Political pressure, not open affiliation, undermines bureaucratic neutrality

When preparing for the UPSC exams, we were often advised to read The Hindu to sharpen our analytical skills and improve our language. As we delved into its editorials, many of us noticed a subtle Left-leaning bias in certain articles. Concerned about how this might influence our thinking, we sought the advice of a mentor who responded with a simple, yet powerful, insight: “If you can spot the bias, then you’re aware enough to balance it. Just keep it in mind and adjust your answers to present a well-rounded view.”

This wisdom applies equally to civil servants today. It isn’t about their ideological sympathies or whether they engage with organisations, media, or NGOs affiliated with political parties. What truly matters is their intellectual honesty, transparency, and the ability to perform their duties without allowing personal beliefs to influence public decisions. Citizens have the right to know the ideological leanings of those in power, not to have them concealed under the guise of neutrality. Civil servants, like all individuals, will naturally hold personal views — they are entitled to them — but they must balance these beliefs with their professional obligations and, most importantly, maintain transparency.

 The recent uproar over the government’s decision to allow civil servants to engage in RSS activities has reignited a familiar debate about bureaucratic impartiality. Critics argue that such involvement risks compromising the neutrality of officials, especially given the RSS’s ideological ties to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Recent news reports of a senior IPS officer in Kerala meeting a top RSS functionary further flared up controversies.

However, focusing on such matters is shortsighted, and detracts us from a deeper issue that has plagued the Indian bureaucracy for decades: covert politicisation. Civil servants across the political spectrum have long been associated with various ideological bodies. The real question should be about their performance in office — whether they act with fairness, transparency, and professionalism — not simply where they are seen after office hours.

 The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, along with state service rules, demand political neutrality and integrity from civil servants. These rules prohibit civil servants from associating with political parties to ensure they remain non-partisan. However, civil servants are not barred from holding personal beliefs or associating with cultural organisations, as long as these activities do not interfere with their duties. Yet, an irony emerges: while any subtle support for opposition parties can lead to allegations of bias, civil servants are often rewarded for promoting the ruling party’s agenda. What does this say about the state of neutrality in the bureaucracy?

 For decades, civil servants in Left-leaning states like Kerala and West Bengal have actively participated in cultural and intellectual organisations with clear political leanings, such as the Purogamana Kala Sahitya Sangham (PuKaSa) and the Deshabhimani Study Circle. These platforms, while cultural in name, are closely tied to Leftist ideologies, and civil servants, especially government teachers have engaged in them without facing scrutiny.

The same holds true for Congress-led regimes, where civil servants have participated in NGOs and forums that promoted values aligned with Congress’ ideological stance. Adding to the complexity, State funds have often been diverted to support NGOs and cultural organisations with political affiliations, blurring the lines between cultural patronage and political influence. This selective scrutiny, focusing on certain organisations while ignoring others, exposes the hypocrisy in today’s debate.

 Civil servants, like all citizens, are entitled to their personal beliefs, but the real issue is whether those beliefs interfere with their duties. What matters is their ability to perform their tasks with intellectual honesty and transparency, free from biases.

It’s not open affiliations that undermine bureaucratic neutrality, but hidden political pressures and covert alliances that influence decisions behind closed doors. Political patronage — through promotions, transfers, and appointments — has long been used to reward loyalty and punish dissent, distorting policy implementation. These invisible pressures, rather than overt affiliations, are the real threat to governance, and yet they go unaddressed.

 Public trust in civil servants should rest on how they carry out their responsibilities, not on their personal affiliations. Whether their work is influenced by hidden political or other pressures is the key question. In a democracy, intellectual honesty is far more critical than blanket prohibitions on personal associations.

What truly erodes public trust is the hidden politicisation of the civil service, where merit takes a back seat to political loyalty. When civil servants are promoted or transferred based on political allegiance rather than performance, it distorts governance in ways the public cannot easily detect. The post-retirement plum postings awarded to numerous corrupt but compliant officers testify to this trend. There are states where, for decades, not a single IAS or IPS officer has ‘retired’ from service. How do we reconcile this strange coincidence?

 Instead of fixating on whether civil servants attend ideological events, the conversation should focus on their professional conduct. Civil servants should be encouraged to engage with a broad range of perspectives as part of a healthy intellectual environment, no matter how inconvenient it might be for the establishment. Such a liberal approach makes them transparent about how those perspectives shape their decisions. Citizens have the right to know whether personal biases are affecting policy execution, and whether public officials are acting in India’s best interest.

 Moreover, civil servants who remain professional, regardless of their ideological leanings, should be protected from State retribution. Around the world, civil service regulations are designed to prevent undue political influence and ensure that officials serve the public interest. However, we seem to be heading in the opposite direction — debating how best to muzzle civil servants, which only serves to increase State control.

 When civil servants are transparent about their beliefs and carry out their work with fairness, their personal affiliations become irrelevant. Penalising them for holding or expressing diverse viewpoints is counterproductive — what truly matters is the integrity with which they serve the public. The real challenge lies in addressing hidden political and corrupt influences that distort governance, not policing visible affiliations.

In today’s technology-driven world, where platforms like Discord, WhatsApp, anonymous Telegram groups, and the remixing of reels and short videos on Instagram and YouTube thrive, trying to monitor or control civil servants’ speech or affiliations is increasingly futile. With abundant like-buttons, retweets, encrypted messaging, AI-generated content, and viral trends, attempting to suppress affiliations is not only impractical but also a waste of resources.

Public discourse must, therefore, shift to protecting civil servants’ independence from covert political forces rather than obsessing over outdated cosmetic concepts of neutrality.

(Prasanth Nair is a civil servant and author. X: @PrasanthIAS.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.