Towards Developmental Democracy: Recalibrating India’s Bureaucratic Architecture

In recent public policy discussions, a familiar argument has gained traction: the Indian bureaucracy is excessively risk-averse. In a rapidly expanding economy, the argument goes, civil servants must become more bold, more entrepreneurial, and existing safeguards must be relaxed to enable more dynamism.

This framing, I argue, is inadequate. India does not need a risk-taking bureaucracy. India needs a structurally-aligned, growth-enabling bureaucracy.

The challenge before us is not personality reform. It is architectural reform.

The Myth of Administrative Inertia

The claim that Indian bureaucracy is disconnected from industry or resistant to growth, collapses under scrutiny.

Across states, competitive federalism is now political reality. Investment summits are not symbolic exercises; they are followed by land aggregation, regulatory coordination, infrastructure provisioning, and monitoring frameworks executed by bureaucrats. The headline metric is no longer just capital committed—but jobs created.

At the Union level, the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme across 14 industries — which has attracted investments worth about ₹2 lakh crore and created about 12 lakh jobs — requires complex output-based design, cross-ministry coordination, compliance audits, and sectoral calibration. It represents industrial policy at scale.

Trade diplomacy further demonstrates administrative capability. The recently-concluded trade deal with the European Union—after nearly two decades of on/off negotiations—and the recently-announced trade deal framework with the United States involve markets worth tens of trillions of dollars. These negotiations require industry consultations spanning farmers, MSMEs, heavy manufacturing, and digital services. They are bureaucratically engineered under political direction.

These developments are not products of administrative timidity. They are evidence of adaptive capacity when mandate and structure align.

The Real Structural Deficit

The problem is not fear. It is misaligned incentives. India’s administrative system still rewards:

Procedural defensibility over developmental outcomes

Short tenures over institutional continuity

Transfer mobility over rooted ownership

Service hierarchy over domain depth

In such a system, caution is rational. But, if India aspires to be a $10 trillion economy over the next one decade and a $30 trillion economy over the next two decades, the administrative architecture must evolve from a colonial-era “steel frame” of stability, into an engine of development delivery and growth enablement. 

I suggest the following six-pillar framework towards this end.

Pillar I: Belongingness and State-Rooted Administration

Administrative belongingness must become a structural principle. The Indian Administrative Service should be recalibrated as a state-focussed and state-based Service. State belongingness and ownership deepen when officers build long-term reputational stake in a jurisdiction’s developmental trajectory. State belongingness strengthens:

Continuity

Context knowledge

Long-horizon accountability

Politico-administrative trust

A mobile elite may preserve unity; a rooted cadre builds long-term development and growth. 

Pillar II: Domain Specialization at the Union

India’s governance challenges are increasingly technical and technological:

AI regulation

Cybersecurity

Semiconductor policy

Climate resilience goals and finance

Global trade law

The Union government now requires specialised Services. Therefore, some Services may mandate technical degree requirements for recruitment. Recruitment examinations should be held separately (but in the same cycle) for each specialised Service. This could flatten prestige hierarchies between Services and foster professional equality.

Generalism is valuable—but no longer sufficient. A 2040s India cannot rely exclusively on rotational amateurism in highly technical policy domains.

Pillar III: Common Formation, Specialized Depth

Recruitment should remain centralized. There should be a common foundational training year for all Services (including IAS), to be followed by domain-specific training the next year at respective Service/State academies. This system would preserve national ethos while enabling domain expertise.

Pillar IV: Institutionalized Coordination Architecture

If transfer mobility reduces, coordination must deepen. Therefore, India should strengthen/build:

Inter-Ministry Councils at the Centre to prevent siloization.

Zonal Councils should be strengthened and deepened with specialist committees for relevant sectors of respective Zones. 

A Permanent Centre-State Coordination Council should be created, with specialist committees for sectors like infrastructure, agriculture, digital governance, climate, and industry.

In short, integration by architecture must replace integration by transfer.

Pillar V: A Development Accountability Code

Administrative modernization must be codified—not improvised. India should enact a broad, principle-based Development Accountability Code, that defines:

Outcome orientation

Legal compliance

Transparency

Fiscal prudence

Equity

Inter-generational sustainability

This Code would apply across ministries and across governments.

Elected governments would retain full authority to define development priorities within this framework. Democratic mandate must guide direction. But direction would operate within legislated principles.

Performance metrics would thus be:

Politically aligned

Legally bounded

Institutionally stable

This replaces rhetorical exhortation with structural clarity.

Pillar VI: A Tribunal to Guard Against Political/Administrative Overreach

To adjudicate boundary disputes between political direction and administrative legality, a specialized tribunal should be established. 

Its mandate would be narrow but vital:

Ensure performance metrics comply with the statutory Code.

Protect officers from unlawful directives.

Prevent bureaucratic obstruction masquerading as caution.

Appellate jurisdiction would remain with constitutional courts.

This would create a bounded, rule-governed interface between democratic authority and administrative integrity.

Democracy as Development Driver

In a parliamentary democracy, bureaucracy must serve elected political leadership. Development direction flows from electoral mandate. The administrative state exists to execute that mandate within constitutional limits.

The false choice between insulated bureaucracy and unchecked executive power must be rejected.

The real choice is between:

Personality-based reform (“be bold”),

and

Structural modernization that aligns specialities, incentives, coordination, democratic legitimacy, and growth enablement. 

India in 2040s: The Administrative Question

India’s economic and geopolitical ambitions will increasingly demand:

Trade sophistication

Industrial strategy

Climate resilience

Technological regulation

Federal coherence

The administrative state must be recalibrated accordingly.

The debate should move beyond whether bureaucrats are sufficiently risk-taking. That question misunderstands the scale of transformation required.

The deeper task is to construct a domain-specialised, incentivised, institutionally-coordinated, legally-accountable administrative architecture -- capable of powering India’s next phase of growth.

The steel frame once preserved unity.

The next generation of administrative reform must build the engine that drives growth.

The time for incrementalism has passed.