Author: sachin nandha, trustee and director
The concept of the state has long been a subject of deep inquiry and analysis, from the works of classical political philosophers to modern-day commentators. A state, fundamentally, is composed of several critical pillars—the judiciary, military, bureaucracy, and often an elite class that holds significant influence. However, the essence of a state, as postulated by Max Weber, is its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its territory. It exists to protect its territorial integrity, enforce the rule of law, and create an environment conducive to the flourishing of its citizens. Ideally, taxation in such a state is a tool, not for enrichment, but to provide essential services and infrastructure that enable citizens to pursue their endeavours freely and effectively.
Yet, the Indian state, though it shares these fundamental characteristics, has evolved into something far more complex and, some might argue, intrusive. Rooted in a unique historical context, the Indian state has grown into an entity designed to socially engineer its population, specifically targeting entrenched inequalities within Hindu society. This objective, while noble in its intent, has manifested in a state apparatus that is, at times, paternalistic and prone to overreach.
The Origins of the Indian State
The Indian state did not emerge in a vacuum. Its modern incarnation is a direct descendant of both British colonial rule and the earlier Mughal administration. The British colonial state, as famously critiqued by Indian leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar, was primarily an extractive one, designed to siphon wealth from the Indian populace to serve the interests of the Empire. Nehru, in his seminal work The Discovery of India, lamented how “India was bled” by the colonial administration, which left behind a legacy of underdevelopment and exploitation.
This colonial state was built on the remnants of the Mughal administration, which itself was a hierarchical and often autocratic system, albeit with a more feudal character. The British adapted and expanded this system to create a highly centralized and bureaucratic state apparatus, one that was deeply suspicious of the populace and heavily reliant on coercion to maintain order.
When India gained independence in 1947, it inherited this centralized structure. However, the new leaders of India were determined to use the state not as a tool of extraction, but as an instrument of social transformation. This vision was encapsulated by B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, who envisioned the state as a mechanism to uplift the oppressed and eradicate the deeply entrenched caste system. Ambedkar famously stated, “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy,” highlighting the intertwined nature of social and political justice in the Indian context.
The Indian State: A Tool for Social Engineering
In pursuit of these transformative goals, the Indian state adopted a policy of affirmative action, or what is often referred to as “positive discrimination.” This was designed to uplift historically marginalized communities, particularly Dalits (formerly known as Untouchables) and other Scheduled Castes and Tribes. These policies were seen as necessary to rectify centuries of systemic oppression and to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their social background, could participate in the democratic process as equals.
However, these well-intentioned policies also led to the creation of a state that is far more interventionist than many of its counterparts. The Indian state’s role extends beyond the typical functions of maintaining law and order or providing public goods. It has actively sought to reshape the social fabric of the nation, to eradicate caste-based discrimination, and to promote a more egalitarian society. As Nehru himself declared in a speech in 1950, “The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means ending poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.”
But the approach taken by the state has also been marked by a certain paternalism, rooted in the belief that the state knows what is best for its citizens. This has led to a tendency to impose top-down solutions without always taking into account the diverse needs and desires of India’s vast population. The state’s social engineering efforts, while aimed at promoting equality, have at times been criticized for stifling individual initiative and perpetuating a culture of dependency.
Extractive Practices: A Contemporary Example
The extractive tendencies of the Indian state are not just relics of the past but can be observed in contemporary examples as well. A striking case of this was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, which revealed how certain state government practices can be more extractive than enabling. In March 2020, just before the nationwide lockdown was imposed, many state governments renewed liquor licenses for restaurants and bars, collecting hefty fees from business owners. This was a significant expense for small restaurant owners, who paid these fees with the expectation that they would be able to operate their businesses as usual.
However, within weeks, the government imposed a complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing all restaurants and bars to shut down indefinitely. The lockdown continued for months, with no refunds or concessions provided to the business owners who had just paid for their liquor licenses. Thousands of small restaurants were left high and dry, unable to operate yet burdened with the cost of licenses they could not use. This was not just a case of bad timing; it highlighted the extractive nature of the state’s approach, where revenue collection took precedence over fair treatment of citizens.
This situation exemplifies the systemic issues within the Indian state where the common citizen often finds themselves powerless against the machinery of government. The lack of recourse or accountability in such situations underscores the state’s tendency to act in its own financial interest, often at the expense of those it is meant to serve. Such practices erode trust in the state and reinforce the perception that the government is more concerned with revenue extraction than with the welfare of its citizens.
Corruption and the Co-Opting of State Officials
Compounding these issues is the pervasive problem of corruption, which has become almost synonymous with the functioning of the Indian state. Elected officials and bureaucrats alike are often co-opted into a system where kickbacks and bribes are an ingrained part of life. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2023 ranked India 85th out of 180 countries, highlighting the extent of the problem.
A significant factor contributing to this endemic corruption is the abysmal official pay for many top-ranking officials, which often fails to match the responsibilities and pressures of their positions. For example, the basic salary of an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer at the top level is approximately ₹2.5 lakhs per month (about $3,000). While this may seem adequate on the surface, it pales in comparison to the responsibilities these officials hold and the expectations placed upon them. As a result, many officials resort to corruption as a means to supplement their income, perpetuating a cycle of bribery and unethical practices.
A 2019 study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that “over 62% of Indian respondents reported paying a bribe for public services in the last year.” This widespread bribery is not just a symptom of poor governance but also a reflection of the inadequacies within the system itself. The low wages, combined with the pressures to maintain a certain standard of living and the influence of corrupt networks, create an environment where corruption is not just tolerated but often expected.
This culture of corruption undermines the very foundations of the state. Instead of serving the public good, officials are incentivized to serve their own interests or those of the highest bidder. This erodes public trust and compromises the effectiveness of the state’s institutions. Moreover, it creates a vicious cycle where citizens, knowing that corruption is pervasive, become complicit in the system, further entrenching the problem.
The Paradox of Democracy in India
One of the paradoxes of the Indian state is that it exists within a democratic framework, yet it often operates in ways that seem to bypass or even undermine the democratic process. Democracy, by design, is meant to place checks and balances on the state, ensuring that it remains accountable to the people it serves. However, in India, these checks and balances are sometimes compromised by the state’s deep-seated paternalism and its tendency to view itself as the ultimate arbiter of the public good.
This tension is perhaps most evident in the way the Indian state interacts with its bureaucracy and judiciary. The bureaucracy, a holdover from the British era, is often criticized for being slow, opaque, and resistant to change. Yet it is also the backbone of the Indian state, responsible for implementing the wide range of social programs and policies that the government enacts. The judiciary, while independent in theory, is often bogged down by delays and inefficiencies, which can undermine its ability to serve as an effective check on the state’s power.
Moreover, the elite 0.1% of the population, who hold significant economic and political influence, often shape state policies in ways that do not always reflect the broader public interest. This elite class, while not formally part of the state apparatus, plays a crucial role in shaping the direction of the Indian state through its influence on policy-making and its close ties with the bureaucracy and political leadership.
The Future of the Indian State
The Indian state, in its current form, is a complex and multifaceted entity. It is a state that seeks to uplift the marginalised while simultaneously grappling with the legacy of its colonial past. It is a state that aspires to promote democracy and equality, yet often resorts to paternalistic interventions that can undermine those very ideals.
As India continues to evolve, the challenge for the state will be to strike a balance between its transformative ambitions and its democratic obligations. The state must continue to address the deep-seated inequalities that persist in Indian society, but it must do so in a way that empowers citizens rather than dictating to them. Taxation, regulation, and social policies should be designed to create an enabling environment where all citizens can flourish, free from undue state interference.
The Indian state is both a product of its history and a reflection of its aspirations. It is an interventionist state, but one that must constantly navigate the fine line between necessary intervention and overreach. As Ambedkar wisely cautioned, “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.” The future of the Indian state will depend not only on the policies it adopts but also on the wisdom, integrity, and restraint of those who govern it.
