How did India adopt their characteristics? Where public anger on the streets

The French effect is also clear in India’s administrative system.

The ruckus in France is increasing. Whenever a country is a victim of public anger, the role of bureaucracy increases. If the bureaucracy does its work firmly, then the possibility of the top ruckus is negligible, if there is a momentary outrage, then this class makes him calm by talking to the central power. If the public is on the streets in France, then it is not only the fault of the leaders, somewhere the bureaucracy is not able to play its role properly in this matter.

Bureaucracy is the backbone of any modern. This is the same system through which policies are implemented and the reach of governance to the citizens is ensured. In both France and India, the roots of bureaucracy are deep, but there are many similarities and inequalities in its structure, functioning and rights. The special political tradition of France and the colonial history of India have prepared a specific outline of bureaucracy in both places.

Come, we understand in the midst of the current ruckus, how is the structure of the French administration? Where is his strength, where are his weak links? Will also know which system has been adopted by India from France? We will also compare India-France on this excuse.

France’s foundation of bureaucracy

The administrative structure of France is based on Centralization. The main power of policy-making and decision-making in the French bureaucracy is focused in the capital Paris. France is divided into various regions, departments and commune levels.

• Region: It is the tallest unit of France’s administrative structure. Its chief is appointed by the President.
• Department (Department): Each department is led by Propefet, which we can compare to the District Magistrate of India (DM).
• Commune: It is a body working like a local government or municipality.

Role of Prefet

Prefe is the most important representative of the French government. He works to maintain law and order, implement policies and become the face of the state. This model was adopted as District Collector or District Magistrate in British India, which is still going on today.

French bureaucracy characteristics

• École nationale dadministration (eena): It is a high-level training institute from where a large number of French civil servants come out. It is a service like IAS of India.
• Career and private sector flexibility: It is common in France that a bureaucrat (such as Prefe or High Officer) at any time leaves government service and goes to the private sector and later returns to the government again.
• Central Control: Even though local bodies exist, a large part of the rights remains in the grip of the central government and the love.
• Transparency vs. Election: ENA and officers from top institutions often come from the same social group, due to which the color of the aristocratic class appears in the administration.

French bureaucracy

• Excessive centralization: Local needs and variations are sometimes ignored because orders come from above.
• Revolving door practice: Officers can go to the private sector and then return again can cause corruption or conflict of interests.
• Domination of aristocracy: Due to the recruitment system of ENA, the share of poor and simple backgrounds is relatively low.
• Public dissatisfaction: There are mass protests from time to time in France from time to time regarding economic reforms, pension, labor reforms or police actions. The French people often consider the administration to be harsh, with orders imposed from above and keeping distance from citizens.

How much impact the France has on India?

India’s administrative structure is mainly based on the British model. But the French effect on some aspects also looks clear.

• District System: The model of the District Magistrate (DM) or Collector in India is similar to the preference of France. The British rulers took inspiration from the study of French administration and implemented it in their colonies (including India).
• Center for centralization: India’s bureaucracy was also highly centralized for a long time. This can be called a glimpse of the French style. However, it is not so now. For example, IAS posted in any state is found in the central government.
• Elite Tier’s impression: Just as the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in India is seen as a specific aristocratic class in France. Recruitment may be done by competitive examination, but service structure, privilege and hierarchy separates them from the general public.

India’s characteristics and differences

India has taken some features from France but the bureaucracy here is the product of the British Raj.

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC): This is a major achievement of Indian democracy, which makes the selection process relatively transparent and universal.
• Multicolored rolls of dm: In India, the District Magistrate not only sees law and order, but also leads development plans and welfare programs.
• Local Body System: Through Panchayati Raj, the local democratic structure in India has strengthened, which is completely different from France.
• Service Security: Once IAS or other All India Service is selected in India, the officer’s career is not affected by the private sector. Officers are definitely out of resignation, but then the chances of return are negligible. Arrangements like revolving door are not here.

How many challenges?

• France: Repeated anti-people and violent demonstrations are clear that the French bureaucracy is keeping distance from society. Centralization, private connections and elite culture have weakened it further.
• India: Here too, allegations like political pressure, red tape, corruption and lack of accountability are often accused on bureaucracy. But the balance remains somewhat due to local democracy, media and judiciary.

The bureaucracy of France and India also keep similarities with each other and variations. France gave the centralized prefite model, which gave birth to the Indian District Magistrate, but India molded it according to the local needs based on the British tradition and democratic experiences.

While the bureaucracy of France appears to be entangled with the distance and corporate interests from the public, the system of India is associated with the complaints and development works of the general public, even if there are many flaws in it. It is a lesson for Indian democracy that we have to maintain a strong and sensitive bureaucracy only by avoiding the shortcomings of centralization, increasing transparency and local participation.

Also read: Why is Balendra Shah anti -India, which is demanded to make Nepal’s PM?