As India reels under the tentacles of the pandemic, bureaucracy has been bestowed with special privileges to curtail the spread of the virus. They were also entrusted with the responsibility to ramp up the health infrastructure, where they have miserably failed. However, we see their alacrity mainly on streets, wielding sticks on innocent civilians, who generally abide by the law.

A recent incident in Agartala city brings forth the inherent anti-Hindu tendencies in the administrative machinery of India. An IAS officer walks into a marriage ceremony, tears the permission letter to convey revokement, harasses the bride and groom, orders immediate arrest of family members waiting for the Muhurta, and worst of all slaps the priest with contempt. Bureaucracy is an institution that has a long legacy of trampling on Bharatiya ethos. Moreover, instead of reprimanding the officer, the political leadership applauded him by giving him additional responsibilities. Such disdain for Hindu rituals cannot be innate. It is fostered through institutions and cultures inimical to Hindus. These institutions de-Hinduize capable individuals on a frivolous promise of intellectual growth, who turn out to be contemptuous. The hatred gets manifested when they exercise their powers.

A minority-obsessed government finds its first expression of power in restricting the religious freedom of Hindus. This obsession stems from a non-indigenous philosophical framework on which our constitution operates. Every year, Ganesh Visarjan and Durga Visarjan processions are stymied intentionally by the administration. It harasses Hindus on trivial charges. In contrast, it kowtows in front of a community that follows religious observations with impunity against the regulations. The Indian state has still not been able to book the leader of Tablighi Jamaat for spreading the virus in India.

It is tempting to ask that despite the Hindu background of most political leaders and bureaucrats, why do they selectively target Hindus? To answer this, we must analyze the origins and the vestiges of colonial rule embedded in our administrative setup.

The origins of Civil Services and entry of natives

Civil services in India were institutionalized to disseminate the ‘Raaj’ to the masses. Initially, the natives were barred. Later, during deliberations to allow their entry, E Stratchy, a member of Bengal Civil Services, said that a native is more likely to confide in a native. Even today, it is the same vulnerability of Hindu society that confides in Hindu administrators, only to be humiliated later.

One may ask if Indians indeed were willing to participate in the British administration. Indians were not only willing, but they made several representations to allow their entry. In 1832, Raja Ram Mohan Roy presented a charter in which he claimed that many capable and liberally educated candidates could adequately serve the Raj. Governor-General Moira reported ‘disgust’ among higher classes since they were not allowed to be members of Civil Services. In his letter to the Court of Directs, Governor-General Amherst informed that there was rising discontent among the educated classes in India for their non-admissibility. He also warned that since they were educated, this discontent could increase. Several other such communications suggest that there was a deep longing to participate in the administrative machinery. It was only the quest for power that drove them into partaking in the oppression of native Indians.

Subsequently, given the high cost of maintaining the European workforce, natives were allowed into services. This opportunity was restricted to only those natives who had English education and were ‘respectable’ with ‘good mannerism.’ It was beyond an ordinary Indian’s reach.

However, those who were allowed were natives only by their skin colour. They were loyal servants of the British and acquired a sense of superiority over their countrymen. After independence, admission to the examination was open to every Indian but, the modus operandi of civil services inherited its colonial character. The attitude of recruits to civil services mirrors that of British servants. The quest for power is intact. In a socialist democratic system, a bureaucrat has immense control over people’s life. Centuries of colonization led to a culture where the colonized are tempted to fight their oppressors. This tendency does not change when the positions are switched. The oppressed, when in the position of power, seeks retribution. It takes enormous commitment to resist this tendency. Most recruits make no such effort. They perpetuate the same crimes of their oppressors. India continues to be a socialist state where Baboos carry all the powers to impinge on the rights of citizens. The sepoys of the British are now ‘Baboos’ of the secular state.

Impact of colonial education

In British India, the major impediment in appointing natives was their ‘unsuitability,’ i.e., lack of English education. British Jurist Macaulay institutionalized the education required to be ‘suitable’ for civil services. Macaulay’s education system is the instrument of colonization even today. The native officers were colonized using the same education that we impart today to our children.

The key feature of colonial education is that it inculcates a deep hatred towards one’s identity and culture. In empirical subjects like science and mathematics, the effect of colonialism is limited to pedagogy. In contrast, the subjects in which empirical evidence is absent become a tool of indoctrination. In India, archaeology has no bearing on historical studies. The NCERT books are written like opinion pieces of those in power. The authors have refused to include any contrary evidence admissible even as per the modern framework. It is naive to expect that any portions of the traditional Itihaas (Ramayana and Mahabharata) and Puranas would ever be included.

The first lesson in history in India starts in the sixth standard with the Aryan Invasion theory that instils a non-existent racial divide among Indians, portraying Brahmins as atrocious perpetrators of heinous crimes against humanity. Imagine the impact of this indoctrination on Hindu children. A ten-year child, who has been venerating Pujaris since his childhood as a devout Hindu, participating in different Samskaraas, suddenly finds his reverence turned into hatred. For him, all rituals lose sanctity. They represent dogmatism. As a part of this narrative, when Sanskrit is called a means of oppression, the Hindu child finds it difficult to chant daily prayers. As most Hindus have Sanskrit names, the child is repelled by his identity and existence. In later lessons, even genocides of Hindus are trivialized. Traditional Hindus maintain a distance from other communities due to historical and contemporary subjugation. This practice appears diabolic on the part of his community. In the absence of any counter-explanation by parents, the narrative has a profound psychological impact.

Academically successful children resolve to correct these atrocities in the Hindu society, motivated by the Abrahamic and Marxist moral codes. In secular India, constitutional morality is inherently Marxist. Marxist morality is preferred to correct the aforementioned historical injustices, although its efficacy remains untested. There are no attempts to test whether the prescribed action plan achieves the intended moral objectives of equality and justice. On the contrary, in his book Discrimination and Disparities, famous economist Thomas Sowell has shown that prevalent means to achieve equality perpetuate higher levels of discrimination at raising the opportunity costs.

Additionally, the English medium education instils a sense of superiority that blocks any counter perspective. As the traditions become arcane, an average Hindu falls into the trap of validating the practices with science. Such a modern school education leaves a child de-Hinduized.

The process of colonization does not stop here. Once the contempt towards Hindu culture is imbibed in an adolescent’s mind, it is accentuated in colleges through western social and moral codes, in the garb of professionalism. In informal social groups, the extent of de-Hinduization attests to the rationality and progressiveness of an individual. Eventually, after graduation, some of them prepare for civil services. They claim to serve the nation by reforming the status quo, i.e., removing the evils from the Hindu society. 

Who wants to be a bureaucrat?

Most civil services aspirants come from the states where the British Raj manifested in its most severe form, and after independence, the population had to scramble for essentials. The district administration, run by bureaucrats, controlled the access and distribution of rations. An administrator in a family could obviate these daily struggles. Additionally, such families could oblige their contacts by facilitating preferential treatment by the administration. Privileges, like a car, bungalow, using taxpayers’ money have also been a significant incentive.  The remuneration in Indian Civil Services is meagre, but it is no deterrent as it can be supplanted by embezzlements. The Imperial servants had huge salaries, yet they engaged in corrupt practices by trading resources in their jurisdiction. The bureaucrats, even today, commit similar malpractice. These factors attracted youth and parents alike to aim for the services. While the liberalization of the economy has ended their exclusive control over basic supplies, immense discretionary power still motivates the aspirants.

UPSC’s recruitment design

If we compare recruitment processes across the world, agencies evaluate candidates based on a specific skill. In contrast, UPSC adopts a method of elimination instead of selection. When skills are not emphasized, anyone could do a particular job. The examination is just a means to pacify those who could not acquire the position. The exam does not even test the decision-making and analytical skills necessary to carry out any administrative task. It is because the government wants to select good ‘sepoys’ who lack an independent outlook. Further, the UPSC curriculum reinforces the colonial narrative fed for decades. Recently, with the blend of Marxism and liberalism, it has become a pernicious tool for intellectual perversion directed against Hindus. As a consequence of such filtering, traditional Hindus are targeted to seek such retribution.

Who can be successful?

Even though open for every Indian, this exam can be qualified by only a privileged section of the society only, as in the Imperial Services. It is not an equal opportunity examination. The exam is deeply biased in favour of the product of Macaulayian education. To be successful, a candidate has to:

1. Undergo a rigorous study of subjects enlisted in the syllabus of UPSC, which contains the same colonial atrocity literature that mischaracterizes our society.
2. Celebrate orientalist and post-modernist reformers like B R Ambedkar, who inspire to seek retribution from the traditionally powerful classes.
3. Align with Marxist authors like RC Guha, Bipin Chandra, Romila Thapar, who instil hatred against Hindu traditions, their symbols and trivialize their years of persecution.
4. Support reservations and the associated Mandal politics that encourage rift in the society

On top of it, the candidate must have a financial surplus to sustain through the period of examination. An English medium education followed by a professional degree subsidized by the government is an added advantage.

A Baboos inevitable plan of action

When some of these aspirants turn into bureaucrats, they wield power, engage in corruption, disregard professional advice as they consider the rest of the professions inferior. India witnesses abysmal implementation of projects because bureaucrats do not let experts have their way. They lack professional skills.

However, since they lack civilizational awareness, it is naive on the part of Hindus to expect any sympathy from these bureaucrats. The line of affirmative action in light of the cultural lens they develop warrants reformation of Hindu India, in which the malice in the society is understood as per the atrocity literature, perpetuated by all political parties, including the incumbent.

Our constitution envisaged reservations on the prejudice that certain classes have committed historical atrocities. As the constitution of India intends to correct historical injustices, candidates who benefit from reservations have the propensity to seek revenge for the same. The anger is vested against Hindus eventually.

The incidence at Agartala is just one of many examples of Hindumisia(hatred for Hindus) shown by the bureaucracy. The officers handling the Kashi Vishwanath corridor have irresponsibly uprooted an ancient Pauraanika heritage. In Tamil Nadu, bureaucrats walk into temples with footwear. They do not connect with the ancient temples, even though they come from our society. They are just the inheritors of an oppressive, inhumane rule. Should we expect anything better?