On Inventing a new manager

On inventing a new manager

By

S.P.Srivastava

          Improvement of quality of life and  inculcating sense of security, has been major endeavor of human beings since the dawn of civilization. Commerce and trade developed in the process. Initially, it was individual or a group activity, confined to a community or village and subsequently grew to larger areas depending on mode of transport, but yet, confined to the boundaries of a country. However, there were a few instances of highly adventurous and enthusiastic entrepreneurs who travelled many thousand miles, braving rough terrain and weather across the boundaries for trade, but these were exceptions. Later, especially after industrial revolution, it occupied a prominent position in the mental space, not only of individuals but of society at large. Lately, since when the world became a global village, national interest has become synonymous with economic interest, national policies and international relations are framed around it. In this process, management of organizations, manufacturing and trade played a major background role. Management theories kept on evolving along side manufacturing techniques and trade practices. Presently, we are witnessing bumpy jerks and unpredictability in the economic space, resultantly, frequency of relook at policies at all levels has increased many fold. Management scientists are still struggling hard to find an effective approach. I have argued in this article that the philosophy behind framing management principles, so far in vogue, should be shaken up, its basic premises and tenets need to be seriously questioned. Lessons have been drawn from the path travelled by scientists especially physicists, that how questioning the then existing belief have, paved the way for its evolution. A similar questioning needs to be explored by management scientists also. The mindset of management scientists should be in synchronous with modern scientific thoughts. I have concluded that it has become imperative to invent a new manager.

            As we look deeply into the evolutionary history of human thoughts and its manifestations in the external world, we find that whenever a time-honored belief has been questioned, a new worldview perspective had always followed it. It is only human nature that in order to interpret apparently unexplainable phenomenon, a hypothesis is first manufactured to explain it. If the hypothesis remains unquestioned for long, it gradually becomes a belief. New phenomenon are tried to be explained in the context of that belief and slowly it gets firmly ingrained into the thought process and treated as truth. In case any observation is not explained within the purview of premises of that belief, the observation itself is questioned rather than the premises.

            During pre Copernicus and Galileo era, earth was unquestionably believed to be center of the universe, around which every planetary objects including sun revolved. Geocentric universe was conceptually accepted and to question it, was to commit a sacrilege. For a long time, till capability of human senses were just normal, observable phenomenon could be understood quite well and geo-centricity did not pose any serious problem. Copernicus tried to explore deeper. He designed tools to enhance the power of observations. The facts, which he encountered, raised genuine doubts over the belief that earth is at the center of universe but, the authority of the premises of the “geo-centricity” was so heavy that the question was abandoned to be raked up later by Galileo. Galileo designed more sophisticated telescopes and made finer observations, which gave him convincing justifications to question the belief that the universe is geo- centric. Those observations were so glaring that he had no hesitation to declare that earth is not the center of the universe, but it is the earth, which moves around sun. He was persecuted for committing sacrilege. Here, observation by Galileo was questioned rather than the premises itself. Galileo being persecuted, notwithstanding, questioning itself gave way to possibilities of new perspective in to the thought process. Ultimately, classical science emerged as a powerful tool to interpret observable phenomenon. Many path breaking discoveries were made, many a scientists contributed. Isaac Newton was one of shining stars. Kepler and later Newton gave mathematical proof that established that it is earth which moves. Believers in Christian mythology could not counter it. Universe was no more geo-centric now. Universe became heliocentric. Classical science era began. Scientists claimed that universe conducts its affairs according to physical laws. It behaves like a huge machine. If initial conditions are known, its future course can be predicted. No need to invoke God. Worldview became mechanistic and deterministic.

            Though, classical science emerged as a result of questioning the belief, but slowly it got imprisoned into its own belief. Ether was one such premise, the existence of which became a strong belief at par with geo-centric belief of pre Copernican era. Though, there was no tangible experimental data to prove the existence of ether, yet it was believed that it permeates the entire universe and surrounds all the heavenly bodies. It could explain the propagation of light wave through space (or else how could light travel) and also did not create hindrances in explaining other observable phenomenon. Existence of ether was believed rather blindly, by all the scientists of the day. It never occurred to any scientist to give even a doubting glance.

            While measuring the precise speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted and expected a difference in speed of light between to and fro movement, which would enable them to calculated speed of light, yet more precisely. Behind this expectation was the tacit belief in the existence of ether through which light would travel. As the ether would enhance the movement of light when it travels along the movement of earth and will reduce when light travels in opposite direction. It was a huge disappointment to both the scientists because no matter how much sensitivity they incorporated into their equipment, expected difference was not observed. They termed it as negative result. They still doubted the capability of their equipment.

            Like earlier instance, belief in the existence of ether was not questioned rather the mode of observation was doubted. The existence of ether was so strongly ingrained in scientists that instead of questioning its existence, Lorentz came forward to offer explanations to justify the so called negative result obtained by Michelson-Morley. He simply explained that while moving in the direction of earth rotation, though light will move faster but very rotation will elongate the space through which light has to travel and thus faster movement will get compensated by enhanced travel distance and similarly, opposite direction, will compress the space, so, though the light will travel slowly but has to cover less distance. Both effects shall cancel out giving rise to negative result. He gave precise formula to calculate the extent of elongation and contraction.

Scientists themselves became prisoner of their own belief .It was Albert Einstein who questioned the very existence of ether. Einstein just ignored ether and came forward with path breaking special theory of relativity. He simply accepted the Michelson Morley result and propounded the revolutionary concept that speed of light is constant. It travels with same speed in either direction. So no difference is expected. Negative result was just a correct result. It is different story that those two great scientists were no more alive to witness this.

            Metaphorically, Einstein played the same role, which Galileo played some 350 years ago. Classical science emerged then, now it is special theory of relativity. Classical science shook believers; special theory bewildered very scientific community. Time and space was no more two separate entities but were interwoven. Universe is not only heliocentric but space-time continuum as well.

            Classical science and special theory of relativity and many more theories are not merely concepts and philosophy, it has been proved by experiments and not only this, it has helped to improve the quality of human life as well.

Besides ether, classical science, through its theoretical interpretations of various universal phenomenon and inventing machines, hardened the premise that the cosmos is like a huge machine, completely deterministic. Knowing full initial conditions, entire future can be predicted- such was the claim. Deterministic worldview became a belief at par with “geo-centric”, and “ether”.

            Scientists continued their exploration voyage and turned towards very fundamental constituent, the atom. As they started breaking the atom to peep inside, their deterministic mindset got a shock. The fundamental particles seem no longer to obey set laws rather their behavior appeared unpredictable. The photon of which light is composed is a particle and wave both. In order to explain their behavior, Heisenberg challenging the deterministic concept introduced the principle of uncertainty, which says that it is impossible to measure two properties of a quantum object, such as its position and momentum simultaneously with infinite precision. Simply put, if you want to know where an electron is at this moment, you have to sacrifice knowledge of its velocity. Questioning determinism gave berth to a new science;  quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics takes its name from the observation that some physical quantities exist, and can change and interact, only by discrete amounts (in a 'step-like' manner) and behave probabilistically rather than deterministically. The "steps" are so tiny that they are completely imperceptible even with a microscope, and any description must be given in terms of a wave function rather than specific particles and movements. The term "quantum" itself (plural: quanta) comes from the Latin word quantus meaning how much?, referring to a 'packet' (or amount) of energy, momentum, or any other attribute that is quantized and can only change by discrete amounts. This tiny scale is why quantum mechanics generally leads to classical mechanics in macroscopic situations: - the vast numbers of quantum effects involved in everyday observations means that discrete quantum behaviors are usually hidden by much larger statistical effects (similar to "averaging").This process of questioning and evolving new concepts is still going on and perhaps it is unending.

            In the backdrop of aforementioned discussion, if we look at the evolution of management theories, we seem to be stuck up on the classical concept of determinism. For decades, rather, from the very beginning when a management theory was conceived, basic premise had been that organizational events could always be controlled. The very word “manage” is derived probably from Italian maneggiare "to handle, “especially "to control a horse”.(Merriam-Webster dictionary). Various theories which have been proposed from time to time, centered on this premise and varied only in the methodology and identification of to-be-controlled components including employees.

            “Plato had portrayed science as an activity with double benefits: science as pure thought helps mind to find truth, and science as power provides tools for effective action. Gerald Holton, a noted philosopher has observed ,“The main flaw in this image is that it omits a third vital aspect: science has always generated an important part of our symbolic vocabulary and provided some of the metaphysical bases and philosophical orientations of our ideology. As a consequence, the methods of arguments of science, its conceptions

and its models, have permeated first the intellectual life of the time, then the tenets and usages of every day life.” [1]      

            At the turn of century, when Newtonian mechanics was a dominant thought, Fredrick Taylor born in 1856, thought himself as a scientist and believed that things could be managed (controlled) scientifically like a machine in order to achieve optimum output. He brought the principle of rational and logical behavior in the design of work place, laid emphasis on standardization and propounded that in order to achieve maximum efficiency in minimized time, the job must be broken down in its elemental parts, time each part and then reconfigure the elements accordingly. Workers should be rewarded or punished (a tool to control) based on their performance. He called his methodology as “scientific management”, often called “machine theory model”.

            Henry Fayol in France and Lyndall Urwick in England chose a bit different approach of control. They proposed to analyze the organization in terms of its purpose and structure and then formulate rational rules of conduct in order to maximize efficiency. Max Weber, refined scientific theory of Taylor with his bureaucratic theory. He laid emphasis on “expertise”-rule of experts, and “discipline”-rule of officials. He identified components to be controlled; relation between workers and management (hierarchy), operations of organization (rules), area of work of workers (specialization) and conduct of officials (impersonality-rule of officials).

            Transition from classical science to quantum mechanics took place when scientists shifted their attention from gross to subtle, from larger bodies to subatomic particles. Here it was found that very process of observing changed the nature of “to be observed”. Eventually, what they observed was not about that they wanted to observe on the first hand. Almost similar pattern emerged when emphasis was shifted from organization (gross) to its constituents that are individuals (subtle).

            The Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study led by Elton Mayo {1924-1932} to see if workers of Western Electric Company, Chicago would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. It was found that the workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made, but it slumped when the study ended. Hawthorne effect (also referred to as the observer effect) revealed that individuals modify or improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed. Instead of questioning the premise of control, new components i.e. quality and integrity of social relationships (styles of leadership, quality of communication, sources of personal motivation and inter-personal relation) were included in to the list of controllable and human relation theory was propounded keeping employee at the center stage. Hierarchical model of human needs, as surmised by Abraham Maslow gave further boost around 1940 in the humanistic approach. Metaphorically, Abraham Maslow theory can be viewed at par with Quantum mechanics, as both deals with fundamental constituent element. However, belief in control was not questioned as in the case of quantum mechanics, which accepted the fact that no matter how precise you offer input, actualization of outcome can only be known probabilistically.

            Maslow’s model was applied not only to employee but also to work environment by F.Herzberg , working in 1960 and included “hygiene” or “maintenance” factor into the list of controllable. Employees were even categorized like fundamental particles in quantum mechanics (electron, neutron etc.,) by Douglas McGregor and proposed Theory X and Theory Y , taking different view of human nature ( X theory- people are basically lazy and try to shirk work where as Y takes opposite line that people have natural desire to work and excel) proposed methodology of control (carrot and stick approach and creating conditions for esteem and self actualization).

            Gradually, individual demanded more concern and attention. In the classical bias was to study “organizations without people” and later Human Relations bias was to study “people without organization”. However, soon it was realized that people and organization affects each other and the system was “people-organization continuum”, and that total system interacts with all other parts and that the performance of the whole can only be understood in terms of the interactions of the parts.

            As more and more controllable were added, it was realized that even more controllable are needed to be added to the list because in the effort to control one , other factors got affected as if they are interconnected. Soon it was realized that organizations couldn’t be regarded as closed systems that were autonomous and isolated from the outside world. Open system concept propounded by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1951), a biologist was borrowed by management scientists and thought to include environmental factors (network of suppliers, distributors, government agencies, and competitors with which a business enterprise inter-acts) into consideration. As none of theories were able to predict behavior of individual members (same as that of subatomic particles), none of the tools of control proved effective. So, Contingency school proposed flexibility in formulating control tools. It points out that business is, a sophisticated game in which, by definition, there can not be such thing as a winning strategy. Every business situation, like any game at any stage of play, is unique. The next move in the game will always be a question of judgment and never adherence to rule. “Any theory claiming to offer universal advice of formulae for success condemns itself as fraudulent science”. Contingency theory clearly acknowledged inadequacy of deterministic concept but, management scientists still hold on to the view that it is possible to develop a business management theory to overcome this complexity. “As we observe how different professionals working in different kinds of organizations and occupational communities make their case, we see we are still far from having a single 'theory' of organization development," wrote Jay R. Galbraith in Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations. "Yet, a set of common assumptions is surfacing. We are beginning to see patterns in what works and what does not work, and we are becoming more articulate about these patterns “

            A similar situation had arisen in 1927 , when Heisenberg serving as Bohr's assistant in Copenhagen, formulated the fundamental uncertainty principle as a consequence of quantum mechanics. Bohr, Heisenberg, and a few others then went on to develop what came to be known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which still provides a conceptual basis for the theory. A central element of the Copenhagen interpretation is Bohr's complementarity principle, According to complementarity, on the atomic level a physical phenomenon expresses itself differently depending on the experimental setup used to observe it. Thus, light appears sometimes as waves and sometimes as particles. For a complete explanation, both aspects, which according to classical physics are contradictory, need to be taken into account. The other towering figure of physics in the 20th century, Albert Einstein, never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation, famously declaring against its probabilistic implications that “God does not play dice.”(Britannica Encyclopedia on line )

There are another set of management thinkers who are vehemently taking anti-managerial stance, Sumantra Ghosal suggested that management as strategy should be replaced by an approach to management as purpose, process and people. Richard Koch, in “Managing without management”, argued that modern times have eroded the need for managers in large organizations. Gary Hamel has advocated strongly “Bureaucracy must die”.

It is amply clear that there is a strong case to invent a new manager; the manager who thinks quantum mechanically and thus abandons the idea of control. Not because of lack of skill or adequate formulation but because of its inherent nature of uncontrollability.

         New concepts on these lines are already emerging. Management scientists are applying chaos theory to organizations. Chaos theory refers to an apparent lack of order in a system that nevertheless obeys particular laws or rules. Simply put, in a complex system where large number of events are taking place, though, each event is obeying definite law and their behavior is deterministic but cumulatively behavior of system is unpredictable and thus can rarely be controlled. Management thinkers are echoing the concept like “Quantum decision theory”, “Quantum leadership”, “Quantum management”, etc.

During modern times, information technology has permeated in society and has consumed almost all activities including commerce. Until recently, individuals operated machines in a manufacturing unit, but now manufacturing processes are software driven. Marketing is becoming less physical and more virtual. Even software has become a process rather than individual enterprise. Whole gamut of organizational activities that is prime concern of a management scientist is a “process” rather than an isolated enterprise.

            Paul Davis has described process theology, as “Process thought is an attempt to view the world not as a collection of objects or even as a set of events, but as a process with a definite directionality". World is a community of interdependent beings like a living organism rather than a collection of cogs in a machine. The example of kicking a stone and dog would be more relevant to put the point across. When you kick a stone, it will react to the kick according to a linear chain of cause and effect. Its behavior can be calculated by applying basic laws of Newtonian mechanics. When you kick a dog the situation is quite different. Though a mechanistic interpretation was attempted to predict the behavior (Pavlov) of the dog but it could not satisfactorily account for certain observed variations.  The dog will respond with structural changes according to its own nature. Resulting behavior is generally unpredictable. Living organism behaves the quantum way.

                  There is yet another dimension and strong belief that primary objective of any commercial venture is to maximize its gain. Balance sheet is the only criterion to judge the health of the organization. Almost every approach of management scientists has been guided by the premise that maximization is the only rational goal. As has been conceived in the system theory that all the relevant stakeholders are interwoven and are in fact part of a whole. Chaos theory has proposed a realization that even a small action on the part of one stakeholder can produce an overall large effect (“butterfly effect”- flipping of wings of a butterfly here can cause a cyclone elsewhere). Stakeholders of an organization can broadly be grouped in four classes; supplier of raw material, manufacturer, trader and consumer. Each one would strategize for maximization of its own gains. However, each one would be uncertain of other’s strategy. Resultantly, it is be unlikely that each one would be able to maximize their gains. In the process, decision of some one may cause a butterfly effect. Cyclone is very likely to occur at unpredictable places and that may be the reason why we often witness bumpy-jerks in economic space. Consider each stakeholder as a player; game theory , which can be defined as the study of how people interact and make decisions, can help to understand the dynamics. It has two basic assumptions: rationality (people take whatever actions are likely to make them more happy) and - they know what makes them happy), and - common knowledge (we know that everyone else is trying to make himself or herself as happy as possible, potentially at our expense). These two parameters are like “canonical conjugate” of uncertainty principle; only sacrificing one can do maximization of other. Simply put, maximization of gain of some would cause loss or at least perceived loss to other, who in turn may chose another option and may cause turbulence, hitherto unforeseen. Like belief in ubiquitous “ether” was questioned, this belief in maximization of gain needs to be questioned by management scientists.

            If maximization of gain is substituted with maximization of “well being and happiness” of self and other stake holders, then two parameters (“rational” - un-happiness of others will hamper happiness of self, “well-being and happiness” of all) would be complimentary rather than conjugate and can be maximized simultaneously. It would de facto require cooperation and coordination amongst all players. Organizations can, therefore, at the best be managed with symbiotic-dynamism rather than by kicking - stone. It has to be a collective effort aiming at common goal of enhancing “well being and happiness” of all. Benevolent cooperation and friendly coordination would then be inherent to any management theory the “new manager” would adopt, where balance sheet should project “well-being and happiness” as predominantly important parameter to reflect the health of the organization.

References:

1. Game Theory. Theodore L. Turocy Texas A&M University Bernhard von Stengel London School of Economics

CDAM Research Report LSE-CDAM-2001-09

2. THINKING QUANTUM LEADERSHIP FOR TRUE TRANSFORMATION: THE TALISMAN OF “NOTTO KNOW” AT THE THRESHOLD OF NEW LEADERSHIP

Assist. Prof. Dr. GÜRCAN PAPATYA, Assist. Prof. Dr. MURAT ALI DULUPÇU

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Faculty of Economics And Administrative Sciences Isparta-Türkiye

3. Quantum Mechanics and Human Decision Making,

 Paras M. Agrawal* and Ramesh Sharda

 William S. Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Institute for Research in Information Systems, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA

4. God & The New Physics, by Paul Davies, Penguin Books

5. The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, First Vintage Books Edition,March 2000

6. The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra, Flamingo Published by Fontana Paperbacks

---

[1] Ideas in Science-Edited by Oscar H.Fidell, A Readers Enrichment Series, Published by Washington Square press Inc.

Lokpal bill

All party meet was called by ruling party on proposed Lokpal bill.There were many disagreements on crucial issues but they all agreed for an effective and strong bill.
It is hilarious to note that there are always controversies and disagreements amongst politicians on issues concerning public interest such as Lokpal bill; but there is instantaneous consensus on issues concerning self interest - raising salaries and perks.
They proclaim to bring a strong and effective Lokpal bill to combat corruption lest they lose in elections but they want to ensure that corrupt ones are not harmed.

Anna and Baba Ramdev

During one of live talk show on "Times Now" channel,one of the politician participant questioned in the context of agitation by civil society, "are they uncivil ?".
Well,with little bit of glimpse of their unruly behavior in the parliament (very rare telecast),we could see them shouting down each other,total disregard to the chair person,throwing mikes,chairs or what ever they could lay their hands on,certainly is "uncivil".
They legislate with unanimous voice only to raise their salaries,perks and privileges almost snatching from the pocket of the poor exchequer,is certainly "unethical".
They use and misuse with impunity perks and privileges.We see day in and day out MPs,ministers flying (domestic and abroad) with bunch of sycophant followers,whole herd of family members totally free,make unlimited free calls to their kith and kin abroad,this can go on and on.This certainly is "uncouth".
They behave like monarch,always calculating and manipulating just to perpetuate their monarchy, highly selfish and sensitive only to vote counts.
People have now gathered courage and got voice through Anna and Ramdev to tell that the "King" is "Naked".They have to listen and the time has come that they put on nice and clean robe.They should now climb down from self created high pedastal and serve the people for which they were elected and are being paid also,that too quite handsomely.

हमारा प्रजातंत्र

कहने को हमारे देश मे प्रजातंत्र है . पर जरा सोचेँ कि क्या ऐसा है ?
अभी चुनाव का माहौल है और चुनाव के इस दगँल मे अखाडची लोग अपने अपने जोर आजमाइस मे तरह तरह के नारे व दलीलेँ जनता के सामने परोस रहे हैँ . इनमे वर्तमान व भूत , मुख्य व प्रधान मंत्री गण गर्व से यह बखान करने मे जरा भी सकोँच नही कर रहे कि उनके हुकूमत मे या इतने साल तक अमुक प्रदेश पर इतने साल तक राज्य किया और यह किया / वह किया आदि आदि . अपने को अभी भी राजा ही समझते हैँ .जी नही , राजा की तरह ब्यवहार भी करते हैँ . वस्तुत: वे राजा ही हैँ .
हम जनता जनार्दन , उनको राजा स्वीकारते हुए प्रजावत ही ब्यवहार करते हैँ और तदनुरूप उनसे अपेक्षा भी करते हैँ . उनके चरण छूते हैँ , वन्दना करते हैँ .वे उल्टा सीधा कुछ भी करे , वे तो राजा हैँ कुछ भी कर सकते हैँ ऐसा मानते हुए वन्दना मे ही लीन रहते हैँ. सभी नही हाँ काफी लोग तो ऐसे ही हैँ .
क्या यह प्रजातांत्रिक सोच है?

अपराध और राजनीति

अपराध और राजनीति कुछ इस तरह से आपस मे घुलमिल कर समानार्थी हो गए हैँ कि यह कहना मुश्किल हो गया है कि अपराध का राजनैतिक करण हो रहा है अथवा राजनीति का अपराधीकरण ? वास्तविकता यह है कि , एक अपराधी देश के कानून के शिकंजे से राजनीति की शरण ले कर बच जा रहा है और सत्ता व धनलोलुप ब्यक्ति , अपनी महत्वाकाक्षाँओ को , अपराधी बन अथवा अपराधीयोँ के सहारे , राजनीति की सीढी चढ , पूर्ण कर ले रहा है .आज के परिदृश्य मे यह आम धारणा हो गयी है कि ,एक अपराधी राजनैतिक प्रश्रय के कारण , नियम कानून की परवाह नही करता और एक राजनेता को नियम कानून की परवाह की जरूरत नही होती . दोनो ही, नियम – कनून की परिधि से परे हैँ .दोनो का अंतिम लक्ष्य येन केन प्रकारेण , अपने लिये और अपनो के लिये , धनार्जन करना है

Game theory and police

Introduction
The exposure of recent U.P.Police recruitment scam as has been brought out in the print and the electronic media, has once again, stirred the deep seated anguish, apathy and frustration. It has evoked mixed response of ridicule, astonishment and shame. It is the police which have brought bad name but let us not disregard the fact that it is the same police which has unearthed the very scam. True, it is the police which have indulged in to those misdeeds but once again, it is the same police which have engineered the process of bringing those black sheep to justice. One side of the police is so frightening, but at the same time, the other side is equally comfortable and assuring. It is high time to ponder over this dichotomy; whether there are two set of police falling on two sides of the divide or police is of the same color working essentially with the same mindset though bringing out different outcome under different socio-political context?
we are what we are
Before analyzing police and its actions let us look at and think about ourselves; what we are? After all police is just a subset of the bigger set comprising of us all. We frown when we see a traffic cop extracting money from a traffic violator but when we ourselves get stuck up having violated a traffic rule, we look for an easy way out and proudly proclaim our victorious deed as to how we bribed a paltry sum to an ever greedy traffic cop. We make rules after very long deliberations and all possible considerations thinking that all the loopholes have been effectively plugged and pat our backs, but when the very rules come our own way, it is we, who again struggle to invent strategies to circumvent them. We tolerate injustice when meted out to others thinking why to bother when it does not concern us but, when we ourselves become victim, we furiously condemn the indifference of others. When our own kith and kin get recruited as a police constable or a sub inspector by questionable means, with our connivance and consent, we justify it by saying that so is the way world functions. When other fellow gets selected the same way, we vehemently protest and cry foul. We never fathom courage to champion any issue and always leave it to others to take the initiative. The others, in turn, do exactly the same, that is, leave it to someone else. So we are left with a thousand issues facing the country and no champion in sight. We always find fault with others and try to prove how others have failed in their job but when someone similarly points fingers at us, we quarrel. When police treats a suspect with third degree we make hue and cry, and rightly so, for human rights violation but, when a suspect is caught who is accused of robbing my house, and police adheres to books this time, I accuse police of soft peddling with criminals. We expect justice here and accept injustice there. In essence we are neither this nor that. We are hard core selfish, always calculative, always playing game desiring always to win at the expense of others. Imagine the plight of the referee and the game when either of the side would not accept the decision declaring opponent, a "winner". We will have allegations and counter allegations, arguments and counter arguments, statements and counter statements, then will follow spate of enquiries, commissions and recommendations to be debated further in the name of justice and fair play. Ultimately, confusion and chaos will prevail leaving the spectators totally baffled as to whether aftermath of the game was the actual game originally intended to be played or otherwise. No one would remember in the end, what the rules of the game were. Might is right or show me the face and I will show you the rule, would guide the activities in the arena. This appears to be hard ground reality. We are, just what we are.
game theory
In our day to day life, in our social interactions, in our business life, we take decisions; make moves in view of the move which the other party is likely to make. There is always the “other”. So, whenever we take a decision, in a way, we play game. It would be worthwhile to have a glance over the game theory:
Game theory can be defined as the study of how people interact and make decisions. This broad definition applies to most of the social sciences, but game theory applies mathematical models to this interaction under the assumption that each person's behavior impacts the well-being of all other participants in the game. These models are often quite simplified abstractions of real-world interactions. While many game theorists certainly enjoy playing games, a "game" is an abstract representation of many serious situations and has a serious purpose.
A major issue with game theory is that is is necessary to make assumptions. Any model of the real world must make simplifying assumptions because the real world is too messy to analyze with any precision. There is a constant tradeoff between realism and solvability. Even if one could write down a model that accurately describes how people make decisions in general, no amount of computers would be able to calculate it.
What assumptions are made normally? The most common ones are:
- rationality (people take whatever actions are likely to make them more happy - and they know what makes them happy), and
- common knowledge (we know that everyone else is trying to make himself or herself as happy as possible, potentially at our expense).
The most widely known example of game theory is probably the prisoner's dilemma: A zero-sum cooperation game that got its name from the following hypothetical situation. Suppose that the police have arrested two people whom they know have committed an armed robbery together. Unfortunately, they lack enough admissible evidence to get a jury to convict. They do, however, have enough evidence to send each prisoner away for two years for theft of the getaway car. The chief inspector now makes the following offer to each prisoner: If you will confess to the robbery, implicating your partner, and she does not also confess, then you'll go free and she'll get ten years. If you both confess, you'll each get 5 years. If neither of you confess, then you'll each get two years for the auto theft.
. The dilemma resides in the fact that each prisoner has a choice between only two options, but cannot make a good decision without knowing what the other one will do[i].

Game theory presupposes that each individual is a rational being which in turn means that each one wants to be happy and would take a decision which would yield maximum return to him and secondly, each one knows that everyone else is thinking the same way. Going back to prisoners dilemma (PD), the dilemma is as follows: if she confesses against him and he does not confess against her, she goes scot free and he lands up in jail for 10 years ,so he should confess against her , and if she is so naïve as not to confess against him and he confesses against her, he goes scot free. Being a rational being, he would like to take such a decision which would give maximum return (scot free in this case or at least she does not go scot free) so he confesses against her. She being equally rational takes a similar decision and confesses against him. As a result, both end up in jail for 10 years. This is defect – defect situation where one perceives getting immediate gain but ultimately both end up being losers. Had both kept quiet (cooperate), both would have got only 2 years.
police and prisoners dilema
As we have discussed, we are hard core selfish, so the selfishness would be main driving force for our rational decisions (yielding maximum return even at the cost of others). Common knowledge (that others are also rational) makes one insecure ( because others are also similarly motivated) and this would make every one suspicious of everyone else (others are likely to defect to derive advantage at our expense). Ultimately, it creates defect - defect situation. Loaded with such a mind set when one joins police, as a police man, he would be no different than we.
Let us examine what amounts to a return for a police man which he or she would strive to maximize. One is organizational gains which are mainly aimed at public at large and other is personal gain in terms of money as well as position and power. If policemen are driven by selfish motives, he thinks maximizing his personal gain even at the expense of organization. He isolates himself both from the organization (from where he earns his bread and butter) and the society (he is recruited to serve).

[i] Inserted from <http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_game_theory.html> & <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/>

Managing crime - Quantum mechanical way

CRIME CONTROL - QUANTUM MECHANICAL WAY
By

S.P.Srivastava,I.P.S.

An analysis of crime perception and its
management in the light of evolving scientific
thoughts

INTRODUCTION

Plato had portrayed science as an activity with double benefits: science as pure thought
helps mind to find truth, and science as power provides tools for effective action. Gerald
Holton[1], a noted philosopher has observed “The main flaw in this image is that it omits
a third vital aspect: science has always generated an important part of our symbolic
vocabulary and provided some of the metaphysical bases and philosophical orientations
of our ideology. As a consequence, the methods of arguments of science, its conceptions
and its models, have permeated first the intellectual life of the time, then the tenets and
usages of every day life.” In this light it is my endeavor to analyze philosophical orientations and scientific evolutions in the realm of one of the basal instincts of mankind; the crime.

QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE

Since the advent of civilization, human mind has been preoccupied with the quest for knowledge. There has been a variety of things happening around, which arouse curiosity for understanding and desire to control and manage according to one’s own design. People saw sunrise and set, seasons set in and disappear, natural events, which brought prosperity and happiness and caused havoc also at times. Flood and fire, thunder and storm, cyclone and earthquake, and many more forms of calamities made them shiver and fear.

Human mind tackled this with two broad approaches or two modes of consciousness, which can be termed as rational and intuitive. Rational approach was based on experience one had with the objects and events, and belongs to the realm of intellect laying emphasis on objectivity. It relies on measurable and verifiable facts and their analysis. Objectivity is a crucial factor of this knowledge and, therefore, object interacted with is dissected to measurable and verifiable abstract entities. Intuitive approach, on the other hand, is pure subjective and lies in the realm of faith and emotions. It experiences the object in its entirety in relation to oneself and the whole existence. It demands no explanation.

At the dawn of human evolution, measuring and verifying tools were not developed, invented, or known; events and surroundings were understood from within the realm of faith. Cause of events was attributed to unknown forces of nature, at times personified in the form of God or different deities. Pleased deity showered good harvest and pleasant climate; his wrath caused disaster and calamities. Various religions and sects evolved by basing themselves on particular deity, claiming his superiority, and then by preaching methods on how to avoid wrath and win the blessings of that deity. Faith was the dominant factor that guided human actions and shaped worldview perspective.

UNDERSTANDING OF CRIME

During this period, when faith was the predominant guiding factor, crime was managed with this mindset. Defiance of dictates of the priest and disrespect to the deity was the most heinous of crime. Crime that emerged very early in human history are, therefore, sacrilege or the violations of supernatural taboos. Treason or disloyalty to the group, especially in time of conflict or war, was perhaps the second most universal and among the first few acts to have been recognized as a public wrong. Persons who could establish themselves as the one chosen by, or closest to God, wielded supreme authority to decide the guilt and award punishment.

DETERMINISTIC WORLD VIEW

Gradual invention of refined scientific tools paved the way for seeking rational explanations of events, which were hitherto attributed to whims and fancies of supernatural forces. The world view started changing with frequent discoveries in science, especially in physics and it reached its apex when Newton proposed a mechanical model of the universe. The giant cosmic machine was seen as being completely causal and deterministic. Future of any part of the system could in principle be predicted with absolute certainty if its state at any time was known in all details. The role of supernatural power thus became less relevant and the authority of those "God men" could no longer remain absolute.

CRIME AND CLASSICAL CONCEPT

Formidable success of Newtonian model of mechanistic world waded its way into
every mode of human expression until it became undisputed world view. Determinism became the guiding thought process of philosophers, poets, painters and thinkers. A new approach of perception and interpretation evolved in the realm of interpersonal relationships and societal conduct, including acts of crime. Invention of new machines/engines, which changed the life of men, established the authority of scientific determinism even further .Newly infused rationality and objectivity questioned the very definition of crime and its methodology to deal with it. Not believing in God or not performing a ritual (considered as sacred) could no more be treated as a social crime. It came down to the pedestal of a personal choice. As it became evident that new standpoint is needed to define crime as such, so also need arose for evolving a rational process to establish guilt and inflict uniform punishment.

CRIME MANAGEMENT IN CLASSICAL ERA

Mechanistic world view and its successes proved beyond doubt that the forces of nature can be exploited. It was, therefore, natural to perceive that human conduct can also be influenced. Crime was perceived as an event, caused by its perpetrators under the influence of defined set of circumstances, which could be manipulated. By invoking preventive, punitive and curative measures, this aspect of human conduct can be guided towards a crime-free situation. It envisages an institutionalized framework, which would bring about objectivity. Pursuant to this, it is likely that criminal justice system came into being. Various acts and codes were legislated, wherein several categories of crime were defined, along with procedures and methods to arrive at finding and establishing guilt. Institution of police was enshrined with the responsibility of establishing the guilt. Since establishing the guilt was the first and foremost requirement, police acquired an exceptional status in the entire scheme of things. Being in this pursuit for long, watching the results of their actions by way of people being executed and punished, thus leading to its inevitable impact on the crime environment, the police in particular came to believe that crime was controlled by them.

POLICE SETUP AND CLASSICAL CONCEPT

Police organization gradually developed into a structured and hierarchically-managed
institution with its emphasis on objectivity. Infused with the idea of being able to
control crime, it obviously thought to control its constituent elements as well. It gave
rise to concept of control and supervision in the scheme of managing the organization
as well.

QUANTUM MECHANICAL CONCEPT

As science advanced, invention of sensitive tools of observations enabled scientists to
explore deeper into molecules and atoms and reach out to fundamental particles, with the result that gradually classical theories, hitherto so powerful, started crumbling.

INADEQUACY OF CLASSICAL CONCEPT

Turing wrote in a letter to his mother: “It used to be supposed in science
that if every thing was known about the universe at any particular moment, then
we can predict what it will be through all the future....Further, modern science however
has come to the conclusion that when we are dealing with atoms and electrons, we are
quite unable to know the exact state of them, our instruments being made of atoms and
electrons themselves. The conception then of being able to know the exact state of the
universe then must really break down on the small scale. ”[2]

WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY

While classical physics could explain satisfactorily any phenomenon at the macro level, its inadequacy became more prominent at micro level. For instance, while understanding
the nature of light,.Newton explained it satisfactorily as composed of particles. Sun
light according to him was nothing but incessant rain of light particles of varying colors.
Trouble started with when Young made a double slit experiment, whose result could not be explained with Newtonian concepts. Keep an opaque screen in front of a
light object, say a candle, make a small hole and we see a small light dot on the wall behind the screen, which goes to prove that light is composed of particles. If we make two holes, slightly separated apart in the screen, we do not get two dots behind the screen as expected; rather we observe dark and white bands similar to a train of waves we observe when we drop a stone in a pond, with troughs and s. This is possible only if
light is composed of waves. However, if it is wave, then single slit effect cannot be
explained. So simple an experiment and so intriguing the observations. Great scientists
experimented and re experimented, argued and counter-argued and eventually agreed
upon that light is both. It is composed of discrete particles and is all pervading continuous
wave as well. It is particle when there is single slit and wave when there are two slits. Potentially, it is both at the same time. It will collapse into either of the two, depending on how we are interacting with it (single slit or double).

UNCERTAINTY AND PROBABILITY CONCEPT

It is now settled that every particle has a wave associated with it; each particle actually
exhibits wavelike behavior. Gradually, rigid definiteness of deterministic concept melted and paved the way for probability. Thus if your car is parked in your garage, we say probability density of finding your car in your garage is maximum; however, it being in my garage can not be totally ruled out. It may sound strange for an object like a car but a different rule of game is prevalent at the micro level; here, principle of uncertainty rules the arena. German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, articulated in 1927 that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature. Any attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous measurement of its position has no validity. This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments, the technique or the observer; it arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions. A fundamental concept in quantum mechanics is that of randomness, or indeterminacy. In general, the theory predicts only the probability of a certain result.
Einstein, though a father figure in development of quantum concept, however, till end
could not reconcile with this idea of uncertainty, and kept on believing that “God does
not play dice”. Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists, has observed “We have
found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the
ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of
varying degrees of certainty-some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”[3]

CRIME CONTROL AND QUANTUM CONCEPT

Presently, our mind is obsessed with the thought of controlling the crime which is a legacy of deterministic era . It is out of tune with quantum concept which has shaken the very determinism out of its ground. There are in fact innumerable factors and circumstances, both macro and micro, which give rise to crime psychosis. Because of inherent uncertainty, the efforts made to manipulate these factors may not yield desired consequences. Things to be controlled and one who controls, affects each other. In fact, both are part of the same process. The "Controller" is controlled as well in the process of controlling is transformed into a different "Controller" side by side as the "To be controlled" situation takes up a different shape. The "To be controlled" situation has infinite potentialities (like a particle has dual potentiality) and will collapse in a particular way depending on how "Controller" interacts with the situation - looking from the controller point of view. And from "To be controlled” point of view, "Controller" has also infinite potential and will collapse in a particular way depending upon how "To be controlled" has interacted.
Paul Davis[4] has described process theology as “Process thought is an attempt to view the world not as a collection of objects or even as a set of events, but as a process with a definite directionality". World is a community of interdependent beings like a living organism rather than a collection of cogs in a machine. The example of kicking a stone and dog would be more relevant to put the point across[5]. When you kick a stone, it will react to the kick according to a linear chain of cause and effect. Its behavior can be calculated by applying basic laws of Newtonian mechanics. When you kick a dog the situation is quite different. Though a mechanistic interpretation was attempted to predict the behavior (Pavlov) of the dog but it could not satisfactorily account for certain observed variations. The dog will respond with structural changes according to its own nature. Resulting behavior is generally unpredictable. Living organism behaves the quantum way.

QUANTUM CONCEPT - CONTROL TO MANAGEMENT

As the quantum concept of worldview engulfs the thought process, perceptions
and responses will undergo gradual transformation. This is inevitable. It may be noticed initially merely as a background noise but later its note and tune is bound to crystallize into a clear melody .In order to be prepared and avoid “future-shock”, it would be required of us to be in synergy with the great cosmic design. If two entities ("Controller" and "To be controlled") are no more distinct, rather are part of same process, the system would demand them to cooperate and contribute symbiotically in order to enrich and facilitate the process for harmonious evolution.

QUANTUM MESSAGE - COOPERATE AND CONTRIBUTE

Quantum message is loud and clear. Crime, or for that matter any aspect of a living
organism like the human society can, at the best be managed with symbiotic-dynamism rather than be controlled by kicking - stone. It has to be a collective effort in which he/she must contribute his/her professional worth in order to achieve crime-free environment and cooperate with whomsoever he/she interacts in achieving this objective. Quantum mechanics also establishes the theory of dependent origination. Cause and effect is not a one-time phenomenon, taking place in isolation here and there. It is part of cyclic chain; number of causes cumulatively gives rise to an effect, which in turn acts as a cause to give rise to another effect, this process goes on and on. Crime situation is an event or an effect, caused by numerous factors. Since we cannot know all the factors (limited by uncertainty principle), it is not possible to fully control them. It is my hypothesis, therefore, that "Crime" cannot be "Controlled" in the classical sense. Any effort in that direction would be but a feudal arrogance - a deterministic drag, which has led the nation to fall in to deep slumber of decided opinion; a root cause of all those deformities, which have seeped slowly into this arm of criminal justice system. Yes, it can be managed and can be managed effectively. It calls for a synergic change, a paradigm sift in the mindset for smooth cooperation and effective contribution - a quantum mechanical requirement. After all, nature does not act against itself.

CRIME MANAGEMENT MODULE

Any number of module can be devised depending upon the local conditions, however, whatever module is formulated, it must include following essential steps:

Accept and acknowledge the limitations, which are inherent to the system.
Define a clear-cut role vis-à-vis that of other agencies (viz. Judiciary, Legislation, Media, NGOs etc.) engaged in furtherance of the common objective (i.e., peace and harmony - a basic ingredient for overall prosperity).
Respect each other's role and allow full freedom of action to each within their respective professional confines.
Draw a professional boundary for action; below which one should not perform and beyond which one must not transgress.
Expect unexpected failures, as there is always a scope for enhancing professional excellence and believe that other agencies are equally conscious of their professional excellence - a backbone of cooperation.

[1] Ideas in Science-Edited by Oscar H.Fidell, A Readers Enrichment Series, Published by Washington
Square Press,Inc.

[2] The great philosophers - edited by Ray Monk and Frederic Raphael

[3] Universe in a nutshell by Stephens Hawking

[4] The mind of God by Paul Davis

[5] The Hidden Connections by Fritjof capra

Corruption

Can Corruption be eradicated?

by

S.P.Srivastava,I.P.S.

The Question; Can Corruption be eradicated?

Ccrroption or dishonesty is a negative phenomenon . Corruption is in fact absence of honesty. Honesty and corruption are relative terms and is dependent on time and place. Society specifies and evolves certain ground rules, which are essential to maintain smooth and trusting relationships amongst its subjects. When all or some of these elements are lacking in a societal conduct it generates such an attenuating milieu that smoothness can no longer be maintained, milieu so generated can be termed as dishonesty. In fact, dishonesty or corruption cannot be defined in a positive sense. Generally, corruption is understood as absence of honesty, same as darkness is understood as absence of light, and thus it exists only negatively. Honesty and corruption are in fact two sides of the same coin. The question can be reframed as whether, any positive act can be performed in respect to a non-existent phenomenon? It is same as asking, can darkness be removed? The answer is definitely no. We can lit a light, this is the act we do, we can not throw darkness or wipe it out or do any act in respect to darkness. Does this analogy hold good with respect to corruption also? Let us probe this question deeply. At the outset let us begin with perceiving the reality. Keeping in view the limitation of space, the scope of this article shall be confined to bureaucratic system only.

The Reality.

It is a fact that:

• Honesty has become so rare that virtually it is non-existent.

• Those who are honest, feel like misfits and asinine in playing the game. They often repent being on the wrong side of the fence. Such persons are projected as tactless, obstinate and non-performers.

• Dishonest ones, having mastered the tricks of the game condescendingly project themselves as efficient and resourceful.

• During all these years since India gained independence, one of the main thrust have been on eradication of corruption but, the fact is that during all these years, corruption has increased manifold. The obsession with elimination of negative phenomenon has so swamped the system that, the main emphasis so far, has been on weeding out corruption rather than on encouragement of honesty. Is it not pertinent to ponder as to why, we only analyze failures and very rarely a success; we have plethora of rules and acts on prevention of corruption, but not even one, on encouragement of honesty; we spend more money and time on locating and punishing dishonest ones and ultimately end up with only a few, and we spend less on identifying and lauding honest ones and end up with losing out many more?

It is high time that we accept the reality with candor in order to make necessary modifications and amendments in the policies which have been incorporated to rectify the milieu. It is evident that the efforts made and policies pursued so far, have not yielded desired results. R.H.Tawney has rightly suggested that "the practical thing for a nation which has stumbled upon one of the turning points of history is to consider whether what it has done hitherto is wise and if not, wise to alter it". It is therefore, need of the hour, that the very policy and the approach should be questioned radically. Direction of efforts made should be examined very critically. May be, corruption is not that untouchable, or may be, we should not talk about corruption at all. Let us shake it and shake it vigorously. The situation so warrants that, may be, we should stand upside down. Let us move ahead with an open mind.

Policy review.

Policies have been framed with a view to ensure that corrupt ones are identified and punished so that they are mended on one hand and potential ones are deterred on the other. Adequate administrative measures have been incorporated in the form of various departments viz.,CBI,Ant-Corruption, Vigilance etc. to keep a watch over unscrupulous elements and initiate punitive action against them. Within the organization itself, various supervisory levels have also been created to ensure that business of an office is carried out honestly, objectively and strictly according to well-defined set of rules.

It is noteworthy that the main thrust of the policy is to catch them wrong. As a result a situation has been created where in even supervisors are being supervised. In order to prove that one is an effective supervisor, each one in the hierarchy, is all out to catch his juniors wrong somewhere and at the same time take himself all precautions to ensure that his superiors are not able to catch him wrong. In this process of fault finding, and the game of evasions, work or a portion of work performed well or a sincere effort put in a work, gets ignored on the premise that if there is no fault, it is no extraordinary deed but only what is expected. These policies, as we will see in the succeeding analysis, have proved counter productive and rather have created a peculiar dilemma defying the very purpose for which they were initially framed.

The dilemma.

As the culture of fault finding prevails in all the bureaucratic organizations, it is imperative that as and when a fault is unearthed, adequate provisions have to be made in order to prevent its future reoccurrences. Faults so unearthed, can fall in two categories, one; the systemic faults or we can say loop holes, which are exploited by the unscrupulous persons to their illegitimate advantage, and two; a deliberate act of fraud which flouts already laid down rules. While process is initiated to punish the persons found guilty, fresh rules have to be adequately incorporated to thwart future reoccurrences. It has been observed that as and when rules are framed, methodologies to flout or circumvent those rules are also invented subsequently if not concurrently, by dishonest persons giving rise to the need of further framing of rules. Fault finding and its evasion is so subjective and depends on the ingenuity of the individual that plethora of rules gets created , some times contradicting the earlier ones, and the whole process becomes so much loaded with mind boggling complexities that the implementation is rendered even more complex and difficult. A person who is corrupt, can not be alleged to be so, unless he is caught. If he has learnt the trick that how not to be caught, obviously, he continues to remain on honest side of the divide. If a person is honest, indeed he is honest. There is no difference therefore, between the two; the honest one and an uncaught dishonest one, ironically both have to be treated at par. In order to escape punishment the corrupt one need to be corrupt in a way that he is not caught and to accomplish this design he would invent novel methodologies. It would not be surprising if it gives an impetus to a perilous competition amongst unscrupulous members to invent many more of such methodologies. That probably explains, why on one hand, we are witnessing rampant corruption and on the other, very few are specifically identified, and still a very few out of them are really punished. Going back to the ethos and the approach to eradicate corruption we find that watchdog organizations and large number of supervisors within the organization, both are proving ineffective and inadequate. On being unable to punish adequately even those who have notoriously acquired ill repute, and on being unable to contain corruption as such, refuge is taken under a general statement that every one is corrupt and nothing can really be done. And in order to demonstrate that the supervisors are not just passive spectators, unable to contain the proliferation of corruption and more so, they themselves are not corrupt or conniving, they entertain all kind of complaints made against his subordinates showing least concern to their genesis and are seen busy with making enquiries.

The genesis of complaints.

Implementation of "Policy" ultimately boils down to complaints and enquiries thereof. It is therefore, very crucial to analyze and understand the genesis of complaints. Complaints are rarely lodged in the right earnest. More often than not, complaints are lodged out of vengeance, to fix someone creating hindrance in the fulfillment of his vested interest, or serving the interest of his adversary to the detriment of his own prestige and prospects. It is not that every aggrieved person lodges the complaint, fact is rather that majority of them do not lodge any complaint because by and large, they are skeptical and are not resourceful enough to pursue them. There is a breed of complaint lodgers, who have mastered the dynamics of complaint mechanism, and they are the one who know how to get things done, right or wrong, and they are the one who always have an axe to grind against some one or other.

A corrupt person having mastered the art of how not to get caught, obviously, would have also mastered the art of maneuvering and tackling the breed of complaint lodgers. Thus, either the complaint shall not be lodged against him, or if lodged, it shall promptly be negated by the opponents of the complainant, during the course of inquiry; more often than not, the complainant himself may subsequently deny of having lodged any complaint. He, the corrupt one, is capable of ensuring that either complaints are not lodged against him, or if lodged, it is not inquired, and if inquired, charges are not proved, if charges are proved, no action is taken against him, and if action is taken, he gets projected as victim of caste and political vendetta. If a person is not corrupt, that in itself is no guarantee that complaint shall not be lodged against him, rather they are the one against whom maximum complaints shall be lodged, because they would have foiled most the ulterior design of unscrupulous elements belonging to the breed of complaint lodgers.

Dynamics of complaints.

Having understood the genesis of complaints, let us now follow how these complaints are handled and utilized in the furtherance of the "Policy". Complaints, once received, can not be disposed off just like that even though they are apparently false and lodged with foul design. A false complaint has to be proved false and vice versa , in any case complaints have to be inquired. Inquiries may be got conducted from within the organization or through one of the watchdog agencies which are required to give its findings based only upon the oral and documentary evidences collected during the course of inquiry.

Let us consider that Mr.X is a corrupt person and he is being inquired upon. He can dexterously manipulate evidences; use his right connections and money power, in order to stage manage his innocence. All these botherations are of little significance to him after all he has been basking shrewdly under the "eminence" of fruits of his corrupt deeds. And if by any chance he gets punished, well, he deserved it.

Let us consider on the contrary that Mr.X is not corrupt and he is being inquired upon. The very fact that a complaint has been lodged against him and that too, it is being inquired into, shall make him demoralized and anguished After all he has been sincere and honest all through. Perhaps, he may not be able to adduce required evidences, or get false evidences (mostly oral) negated in order to vindicate his innocence. The complainant would not only corroborate the malicious allegations but also substantiate through his henchmen each and every allegation made in his complaint unless contacted, compromised or otherwise made favorably disposed. By virtue of being an honest and sincere, obviously, it is unlikely that he would have been able to develop "right" connections nor would be in possession of money power. Though, he has the force of truth behind him, however, he would prove to be quite novice in the art of manipulations and maneuverings. Allegations may not eventually be proved but an irreparable damage has already been caused. He would now be a demoralized person. It is likelihood that he would repent or at least question his conduct for having annoyed those unscrupulous elements by not yielding to their illegitimate demands. What is the outcome?

The outcome.

From all we have discussed so far, we can construe that the edifice of bureaucratic system stands on negative foundation made by bricks of complaints joined and plastered by cement of inquiries whitewashed by various colors of rules and circulars to make it immune to the onslaught of corruption. Inside this edifice lies the corridors of power, wherein live such decision makers whose thought and action affects the future of society. Let us drill a hole and peep inside and try to encounter the "outcome".

Scene - 1.

While we peep inside, let us say we locate an honest person, say Mr.X supervised by say Mr Y and a false complaint has been lodged against him. His superior Y knows that the complaint is false; X of course knows that the complaint is false, and the person who has lodged the complaint also knows that the complaint is false. X knows that it is known to his senior Mr.Y that the complaint is false. Let us describe the scenario, perceptions and actions at various levels. We find that though, Y is contemptuous towards the complainant, yet he does not keep aside or just ignores the complaint, but rather orders for an inquiry , lest the senior of Y who is supervising him, may think that he(Y) is conniving with and giving undue protection to X, and making in turn his own conduct doubtful. It is on the back of his mind that there may be some one, not happy with his decision at some point of time, who may lodge a false complaint against him as well. Y ponders, why take risk, he is contended having ordered the inquiry. And as the outcome X loses confidence of Y who does not have confidence in his superior, and so on and vice versa. We observe that this has generated a climate of distrust at every level.

Scene - 2.

We shift our focus to another place. We locate Mr.A who is in the thick of taking a decision on a very important matter brought before him directly. He is a sincere and well meaning person and at the moment, fused with good intentions, he is about to take the decision in a particular way. He stops for a moment and deliberates; how his intentions can be quantified and proved, should it is needed during an inquiry, if instituted; what are the rules to be followed while taking a decision in this matter, he ponders. He knows a few rules all right, but they might have been amended or superseded, there are plethora of rules and he is not confident that which rule shall be applicable, he starts vacillating. Suddenly, a flash flickers in his mind, with a twanging sigh he whispers; oh God! Mr. So and So is facing an inquiry concerning a similar matter. He gets perplexed. He decides not to take the decision right away; he now orders that the matter should be referred to him through proper channel. As an outcome, the decision has been deferred and a file has been generated on the matter. Let us keep a track on the movement and fate of this newly born file.

Scene - 3.

After making a long and strenuous journey through labyrinth of corridors and making some times a brief and some times a long, halts at various desks, the file has plodded through and reached back to Mr.A for a decision. He recognizes this file. He also remembers that Mr.So and So is facing an inquiry. By this time he has acquainted himself with the causes and nature of the inquiry Mr. So and So is facing and it has made him very cautious and wisdom has dawned upon him that this matter is full of risks. He goes through the file very carefully. He finds very long and still longer notes written in the file by various authors, he knows one of them who is very crooked. He tries to read between the lines. It is time consuming and he has to take decisions on various other pending matters. He is fumbling for a way out. A flash comes to his mind Oh ! the scope of the matter touches the periphery of another department also. He gives his own noting in the file and refers the matter to that department for opinion. He has a strategy for future as well in his mind, that he will refer the matter to other department for further opinion, if matter is put up to him again (and he is not transferred to other place by that time) he will get the approval of so and so also. He has decided in his mind that he will not decide this matter. He plays safe and decision gets delayed.

Scene - 4.

While we were watching with anguish, the fate of files concerning important matters, a breed of pairavikars (middle men or agents) have emerged. They keep track of the movements of the files, develop contacts and acquire capabilities to push and expedite (without which perhaps files would make irritable halts some where) even a genuine and pressing matters. They intimately know every corner of labyrinth and are expert in getting things done. We find that while pursuing genuine and important matters, they are lured to peruse non-genuine matters having prospects of profitable returns. Gradually, they have become quite seasoned and have become part and parcel of the edifice; more often than not, they now pursue only non-genuine matters for substantial considerations. Their presence is catalytic to proliferation of corruption and breeding ground for scams.

Scene - 5.

As we shift our focus to another corner, we encounter a startling sight wherein quite a strange and different type of person is striving to survive who does not procrastinate, is courageous enough to give ethical response and still trying to uphold the rule of law. Though we do not locate many persons like him but perhaps because of them, the edifice is still intact. It is distressing to learn that such persons are rarely found on places and positions they are needed most.

The edifice was built with a view to thwart the onslaught of corruption but in the process it has given rise to factors favorable for more corruption. The edifice has developed many holes through which many more like us are peeping inside, mutely showering drawing room encomiums on "strange" one, but secretly desirous of wealth and power like that of Mr.Corrupt. By the time we were peeping inside, we were unaware that the edifice, like an octopus, spread its tentacles, and swallowed us all inside. We ourselves became part of the edifice. Bewildered, we are now asking ourselves, with each other; can corruption be eradicated?

The answer.

The answer is NO and YES . No because, the very effort is self-defeating, Yes because HONESTY CAN BE ENCOURAGED. It will make the edifice turn upside down if we reverse the emphasis and start asking the question; HOW HONESTY CAN BE ENCOURAGED?. We have Prevention of Corruption Act, why can’t we have Enhancement of Honesty Act or something of this sort? It will swamp our psyche with positivity and give impetus to silent competition to innovate methodologies to get caught and noticed with admiration as honest ones. We have been searching with microscope the deeds of corruption, earlier we could find but only a few, now we have in plenty. Let us focus our microscope to search the deeds of honesty, we could find as of now only a few, later, we may have it in plenty.