Service over Rule: The Ongoing Transition from Subjects to Citizens

India’s democratic journey is both triumphant and unfinished. For centuries, we lived as subjects—under kings, emperors, and colonial rulers who treated us not as individuals with rights, but as people to be governed. Even during British rule, the Indian public was often viewed as a mere workforce—subordinate, voiceless, and dispensable. The adoption of our Constitution on January 26, 1950, marked a turning point: it codified our transformation from subjects to citizens, affirming equality, dignity, and shared belonging. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said with stirring clarity, “We are Indians, firstly and lastly.”

Understanding whether our democratic roots are strong enough to withstand the onslaught of time is vital—not just for politicians or academics, but for every citizen. Democracy is not merely a system of governance; it is a living construct built on participation, accountability, and shared values. When these foundations are robust, society can resist the creeping forces of misinformation, authoritarianism, and apathy. But when they are fragile, laws risk serving power rather than justice, and rights like free speech or dissent can be quietly eroded. We need to ensure that our democratic framework is retrofitted well enough to absorb the seismic shifts of ideology, discourse, and institutional change. The answer lies not in what we believe democracy is, but in how we defend it daily. It is a vast canvas, but here in this piece, I will try to explore the apathy of our governments and particularly bureaucracy towards citizens.

In a true democracy, government officials—be they ministers, bureaucrats, or officers—are meant to serve the people. They are called public servants in English, and the Hindi terms “सरकारी कर्मचारी” and “नौकरशाह” underscore their intended role: agents of public good. They draw their salaries from taxpayers' contributions and are accountable to the very citizens whose welfare they are entrusted with. Ideally, they should be approachable, empathetic, and responsive, especially to the marginalized and vulnerable. Yet reality paints a bleaker picture. Many bureaucrats in high positions are perceived as insensitive, unaccountable, and even arrogant. Their decisions are often imposed with little consultation, while expert advice and public grievances are brushed aside as distractions. This disdain for dialogue stems from an enduring colonial hangover. During British rule, the bureaucracy was designed as an instrument of control—a mechanism to safeguard imperial interests, not empower the population. The Indian Civil Service (ICS), precursor to the IAS, was elite and effective but deeply hierarchical and emotionally distant. Post-Independence, while the name changed, the mindset often did not. The same paternalistic attitude permeated services like police, revenue, forest, engineering, and beyond—now layered with corruption, political affiliations, and selective responsiveness.

To make point clear consider the following three real examples-

A striking example from Maharashtra, where bureaucratic decisions directly impacted vulnerable children. In July 2022, the Directorate of Primary Education issued an order denying midday meals to students who could not produce Aadhaar cards. This move contradicted both the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment—which clearly stated that no child should be denied government benefits due to lack of Aadhaar—and the Right to Food Act, which guarantees midday meals as a fundamental right. The decision was reportedly made during a period when the state had only two ministers in office, leaving bureaucrats to run the administration.

There are numerous such cases. Officials in higher positions often believe they are right and rely on a small circle of experts to formulate policies. Public opinion is seldom sought adequately and rarely considered seriously. This leads to public dissatisfaction and flawed policies. Recently, the All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) released a poorly drafted Engineers Bill. It was inadequately circulated to the public, with very little time given for comments. Furthermore, the comments that were submitted were neither acknowledged nor considered. What is the point of such an exercise?

Similarly, the UP Government recently revised building byelaws. The entire exercise was outsourced to a management consulting firm with little expertise in this domain. A poorly drafted document was circulated for comments, but no one knows what happened to the feedback submitted by several prominent engineering professional institutions and individuals. The building byelaws still contain the same shortcomings, editorial mistakes, and contradictions that were pointed out during the finalization stage. When their office was contacted, the response was not favorable. Shouldn’t they have listened to all stakeholders patiently and considered all comments seriously for the benefit of the public for the larger good? Is it not an example of apathy and arrogance on the part of officials dealing it?

It feels strange to note how our government system works. Is this the true spirit of democracy?

To reclaim the spirit of democracy, this mindset must change. Bureaucrats must embrace humility, recognize their true role, and respect diverse voices. The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was a powerful step toward transparency. Constitutional safeguards—like Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (right to life and liberty), and Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies)—equip citizens to demand fairness and justice. Still, access to justice is mired in inefficiencies; our judicial system, despite being a beacon of hope, struggles with delays and high costs that often defeat its purpose. “Justice delayed is justice denied” is no longer a phrase—it is a lived reality for millions. Public service must go beyond protocol and ceremony. It demands emotional engagement, ethical courage, and active listening. Participation in governance should not end at the ballot box. True democratic participation involves empowering citizens to contribute to policymaking, voice their concerns freely, and be heard respectfully. It means creating platforms where ideas from think tanks, activists, and ordinary citizens are not just tolerated—they are welcomed.

Public servants in a democracy like ours must prioritize service above all else. The term "service" in English typically refers to the act of helping, supporting, or performing work for others—whether in business, governance, or personal contexts. It can be transactional, professional, or institutional, often tied to efficiency, delivery, or duty. However, I am not expecting them to perform mere "seva" (सेवा). The Hindi word "सेवा" (seva) carries a deeper spiritual and cultural resonance. Rooted in Sanskrit, seva implies selfless service—an offering made without expectation of reward, often seen as a moral or devotional act. While "service" may fulfill a function, "सेवा" fulfills a purpose. One is often contractual; the other, sacrificial. Public officials must have service ingrained in their character. Their efficiency should be evaluated based on this parameter and recorded in their annual confidential reports.

Technology can play a transformative role in strengthening public governance, especially in systems plagued by inefficiency, opacity, or exclusion. Through digital platforms and real-time dashboards, citizens can monitor the progress of public programs, ensure transparency and expose delays. Tools like public grievance portals empower people to lodge complaints and track resolution, curbing bureaucratic indifference. On the civic front, platforms like MyGov and social media offer space for citizen participation and watchdog engagement. Even the judicial and legislative branches have benefited—with virtual courts and e-parliamentary sessions making governance more inclusive and resilient. Technology acts not just as infrastructure but as a moral lever—amplifying democratic values, enabling responsiveness, and rebuilding trust in institutions. Why some such tools were not used by the UP government or AICTE to receive, acknowledge, and dispose the comments with transparency. We have miles to go in this regard if we really wish to preserve and foster the spirit of democracy.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” This is not philosophy—it is a democratic imperative. Officials must internalize this ethos, shed the arrogance of inherited power and embracing the humility of earned trust. There must also be robust accountability mechanisms to ensure that officials are answerable for their conduct and decisions. Democracy is not merely a structure—it is a shared experience built on mutual respect, compassion, and civic duty. As Ambedkar poignantly observed, it is a “mode of associated living… an attitude of respect and reverence towards our fellow men.” Until our government institutions embody this attitude, our democracy will remain a dream deferred.

MANOJ MITTAL-AUGUST 1,2025|NOIDA

© This blog post is the intellectual property of MANOJ MITTAL. Unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited.