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.