Minister vs Civil Servant: Ethics in Governance, Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean & Emotional Intelligence in Administration

POLITY & ETHICS | MARCH 2026

A public confrontation between Haryana Energy Minister Anil Vij and Kaithal SP Upasna during a grievance redressal session has sparked a profound debate on the ethical foundations of governance in India. The Minister, displeased over the handling of an ASI suspension matter, publicly told the SP to “get up if you have no power” — a remark that went viral and raised fundamental questions about the relationship between the political executive and the permanent executive, the role of emotional intelligence in administration, and the ethical frameworks that should govern public conduct.

This analysis, drawing on the Ethics Simplified column by Nanditesh Nilay — an ethicist with a PhD (ICSSR and IIT Delhi) who has served as consultant to UPSC, CBI, CCI, and the National Judicial Academy — explores the incident through the lens of Western and Indian philosophical traditions, with direct relevance to UPSC GS-IV.

The Incident: Political Executive vs Permanent Executive

The confrontation illuminates a structural tension at the heart of democratic governance. The political executive (ministers, elected representatives) derives authority from the people’s mandate — democratic elections confer legitimacy and the power to set policy direction. The permanent executive (civil servants, police officers, bureaucrats) derives authority from law, rules, and institutional frameworks — they are guardians of procedural integrity and administrative continuity.

Both are indispensable pillars of democracy. The minister represents the will of the people; the civil servant represents the rule of law. When these two pillars clash publicly, it is not merely a personal conflict — it is a systemic failure that erodes public trust in governance itself.

SP Upasna, despite the public humiliation, maintained composure. She did not retaliate verbally, nor did she capitulate in a manner that would compromise her institutional authority. This restraint — often undervalued in public discourse — is itself an exercise in ethical governance.

Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean: Finding Virtue Between Extremes

The most illuminating philosophical framework for this incident comes from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, specifically the Doctrine of the Mean. Aristotle argues that every moral virtue is a mean (mesotes) between two extremes — one of excess and one of deficiency. Neither extreme is virtuous; only the balanced middle ground constitutes ethical conduct.

Applied to the Vij-Upasna incident:

• Excess: Uncontrolled anger, public humiliation of a subordinate, using political power to intimidate — the Minister’s conduct represents this extreme
• Deficiency: Complete passivity, sycophancy, abandoning one’s institutional duty out of fear — this would have been the opposite extreme
• The Mean (missing): A measured, dignified exchange where the Minister could express policy displeasure through proper channels while respecting the SP’s institutional role and personal dignity

Aristotle’s insight is that the “mean” is not a rigid mathematical midpoint but a context-sensitive balance that a person of practical wisdom (phronesis) would identify. The virtuous response in a governance setting requires calibrating authority with dignity, firmness with respect, and political will with procedural propriety.

Plato’s Republic and the Form of Good

Complementing Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Plato’s Republic offers the concept of the Form of Good — the highest of all Forms (Ideas) in Plato’s metaphysical hierarchy. Plato uses the sun analogy: just as the sun enables physical sight by illuminating objects, the Form of Good enables intellectual understanding by illuminating truth and knowledge. Without goodness, knowledge itself becomes directionless — technically competent but morally blind.

For governance, this has a profound implication: power without goodness is tyranny; knowledge without goodness is manipulation. A minister who exercises authority without the orienting principle of goodness — respect for persons, concern for justice, commitment to the public good — is exercising power in darkness. Similarly, a civil servant who follows rules mechanically without moral orientation risks becoming a cog in an unjust machinery.

Indian Philosophical Perspective: Dharma in Public Life

Indian philosophy places dharma at the centre of public life. Unlike the Western separation of “is” and “ought,” the Indian tradition sees ethical conduct as inseparable from one’s social role (svadharma). The dharma of a ruler includes not just effective governance but dignified conduct, protection of the vulnerable, and self-restraint in the exercise of power.

The Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata — Bhishma’s discourse on rajadharma — explicitly warns against rulers who humiliate their own servants: “A king who insults his ministers in public loses their loyalty, and without loyal ministers, even the mightiest kingdom falls.” This ancient wisdom speaks directly to the contemporary governance dilemma.

Grace Under Pressure: The Cricket Analogy

Nanditesh Nilay draws an unexpected but illuminating parallel from cricket. During a tense moment between Suryakumar Yadav and Kuldeep Yadav on the field, the potential confrontation was dissolved not by reprimand or authority, but by a smile and a hug. This is what emotional intelligence looks like in practice — the ability to de-escalate tension through empathy rather than hierarchy, through grace rather than force.

In administrative settings, this translates to a crucial leadership principle: the most effective leaders are those who can maintain composure under provocation, redirect negative energy toward constructive outcomes, and model the behaviour they expect from their subordinates. SP Upasna, by maintaining composure despite personal hurt, demonstrated precisely this quality.

Emotional Intelligence as an Administrative Virtue

Daniel Goleman’s framework of emotional intelligence (EI) — comprising self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills — provides the modern psychological vocabulary for what Aristotle called practical wisdom and what Indian tradition calls viveka (discernment).

For UPSC GS-IV, this incident provides a ready-made caselet. The ethical question it poses: “When ethics and discipline are absent from the conduct of those in authority, how can a tradition of institutional integrity be established?”

Conclusion: Conduct Shapes Public Trust

Both the political executive and the permanent executive represent pillars of Indian democracy. Their conduct — especially in public settings — shapes citizens’ trust in governance institutions. When a minister humiliates a civil servant publicly, it does not merely hurt one individual; it degrades the institutional relationship that makes governance possible. When a civil servant maintains composure under provocation, it does not merely demonstrate personal restraint; it upholds the dignity of the institution she represents.

Aristotle would say the mean was missing. Plato would say goodness was eclipsed. Indian philosophy would say dharma was violated. All three traditions converge on a single insight: power exercised without ethical restraint is power that destroys the very institutions it claims to serve.

Source: UPSC Essentials — Ethics Simplified by Nanditesh Nilay, The Indian Express — March 2026

Practice Quiz

Test your understanding with these 10 MCQs: