Administrative Politics in Two Indian Cities

Abstract

Tension between popular government and institutionalized bureaucracy has been a major source of political conflict in the West for the past two hundred years. In some countries, like Germany and Italy, it is not yet clear whether the issue has been adequately worked out.' As Fred Riggs suggests, where administrative traditions have preceded the development of autonomous groups, the latter have had considerable difficulty gaining control over the operations of the bureaucracy.2 India appears to be an exception to this tendency. It is presently engaged in a considerable democratization of its political process. Not only has power passed to indigenous elements, but influence is being diffused throughout the society.3 This is taking place, despite the fact that the Indian national bureaucracy is a direct-line descendent of centuries of precolonial autocracy and British imperial traditions.4 After more than thirty years of opposition to the British-dominated Indian Civil Service, the Congress party came to power in 1947. Indian leaders like Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru saw the necessity of maintaining the machinery left by the British in order to cope with the difficult national situation following partition, including the national integration of the princely states. Rather than being captured by the bureaucracy, however, a subtle interpenetration of the top bureaucrats and the leaders of the Indian government seem to have taken place.5 The problem has become one of reorienting the administrative services to