Gaurav argues that the only discernible moral from my tale of corruption is that Indians are corrupt. Well, that is a good enough summary, but I need to fill out an entire blog post, so here I spell out the lessons I drew from that incident.
The most striking aspect of the tale, to me, was this: B, who was undoubtedly a well-meaning man, saw nothing wrong in misusing the CBI to achieve what he considered were morally justifiable ends. But if misusing public resources to achieve private aims is what is considered corruption, how were B’s actions any less corrupt than A’s?
There is a tendency in India to think of incorruptibility as a personal quality roughly equivalent to “lack of avarice”. We believe that corruption is caused by a hankering after material wealth, and consequently, the tendency is to hold the saintly man, preferably with no family to lead him astray, as the model from which good governance will flow. Sometime back, I read a story on how Nitish Kumar was transforming Bihar. I do not remember the source now, nor the exact words, but there was a line on how honest a man Nitish was. Apparently, industrialists who went to him with bags of money (presumably as donations to the party fund) found that Nitish did not even look at or touch the money when they tried to hand it over, but asked them to keep it in one corner. Now, without detracting from Nitish’s achievement in making Bihar governable, which is indeed a considerable one, Nitish’s own personal “cleanness” makes no difference to the fact that the wads of notes that industrialists contribute to his party funds distort policy-making, just as B’s own personal honesty made no difference to the fact that his actions ensured that a person who ought to be arrested and in jail was out of it because it served the cause of a private dispute.
This tendency to think of corruption in terms of personal characteristics is a consequence of the saintly idiom in Indian politics. Gandhiji contributed significantly in establishing this, but he was by no means responsible for originating it. This mode of thinking has had many deleterious consequences on our polity. One of them, which has thankfully reduced in severity, is an Indian inability to distinguish between a dishonest man and a person who, having made his money honestly, enjoys the good things in life. This inability was fueled by, and in turn contributed to, the antipathy towards free-market policies. Whether it is liberalization that changed this attitude or generational change, this particular attitude’s trend is downwards. Other consequences, however, remain. We tend to search for the incorruptible person to run our systems, and our fantasies of a perfect society display a disturbing willingness to hand over dictatorial powers to such a person.
The second aspect of the story to note was the reaction of the association’s members. The membership was split in its support between A and B, but there was no dispute over facts. None of A’s supporters thought him to be an honest man. Indeed, it never occurred to them that there was anything wrong with looting from the public purse. What tipped the views of his supporters in A’s favour was the fact that A did a good job at the association – and yes, they knew that he took a cut there too.
For that matter, A’s opponents weren’t particularly concerned about the public money either. It was his avarice and his behaviour at the association that they were concerned with (Of course, as we have noted, B, the supposedly honest man, wasn’t that concerned about A’s corruption)
This is an important point, and unless we address it, we are not going to get rid of corruption. For us, the government’s money is “out there”, something external to us. It exists to be looted. The job of our representatives is not to be incorruptible and govern impartially. It is to be corrupt in our favour. We are strongly opposed to corruption when indulged in by our opponents, because they are denying our side the opportunity to do the same thing.
That brings me to the Jan Lok Pal idea, which is essentially a fantasy that we can get rid of corruption without addressing the systemic problems that cause it. I will write about it in a subsequent post.
(Update: Aadisht pointed out that I mixed up A and B in the last few paragraphs. Fixed that.)
5 thoughts on “The Moral of the Corruption Tale”
It is not clear to me if B must have seen “nothing wrong” at all in misusing public resources. In India, and in possibly other developing countries too, there is such a thing as loyalty to the group you are in. In particular you should not cause damage to any one in the group. It is supposed to be a virtue, and there are possibly evolutionary-psychological reasons for it.
This must be why many felt that B had gone “too far” in calling the CBI – you are supposed to tolerate the wrongdoings of members in your group. When A surrendered, this particular factor gained a considerably higher amount of traction, to such a point as to override the moral concern regarding the misuse of public resources.
“saintly idiom in Indian politics”, saintly idiom, brilliantly phrased although I believe it is not only restricted to politics, it is in all spheres of indian life.
froginthewell, you are right, but isn’t it a problem?
Sure it is. I didn’t mean it as any kind of justification; just that you should consider suspects from the “non-saintly-idiom” community too, to torture.
this is a great post, and though there are further nuances to the Indian perception of corruption, this is certainly insightful.
Comments are closed.