Should Civil Servants Be Allowed Personal Lives? A Debate on Public Image vs. Individuality
Public servants often face intense scrutiny for their personal activities, such as dancing at parties or visiting beauty parlours, raising critical questions about societal expectations and the boundaries between professional duty and private life. This debate stems from a colonial inheritance that sharply divides those who govern from the governed, imposing rigid social rules on officials even during their off-duty hours.
Rigid Training and Unsettling Expectations
During basic training at the State Police Academy in Moradabad in 2018, a classroom discussion on "unbecoming conduct" highlighted extreme views. A trainer, Sub Inspector, argued that an IPS officer should never be seen eating gol gappe and discreetly arranged for a woman IPS officer to visit a beauty parlour in civil clothes, deeming it inappropriate for an officer to be seen there. While maintaining decorum in uniform is understandable, this rigidity extends to personal time, creating discomfort among new recruits and prompting larger questions about the limits of such expectations.
Global and Local Incidents Reflect Societal Discomfort
This issue is not confined to India. In Finland, Prime Minister Sanna Marin faced public debate after being filmed dancing at a private party, with critics questioning her judgement despite the incident occurring in her personal time. Similarly, in Harda, district court judges were suspended and transferred for performing a dance at a farewell gathering, even though such events are rare moments of informality that strengthen professional bonds. These examples illustrate a broader societal discomfort with the idea that individuals in power can lead ordinary lives.
Colonial Inheritance and the Separation of Classes
As a society, we continue to operate under a colonial legacy that draws a sharp line between governors and the governed. Public servants are frequently criticised for engaging in leisure activities like singing, dressing casually, or dancing in their personal time. Officials are often viewed as a separate class, expected to be serious, restrained, and distant at all times, which implies they must perform their roles continuously without space for individuality or personal expression.
Contradictions in Public Perception
There is a notable contradiction in how society treats public servants. On one hand, officers are criticised for routine personal behaviour, while on the other, they are applauded for basic acts of empathy, such as sharing meals with school children or sitting with anganwadi workers. This dichotomy stems from the same assumption: that public servants are fundamentally different from everyone else. Excessive praise for ordinary kindness and discomfort with ordinary human behaviour both reinforce this notion.
Balancing Duty and Individuality
A government position, no matter how powerful, remains a job that carries responsibility and public scrutiny. Civil servants are expected to perform their duties competently and uphold both overt and covert codes of conduct. However, within these boundaries, there should be space for personal time and private life, provided it does not diminish the dignity of the institution they represent. Officers should neither be celebrated for merely doing their job nor condemned for engaging in ordinary, lawful personal activities.
The Need for Well-Rounded Public Servants
Public institutions benefit from well-rounded individuals who are capable, empathetic, and connected to the society they serve. Governance does not improve by turning people into symbols; instead, it requires officials who are part of society, not apart from it. By allowing space for personal expression, we can foster a more humane and effective public service system that respects both professional obligations and individual rights.
This article is based on personal views and highlights the ongoing debate about the personal lives of civil servants in the context of societal expectations and colonial norms.
