Protests against
corruption in India
or other parts of the world are not new. History shows enough evidence of such
kinds of protests from time to time. In case of India , there appears a mismatch
between concept of public service and political power as a means to realize
that goal. Political power when used as a means to itself in collusion with
traditional notions of feudalism, then public service emerges a camouflage.
This deadly cocktail of power and traditionalism has stymied the vision of
public service long cherished by founders of modern India .
I do not blame
the political class solely for the mess in Indian political system. When I
search root cause of this gangrene, I do not look at the persons who are
managing the political business of the country but at somewhere else. These
persons are manifestation of a system which discreetly, or maybe openly,
encourages greedy harnessing of political power not for public service but for
personal gains. It is interesting to examine which factors led to evolution of
this corrupt system, and how the political class imbibes those values which
work as detriments against the ethos of service to the people and service to
the nation.
I identify the
following factors which can help explain the degeneration of a system which
produced public servants and politicians like Mahatma Gandhi and Lal Bahadur
Shastri. Gandhi epitomized in person the unique combination of a saint and a
politician, while Shastri epitomized in person honesty with public service as
sole guide in actions. The culture of hierarchy and feudalism has contributed
to corruption. Though India
claims to be an egalitarian society, respect for hierarchy and power goes deep
into the Indian psyche. Feudalism in the context of India can be translated as an earlier
version of power equation with the sole purpose of aggrandizement. Feudalism
reinforces hierarchy, and conforms to a pattern in which the powerful,
irrespective of the values and goals, is worshipped. With the onset of Westminster
model of democracy after the independence, and with the adoption of a
democratic, socialist and secular constitution, this craving for feudal
hierarchy did not die but assumed new forms. The political leaders took the
place of feudal lords and their election to power by popular vote helped erase
the negative varnish of feudalism. The political leaders in the immediate
aftermath of the independence belonged to a different breed as they fought the
British for freedom, and for them freedom of India
was equivalent to freedom of themselves, their families, and the whole of India . I admit
there is a qualification even now. I do not argue that all political leaders
are corrupt or of feudal mentality, but the number of corrupt politicians has
gone up drastically. The miniscule politicians with noble values are
marginalized or they deliberately remain coalesced to the corrupt system. Any
observer of Indian politics will agree that most of the political leaders are
corrupt.
This feudal approach
leads to domestication of political parties. Political parties created during
colonial India
attracted bright and talented young women and men across divides. Dedication to
social service, adherence to austerity in personal life and an avid sense of
patriotism were the main motivators for the young people to join political
parties. Politicians then did not promote their daughters and sons as their
successors in politics because they knew that such an exercise would be futile
because sense of service requires morality and ethics in personal life, which
can not be imposed. Feudalism was existed then, even in a more rigid sense, but
that never clouded the vision of national-minded political leaders. For them,
not wealth but wisdom, not power but public service, not muscle power but moral
strength guided their actions and vision. Later years witnessed the degradation
of this framework and the return of feudalism as the successive leaders succumbed
to it lure. The veneer of democratic election and the legitimacy it brought
upon the leaders created a sense of impunity among the rising breed of
political leaders. This process of degeneration was further accelerated due to
poverty and illiteracy of the people. The people were no more considered agents
of change as leaders manipulated people power for selfish gains. Electors were
considered important at the interval of every five years and the disconnect
between leaders and people were forced to be bridged by means of money and
muscle power and by all kinds ingenuity the shrewd human mind can innovate. The
degradation of democratic values accelerated this process.
The concept of
babudom created during the British raj contributed to the corruption of the
system. Though the concept is related to bureaucracy than to the politics, it
contributed to corruption in Indian politics. The British created the
formidable bureaucracy not only to carry administration but also to create a
shield between the raj and the people. The bureaucracy trained with
professionalism to carry the order of their masters and drawn from the Indian
masses could be ruthless in their operations. Hence it was the Indian
commissioner in most cases who perpetuated the British rule for years. In
return, they were paid sumptuously, elevated to a higher prestige as almost a
new feudal class and given a free hand to run affairs once they fulfilled the
duty to protect the empire and make its machine run. After British departed the
politician elected by the people, wielded power over the bureaucrats. They
controlled the legislature as elected representatives of people. The politician
who campaigned to garner popular votes and ran from village to village in
sweltering heat, or cold or rain, and invested a lot of money and muscle in
these campaigns gets little remuneration after getting elected to office. In a
general sense a minister in the government gets less remuneration than a legislator.
Here appears the disconnect, fostered by relative deprivation. The sense of this
relative deprivation was lacking in the earlier breed of political class as for
them politics is a means for service, not a means for wealth accumulation and
power. For the latter breed of leaders, the hard work before election must be
compensated by the gains of the political office. What the babus get due to
their eligibility by qualifying examinations mostly deemed impartial, many
politicians want to get that leverage by means of their newly gained power. The
political power opened up for them floodgates to wealth by manipulation and in
this venture they were aided by the subordinate bureaucracy.
Poverty and
unemployment contribute to political corruption. In the prevalent world most of
the young people join politics not for service but for livelihood may not be a
farfetched statement. Thousands of young women and men sacrificed their lives
during freedom struggle as for them there was no separation of the cause of
thier life from the cause of the nation. The political leaders played a
significant role to invoke in them the spirit of service. The case is different
now. A young man who played an active role during the electoral campaign of his
leader seeks remuneration after the election of the leader. That appears
‘legitimate’ as for him politics is a ‘job’ and politician is the job provider.
It is no surprise to see the rise of a new breed of young lower rung youth
leaders at village or town level, who express loyalty to leaders and get
contracts to build roads, schools, primary health centers, etc. This may be
called trickling down of corruption, but in this case the two poles –
politician at the top and the apprentice at the bottom – reinforce each other.
The politician thinks ‘benevolently’ for his followers who have done so much
for his success and rewards them with largesse not from his own kitty but from
the public kitty of which he is elected custodian. An educated youth with a
respectable source of livelihood may not be drawn to this cycle of politics,
which not only channelizes his youthful energy and dynamism to suit the purpose
of the leader but also creates a long line of recruits behind him. One may not
be surprised to see young people flocking to political leaders or roaming
around political offices or taking part in college and university student union
elections for the sole purpose of recruitment and power. In many Indian
colleges and universities, the criminalization of campus politics is the result
of politicization of education institutions as these are seen not as temples of
scientific inquiry and wisdom but as recruiting grounds for political parties.
The noble values
guiding political actions have deteriorated. It is not to say that there are no
values in political life and we have not a single political leader who is
guided by values but the chasm between values and political actions have never
been stark as it is now. There is also the question of priority. For Mahatma
Gandhi clear conscience and inner purity is more important than visible success
in life. He would rather sacrifice his life than compromise his values. Once
this inner core is established, Gandhi would argue, actions in life naturally
flow from this core. Once this core is different alloyed with craving for
wealth and power then outer actions would be different. Gandhi would never use
muscle or money power to win elections because for him political power is not
the end rather a means to serve mankind. Shastri’s vision and ideals were
deeply embedded by this Gandhian principle. In the current breed of political
leaders this inner core is lacking. The quest for power by hook or crook has
clouded the inner core. When power becomes the sole aim, the finer human
qualities become subservient to this aim. As a result, a political leader will
not hesitate to exploit the fault lines in a society whether in terms of differences
in caste, religion, ethnic identity, language or region to realize his goal.
While Mahatma Gandhi would prefer to rush to dowse the communal fire, a present
day politician would rush to stoke communal passion to gain votes. The purpose
of human life and the purpose of living daily as a life to live for the good of
society have become alien to the political class. The famous Gandhian dictum
(paraphrasing) ‘when you are confused as to which policy to adopt then think of
the most grieved and confusion will melt away’ has been thrown to trash bin
without second thought. A politician may not hesitate to bribe people to vote,
to deliver false promises, play tricks and feign innocence, play dangerous
games in terms of silencing opponents as these are for him means to gain power
and wealth and the ‘prestige’ associated with them.
Hence, when I
survey the current protest against political corruption I am not surprised at
the lackluster attitude of the political class across spectrum. Many political leaders
smirk at these protests and even mock the protesters as if they are lesser mortals.
There may be genuine feeling behind these protest movements against corruption
but I am skeptic how far they will succeed unless the political class is
convinced of the urgency of reform. The political class, the wielder of
political power, comprising of master tacticians are adept in using carrot and
stick policy. They will use all kinds of policies and machinations to swim over
the tide of protests. They will apply all their ingenuity to show the protests
in a poor light. They know when to baulk and when to intimidate and when to
eliminate the opposition. My central argument in this article is unless
political class is convinced of self-transformation; the endeavor to change
them from outside will be very difficult. Unless they feel the pinch from inside,
unless they feel the urgency to change, unless they want to transform India
from a developing to a developed world, all these protests may go in vein or
will have little effects. I do not doubt the motives of some of the protesters,
but I doubt how far they will be successful in moving this colossal machine,
steeped deep in corruption and wielders of power, forward.
I believe
political class can change. There can be motivations for political leaders.
There can be even higher allurements for them to undertake this adventure. When
I appeal to them for change, I note these allurements which they need to take
into considerations while thinking about transforming themselves. As on this
transformation of the political class depend the present and future of not only
them and their immediate families but also the present and past of the nation.
First, it may
appear crude but the fact is that most of the political leaders at top will
survive few years, or say, about thirty years or maybe less. They must think after
they pass away, how they will be remembered in Indian public memory? Will they
prefer to be remembered as a corrupt leader who swindled public money and
filled his coffers and did nothing constructive for the nation? Will they prefer
to be revered as we revere the father of the nation or Shastri, or will they prefer
to be remembered as a repugnant soul in the Indian political sky? I do not want
to name here the deceased political leaders who are remembered as corruption
personified. I understand this may not be an immediate allurement for the
political leaders, but it may be a sufficient indication that the posterity may
not be kind enough to forgive them for their actions of corruption which blight
the Indian nation. It is but natural that once the top political leaders change
their course and become transparent; the followers will follow their
footprints. I am optimistic. Why can not our political leaders become as great
as Mahatma Gandhi? They can be. The clincher is that they must take a long term
perspective of life.
Second, Indian
people dread politicians because they use power not for the right end. I am
reasonably sure when an Indian politician goes to a foreign developed country,
there must be a time he must have craved to see India as a developed nation. Many
of our political leaders will definitely be happy to conceive India as a
developed country and as a super power. They must think and ask themselves –
what contributions they have made to make India a rising power? How much
their policies have contributed to the growth of India ? How do they feel India ’s rise as their rise, and India ’s growth
as their growth? How many of them can claim to be builders of modern India ? One
spiritual leader of pre-independent India
had envisioned a free India
as leader of the world. How far these leaders have contributed to such a
vision? A political leader’s rise into grace and fall into disgrace are of less
consideration than his contribution to the rise of India . A political leader’s worth
will not be judged by how much bank balance he has, how much money he has
stashed away, how much acreage of land he has, how much money he spent in
parties, what was the weight of his birthday cake. None of us ask these
questions about Gandhi or Shastri. Gandhi left the lucrative job of lawyer and
plunged into politics for the reasons we all know. Let the political leaders
learn a lesson or two from Gandhi not only in terms of wearing Gandhi cap or
cotton. It may sound bit acerbic but the millions of Indian youth are
disappointed by the service of the political class. What we read in textbooks
about the life of Gandhi and other great founders of India – we find a huge discrepancy
in their life philosophy and the rules guiding the actions of current breed of
political leaders.
Third, the
political leader must ask – what is the purpose of life? It may sound
philosophical but a life devoid of philosophy is no life worth living. Gandhi
said (and I am paraphrasing), ‘when I go to bed every night I think my life is
coming to an end, and when I get up every morning I think I have a new birth.’ It
has a powerful message. It implies when a person goes to bed in night he recapitulates
his deeds whole day and find wrong and right he did, what lessons he drew from
them and how will not he repeat the same mistakes. It has a moral imperative.
Do our politicians think this way and judge themselves by following this
Gandhian yardstick. My purpose here is to checkmate the degradation of the
political system by appealing to the political class to think in a different
way. How moral is it for a political leader to amass enormous wealth and offer
largess to his cronies when millions of Indian children are malnourished and
many of these children die of starvation? How moral is it to spend millions of
rupees in parties organized by political class when millions of their fellow
Indians suffer from abject poverty? Poverty tourism by some political leaders
is mark of another humiliation to these people. I feel sad when one report in
New York Times calculated that if every American family contributes 200 dollars
per year, no child will be malnourished in the world. My attention is on India . I think
– how will it be if our political leaders use a fragment of their wealth for the
poor of India ?
Lastly, I do not consider Indian political
class insensitive and heartless. We still have political leaders with finer
intellect. Once the political leaders think in terms of India and Indian nation
and give up the fragmented outlook, India will not only be a developed nation without
poverty and malnourished children, the political leaders will themselves
realize that they are true inheritors of vision that guided freedom struggle of
India and their forefathers in politics.
