In a world where the line between right and wrong seems to blur with every new blockbuster and tweet, the life of a bureaucrat has taken on a paradoxical dimension. I have spent decades observing my husband, a dedicated civil servant, navigate a labyrinth of rules, endless paperwork and a relentless scrutiny that can chill even the most determined soul. Yet, beneath the veneer of regulatory rigidity lies an undercurrent of insecurity, a need for validation and a quiet, unspoken hero worship of one’s own service. For those of us who live in the periphery of this system, the everyday drama of bureaucracy is both mystifying and, at times, deeply poignant.
Indian bureaucracy is forged in the crucible of the UPSC Civil Services examination, a fierce competition that transforms aspirants into civil servants. This slow and deliberate ascent is meant to instil discipline, adherence to procedure and a sense of duty. However, it also breeds a fragility; the slightest hint of criticism from a politician, a journalist or an anonymous voice on social media can shatter the delicate self-image carefully built over years of service. When faced with such challenges, many bureaucrats retreat behind the oft-repeated refrain of “hands being tied” - a defensive posture that both absolves and isolates them.
While bureaucratic battles rage in government offices, a broader cultural shift unfolds in cinema, reflecting societal change. Post-independence films introduced the ‘angry young man,’ embodying rebellion against corruption, later replaced by the romantic hero who subtly challenged patriarchy. These archetypes mirrored evolving aspirations.
Fast forward to 2025, and we find ourselves in the era of ‘Pushpa’ - a film that introduces a subaltern anti-hero who unapologetically defies the established order. His audacity, rather than virtue, captivates audiences, revealing a growing public discontent with slow, bureaucratic governance. Traditional institutions, once revered, appear compromised, while transgressors are celebrated for their boldness.
For bureaucrats like my husband, this shift is both unsettling and revealing. Governance rewards consistency, but modern society craves immediate, dramatic action. In today’s transactional political climate, even well-intended, methodical efforts risk irrelevance if they fail to deliver swift, visible results.
In India’s bureaucratic labyrinth, a transfer order was once a mark of disgrace. Today, it is worn with defiance, much like the anti-hero of ‘Pushpa’, who tears up his transfer order. This shift reflects a broader impatience with institutions clinging to the old mantra of rule-bound governance.
Public opinion, shaped by social media’s immediacy, demands swift action, leaving bureaucrats trained in slow, procedural merit, utterly adrift. Defending inertia with claims of systemic constraints no longer satisfies a public that equates boldness with effectiveness. The question now is whether public service can evolve to balance steadfast duty with the agility modern governance demands.
The answer lies in adaptation, not abandonment. Just as cinema redefines heroism, governance must embrace innovation without forsaking principles. Progress will not be judged by adherence to protocol alone, but by tangible impact where responsiveness, creativity and ethical disruption become the new markers of public service.
In my own life, as the wife of a bureaucrat, I have observed the tension between these two paradigms with a mix of admiration and concern. I have seen the quiet pride with which my husband speaks of his steady career, built on a foundation of unwavering duty and resilience. Yet I have also witnessed the moments of frustration, the sleepless nights spent pondering whether adherence to a rigid set of rules is enough in a world that rewards audacity and disruption. The challenge for today’s civil servants is not to abandon the principles that have long defined public service but to reinterpret them in a way that resonates with an evolving society.
(The author is a paediatrician and a public health specialist.)
Comments