regional officers. However, it was during the British rule that district administration became more structured and formalised, shaping the modern system in India. The British introduced significant reforms in district administration, particularly through the Regulating Act of 1773 and the Indian Councils Act of 1861, which established the office of the District Collector as the central figure responsible for revenue collection, law and order, and overall governance (Metcalf, 1994). Lord Cornwallis’ administrative reforms institutionalised the Collector-Magistrate system, making the District Collector a powerful agent of British control (Bose & Jalal, 2017). Over time, the role of the district administration expanded to include public health, education, and local governance, particularly through the introduction of Local Self-Government Acts (1882, 1919) (Khilnani, 2003). The structure of district administration remained largely intact after independence, but it was repurposed to serve democratic governance. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992) further decentralised district administration by strengthening Panchayati Raj institutions and urban local bodies, promoting participatory governance and local development (Maheshwari, 2005). Today, district administration in India operates as a crucial link between the central and state governments, ensuring the implementation of policies and public service delivery at the grassroots level.

Table-9: Key efforts in the evolution of district administration in India

Source: Sharma, M. P. (1944). Local Self-Government in India: Hind Kitabs. Khera, S. S. (1964). District Administration in India. Asia Publishing House. Sapru, R. (2018). Indian Administration: A Foundation of Governance. SAGE.

Local Self-Government

The evolution of local self-government in India can be traced back to ancient times, when village communities functioned as self-sufficient administrative units. During the Mauryan and Gupta periods, local governance was facilitated through panchayats (village councils), which played a crucial role in dispute resolution, resource management, and social welfare (Sharma, 2005). The Chola dynasty further refined the system with a well-structured local administration, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where civic affairs were managed by autonomous village assemblies, such as the Sabha and Nagaram (Stein, 1980). However, during the medieval period, particularly under Mughal rule, local governance became more centralised, with village administration primarily focusing on revenue collection under officials like the Muqaddam and Patwari (Habib, 1999). Under British rule, the decline of indigenous local governance continued, with the focus shifting to a more centralised system of administration. The modern structure of local self-government in India was introduced during British rule, particularly through the Municipal Act of 1850, which allowed local bodies to collect taxes and maintain civic amenities (Metcalf, 1994). Lord Ripon’s 1882 Local Self-Government Resolution marked a significant milestone by promoting elected municipal bodies and greater local participation in governance (Khilnani, 2003). Further reforms, including the Government of India Act, 1919, expanded local governance to rural areas through district boards and village panchayats (Chakrabarty & Pandey, 2008). Post-independence, India embraced democratic decentralisation, culminating in the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992), which institutionalised Panchayati Raj institutions (PRIs) and urban local bodies (ULBs), granting them constitutional status (Maheshwari, 2005). Today, local self-government plays a critical role in grassroots democracy, ensuring citizen participation in governance and development at the community level. 

Table-10: Major Events in the Evolution of Local Self-Governments in India

Source: Sharma, M. P. (1944). Local Self-Government in India: Hind Kitabs. & Mahipal (2020). Rural Local Governance and Development. SAGE.

The Philosophical and Constitutional Framework of the Government

The Philosophical and Constitutional Framework of Government forms the foundational bedrock upon which a state’s institutions and functioning are built. The philosophical part of the Indian Constitution, which is reflected mainly in the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles, is drawn from multiple sources. The ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity were inspired by the French Revolution. Fundamental Rights have their roots in the United States. The Bill of Rights and the Directive Principles are influenced by the Irish Constitution. The Gandhian philosophy shaped several directive principles that focused on rural development and self-reliance. Additionally, the emphasis on justice and welfare reflects the influence of British liberal thought and the ideals of the Indian freedom movement. Together, these sources form the moral and ideological foundation of the United States Constitution. Constitutionally, it encompasses the structure, functions, and limits of various state organs as enshrined in the Constitution, which serves as the supreme law of the land. This framework ensures a balance of power, safeguards fundamental rights, and promotes democratic ideals, thereby enabling a government that is accountable, transparent, and responsive to the needs of its citizens. Together, the philosophical and constitutional dimensions provide both the ethical rationale and legal mandate for the exercise of authority in a democratic polity. 

Salient Features and Premises

The framework of government is rooted in both philosophical principles and constitutional mandates. The structure of a government is typically influenced by democracy, the rule of law, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. These principles ensure that governance is accountable, transparent, and participatory (Heywood, 2019). The Preamble to the Constitution of India outlines the core ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, which serve as guiding principles for the administration of India. These values shape policies, laws, and administrative practices to ensure that governance remains people-centric, inclusive, and democratic. It anchors the functioning of institutions towards the goals of a democratic, socialist, secular republic. Thus, the Preamble acts as a moral compass, directing the Indian administration to uphold constitutional values in all its actions and decisions. The salient features and value premises are as follows:

• Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, and Republic: These are the foundational values declared in the Preamble.

• Parliamentary Form of Government: This is based on the Westminster model and ensures executive accountability to the legislature.

• Federal System with Unitary Bias: Power distribution between the Centre and States, with more powers resting with the Centre during emergencies.

• Fundamental Rights and Duties: Individual liberty, equality, and dignity are protected, along with a call for civic responsibility.

• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Non-justiciable principles that aim to establish a just and egalitarian society.

• Independent Judiciary: Guardian of the Constitution and fundamental rights; ensures checks and balances.

• Universal Adult Franchise: It reflects democratic ethos and political equality.

• Rule of Law: The law is supreme and applies equally to all citizens.

These features reflect the core values of justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, dignity of the individual, and unity and integrity of the nation. 

Constitutionalism

Constitutionalism refers to the principle that government authority is derived from and limited by a legal framework. It ensures that power is exercised within the constitution’s constraints, safeguarding citizens from arbitrary governance (Dicey, 2005). Modern constitutionalism embodies the ideas of limited government, separation of powers, and protection of fundamental rights (Lutz, 2006). Constitutionalism is upheld in democratic systems through judicial review and checks and balances, preventing the abuse of power. The ideal of Constitutionalism as ‘government by limited powers” has been a functional reality in India to a considerable extent, although it has challenges. The Constitution provides checks and balances through separation of powers, judicial review, and fundamental rights. Institutions such as the Supreme Court, Election Commission, and CAG uphold this principle. However, instances of executive overreach, misuse of ordinances, and weakening of institutional autonomy have diluted this ideal. Despite such challenges, the judiciary and civil society have played key roles in reinforcing constitutional limits, keeping the spirit of Constitutionalism alive in India. Constitutionalism is indeed the foundation of India’s administrative edifice. It ensures that all administrative actions are guided by the Constitution, which upholds the rule of law, separation of powers, fundamental rights, and accountability. The powers, functions, and limitations of the Indian bureaucracy are derived from constitutional provisions such as Articles 309-323. Constitutionalism ensures that the administration remains lawful, transparent, and accountable, preventing arbitrariness and safeguarding democratic governance in India. In India, constitutionalism manifests as follows:

• Separation of Powers: Distinct roles for the legislature, executive, and judiciary

• Judicial Review: The power of the courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

• Supremacy of the Constitution: All government laws and actions must conform to the Constitution.

• Fundamental Rights: Act as a limitation on the state’s power.

• Accountability and transparency: Through institutions such as the CAG, the Election Commission, and the RTI Act.

Table-11: Contributions to Constitutionalism in India

Source: Kashyap, S. (2008). Our constitution: An introduction to India’s Constitution and Constitutional Law, National Book Trust. Basu, D. D. (2013). Introduction to the Constitution of India (21st ed.). LexisNexis.

Constitutionalism ensures that governance is based on the rule of law and not arbitrary will. The Basic Structure Doctrine, which evolved through cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973), ensures that even the Parliament cannot alter the core principles of the Constitution. Hence, Indian constitutionalism is marked by the twin goals of empowering the state and restricting its misuse through checks and balances. Ambedkar observed that the text of the Constitution can provide the organs of the State, but the outcome of the governance process depends on how it has been operationalised by the political parties and people. This statement highlights that while the Constitution lays down the structure and powers of state organs, its success depends on the values, actions, and commitment of political parties and citizens. Constitutional ideals like justice, equality, and liberty in India can only be realised if political parties uphold democratic norms and people actively participate in governance. The misuse of power, corruption, or apathy can distort the constitutional vision. Hence, the spirit of the Constitution must be reflected in practice for effective and ethical governance.

Political Culture

The Westminster model, based on British parliamentary democracy, emphasises collective responsibility, strong opposition, an independent bureaucracy, and conventions over codified rules. India’s political culture is marked by coalition politics, personality-driven parties, frequent defection, and a blurred line between the executive and legislature. The dominance of political families, regionalism, and populism often weakens parliamentary accountability and undermines conventions central to the Westminster system. Additionally, bureaucratic politicisation and limited internal party democracy dilute the model’s ideal functioning. Thus, while the Westminster model provides a structural framework, its core philosophy often clashes with India’s sociopolitical realities, necessitating contextual adaptations for effective governance. Political culture refers to the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments that shape political behaviour within a society (Almond & Verba, 1963). It influences how citizens engage with and participate in political institutions. There are three main types of political culture:

Parochial: Citizens have minimal political awareness.

Subject–Citizens are aware but passive about political participation.

Participant: Citizens actively engage in political processes.

A strong political culture fosters democratic stability and public trust in governance. For instance, India’s democratic resilience is attributed to its deep-rooted political culture emphasises electoral participation and civic engagement (Kaviraj, 2010). India’s political culture is a blend of traditional and modern elements shaped by colonial legacy, nationalist movements, and democratic practices. The key aspects in this regard include the following:

• Democratic Participation: Increasing voter turnout and awareness indicate a participatory culture.

• Tolerance and Pluralism: The coexistence of multiple religions, castes, and languages

• Clientelism and Patronage: Caste, religion, and regional affiliations’ persistence in voting patterns. Social identities influence elections rather than ideology (Chandra, 2004).

• Political Mobilisation: An active media, NGOs, and social movements contribute to participatory governance (Jenkins, 2007).

• Growing Aspirational Politics: Youth and marginalised sections are increasingly demanding development and good governance.

Political culture has significantly influenced India’s administrative culture. The dominance of patronage politics, caste and regional considerations, and populist pressures have often led to bureaucracy politicisation, neutrality erosion, and short-term gains over long-term planning. However, democratic values, such as accountability, transparency, and public service, have also shaped progressive administrative ethos in many areas. Thus, while political culture has at times hindered administrative professionalism, it has also pushed the bureaucracy to become more responsive and citizen-oriented in a democratic setup.

Bureaucracy and Democracy

Bureaucracy plays a crucial role in democratic governance by implementing policies, maintaining continuity, and ensuring rule-based administration (Weber, 1947). However, tension often exists between bureaucratic efficiency and democratic responsiveness. In democratic societies, bureaucracy must balance professionalism with accountability. Mechanisms such as parliamentary oversight, public service commissions, and transparency laws ensure that bureaucratic functioning aligns with democratic principles (Peters, 2021). The Indian bureaucracy, as the steel frame of administration, plays a crucial role in the democratic process as follows:

Implementing policies: Translates legislative intent into action.

Advisory Role: This role assists political executives in policy formulation.

Impartiality and Neutrality: Expected to serve the government of the day with commitment and without political bias.

Public Service Delivery: Acts as the interface between the state and citizens.

There is often a tension between bureaucratic and democratic values, which can affect development. Bureaucratic values emphasise hierarchy, rules, discipline, and continuity, whereas democratic values focus on participation, transparency, accountability, and responsiveness. In India, rigid bureaucratic procedures may delay decision-making, while populist democratic pressures can lead to short-term, vote-driven policies. This conflict can hinder efficient policy implementation and long-term planning. However, when harmonised through reforms, capacity building, and citizen-centric approaches, values can complement each other and drive inclusive and sustainable development. However, tensions exist between bureaucracy and democracy due to the following:

Political Interference: Frequent transfers and patronage undermine bureaucratic autonomy.

Lack of Accountability: Bureaucrats enjoy considerable protection, leading to inefficiency.

Democratic Deficit: The bureaucracy is not directly accountable to the people, leading to a perceived gap in responsiveness.

Corruption and red tape: It affects efficiency and erodes public trust.

The increasing criminalisation of politics poses a serious threat to the foundational values of Indian democracy. Criminal backgrounds undermine the rule of law, weaken public trust, and distort policy-making in favour of vested interests. It also erodes governance ethical standards and hampers development. Despite judicial interventions and electoral reforms, loopholes in the legal system and voter apathy persist. To safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions, urgent reforms, strict enforcement of laws, and greater political will are needed. A responsive, transparent, and accountable bureaucracy is essential for democracy’s success. To address these concerns, reforms such as the Right to Information Act (2005) and Mission Karmayogi have been introduced to make bureaucracy more citizen-centric and transparent (DoPT, 2020). Minimum government, maximum governance is an administration philosophy with great potential in the Indian context. It emphasises reducing bureaucratic red tape, simplifying processes, and empowering citizens through technology and decentralisation. Focusing on efficiency, transparency, and accountability, it aims to make governance more responsive and citizen-centric. However, the success of this philosophy depends on robust institutional frameworks, digital infrastructure, and a committed political will to ensure that minimum government does not lead to minimum responsibility.

Bureaucracy and Development

Bureaucracy is integral to socioeconomic development, especially in developing nations. A well-functioning bureaucracy facilitates policy implementation, development of infrastructure, and service delivery (Riggs, 1964). However, excessive bureaucracy can lead to inefficiency and corruption. Hence, administrative reforms emphasising decentralisation, e-governance, and citizen participation are crucial for enhancing bureaucratic effectiveness in development (Evans, 1995). The bureaucracy is central to India’s developmental agenda, especially in a welfare-oriented state. Its developmental role includes the following:

• Planning and Execution: This plays a major role in economic planning and implementation of schemes such as MNREGA and PMGSY.

• Capacity building: Involved in education, health, infrastructure, and rural development.

• Crisis Management: Vital in handling disasters, pandemics, and emergencies.

• Innovation and Digital Governance: Leading initiatives such as Digital India, e-Governance, and service delivery reforms.

The major challenges include the following:

Capacity Deficit: Skilled personnel shortage and institutional weaknesses.

Centralised Decision-making: Hampers local innovation and responsiveness.

Resistance to Change: Traditional hierarchical setup resists reform and CCG.

Strengthening institutional capacity and incentivising performance is crucial for leveraging bureaucracy as a driver of inclusive development (World Bank, 2004). Reforms such as Mission Karmayogi, performance-based evaluation, and training are aimed at making the bureaucracy more development-oriented. The Indian government’s philosophical and constitutional framework upholds a vision of an inclusive, democratic, and just society. While the bureaucracy is integral to implementing this vision, greater accountability, transparency, and citizen engagement remain critical. A robust constitutional culture, vibrant political participation, and a reformed bureaucracy can strengthen democratic governance and drive sustainable development.

Conclusion

The evolution of the Indian administration reflects a rich blend of indigenous traditions, foreign influences, and institutional development. Beginning with Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which emphasised rational governance and administrative specialisation, India’s administrative foundations were later enriched by the Mughal era’s sophisticated bureaucracy and revenue systems. The British colonial period introduced centralised administrative structures, legal codification, and modern institutions, such as the Indian Civil Services, laying the groundwork for constitutionalism and the rule of law. Post-independence, India emphasised democratisation, social justice, and grassroots governance, drawing from Gandhian ideals and traditional village systems. Today, the Indian administration operates within a constitutional framework rooted in federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights, balancing bureaucratic professionalism with democratic responsiveness. This historical journey highlights how continuity, change, tradition, and modernity have shaped India’s diverse democratic polity’s administrative backbone.