The Rise and Risks of India’s Influencer Bureaucrat

Up until recently, the Indian bureaucracy evoked images of drab offices, towering piles of dusty files, and endless corridors of identical rooms—built less for function than confusion. Top bureaucrats worked behind closed doors, where gaining an audience often meant waiting for hours. Public glimpses of them were limited to press releases or the occasional briefing.

No one captures this better than TR Raghunandan, former IAS officer (1983 batch), in his book Everything You Wanted to Know About Bureaucracy:

“Whatever its faults, the Indian bureaucracy cannot be accused of bias when it comes to confounding those who have to deal with it... Outsiders in any case have little knowledge of who is responsible for what and why or how to navigate that critical proposal through the treacherous shoals of the secretariat.”

But today, things are changing. Many government buildings now have open-floor offices, glass-panelled meeting rooms, and a buzz of youthful energy. The old paan-stained walls still exist—but so do sunlit workstations, consultants, young officers fresh from training. Governance has acquired a new, caffeinated pulse. The bureaucracy, for better or worse, is no longer confined behind closed doors.

The changing tide of bureaucracy has brought with it a new breed of bureaucrats as well.  “Influencer bureaucrats” - social media-savvy civil servants with followings rivaling minor Bollywood celebrities - who have made their place in the sweet spot between governance and celebrity culture.

The Legacy of Hero Worship

How did we get here? The change has been gradual but inevitable. Historically, Indian bureaucrats were remote authority figures—part of an opaque, hierarchical system inherited from the British Raj. The Indian Civil Service (ICS) became the IAS after Independence, but the culture remained much the same: files moved slowly, access was restricted, and public communication was minimal.

That began to shift over the last decade. A digital explosion and a rising demand for visible, relatable leadership started reshaping public expectations. Citizens no longer wanted just efficiency - they wanted accessibility, charisma, and engagement. In a country where civil services carry immense aspirational weight, these officers became symbols of power, prestige, and personality.

A long-standing national tendency to idolize commanding figures - especially those who seem to cut through red tape with flair – also added to this phenomenon. The public’s voyeuristic thrill of a sneak peek into the ‘corridors of power’ - grand desks with the Emblem of India, sarkari cars with fluttering flags, high-stakes meetings in cavernous rooms – made it easy for these figures to find an audience. 

The Double-Edged Sword of Public Engagement

There are undeniable upsides to bureaucrats being active online. During Covid, many officials countered misinformation, responded directly to citizen concerns, and used their platforms to share vital health updates. But the risks are real. A strong personal brand can blur the line between institutional authority and individual persona. When governance hinges on an officer’s popularity, it distorts how power is understood—shifting the focus from systemic reform to individual performance.

This performative visibility, mistaken for real delivery, can breed disillusionment. It promotes a lone-hero narrative in what should be a collaborative, process-driven system.

Global Norms, Local Realities

Contrast this with bureaucracies in the US and UK. Regulations like the Hatch Act and the UK Civil Service Code strictly enforce political neutrality and limit public-facing personal branding. American and British civil servants face clear boundaries around online presence and political expression.

In India, civil servants are technically governed by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibit political activity and criticism of government policy. The Constitution too expects neutrality and discretion. But these rules were written in a pre-digital age and offer little clarity on social media conduct. So influencer-like behavior - self-promotion, stylized content, even soft political signaling – can exists not because it’s allowed, but because it’s not explicitly disallowed.

Some states are catching on. In 2024, the Uttar Pradesh government issued new social media guidelines for bureaucrats, discouraging content that might harm the government’s image or appear self-promotional. This reflects a growing recognition that outdated frameworks need urgent reform - not to censor, but to support responsible engagement. Without clear guidelines, the line between personal views and official policy can blur dangerously.

Toward a Healthier Digital Culture

To mitigate these risks, there is a need for well-defined rules for digital conduct. Mandatory ethics training can help officers balance transparency with professionalism. Institutions should prioritize substance over popularity, and mentorship programs can guide young officers toward thoughtful engagement.

Walking the Tightrope

Visibility should complement, not compromise, bureaucratic integrity. India’s influencer bureaucrats stand at a crossroads. If they strike the right balance, they could position the civil service as a model of transparent and effective governance. But if spectacle overtakes substance, the result may be a hollow performance where substance takes a backseat to style.