Feudalism rules the roost in IAS, IPS & other Indian government services

Over the last five years, troubling allegations have surfaced against several IAS officers across India. These accusations go beyond routine administrative lapses. They point to a deeper malaise — one rooted in a feudal mindset. In multiple states, bureaucrats have been accused of acting like petty kings rather than public servants. Reports suggest they have misused their powers for personal gain, indulged in corruption, and even resorted to violence.

This article examines this disturbing pattern. Based on recent investigative data and public commentary, it identifies a dangerous erosion of ethical governance among some of India’s top bureaucrats. It also explores regional trends, central government involvement, and public responses.

The no-holds-barred conversation between Bhupendra Chaubey and ex-IPS Yashovardhan Jha Azad on The Squirrels’ YouTube channel on 17 July explored the reasons that turned public servants into renegades:

The rise of the feudal IAS officer

The IAS was once seen as a noble calling, with its members shaping policy and safeguarding democracy. But a series of events from 2020 to 2025 have revealed another side to the service — one that is increasingly seen as entitled, corrupt and unaccountable.

Feudal attitudes manifest in various ways: demanding bribes, manipulating government contracts, physically threatening citizens, and disregarding lawful processes. Officers in positions of power have come to expect preferential treatment. Some appear to treat the districts they oversee not as administrative units but as personal estates.

Cases like Y Srilakshmi’s in Telangana demonstrate how high-ranking officers allegedly colluded with mining companies for personal enrichment. Her involvement with the Obulapuram Mining Company and the bypassing of lease norms was more than mere procedural negligence; it suggested a deep nexus of corruption and cronyism.

Corruption is now a trend, not an exception

In Odisha, Sub-Collector Dhiman Chakma was arrested in June 2025 for allegedly demanding a ₹20 lakh bribe. Investigators caught him red-handed accepting half the amount. In Uttar Pradesh, Abhishek Prakash was suspended after reportedly demanding a 5% commission in a solar energy project. His earlier role as DM of Lucknow had already drawn scrutiny for suspicious land deals.

In Telangana, Arvind Kumar, the Special Chief Secretary, was summoned in connection with the Hyderabad Formula E race controversy. Irregularities around contracts and permissions suggest bureaucratic complicity in the misuse of public resources.

These cases are not limited to individual greed. They expose systemic flaws. The very design of Indian administration, where immense discretionary power rests with officers and accountability is often weak, creates the conditions for corruption to flourish.

Abuse of power and violence

One of the most shocking aspects of this feudal mindset is the use of physical violence. In Maharashtra, Aman Mittal, then Deputy Secretary in the Water Supply Department, thrashed Airtel engineers over a WiFi issue. That a senior officer could assault private employees and face no immediate consequences highlights the sense of impunity that pervades the IAS.

Such behaviour echoes medieval notions of privilege, where those in power could act violently without fear of reprisal. It reinforces the idea that certain IAS officers believe they are above the law — a perception dangerous to democracy.

Systemic corruption in Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh stands out for the frequency and scale of misconduct. In March 2023, 11 IAS officers were suspended in one sweep for financial irregularities and abuse of power. This was under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s zero-tolerance policy. While commendable, the scale of the purge itself suggests a systemic problem.

Abhishek Prakash’s case in 2025 was particularly egregious. Apart from his role in the solar commission scandal, his history included involvement in land deals and real estate networks with political connections. His career trajectory paints a picture of unchecked power over the years, shielded by bureaucratic loyalty and political patronage.

Telangana’s high-profile scandals

The state of Telangana, particularly in 2025, became a hotspot for bureaucratic scandals. YS Srilakshmi’s name resurfaced after nearly a decade in connection with mining favours. Simultaneously, Arvind Kumar’s involvement in the Formula E case raised eyebrows over elite sports funding and permissions.

These cases show how senior bureaucrats in resource-rich or high-growth states can leverage infrastructure and industrial projects for personal benefit. The lack of transparency in such ventures creates fertile ground for backroom deals.

Odisha and the central role of bribes

The case of Dhiman Chakma, a relatively junior officer, illustrates that this feudal mindset is not limited to senior officials. Officers in charge of rural districts often wield considerable power over land, funds, and welfare schemes. The demand for bribes becomes a routine expectation rather than an exception.

Moreover, the involvement of Bishnupada Sethi in a high-profile bribery case linked to a central PSU and investigated by the CBI shows that central bureaucracies are not immune either. The scale of these offences often becomes apparent only when central agencies intervene.

Maharashtra: Physical intimidation as governance

The Aman Mittal case in Maharashtra underscores a different kind of feudal attitude: one of intimidation and violence. His beating of engineers over an internet issue is more than a personal outburst — it’s symbolic of how some officers treat their position as a license to dominate and threaten.

The lack of immediate consequences also reflects systemic reluctance to hold bureaucrats accountable, particularly in politically sensitive states.

The union government’s indirect complicity

Though many of the worst incidents occurred at the state level, the central government has not emerged unscathed. The case of Bishnupada Sethi hints at how central PSUs can become conduits for large-scale corruption, often involving senior IAS officers.

Even more telling are criticisms around bureaucratic expansion, such as the creation of the Ministry of Co-operation. Critics have flagged such decisions as symptomatic of a bloated, entitled bureaucracy, far removed from citizens’ concerns.

Public critique and the voice of social media

Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have emerged as vital spaces for critique. Journalists and whistleblowers have repeatedly drawn attention to IAS officers’ failings. In 2022, this columnist pointed to the absurdity of including Razia Sultan in a list of women to be honoured by the government, highlighting how bureaucratic decisions can reflect historical ignorance and poor judgment.

Seems the current government takes lessons of history from the same source as Bollywood 😅

On a serious note, all these mess ups are bureaucrats' doing. The political leadership must downsize and overhaul IAS forthwith. But before that, it must believe the bureaucracy is an ass. https://t.co/F4MxQIc1x2

— Surajit Dasgupta (@surajitdasgupta) June 21, 2022

The Ministry of Co-operation’s formation was an unnecessary bureaucratic layer whereas downsizing and reforming the IAS is the need of the era, as the service is no longer aligned with democratic governance.

Accountability: More theatre than substance?

When scandals erupt, governments are quick to suspend officers or order inquiries. But suspensions are often cosmetic. In many cases, officers return to duty quietly or are transferred to less visible posts.

The lack of public-facing punishment, like arrests or prosecutions, reinforces the sense that IAS officers are a class apart. Unlike politicians who face elections or corporate leaders subject to shareholder scrutiny, bureaucrats often operate in secrecy and without consequence.

The IPS is no better

Cases across India reveal IPS officers engaging in feudal-style abuse of power. In Tamil Nadu (2023), Balveer Singh allegedly tortured detainees, prompting suspensions and legal action. In Chhattisgarh, Gurjinder Pal Singh faced charges of sedition and corruption, with raids suggesting political conspiracies. Karnataka’s Amrit Paul was implicated in a recruitment scam, showing how officers manipulate systems for personal gain. These incidents expose systemic misuse of authority and a breakdown of accountability.

Broader context of feudal lord-like attitudes

The colonial-era "orderly system", where constables serve IPS officers domestically, persists in states like Kerala, despite calls for its abolition. It fosters servitude and weakens morale. IPS officers are often seen as a "personal army" for the powerful, prioritising political interests over public duty, as seen in incidents involving Gurjinder Pal Singh and the Karnal SDM’s crackdown on farmers.

Retired officers have criticised the culture of arrogance and VIP privilege within the IPS, noting a mindset of dominance over citizens. While most issues are state-level, central oversight does exist, notably through CBI and Supreme Court interventions. Still, concerns remain over whether such behaviours are isolated or part of a deeper institutional rot. Reform efforts face challenges due to entrenched colonial-era attitudes and inconsistent accountability.

Exceptions prove the rule

It is crucial to note that not every government official betrays such a behavioural pattern; many are committed and principled public servants. Nevertheless, the historical and systemic factors previously discussed play a role in fostering a perception of a feudal mindset that must be confronted to cultivate trust and enhance the relationship between law enforcement and the community.

A call for structural reform

The evidence points to more than a few “bad apples.” What India is facing is a culture within the IAS that allows feudal attitudes to survive and even thrive. Discretionary power without transparent checks and a culture of internal loyalty makes it easy for corruption to flourish.

Reform is overdue. The time has come to rethink the civil services — not merely through new training or ethics modules, but by restructuring power itself. Citizens deserve public servants, not self-serving lords in bureaucratic robes.