Descriptive Notes on Corruption, Politics and Democracy

The observations made by the Committee in this connection are significant, because they stress one of the main sources of graft in the country, and also the fact that this source has not been tackled by the government. There is a large consensus of opinion, said the Committee, that a new tradi­tion of integrity can be established only if the example is set by those who have the ultimate responsibility for the governance of India, namely the ministers of the Central and State governments.

The problem is indeed dif­ficult and delicate. Ministers are the leaders of the political party which, by virtue of being in a majority or a partner in a coalition set-up, constitute the government. The Committee said that there was a widespread impression that failure of integrity is not uncommon among ministers and that some ministers who have held office for 10 to 15 years or so “have enriched themselves illegitimately, obtained good jobs for their sons and relations through nepotism, and have reaped other advantages inconsistent with any notion of purity in public life”. The Committee felt that the general belief about the lack of integrity among ministers is as damaging as actual failure.

It was for this reason that the Administrative Reforms Commission expressed preference for a permanent authority to keep a continuous watch over ministers and suggested the setting up of a Lokpal, who would have the authority to enquire into allegations against a Central minister or his secretary and others.

The fact that ministers sometimes accept gifts in cash or kind is undeniable; several instances are known of ministerial corruption, but there has hardly been a case of a minister getting convicted or even publicly censured for dishonest practices. This also applies to politicians and legislators.

There have been many cases of such people accepting bribes. No wonder, there is a general belief that politics and democracy bring corruption in their wake; since politics and democracy are indispensable, corruption cannot be avoided; hence it must be tolerated as a necessary evil.

The standard or size of the bribe naturally differs from man to man, depending upon his status, his moral character, his inclinations and often the instigation and compulsions of his wife.

Every man, it is said, has his price, and by and large this has proved true. When the entire social and economic set-up breathes of what is called “speed money” to push things through, it is almost impossible to resist temptation—human beings are, after all, human beings. But the stink lies not only in the prevalence of the lure of gold, but in the hypocrisy that accompanies it.

Even after having accepted bribes the corrupt person talks the very next day of high moral standards and urges people from public platforms to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s principles and be honest and pure and zealously, serve the nation.

Such hypocrisy compounds the offence, but our ministers, politicians and officials are getting thick-skinned; it is all a way of life, a routine, and hence may be described as unavoidable and a disease that is incurable. After all, when there is graft, deception and bribery, on a small or big scale at every step—in the administration, in the educational sphere, in legislatures and even, it is believed, in religious institutions—what is the relatively honest person to do but to fall in line?

Don’t we also bribe the gods with gifts of all sorts, so-runs another argument. Promises and oaths of honesty are soon forgotten, and the norms return again. These norms are palm-greasing, extortions by politicians from industrialists, by inspectors from shopkeepers, by officials and clerks from the public and by everybody from everybody else, even for small favours. The vicious circle remains.