Castle of Public Administration in the brink of shackle-(un)committed bureaucracy: A critical view of Haryana

It was Republic Day today, the 26^th January, the day on which India was declared Republic. The Constitution was adopted by the Indian Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949 and came into effect on 26 January 1950 with a democratic government system, completing the country's transition towards becoming an independent republic. India was a colony of the British for over 200 years and after that, it became independent from the rule of the British Raj following the struggle of the Indian independence movement.

Westminster democracy is that system of government also known as responsible government and parliamentary government in which people do not directly elect their government but leave it to the elected legislature to install, supervise, and remove the government. In Separation of powers, three distinct activities in every government through which the will of the people are expressed is clearly defined. These are the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the government. Corresponding to these three activities are three organs of the government, namely the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The legislature makes laws, the executive enforces them and the judiciary applies them to the specific cases arising out of the breach of law. Thus, it has become a model for the governance of democratic States. 

​The power rests with political executives who are elected by the people for a specific period.. They remain in office only so long as they command the confidence of the majority members of Parliament.  They are answerable to people for all the consequences of their decisions. Whereas permanent executives are salaried civil servants who are appointed on a long-term basis. They remain in office even when the ruling party changes. Their tenure of office is fixed. They do not take decisions. Instead they assist political executives in carrying out day-to-day administration.

In fact,  in practice permanent executives run the government. They make the policies and execute that as the political executive is not the expert in the field of administration and making policies. The executive works through a well established system of bureaucracy. German sociologist Max Weber (1894-1920)propounded that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which human activities can be organized and that systematic process is organized in distinct hierarchies to maintain order to get maximized efficiency and eliminate favoritism. Four features of modern bureaucracy are:

• Hierarchy (clearly defined sphere of competence and division of labor
• Continuity (a structure where administrators have a full time salary within the structure
• Impersonality (prescribed rules and operating rules rather than arbitrary actions
• Expertise (official are chosen according to merit, have been trained and hold access to  knowledge

        India  adopted this system of governance of Britishers who run the administration for more than two centuries. Newly independent India adopted a version of bureaucracy i.e. committed bureaucracy which got more importance under Indira Gandhi. Committed means dedicated towards a particular cause or work. In democratic set-up, parliamentarians are elected by the citizens, they are responsible for making laws and policies while bureaucrats are responsible for implementation of the same laws and policies. The transformation of the society is possible only when programs and schemes launched by the government are effectively and timely implemented at the lowest/local level. The effective and timely implementation can be ensured by the committed bureaucracy. During the emergency, Indira government adopted the family planning to control population and some of the officials considered it a bad plan, since it would have achieved the ‘desired objectives’. Still they were expected to faithfully enforce the measures for compulsion. There might be difference in opinion between government and civil servants with regard to any policy adopted by the government. In such a situation, civil servants are expected to faithfully implement the policy chosen by the government. The bureaucracy is expected be committed to a policy even if it considers it to be faulty. The justification for expecting the bureaucracy to be committed to the policies of the government of the day is inherent in democracy. 

Committed vs neutrality of bureaucracy is a recent discussion point. On face, both seems in contrast but not. If commitment is taken to mean commitment to a particular political party or to its leaders, it becomes antithetical to neutrality. However, commitment to human and constitutional values and national objectives, to serve the people, to professional ethics and etiquette, is not antithetical to neutrality between classes, cultural groups, and political parties. Indeed, commitment and neutrality reinforce each other if they are of right type.

Incidents in the last decade in Haryana has been a witness and testimony of  falling basic tenants of bureaucracy or public administration and ethics of a government servant and; totally against the morality of a public servants who have conducted themselves in abysmally in a biased manner ridden with caste and area sentiments and sabotaged the dignity, prestige and time tested dedication to cause and state. Civil and police administration conducted in such a manner as if they are the recruits of a particular caste or Khap. They shamelessly advocating against the established norms and ethics of a government servant. The steepest fall has been witnessed in public administration in the last 10 years. Seems as if they are trained actors of a well articulated script of a Bollywood movie. Few major socio-political incidents in last decade points towards the degradation, partisan behavior and biased approach to resolve the contentious and volatile issues of social and public importance. 

The Mirchpur incident is the pointer in this regard. After the caste violence, around 150 Balmiki families fled the village. Though the social and administration efforts tried to resolve the dispute and end the bitterness between the two communities, certain developments like the arrests of the accused and adamant stand taken by some Balmiki families not to return to the village  ignited the issue and disturbed the fragile peace in the region.

The Jats want the trial to take place in Haryana, and the 98 accused arrested in the case, who were shifted to Delhi’s Tihar jail, be sent back to Haryana. They are also asking for a CBI inquiry into the Mirchpur violence incident that occurred last year. In an arson attack by the dominant upper caste Jat members on a row of houses of the Balmiki families, a 70-year-old man and his 18-year-old physically challenged daughter were killed in a fire in their home and at least 18 houses were destroyed in the attack.

Tension is build up in this caste sensitive district of  Hisar after thousands of Jat agitators began their indefinite protest at the Delhi-Ferozepore rail section near Jind railway station to protest the shifting of accused as well as the trial in the case of Mirchpur caste violence in Haryana on 15^th January, 2011. . It happened for the first time in the history of Haryana that a railway track was obstructed and blocked by the people. Huge police bandobast was made on the bases of intelligence input that protesters will lead to Jind via Patiala Chowk and try to block the railway tract. Police was cordoning that route and protesters walk through fields and captured the tracks on 15.1.2011.

‘               Jat Reservation Movement started in year 2011 and become a norm up to 2016 when a massive destruction witnessed by Haryana after partition in 1947. Huge loss of government and private properties was caused besides more than 50 precious lives lost during the arson and open loot on 21 February, 2016 in the districts of central-western Haryana chiefly Rohtak, Jhajjhar, Sonepat, Jind, Bhiwani and Hisar which are largely predominated by the Jats and had been centers of the agitation. A news report in a leading newspaper at that time  had claimed that vehicles with women were reportedly stopped on the National Highway-1 near Murthal. , and the women dragged out and raped in fields nearby. It said at least 10 women were raped. This gory Incident was investigated by a high level committee and buried under the carpet as if nothing had happened. Eyewitnesses accused that their houses gutted, properties looted, chilled day light murders committed, women were molested and police and para-military forces remained mute spectators and left the spots instead of saving the people. It was worse than what people witnessed in the 1947 Partition riots.

                Thousands of farmers from Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh have been camping at the several borders of the national capital since November 26, 2020 demanding that the three farm laws be repealed. 11 rounds of talks have remained inconclusive and center closed the channel of talks on 22^nd January saying nothing remained for talk as government is not prepared to repeal the three farm laws the major demand of protesting farmers  knowing well that farmers have announced a

Tractor March on Republic Day. As expected the March made violent to disgrace the farmers.

Farmers from the three side of Haryana barged into Delhi by breaking the barriers. This time too police and administration become a mute spectators and not even resisted for few hours. All the so called bandobast were made as if show the government that they are prepared to stop them. Most of the ministers were withdrawn from the district of central-western Haryana to hoist the National Flag on the eve of Republic Day and even Chief Minister himself chosen the destination for flag hoisting at Panchkula.

Prakash Singh Committee under the chairmanship of retired DGP of Uttar Pradesh was constituted to inquire the incident of Jat Reservation aftermath of the widespread loss of property and lives. The  committee found that in most of the affected places, the police and the district administration failed to enforce prohibitory orders and curfew and that the police and civil administration officials in Hisar district were divided on caste lines. Some of them even deserted their duty and helped the rioters. Police has become politicized and conduct itself as politicians engaged in negotiations.

Mob  is emboldened when it senses fear in the police. At some protest sites in Haryana, the cops did not act even after inflammatory speeches were made which sent out a message that they were mere spectators.

Incidents happening in Haryana since 2011 clearly indicate that civil and police administration at least at lower level has turned cattiest and divided badly on the caste lines. Their behavior and conduct during such agitations is not of a civil servant but as if a member of that particular caste. They have lost the sense of belongingness and their role enunciated in a committed and neutral bureaucracy. They are completely a detached lot and state has to suffer for it and in turn general public has lost the faith and belief in the present day bureaucracy of Haryana state which it was  enjoyed a few decades back.

The principle of neutrality implies a measure of independence both from the partisan interests of the government of the day and the exogenous agenda that prompts certain social groups to cow down others  to humiliate the vulnerable sections of the society. Bureaucracy should be neutral in terms of ideology and politics. So that there will not be an affinity to a particular class or ideology. In today’s societies, there is a number of classes and this finally leads to the conflict among classes. The officials should remain neutral in this conflict. Otherwise, they will be found to protect the interests of the class/classes to which they belong.

 Public officials have two interrelated moral functions: First, the bureaucracy has to protect the very state of which it is a part, from being disrupted or being undermined by the disquieting elements of the civil society. Second, the bureaucracy has to prevent the disruptive efforts of a society that is ridden with caste and patriarchal consciousness. Bureaucracy has to intervene in public life to see to it that society does not degenerate into aggressive obscurantism. The formative conditions to perform these twin tasks involve public officials’ moral capacity to resist anti-constitutional interests that the government of the day may try to push. Thus, the neutrality principle has a moral function to prevent public officials from becoming slaves to their own skewed mindset, biased approach and treacherous behavior to the august position which bestowed upon them by state. They are the lighthouse of the society which look upon them to bring them out from the every difficult situation.

 

 

Hansi at the Crossroads: Caste, Power and the Political Economy of Social Conflict in Haryana

-Ramphal Kataria

From Jajmani to Jat Agitation: Social Fragmentation in a Haryana-a case study of Hansi

Abstract

This paper examines the socio-economic and political contradictions shaping the social order of Hansi, a historic sub-division in Hisar district of Haryana, up to May 2012. Drawing upon historical trajectories from medieval rule to colonial administration and post-Independence transformations, it analyses how caste hierarchies, agrarian change, political mediation, and extra-constitutional institutions interact to produce persistent social conflict. The paper situates episodes of caste violence, governance failure, and moral erosion—most notably during the Jat reservation agitation—within a broader political economy of rural Haryana. It argues that the coexistence of constitutional modernity with feudal social relations generates a dualistic social logic, marked by opportunism, selective morality, and chronic instability.

Introduction

The social milieu of Hansi in Haryana is constituted by overlapping socio-economic transitions, political contestations, and deeply embedded social taboos. These forces do not operate in isolation; rather, they intersect to generate a structure of contradictions that shape everyday social relations, governance practices, and collective mobilisations.These contradictions had become starkly visible in the form of caste violence, criminalised political agitations, erosion of institutional authority, and a steady decline in normative moral frameworks.

This paper offers a sociological and historical examination of these contradictions, drawing upon administrative experience, local histories, and observed social processes. It locates contemporary conflicts within longer processes of state formation, agrarian restructuring, and political mediation, arguing that Hansi represents a microcosm of the tensions characterising much of rural Haryana during this period. Rather than treating episodes of unrest as aberrations, the paper reads them as outcomes of structurally produced inequalities and unresolved social transformations.

Historical Layers and the Making of Hansi

Hansi’s historical evolution reflects its strategic and political significance in north India. Competing historical accounts attribute its founding variously to Asha Ram Jat, King Anangpal Tomar, or the lineage of Prithviraj Chauhan, whose fort remains a prominent landmark. The Dargah Char Qutub—associated with four Sufi saints between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries—attests to prolonged Muslim rule and cultural influence. The construction of Barsi Gate by Alauddin Khilji further situates Hansi within medieval networks of power.

Colonial intervention added another layer. Following its annexation by the East India Company in 1802, Hansi briefly functioned as a district headquarters. Colonel James Skinner, granted the jagir of Hansi after the Bharatpur campaign, left enduring material and administrative imprints, including Sheikhpura Kothi and extensive landholdings recorded in revenue documents.The property registered in his name still exists and is popularly known as ‘Mem Ka Baag’ on NH-10, and it has been inherited by his descendants. Post-Partition displacement in 1947, when many original inhabitants migrated to Pakistan, fractured existing social arrangements and facilitated the reconstitution of hierarchies under altered demographic conditions.

Agrarian Change and the Crisis of Village Society

Hansi sub-division comprised two tehsils, one sub-tehsil, three development blocks, two municipalities, and ninety-three villages. Despite improvements in physical infrastructure, electrification, road connectivity, and access to markets, village society remained deeply structured by caste and land ownership. Jats, as dominant landholders, exercised economic, social, and political control, while non-farming castes experienced declining livelihoods following the collapse of the jajmani system.

The disintegration of the jajmani system dismantled economic interdependence without eroding caste hierarchies. Mechanisation, state-supported procurement systems, and changing cropping patterns reduced demand for traditional caste-based services, rendering many non-farming communities economically redundant while socially subordinate. Migration to towns and casual labour provided partial relief but did not compensate for the loss of stable livelihoods. This structural contradiction produced new forms of exclusion, including social boycotts, denial of access to agricultural land, and restrictions on participation in village life, thereby intensifying caste antagonisms.

Caste Conflict and Social Fragmentation

Village society continues to invoke the idiom of “36 biradari,” but this rhetorical unity conceals deep fractures. Caste contradictions have fragmented social relations, often erupting into violence. The Mirchpur incident of 2010 exemplified how entrenched hierarchies, combined with administrative inertia, could culminate in collective brutality.

The Jat reservation movement further polarised village society. While framed as a demand for affirmative action, the agitation exacerbated mistrust between Jats and non-Jats, reinforcing perceptions of exclusion and dominance. Outwardly cohesive villages thus remained internally fractured, creating a volatile social environment prone to sudden escalation.

Panchayati Raj and the Limits of Constitutional Reform

The introduction of Panchayati Raj institutions under the 73rd Constitutional Amendment sought to democratise rural governance through reservations for women and Scheduled Castes. In practice, these reforms collided with entrenched social power. Women sarpanches frequently functioned as proxies for male relatives, while Scheduled Caste-led panchayats operated under the patronage of dominant castes.

Factionalism aligned with political parties further paralysed local governance. Rival groups within villages routinely obstructed development schemes, diverting administrative attention from implementation to conflict resolution. Municipal politics mirrored these dynamics, revealing the limited penetration of constitutional norms into everyday political practice.

State, Administration, and Popular Mobilisation

Despite Haryana’s relatively robust provision of public services, relations between citizens and the administration remained adversarial. Formal mechanisms such as petitions, representations, and consultations were routinely bypassed in favour of road blockades, gheraos, and collective coercion. Such practices reflected both a historical culture of resistance and the instrumental use of disruption as an effective bargaining strategy in dealings with the state.

A critical social factor was underemployment among rural men. Seasonal agriculture and declining labour requirements produced idle male populations susceptible to mobilisation by caste groups, political intermediaries, and informal pressure networks. Public spaces such as roads, markets, and government offices increasingly became arenas of assertion rather than deliberation. Post-harvest periods witnessed surges in administrative confrontations, placing chronic strain on state institutions and normalising crisis governance as a routine administrative condition.

Family, Gender, and Property Relations

Legal reforms granting women inheritance rights failed to translate into substantive control over property. Women were routinely compelled to relinquish land shares to male kin. Rising land values, influenced by regional real estate dynamics, intensified family conflicts and produced new coercive practices. Unmarried women were increasingly forced to transfer property shares prior to marriage, pre-empting future claims.

Simultaneously, the growing use of wills to disinherit daughters hollowed out statutory gender equality. These practices reinforced patriarchal control while formally adhering to legal frameworks, revealing the limits of rights-based reform in the absence of social transformation.

Moral Economy and Instrumental Ethics

Economic incentives increasingly displaced moral restraint. The routine submission of false affidavits to access welfare benefits such as BPL cards, old-age pensions, and housing plots became socially normalised. These practices were rarely perceived as wrongdoing; rather, they were justified as necessary strategies to secure a share of state resources.

The selection of Anganwadi workers exposed the depth of ethical erosion. Remarried women falsely claimed widowhood to secure employment, often with the active support of family members and community networks. During official inquiries, some women denied existing marriages altogether, attributing children to illicit relations. This coexistence of hyper-moralism—enforced through khap diktats—and instrumental immorality reflects a fractured moral economy in which norms were selectively invoked to police sexuality and marriage, particularly of women, while economic opportunism faced little social sanction.

Politics, Intermediaries, and Criminalisation

Grassroots politics in Hansi was mediated by informal power brokers who acted as conduits between politicians, criminals, and the administration. These intermediaries effectively established a parallel governance structure, undermining formal authority. Large villages, often exceeding 10,000 inhabitants, functioned as reservoirs of criminal networks.

Political agitations frequently provided opportunities for criminal elements to assert control under the guise of popular movements. This convergence of crime and politics had become an entrenched feature of the region’s public life.

Law, Order, and the Jat Reservation Agitation

The Jat reservation agitation marked the culmination of these contradictions. In early 2012, prolonged railway blockades severed Hisar district from the rest of Haryana, paralysing economic and social life. Criminal elements dominated the agitation, resisting negotiations and engaging in armed confrontation with security forces.

The use of death as political spectacle, administrative paralysis, and the emergence of zones effectively beyond state control underscored the fragility of law and order. These events revealed how social movements, in the absence of accountable leadership, could devolve into coercive and destructive episodes.

Khap Panchayats and Extra-Constitutional Authority

Khap panchayats continued to exercise significant influence, particularly on issues of marriage and honour. Their opposition to inter-caste and same-gotra marriages translated into honour killings, disproportionately targeting women. Political parties, wary of electoral repercussions, often avoided confronting khap authority, lending tacit legitimacy to extra-constitutional practices.

Khap-led mobilisations followed a recurring pattern: initiation without accountability and withdrawal without resolution. Leaders issued diktats resembling moral edicts, disregarding constitutional legality and individual rights.

Conclusion: Dualism as Social Logic

Hansi exemplified a social order governed by dualism. Constitutional rights coexisted with feudal practices, democratic institutions with extra-legal authority, and economic rationality with moral absolutism. Social taboos were selectively suspended for material gain and rigidly enforced to preserve hierarchy. Opportunism, rather than ideology or ethics, emerged as the dominant guiding principle shaping individual and collective action.

These contradictions did not merely disrupt governance; they actively produced a volatile social order in which conflict became routine and reform remained superficial. The persistence of caste domination, patriarchal control over property, criminalised political mediation, and the endurance of khap authority point to the limits of formal institutional change in the absence of deeper social transformation. Understanding Hansi, therefore, requires a structural analysis of how history, caste, economy, and politics intersect to manufacture instability in contemporary rural Haryana—a pattern with implications extending well beyond this single sub-division.