Bureaucrats are always caught between political masters and the people. How do you view this relationship?
​
Bureaucrats are expected to remain politically neutral and work in the public interest, but at the same time they are accountable to the elected government of the day. In a way, they've always been caught between political masters and the people they serve.
Sometimes political directions align with public welfare, but there are also situations where bureaucrats may face pressure that conflicts with their professional judgment or what they believe is in the public interest. Then there are issues like frequent transfers, political interference, administrative discretion, and the need to maintain neutrality while still ensuring effective governance.
How do you see this relationship? Where should a bureaucrat draw the line? Is the current balance between political executive and permanent executive healthy, or does it need reforms?
I'd love to hear different perspectives..
whether from aspirants, serving officers, or anyone interested in governance and public administration.