How could 1500 civil servants administer the Raj

[egb_hibs]

Setting aside the wrongs of colonialism, how could 1500 civil servants administer raj era India and our vast state today seemingly can't do the most basic things? I ask again, please don't start on the wrongs of colonialism which is not the subject here, the subject is competence - which can serve good or bad things.

How did state capability wither so spectacularly? Is it actually partly because of scale? It's very hard for any organisation to be as pound-for-pound effective the larger it gets. But that can't explain all of it by a long chalk even if it is a factor (and it might not be).

Any ideas?

 

[gun ainm]

Are you judging the administration of the Raj as effective? By what metric? Assuming the 1500 is correct I'd suggest that their primary goal was wealth extraction based on plundering natural resources and enforced cash cropping. By-products of an authoritarian regime include (contributions to) devastating famine, endemic poverty, brutal repression and a rail network .... Maybe if the aims were rather more broad it'd have taken a lot more folk to implement?

It is genuinely amazing how few (British) people it took to control the Raj, the numbers of sepoys and other native 'helpers' were significant though and not accounted for in your 1500, you're equivalence in the modern UK is probably senior management

 

[Jack]

The 1,500 members of the elite Indian Civil Service (ICS) were able to administer the vast Indian Raj by forming the "steel frame" of the administration, which held all key supervisory and controlling posts, and by relying on a vast support network of local Indian staff, the Indian Army, and the cooperation of local elites and rulers.

 

[egb_hibs]

Are you judging the administration of the Raj as effective? By what metric? Assuming the 1500 is correct I'd suggest that their primary goal was wealth extraction based on plundering natural resources and enforced cash cropping. By-products of an authoritarian regime include (contributions to) devastating famine, endemic poverty, brutal repression and a rail network .... Maybe if the aims were rather more broad it'd have taken a lot more folk to implement?

It is genuinely amazing how few (British) people it took to control the Raj, the numbers of sepoys and other native 'helpers' were significant though and not accounted for in your 1500, you're equivalence in the modern UK is probably senior management

I'm not making any value judgements as I have tried to emphasise, it's just a comparison of managerial competence. And yes I do think they were miles ahead compared to today - they modernised a medieval society on a continental scale and gave it the platform to be the super power it is today, from infrastructure to governance framework . And on resource extraction and exploitation, they were pretty good at achieving their ends there.

Good things and bad things, they were competent at achieving either when in their interest.

They weren't immune to massive fucks ups of course, but compared to today...

The nazis had some first rate administrators dude, I really am not trying to make a moral point here. These are separate things, competence and morality. Very very separate.

 

[egb_hibs]

The 1,500 members of the elite Indian Civil Service (ICS) were able to administer the vast Indian Raj by forming the "steel frame" of the administration, which held all key supervisory and controlling posts, and by relying on a vast support network of local Indian staff, the Indian Army, and the cooperation of local elites and rulers.

This is more to the point, and a point well made. Nevertheless I am taking it as a reasonable assumption that we could view the British guys as the senior management and the much more numerous Indian personnel as functionaries in the main (though doubtless they provided a quota to the top table). So for me the question still remains -1500 guys clearly aren't stamping every form themselves , but they managed the apparatus that did.

 

[Jack]

Even Google can't find a number but in the 1920s it reckons "likely numbering in the hundreds of thousands or even millions".

 

[egb_hibs]

Even Google can't find a number but in the 1920s it reckons "likely numbering in the hundreds of thousands or even millions".

As you will know I suspect, that makes the senior management job harder no easier!

 

[egb_hibs]

According to google again 7k+ senior bods oversee our current ~0.5m, presiding over a population a quarter of indias in 1890 - and with hugely more supporting tech

 

[Jack]

As you will know I suspect, that makes the senior management job harder no easier!

Im not entirely sure that's the case.

I chose the 1920s randomly. It was just over half way during the time of British involvement.

Even working in the west at that time there were huge numbers of clerks overseen by few managers. Everyone knew their place in the workplace!

Imagine how that would relate to a country that also had a rigid caste system and a pretty brutal system of dealing with those that didn't conform.

 

[Jack]

According to google again 7k+ senior bods oversee our current ~0.5m, presiding over a population a quarter of indias in 1890 - and with hugely more supporting tech

A lot will depend on how the figures are made up and I'd suggest it would be impossible to fairly compare like with like, even with current figures.

Do the figures include local government workers?
What about healthcare systems?
Police, education, universities and the like and other organisations and quangos associated with government?
And the armed forces?
What about private companies doing government work?
Et al.

 

[egb_hibs]

Im not entirely sure that's the case.

What I meant, and why I thought you'd recognise it, is the management challenge is far greater in a huge apparatus versus a smaller one

I chose the 1920s randomly. It was just over half way during the time of British involvement.

Even working in the west at that time there were huge numbers of clerks overseen by few managers. Everyone knew their place in the workplace!

Imagine how that would relate to a country that also had a rigid caste system and a pretty brutal system of dealing with those that didn't conform.

The caste system is brutal to this day. As you won't be surprised to learn, working in IT I have had loads of exposure to Indian corporate culture which is saturated with caste bullshit. The way higher caste folk treat lower caste folk drove me mental and I was always on the edge of a diplomatic incident!

Meanwhile their absolute inability to say no 'upwards' is even worse and fucked me with my eyes open.

- you guys can't do this can you? Just tell me, it's okay, the only thing I can't live with is you not being honest

- yes we can absolutely do it

---- iterate umpteen times until two minutes to midnight

- no, we have not the slightest idea how to do it




That said their top guys are the most impressive I've met and it's not close

 

[egb_hibs]

A lot will depend on how the figures are made up and I'd suggest it would be impossible to fairly compare like with like, even with current figures.

Do the figures include local government workers?
What about healthcare systems?
Police, education, universities and the like and other organisations and quangos associated with government?
And the armed forces?
What about private companies doing government work?
Et al.

It was civil service I googled. Don't know how AI interpreted that but it certainly was not the entire public sector workforce as it expressed it as a ratio of 0.5m civil servants

 

[Ryan69]

Setting aside the wrongs of colonialism, how could 1500 civil servants administer raj era India and our vast state today seemingly can't do the most basic things? I ask again, please don't start on the wrongs of colonialism which is not the subject here, the subject is competence - which can serve good or bad things.

How did state capability wither so spectacularly? Is it actually partly because of scale? It's very hard for any organisation to be as pound-for-pound effective the larger it gets. But that can't explain all of it by a long chalk even if it is a factor (and it might not be).

Any ideas?

Probably cause they know how their voters think of India.

They cant make it too obvious.

Prevention.