S Gopal Puri
Dharamshala: Himachal Pradesh has traditionally enjoyed a reputation for relatively clean and people-centric governance. In a small hill state where administration directly affects daily life — be it land, environment, health or education — the neutrality and integrity of civil servants is foundational.
It is precisely for this reason that the emerging practice of senior administrative authorities seeking “sponsorships” or “contributions” from business houses for public events deserves serious public scrutiny.
While such fundraising is often projected as voluntary support for cultural or tourism-related programmes, the reality is far more complex. In a regulatory environment where businesses depend on the administration for permissions, clearances and routine approvals, a request made under official authority cannot be viewed as genuinely voluntary.
This phenomenon is known as coercive voluntarism —voluntary in name, but compelled by power imbalance.
No business entity can comfortably refuse a request originating from the very office that governs its operations. Even in the absence of explicit pressure, the fear of future administrative inconvenience is enough to influence compliance.
The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, applicable to IAS officers serving in Himachal Pradesh, do not merely prohibit outright bribery but also bar any conduct that creates a reasonable apprehension of misuse of office, conflict of interest or compromise of impartiality. Public servants are expected not only to act with integrity but also to be seen as doing so.
When administrators assume the role of fundraisers — even for ostensibly public causes —the line between governance and discretion becomes dangerously blurred.
The administration is meant to implement policy, uphold law and order, and ensure delivery of essential services, not to solicit funds from regulated entities.
The practice represents a subtler form of wrongdoing often described as white-labelled corruption — corruption without cash exchanges or visible quid pro quo, but with lasting institutional damage. It operates under respectable labels such as sponsorship or public participation, yet undermines accountability, transparency and public trust.
The concern is particularly relevant in Himachal Pradesh, a state grappling with fiscal stress. Health infrastructure gaps, staff shortages in schools, disaster preparedness and environmental protection remain pressing challenges. In such circumstances, the use of administrative authority to mobilise private funds for events raises uncomfortable questions about priorities.
Public money is subject to legislative oversight, audit and transparency. Private collections made through official influence are not. This absence of scrutiny creates fertile ground for misuse and erodes faith in governance.
At the heart of the issue lies the doctrine of public trust. Public office is not a privilege but a responsibility held on behalf of citizens. Power flows from the Constitution, not from convenience. Any action that leverages official authority for financial collection — outside statutory frameworks — risks violating that trust.
This is not an argument against cultural events or public celebrations. It is a call for clear institutional boundaries. If such programmes are necessary, they must be funded transparently through government budgets or managed by independent bodies without administrative coercion.
Himachal Pradesh still has the opportunity to course-correct. The state must decide whether governance will remain anchored in constitutional discipline or drift towards informal practices that normalise misuse of power. The answer will determine not just administrative ethics, but public confidence in the system itself.
