Daily Times

One time, I was sitting with a few senior bureaucrats, and they were continuously blaming the youth for the current state of Pakistan. I interrupted and said, “You all held key positions, but what have you done to improve this country? It’s the older generation in the bureaucracy that has made this country what it is today. How can you blame the youth for the situation?”

The core issue with Pakistan’s bureaucracy lies in its colonial mindset and the enduring legacy of colonialism. Pakistan’s bureaucracy is deeply rooted in its colonial past, and the legacy of British rule continues to shape the country’s administrative structure, practices, and political dynamics even after 77 years of its independence. The British colonial state in India laid the foundation for a centralized, hierarchical bureaucracy, and Pakistan inherited this system when it gained independence in 1947.

The colonial bureaucracy in India was marked by a centralization of power, where ultimate authority rested with the British rulers, and decision-making was concentrated in the hands of a small elite of British officials, supported by local officials selected through a competitive examination system. The British introduced merit-based recruitment, particularly through the Indian Civil Services (ICS) exams, to ensure that the bureaucracy was staffed by competent individuals. However, this system was exclusionary, favouring the British and a small group of elite locals who had the education and resources to pass the exams, while marginalizing the majority of the population. The ICS exams, conducted in English and focused on European knowledge, further entrenched social inequalities by favouring upper-caste Muslims and Hindus, as well as those who could afford private schooling or study abroad. The bureaucracy was designed to remain apolitical, serving as an administrative tool to enforce colonial policies without being influenced by local political demands. It operated under an authoritarian, hierarchical structure, where bureaucrats were accountable only to their superiors in the colonial administration, not to the public. This resulted in a system that was largely unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of the general population, further exacerbating social and economic divides.

Racial and social hierarchies played a significant role, with the highest positions in the bureaucracy reserved for British nationals, ensuring ultimate control remained with the British. Anglicized Indians and local elites, often from wealthy backgrounds, were appointed to lower and middle bureaucratic roles, serving as intermediaries between the British rulers and the local population. Loyalty to the British Crown and political neutrality were also key factors in recruitment, with bureaucrats expected to serve the colonial administration without engaging in political activities.

The British system also relied on the caste system and existing social structures, often appointing individuals from higher castes or marginalized communities to carry out administrative tasks, such as revenue collection or policing, to maintain social order. Bureaucrats were typically recruited from urban areas, where access to education and social mobility was more common, while rural populations were largely excluded. Local knowledge and administrative competence were also valued, with individuals familiar with local languages, customs, and geography being appointed to positions where such knowledge was useful.

The system was marked by significant exclusion, particularly of women, who were virtually excluded from bureaucratic roles, and individuals from lower-caste, working-class, or rural backgrounds, reinforcing the colonial social divide. Additionally, many British administrators had military backgrounds, and positions in the bureaucracy often overlapped with military duties, ensuring that both civil and military control remained firmly in British hands.

When Pakistan was created in 1947, it inherited much of the British colonial administrative structure, including its bureaucracy. The new state’s founding leaders, such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah, sought to adapt this structure to meet the needs of the newly independent country. However, many of the core features of the colonial system persisted, resulting in a bureaucratic system that retained colonial characteristics. Centralization of power was one of the major features inherited from the British system, with significant authority concentrated in the hands of the federal government. This centralization has often led to tensions between the federal and provincial governments, especially over issues like resource allocation and administrative autonomy. Additionally, Pakistan inherited the civil services exam system from the British, which continues to play a central role in the recruitment of bureaucrats. Although intended to ensure a merit-based bureaucracy, the system has resulted in elitism, as only individuals with access to high-quality education and resources can succeed in these exams, creating a class of bureaucrats often disconnected from the realities and needs of the general population.

The bureaucracy was designed to remain apolitical, serving as an administrative tool to enforce colonial policies without being influenced by local political demands.

The colonial legacy has also affected the political role and accountability of Pakistan’s bureaucracy. Similar to the British system, the bureaucracy in Pakistan has often remained detached from political accountability. Bureaucrats have historically wielded significant power without being fully answerable to elected representatives or the public, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of responsiveness to public needs. The early years of Pakistan saw the continued dominance of the military and bureaucracy, particularly during military rule, fostering an environment where bureaucratic control was viewed as essential for maintaining order, further entrenching an authoritarian approach to governance. This colonial legacy has impeded democratic governance by creating a bureaucracy resistant to political reforms and regional autonomy, particularly as the system remains highly centralized. The bureaucracy, often criticized for inefficiency and corruption, has sometimes prioritized its power and privileges over effective public service. Moreover, the politicization of the bureaucracy for political patronage has undermined its ability to serve the public impartially, while the elitist recruitment system has perpetuated social inequality and exclusion, leaving marginalized groups underrepresented.

In Pakistan, this continued adherence to colonial-era practices has created a disconnect between the bureaucracy and the general public, with bureaucrats often seen as out of touch with the needs of the people they are meant to serve. The world has moved toward more inclusive, technology-driven governance systems that emphasize efficiency, accountability, and citizen engagement, but Pakistan’s bureaucracy, much like its colonial predecessor, remains highly centralized, slow-moving, and resistant to change. The lack of modernization in Pakistan’s bureaucratic structure has not only hindered its responsiveness but also perpetuated issues such as inefficiency, corruption, and political patronage, which are increasingly rare in more progressive administrative systems around the world. In this era of technological innovation and democratization, Pakistan’s continued reliance on a colonial bureaucracy underscores the challenges it faces in evolving its governance to meet contemporary needs.

Breaking free from the colonial bureaucracy mindset is not the responsibility of a single entity but requires a comprehensive approach. This transformation demands the involvement of political leadership, bureaucratic reform, civil society, media, academia, and public engagement. Political leaders must take the initiative by implementing reforms that modernize the bureaucracy, making it more responsive and accountable. Bureaucratic leaders themselves must embrace change, fostering a culture of service and efficiency. Civil society, through advocacy and awareness campaigns, can generate public pressure for reform, while the media plays a linchpin role in holding both politicians and bureaucrats accountable. Academia can provide research-driven insights and solutions, while the general public must engage actively, ensuring that reforms meet the needs of citizens. For this change to occur, leaders at all levels-government, civil society, and the public-must recognize the urgency of the issue and collaborate toward creating a modern, transparent, and inclusive bureaucratic system.

The writer is a PhD scholar and author of various books on international relations, criminology and gender studies.
He can be reached at fastian.mentor@gmail.com