As the East India Company grew from a small trading corporation to a political entity, it had its own army, a judicial system, its own civil service and enacted laws. When the British government took over the reins of India from the company in 1857, it adopted and expanded these systems.

The British administration had three pillars to sustain their rule: civil service, an army and a police force. The main objective of these three entities was to protect the interests of the British Raj by maintaining law and ensuring continuity of their rule. They had no interest in serving or winning the support of the people, but merely in controlling them.

Lower-level staff became corrupt, oppressing merchants, artisans and zamindars, accepting bribes and gifts from nawabs and rajas and earning large sums of money from illegal trade. Once India and Pakistan gained independence, they adopted the British administrative system. The top positions in the civil service are inducted separately from an administrative elite, rather than through promotions from lower levels.

The civil service, with its roots in representing and managing the needs of citizens, soon became a bureaucracy, a word that has earned negative connotations and which British MP John Stuart Mill called “That vast network of administrative tyranny.”

Bureaucracy is rigid, self-absorbed, overly complex and more concerned with following procedure and protecting the system, than solving citizens’ issues.

It was only under British rule that India became one administrative unit. Prior to that, kingdoms with their ever-changing borders, based on the political allegiances of smaller kingdoms, needed to establish a more cooperative system of administration.

Little is known of the administrative systems of ancient India except through the guidelines of Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Muslim kingdoms, however, left many written records.

The early Muslim kingdoms followed the Abbasi, Ghaznavi and Seljuk systems, incorporating local traditions, such as village panchayats. Sher Shah Suri established a well-planned administrative system that was adopted by the Mughals. In a highly centralised system, all the Sultans and emperors personally administered all the departments and every branch of state, with advice from their ministers or diwans.

However, these autocrats had a paternal relationship with the people they ruled. Villages were left to self-govern. State officers were transferred every two to three years and great care was taken to protect crops during conflicts. Any member of the public had direct access to the king to air their complaints and grievances. The duty of the kotwal or police chief was to safeguard peoples’ lives and properties. The mohtasib [secretariat] regulated prices in the markets, checked weights and measurements and ensured cleanliness and moral conduct. As in the Ottoman Empire, the subjects or re’aya were “the protected flock” of the Sultan or Emperor.

The inspiration for these practices came from Hazrat Umar, the second caliph of Islam, who held his office responsible for the welfare of all under his command. He is attributed for saying “If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty.” He would travel incognito to conduct investigations personally.

Early Islamic statehood built upon pre-Islamic traditions of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the bedouins that did not contradict Islamic principles and values. A concept of “servant leadership” evolved, a guardian role — offering protection from harm and promoting justice. Leaders were selected because of their qualities, not their lineage. If he had the best qualities for leadership, a slave could become a minister or even a king.

While the worst of Muslim rulers were tyrannical and despotic, the best of them embraced a role of dispensation of justice, personal honesty, responsibility and accountability. They expected the same from their appointed administrators, who were selected on merit, education and qualifications and shared the common goal of a stable society which maintains a balance of individuality and community.

It is a far cry from today’s reality, dislocated as we are by colonisation and redirected by capitalism. But as someone once wisely said: “Perhaps our future lies in our past.”

Durriya Kazi is a Karachi-based artist.

She may be reached at durriyakazi1918@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, EOS, October 30th, 2022