India, In Transition and Corrupt

Hum agar rishwat nahin lenge to khayenge kya— Josh Malihabadi

Now that the Anna Hazare agitation has subsided, the time has come for some rational, scientific analysis of the problem of corruption.

There is no doubt that there is rampant corruption in Indian society at almost every level.

In Western society, too, there is some corruption, but it is only at a very high level, and it ordinarily does not affect the common man. Corruption there takes such forms as multinational corporations giving bribes to top politicians, generals or bureaucrats of underdeveloped countries to get contracts, etc. But in North America you cannot offer a bribe to a policeman if he catches you violating some traffic rule. If you attempt to do that it will be a second, more serious, offence. Similarly, you cannot bribe an income tax official or other officials there. But in India corruption exists at every level, for example, in registering a sale deed, getting mutation in revenue records, getting an FIR registered, getting permission from a municipality to build a house, tax matters, etc.

Everyone is harassed by corruption in India, but what is to be done about it?

Anna Hazare’s movement, in my opinion, was only an emotional outburst, but serious problems cannot be addressed in that manner. A scientific analysis of the problem is required.

I submit the following: first, corruption is the normal feature of the transitional period when a society (such as India’s) is passing from a feudal, agricultural stage to a modern, industrial stage. Second, it is only when the transition is over and the country becomes a fully industrial society, like that in North America or Europe, that things will get relatively stabilised, and corruption will be considerably reduced. This, in my opinion, will take about 15 to 20 years more in India.

This needs to be explained.

Feudal, agricultural society is a relatively stable society, with everyone knowing his place, with stable social and ethical values. In contrast, when the process of industrialisation begins, things become topsy-turvy. In this transitional period, before the process of industrialisation is complete, two things happen. First, old (feudal) moral values disintegrate, but a new moral code does not come into existence. Second, prices start shooting up, while incomes are broadly stagnant (or rise much slower than the price rise). For both these reasons, corruption becomes rampant. To maintain one’s lifestyle and to keep up with the Joneses, one must supplement one’s regular income, and this is only possible by corruption. Since the old moral code has largely disintegrated there is little check on one’s conscience to prohibit taking bribes.

I am not trying to justify corruption. I am only presenting a scientific analysis to show that corruption is inevitable in a transitional society like India in which industrialisation has commenced, but is incomplete. Historical facts support this conclusion. For example, there was rampant corruption in England in the 18th and early 19th centuries when industrialisation was going on but was not complete. Sir Robert Walpole, who was the first prime minister of Great Britain (from 1721 to 1742), openly used to say that he can purchase any person, including members of parliament. John Wilkes and Junius attacked the corruption of the governments of the Duke of Grafton (1768-1770) and of his successor, Lord North. Similarly, in America too there was a lot of corruption in the 19th century when the process of industrialisation was going on. The administrations of Presidents Grant, Harding, etc were notoriously corrupt.

It is only when the process of industrialisation is broadly completed that society once again becomes relatively stable and corruption subsides. A new ethical code has emerged, and people in the West are relatively more honest in their dealings than people in underdeveloped countries. Anyone who has been to the West and has interacted with people there can bear this out.

In view of this analysis, I submit that corruption will continue in India for another 15-20 years, but will considerably disappear when the process of industrialisation is complete after this period.

The writer, a former judge of the Supreme Court, is chairman of the Press Council of India

(Published in The Indian EXPRESS on 08th August,2012)

CREATING A FRANKENSTEIN

CREATING A FRANKENSTEIN

By Justice Markandey Katju

I had been keeping silent throughout the Anna Hazare Movement for creating a Lokpal (Janlokpal) because the media (particularly electronic media) had so much hyped the issue and generated such an emotional storm that anyone who would have raised some logical questions would have immediately been branded as a ‘deshdrohi’ or ‘gaddar’. Anna Hazare was depicted as a modern messiah, who, like Moses, had come to rescue his chosen people and lead them to a land of honey and milk.

            Now that the brouhaha and hullabaloo has subsided it is time to make a cool, dispassionate, logical assessment of Mr. Hazare and his movement.

            I have no doubt that Anna Hazare is an honest man, but my point is that the problems facing the country (and corruption is certainly one of them) are so massive that they can only be solved by a rational, scientific approach, not by emotional outbursts.  Honesty alone is not enough.

            So far as I could gather, Anna Hazare has no scientific ideas. Consider two of his statements:

1.     His solution to alcoholism is to tie alcoholics to a pole and whip them. Is this a rational solution? Most poor people who drink liquor in this country drink cheap country liquor, not scotch. They drink to get some temporary relief from their miserable lives. To abolish alcoholism among them would be possible only by abolishing poverty, and that can be done by raising their standard of living and giving them decent lives. This is a gigantic task, and cannot be solved by flogging them in public.

2.     Anna Hazare demands a right to recall elected representatives. But how is that possible within the system? Supposing a law is made that a motion can be moved for recall of an M.L.A. or M.P. signed by 10,000 voters. But for getting this motion passed there will have to be voting by all the voters in the constituency. This would mean another election. Is this feasible? An election entails a huge amount of expenditure, can a poor country like ours have repeated elections? I think the idea is totally impractical.

           Now coming to the Lokpal Bill, whether Janlokpal Bill or Sarkari Lokpal Bill, it envisages overseeing the work of some 55 lac government employees in the country (of which 13 lacs are in the Railways alone), from Prime Minister to peon. Surely one person cannot enquire into the lacs of complaints which are bound to pour in. It will require thousands of Lokpals, may be 50,000 of them to do this. All these have to be provided salaries and other amenities, housing, offices, staff etc. And then where is the guarantee that these will not themselves become corrupt? In fact considering the low level of morality prevailing in India, we can be fairly certain that a large number of them will become blackmailers.   In my opinion, the Lokpal Bill will create a parallel bureaucracy, which will turn into a Frankenstein monster. Instead of curtailing corruption, in all probability at a stroke it will double or triple corruption in the country.

            I regret to say that the implications of creating such an apparatus were not rationally thought out, and instead some people thought that all problems of corruption will be solved by shouting ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ or ‘Inquilaab Zindadbad’ from Jantar Mantar or Ram Lila Ground.   

            I may clarify that I am not against any kind of Lokpal. Justice Hegde did a fantastic job in exposing the corruption of the mining mafia in Karnataka. But the type of Lokpal envisaged in the Janlokpal Bill or Government Lokpal Bill are clearly impractical and unworkable.

            I would therefore respectfully urge Parliament to defer consideration of the Bill before it and refer the matter to a Standing Committee (as Shri Lalu Yadav has suggested) where experts from various fields in the country and outside be invited to give their views, and only then a workable Lokpal machinery can be created. Passing Bills in a hurry and under pressure of some people having their own agenda will only add to the huge problems facing the country.