Sunday, 30 October 2016

How Does a Country Produce Leaders of Caliber?




Is there a way in which a country can produce leaders of caliber, who act with sincerity, honesty and patriotism, consistently over a long period? Leaders who would give their lives to shape their country, to set up viable and strong institutions that will guarantee the survival and supremacy of their country, be examples of grit and honesty to their fellow-human beings and an inspiration to the younger generation, inspiring them to greater heights after they are gone?

When countries are mired in corruption and moral abasement, like most of the developing countries today, especially that of India, one wonders why capable leaders, who are not motivated by self-interest, but by the larger interests of their country and society, are so few and far between in India today. Or were they there at any time at all? One ponders.

This becomes a deepening quest, as one goes through the history of the Civil Service under the East India Company, where leaders of the Company fought corruption tooth and nail and restored dignity to the Service within 30-40 short years (as pointed in my previous 2 or 3 blogs). What motivated them in such a difficult task and what was in their world-view that gave them the strength and courage to engage in it and come out victorious?

In India, we have every Act and Rule enacted by the Parliament by our democratic government, but in implementation not much is seen on the field. Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are still flourishing despite deadly Anti-corruption laws; despite the noise made over gang rape of a young paramedical girl in a moving bus in the capitol of the country in 2012 and stringent rules enacted in its aftermath, still we witness rape reported almost every day in many cities of India.

Why are we not able to curb these evils? What is the point of enacting rules and regulations, if we are not able to implement them? Or is it the question of half-hearted attempts to curb evil? Is it that the hearts and souls of the leaders, elected or otherwise, are not in the successful implementation of these regulations? Is it a case of absence of political will? Perhaps just an eyewash to say to the world that we have all our rules in place and we are a great country?

We need to probe into the socio-religious and philosophical groundings of a country, known as the ‘worldview,’ to find answers to some of these questions. What was the world view of the English when they ruled over India, when they successfully brought about the transformation of a corrupt Civil Service into an incorruptible Service? That might throw some light on how they succeeded in that formidable task and why we are still struggling with it. To this we will turn now.

Society in England by the 18th century had undergone various socio-religious influences, which not only energized her to carry her flag in countries previously unknown, but also brought in a moral transformation of their own society. 

A democratized monarchy, with the powers of the king moderated by Parliament, was achieved in England by the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215; feudalism was broken down by the 15th century War of Roses.

Reformation started by Martin Luther in 1517, had already prepared an opening of mind and a scientific enquiry among the people, for he questioned the very Pope and the traditions of the Catholic church.

King James version of the Bible translation was brought out in 1611 and deeply influenced the lives of the people and literacy. Puritanism arose, wherein these Christians, sought to purify the church and society of the corrupt practices.[1]

A bloodless coup, Glorious Revolution in 1689 brought in a Protestant Monarch, while the Parliament itself was fully empowered to make laws. The epic poem Paradise Lost by John Milton, a Puritan was written by 1667; Another epic The Pilgrim’s Progress was written by John Bunyan in 1678. “Religion was in the air!’[2]

Under these influences family prayers, Bible reading, and personal piety became house-hold practices in England in the 17th century. Even cock-fighting and other merriment were prohibited on Sundays. Severe morality was enforced by Cromwell’s government to reform national morals and manners. Puritans left their legacy of discipline, individual responsibility, hard work, and asceticism on the population. Their worldview taught people to be honest in business.

Newton discovered the Laws of Motion by 1687. Side by side rational philosophy of Hobbes, Spinoza arose, emphasizing the power of reason to discover the laws of nature.

The teachings of the Bible that all men and women were created equal developed into its secular form demanding equal rights and freedom for all, breaking the traditional English social hierarchy. Locke, the father of liberal democracy brought in the principle of majority vote for validation of laws by 1679.

By the next century the influence of religion was on the decline but not altogether gone. England’s political institutions, distribution of wealth and power were all still in-egalitarian, hierarchical and privileged. Patronage system kept the power within the privileged aristocratic class. The state of “Old Corruption’ was fully on display.[3] But England was on the throes of change.

French Enlightenment of 1789 rocked Europe and brought in a century of Rationalism. It overthrew feudalism in France by force. Human reason was elevated to god-hood and received all importance. Christianity with its miracles came under scrutiny.

England was saved from this anarchy by John Wesley’s religious revival, especially among the lower classes and it transformed the life of the nation. It led to establishment of Methodist church by 1784 and Evangelical revival. Wesley concentrated his efforts, in addition to religious teaching and salvation of people through faith in Christ, to uplift the poor, educate the children of the poor through Sunday Schools, prison reforms, and abolition of slavery.

Wesley’s work coincided with Industrial Revolution and awoke the consciousness of the rich regarding their obligation to the less fortunate poor of their country. Poverty was a problem and the Church cared for the poor, the sick and the suffering. Church established schools, hospitals and poor houses though subscriptions and voluntary efforts. Protestantism, Puritanism and Evangelicalism provided the bulwark for many reforms in society. 

By the 19th century, “Age of Reform’ started in England. The Reform Act of 1832 helped eradication of political bribery. Factory Act of 1833 regulated hours of work and prohibited employment of children in factories. Public Health Act, 1848 introduced health reforms and sanitation. Slave trade was abolished in 1807.

The ruling leaders of England realized that the time had come to educate their new masters, the voters! Gladstone, the Prime Minister, brought in Education Act of 1870 bringing school education to every English child. Civil service was thrown open to competitive examination in 1870, thus abolition of patronage.

Next Prime Minister Disraeli passed the Public Health Act, 1875, laying rules for sanitation, sewage disposal, water supply and scavenging. Technological innovations galore.

Society itself was under Enlightenment, but Evangelicals emerged as a continuation of the Wesleyan Methodism and influenced the leaders. They worked tirelessly for the betterment of society. 19th century was called the Evangelical century. This revival created a moral sentiment in England and changed her attitude to her own degraded masses at home and elsewhere.[4]  Many of its leaders arose from the Clapham sect, a strong Evangelical forum, called as the ‘Saints in Parliament.’

These reforms and social service were extended to the colonies of the British, especially India. Cornwallis accepted his Governorship in India so that he can be of some service to his country. He was of ‘sterling integrity and a more abiding sense of Public Duty,’ it is said.[5] Charles Grant who became the Chairman of Court of Directors of East India Company and an MP belonged to Clapham sect. Many of the ICS officers like Metcalfe, Henry Lawrence, Henry Ramsey, Shore were devoted Christians.

Time and space are both running out.

We will have to postpone analyzing how Christ and His teachings influenced these great leaders to the next blog.



[1] Hall,et al, “A History of England and the British Empire,” Boston: USA, 1937
[2] G.M.Trevelyan, “Illustrated English Society, Vol. 2, London: Pelican Books, 1964, p. 181
[3] Philip Harling, “The waning of Old Corruption: The politics of economic reform in Britain, 1779-1846,” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, p. 1
[4] Howse, “Saints in Politics: The Clapham Sect and the growth of freedom,” London: George Allen and Unwin, 1953, p. 7
[5] Kaye, “Lives of Indian Officers,” London: J.J,Kelihar n co, 1904, p.42

Sunday, 23 October 2016

So How was the Transformation Brought About?



Continuing the blog of last week, the interesting question that arises is how did the British political and bureaucratic bosses bring about the much-needed reforms in their bureaucracy in India, transforming it in the process, from a corrupt Service to that of an incorruptible Service?  

The situation in India after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and the Battle of Buxer in 1764, was very bleak for the East India Company. Though its staff were rich and returned to England as ‘nabobs,’ the Company itself was sinking into bankruptcy.

Clive was sent back to India, this time to bridle the corruption in the Company that he had set rolling. He returned in 1765 as the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Bengal. With equal vigor, Clive applied himself to the task of disciplining the Company servants and to clean up the corrupt practices. He became the ‘poacher (who had) turned the game keeper!’[1]

First thing Clive did was to make the acceptance of presents from the local people a crime punishable by law. Giving of presents to the persons of power and authority, says O’Malley, was an immemorial custom and an ‘immemorial curse’ in India.[2] All presents above the values of Rs.4000 were to be paid into the Company treasury and the staff were not to accept any present above the value of Rs.1000, that too only with the sanction of the Company Counsel.

Second, he banned private trade by the Company servants and under the threat of dismissal got the staff to sign agreements promising good conduct. Salaries were still miserably low, 65 Pounds a year. Free European merchants were deported. Company servants from interior trading stations were called back.

The staff realized Clive meant business and that if they did not fall in line they might be sent back to England. They relented. To increase their income, which the Directors of the Company throttled, Clive regulated monopolized trade of salt, betel and tobacco and shared the profit gained with the Company servants.

Never the less, clandestine private trade and acceptance of presents on the sly continued, but irregularities were reduced considerably. Many officials were compelled to retire early. Clive retired in 1767, and was himself charged and tried for corrupt practices in 1772.

Though indicted by the Committee which went into these charges, Clive was let off in recognition of the meritorious services rendered to the Company and the Country, by way of sowing the seeds for the future British Empire in India. For all that finally Clive committed suicide at the age of 49 and was even refused a marker on his burial place.[3]

It was Warren Hastings the next Governor of Bengal in 1772, who sincerely brought in improvements in the service, and had a reputation of clean hands. By this time a famine was raging in Bengal and a once rich province had been reduced to a poor one.

To supervise revenue collection, English officers called Supervisors were appointed at the district level by 1769, later called ‘Collectors,’ who stood between the ryots (farmers) and their oppressors.[4] They were called to display the ‘national principles of honor, faith, rectitude and humanity,’ characteristics of a noble English man.

Warren Hastings made a temporary settlement of land revenue for five years; He established a network of civil courts throughout his jurisdiction and an appellate court in Calcutta. In 1773, he abolished the free passes for the goods of the Company servants.

Duties of all goods were reduced to a uniform 2 ½ percent for all traders, Europeans and Indian alike, ending the unfair competition enjoyed by the Company servants, thus freeing the trade from abuses.

He insisted officers to set apart a fixed time to hear complaints from the people and installed complaint box in the office of the Collector. He made it compulsory for the officers to read these aloud every day in the offices as their first duty.

When Hastings left the office in 1785, a distinct improvement had happened in the morale of the service, though corruption had not been eradicated completely. The era of ‘nabobs’ was finally over.

Even against Hastings impeachment proceedings were initiated by the English Parliament about a few high-handed decisions taken during his governorship. That did show the caliber of the politicians of that country, to call a spade a spade.

The credit of creating a civil service in the modern sense would go to Cornwallis during his tenure as Governor-General in 1787. He had massive integrity and came armed with power to improve matters in India. For the first time an Englishman of high rank and high character appeared in Bengal, enthused to improve matters.[5]

He prohibited gambling, dueling, partying, nautch girl dances and such immoral behaviors of the Company servants. He increased the salaries (Rs.1500 per month to Collectors!) and abolished strictly private trade and acceptance of presents. He separated civil and commercial posts and integrity was insisted upon.

Reforms by Wellesley who became the Governor-General in 1798 rounded off the efforts of Clive and Cornwallis and India started to attract qualified people from the better classes of British society. Abbas Dubois in 1822 from Pondicherry and Macaulay in 1833 praise the honesty and integrity of these officers of the Company.

Within 50-65 years, the leaders of the Company had managed to transform a once corrupt service into non-corrupt service.

The question remains, how come the Governor/Governor Generals of the Company implemented and enforced these reforms which transformed the Company officials? What was their motivation and how did England produce such leaders with integrity, and grit to enforce such moral reforms and achieve favorable results?
To this we will turn in the next blog.



[1] Spear, Percival, “The Nabobs: A Study of the Social Life of the English n Eighteenth Century India,” Calcutta: Rupa and Co, 1991, pp. 30-31
[2] O’Malley, “The Indian Civil Service: 1601-1930,” London: John Murray, 1931, p.13
[3] Malleson, “Rulers of India: Lord Clive,” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898, p.210
[4] Thus began the long tradition of the officers called Collectors, which exists even today in Indian districts.
[5] Kaye, “Lives of Indian Officers,” Vol.1, London: J.J. Keliher & Co., 1904, p.59. 

Monday, 17 October 2016

The miracle of transforming a corrupt Civil Service into an Incorruptible Service


Is this possible at all? Transforming a corrupt government service into a non-corrupt service! Has it ever happened anywhere in the history of human kind and if so, where and how was it accomplished?

These are the questions that will crop up in our minds when faced with such a stupendous task of transforming a civil service of a country. Yet this was achieved, not very far off, but in our own country, in the beginnings of the British Raj. Let’s delve into that phenomenal phenomenon, but first a look at the corruption in the Company.  

As long as the Mughal power was strong in the country, the foreign companies, including the East India Company of England, behaved themselves. When the British Company found itself in debt in 1682, it fraudulently borrowed heavy sums, on this occasion, 300,000 Pounds, from local merchants in Surat and after picking up quarrels, disappeared to Bombay.[1]

On another occasion the Company seized 13 rich ships from the Surat merchants and swindled them. Major portions of these ill-gotten wealth were sent to the Directors in England. Aurangzeb, the then Mughal Emperor in Delhi, attacked Bombay in 1688 on behalf of his citizens in Surat.

Though the Company servants counter-attacked the Emperor, they were defeated and had to tender unconditional apology to the Emperor before their trade permit could be restored. They settled down to trade alone thereafter.

However, after the Battle of Plassey in 1757, less than hundred years, the situation had turned in favour of the British. This battle itself was won by treachery, bribes and political conspiracy. Huge sums exchanged hands. Clive left India in 1760 in a blaze of personal glory and a vast personal wealth amassed during these turbulent times.

Clive, a servant of the Company, illegally accepted an appointment under the Mughal Emperor as the Commissioner of 6000 horses and received a salary of 30,000 Pounds a year. To collect this salary, he was permitted to collect the quit-rent of the Twenty- Four Purganas a revenue territory, a jagir, (presently a district in West Bengal), given to the Company. With the money thus amassed, he entered the House of Commons, England on his return.[2]

Company officials went into a frenzy of extortion and illegal trade practices to amass wealth for themselves after the example of Clive. They demanded and accepted presents from the local rulers and population. Company servants engaged in private trade as they received unlimited credit. They paid no internal customs duties to the local officials of the Nawab of Bengal.

Indian merchants were handicapped as they had to pay duties or protection money to the English, if they wanted to trade without paying customs duties. Indian boats ferrying in the river were overpowered by the Company servants.

The country traders had to sell all their products to the Company traders’ agents at a rate less than the market price. Authority of the Nawab had collapsed and there was a scramble for making fortunes. It was a wholesale and rampant smuggling, which the revenue officials of the local Nawab were powerless to prevent. Trade itself was carried by violence and oppression.[3]

The officials of the Company returned to England with this filthy lucre and bought up estates and property and parliament seats there. They were called “nabobs,”[4] after the ‘Nawabs’ in India whom they imitated in their life style and behaviors.

This is the beginning of the famous ICS, the Indian Civil Service of the British Raj, which ruled the country for almost 200 years! Phenomenal! Unbelievable! But how did they bridle this corruption? How did they bring this unruly behavior down and transformed the corrupt service to an ‘Incorruptible Service?’

That is the subject of the next blog!



[1] Cadell, “The History and Management of the East India Company from its origin in 1600 to the present times,” 1779, vol.1, London, pp 15-16.
[2] Thompson, “History of British Rule in India,” vol. 1, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 1999, p.27.
[3] All these and more are described in “The Indian Civil Service: 1601-1930,” by L.S.S. O’Malley, London: John Murray, 1931, pp. 9-12.
[4] Percival Spear, “The Nabobs: A Study of the Social Life of the English in Eighteenth Century India,” Calcutta, Rupa and Co., 1991, p. 32.

Monday, 10 October 2016

Trade to Administration, and Administration to an Empire


It is amazing to trace the development of British rule in India. The East India Company came to India just to trade, and trade alone. This was in the 1600s! Volumes have been written, records documented and kept safe for posterity, tracing the Company’s origins, in every Presidential city occupied 
by the British.[1]

The East India Company was formed in 1600 and the first factory of the English came up at Surat, on getting the ‘firman’ or order from the Mogul King Jahangir himself in 1612.

At that time the main trade was in purchase of calicoes, chintz, and muslin made by the local weavers near Masulipatam, where the English had a permit to trade from the local ruler, Kuth Shah Abdullah, since 1611.

It was Francis Day, who obtained in 1639, from the local ruler, one Venkatapati Naik, a grant of territory and privileges and licence to build a fort and form a settlement in a town called ‘Madraspatam,’ three miles north of San Thome, built earlier by the Portuguese some 200 years back. This became the Fort city Madras.

Detailed records of the letters written by the local Agents of the Company are all available in today’s Archives at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Similar records are available in all the three Presidencies of the English and their other settlements.

In 1668, the Company acquired Bombay, which was leased out to them by Charles II, the king, who received it as dowry after marrying Catherine Braganza. In 1688 they acquired Calcutta. Such were its beginnings.

Whenever and wherever the Company acquired territorial rights, in these trading centers, they established Law courts for the trial of civil and criminal cases and Corporations. The Chief Agents were given the power of Zemindars, to levy and collect rents and keep the villages given to them in order. Taxes on articles, customs dues, market dues and rents were all collected by them in their jurisdictions. Traders were transformed into administrators.

Still they were basically traders. Come 1757, all these will change. Robert Clive taught the Calcutta Agents how to defeat the Indian rulers! By bribes and playing one ruler against the other and gaining ascendancy over both! Defeat the Indian rulers, they did, at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Seeds of an Empire had been sown.

To facilitate administration of the ever increasing territorial gains, the British constituted the Indian Civil Service, with supervisors called Collectors at the top. It was quite a corrupt administration that the Company ran in those days. Governors like Warren Hastings and Cornwallis in 1772 remodeled and reorganized the revenue administration and judicial system and brought the civil service to a honorable shape.

After the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the rule of the Company was superseded and the Crown of England directly oversaw the rule of India, through Viceroys, the direct representative of English Crown. The British Raj or the Empire stood rooted firm and strong.

What made these transitions, from a small Company dealing with muslin clothes in India, to administering justice and collection revenue, to rulers of the country? In what way the British stood apart from Indians, whom they gradually overcame and ruled, with so much ease?

Though these questions cannot be dealt with in a blog,[2] I will try and point out a few outstanding advantages the British had over the Indians of that time.

The British had come out of the Dark Ages or the Medieval Ages, due to Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment and were full of enthusiasm and the society was a reformed one. India was still in the Middle ages, with feudal lords lording over the peasants.

This reformed character of the society made the English see corruption as corruption and made their leaders to reform their civil administration in the colonies. In India, corruption is known as the way of life, an inconvenience to put up with and live on.

India witnessed no great transformation, for her religion was the same since time immemorial, infusing fatalism and submission as the prime virtues.

Christianity shaped the values of the rulers and the public in England.  Self-control, discipline, honesty, integrity, were all emphasized. Puritanism and Wesley’s Methodism shaped the 18th and 19th century Britain, infusing morals even in parliamentarians and leaders and rulers in England and elsewhere where they ruled.  

Public schools in England set themselves to shape the character of their students and most of them who became the ruling elite, carried these values and training in their hearts. Ethical teachings were rare in India, the only ethics taught being hierarchy of the caste system and the Dharma of every Hindu to uphold that system at any cost.

Christ, His life and His teachings were the foundations on which the ruling class of Britain arose and stood. So they ruled the world, something incredible for a small island country to have achieved. Not only they ruled, but they brought development and the Western mind of scientific inquiry and modernity to their colonies.

Though they had no excuse under Christ to exploit another country and fleece them, still they brought enormous strides of development wherever they went.

The abiding force was and is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, without whom no morality or greatness can be achieved.

What India lacked was precisely that. No real transformation in an individual or a country could be achieved without the Spirit of Christ working in the innermost parts of a human being and society.

We need that Spirit in India. We need to pray for it to happen.   










[1] Like the “Vestiges of Old Madras: 1640-1800,” by Henry Davison Love, Asian Educational Services, Madras, 1996
[2] For details please see my book “Values and Influence of Religion in Administration,” Sage Publications, 2011.

Monday, 3 October 2016

Interesting Insight into the mindset of an Indian and the nation!


It is amazing what wealth of information one can dig out from the old mines of books written in the bygone era. It throws some fascinating facts about a culture or people, which one takes just for granted.

The study of the bureaucratic government run by Indian Civil Service (ICS) during the British Raj, the predecessor of the present Indian Administrative Service (IAS), throws such interesting insights that today for an Indian living or governing in India, it would occur as if it is a myth created by a ‘foreign hand!’

One has always wondered how and why the District Collector (Collector Sahib) in Indian administration has become such an important personnel. See it from the perspective of the writers of yesteryear, it will become clear why.

Bernard Houghton, an ICS officer writes in 1913[1] that the Collector was the keystone of administration and exercised unchecked power. They ruled like kings and could have been arrogant. For there was no possible appeal against his orders. Without roads and the impossibility of reaching the next higher officer, the people learnt to live with the devil at hand.

It makes sense for the people to keep the man on the field happy by obeying him, especially as he represented the Government for the poor village man. Only when railway tracts were laid in and telegraphic poles were set, around 1853 and 1870 respectively, communication between distant places became possible in India. 

Higher officers also supported the man on the spot and went with the recommendations of the Collector, for inspection tours were at the most painful and time-consuming. As long as the Collector kept the peace, administered justice and collected the revenues, he was left free to govern!

In the late 70s and 80s, when we were collectors in the districts, such respect and freedom were still evident. However, the situation today in the field has undergone drastic changes. Collectors have become, with exceptions, the tools of powerful politicians in the district headquarters or the State capitals. 

The young recruits to ICS had a problem. The deference and adulation of even the educated Indians, ‘the cringing obsequiousness of the baser sort,’ made him think he was really a great man! People around him worshiped him and this could get into anyone’s head. Even today our people walk behind a man of power or money or authority, hoping for crumbs to fall from his table.

Bernard noted that Indian religion had inculcated obedience to a divine authority, which got transcribed to the earthly rulers. The prevalent religions in India, Bernard says, had created a habit of mind of docility towards mundane superiors, which was of course fostered and enjoyed by the British rulers. It was ‘an attitude of passive obedience.’ It inculcates submission and resignation among the populace.

Even today an Indian will show prompt obedience to a man of authority, even if that despot was to be in the wrong. There is not much of a spirit to fight against the evils in the system.

Bernard further goes on to say, the Hindu religion, through caste, has played havoc in that no personal dignity or self-respect was shown to the underdogs, the ‘untouchables.’ They were allowed no human dignity, but were born to servitude and to subjugation. “It really cuts away manhood from the nation.”

True, isn’t it? Doesn’t it reflect the reality even today? When research scholars like Rohit Vemula committed suicide, (in January 2016), not able to bear the discrimination in the education institutions, has things changed very much even after some 100 years and after independence? Not really.

The other observation that Bernard makes is that the family system of India emasculates and perverts the self-respect of both the sexes. I have covered this in many of my earlier blogs.

An individual’s rights or desires or aims or goals or ambitions for his or her life are not given importance to, but almost always sacrificed at the altar of parental desires or the community’s wishes. With the result no individual is able to progress beyond a limit. To defy the parents and the caste regulations, it takes a lot of guts and mostly it is not forthcoming.

Though through mass media, Western concepts of importance of individuality for progress is filtering in, the majority in India still wallow under parental and caste restrictions. Many a lives are wasted as a result.

This docility is also a reason, the author points out, why foreign despots and the British themselves found in India a congenial soil to grow. He says, nations advance and a people become great, not by being docile and submissive, but by the free play of aspiration and thought and the liberty to progress in a self-respecting independence of spirit.

It is a sin against humanity to keep a people under ignorance and obedience to authority and such a culture can hardly produce great men and women or become a great nation. That was the situation in which Gandhi found India, when he entered politics in 1917 and much of it has not really changed even today in the country.

The day when such fundamental changes comes to India, will be the day of her liberation, not just politically, but also culturally and spiritually.



[1] Bernard Houghton, “Bureaucratic Government: A Study in Indian polity,” London: P.S. King and Sons, 1913.