Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2011 > Corruption: Need for Social Ferment

Mainstream, VOL XLIX, No 37, September 3, 2011

Corruption: Need for Social Ferment

Tuesday 6 September 2011, by Nikhil Chakravartty

#socialtags

FROM N.C.’S WRITINGS

There are many aspects of the celebration of the golden jubilee of independence—the magnificent pageantry that one witnessed in Delhi—which would be long remembered by millions all over the country thanks largely to the television. However, it was President Narayanan’s gentle but firm warning against corruption which has emerged as a definite landmark in the struggle for a better India.

There is nothing new for the First Citizen to address a warning to his countrymen against the menace of corruption. What President Narayanan has put across is something extraordinary, underlying that an extraordinary situation demands a drastic solution. This is precisely what President Narayanan did in his first official pronouncement as the Head of our Republic. Here lies the significance of his observation which may bring discomfort to many but few can disagree with.

In his Red Fort speech the next morning Prime Minister Gujral gave a call to fight corruption, which will no doubt be significant. Nowadays it is particularly fashionable to quote Gandhiji, and this cuts across ideologiclal or political barriers. But hardly anybody has drawn the attention of his countrymen to a very blunt passage from Gandhiji which is worth quoting:

Corruption will be out one day, however so much one may try to conceal it, and it is its right and duty in every case of justifiable suspicion, call its servants to strict account, dismiss them, sue them in a law court, or appoint an arbitrator or inspector to scrutinise their conduct as it likes.

Obviously , such a step against corruption—or, what has come to be called the criminalisation of politics—can hardly be possible unless and until it is made into a veritable social movement, as Gandhiji has enjoined, or into a mass political movement.

Looking, back on the temper of the public in the last three years, what needs to be said is that the public in general is indeed fed up with corruption and it has been growing cynical at the political leadership, particularly those in power, as also its henchmen, the bureaucracy, as it is getting a strong impression that while charges of corruption have been bandied about by politicians against rival politicians, they do not seem to be serious in punishing the culprits. The manner in which the Jain hawala charges have been made use of during the election campaign has only helped to confirm this. Similarly, the tardiness displayed in unearthing the Bofors scandal by those who found that politically they would stand to lose if Rajiv Gandhi’s image is sullied, brings out the same impact on the public. In fact, any Prime Minister, irrespective of party affiliation, was expected to unearth the entire story of the Bofors kickback; but not only the politicians but the very powerful bureaucrats have taken the lead, sometimes quite blatantly, to cover up the culprits in the Bofors deal. That was one of the ways by which Rajiv Gandhi has so far escaped the ignominy of having been found out in the sensational case. However, in the public eye, few, very few, believe that he was innocent. The general suspicion is that a large portion of the kickback was transferred to Rajiv Gandhi’s in-laws’ family,.

Leaving aside the notorious Bofors case or the HDW deal (which in fact had surfaced during Indira Gandhi’s time) there are a number of other cases which need to be looked into, if the public confidence in the official investigation, particularly the CBI, has to be restored. Since it is a fully government agency, and the government itself is not trusted, it becomes difficult for the public to go by the CBI allegations alone. In recent months, the manner in which the CBI chiefs have been suddenly transferred has deepened public suspicion about the reliability of such an agency. In times of crisis, such as this one, this has created a further slump in the public confidence in the government’s bonafides to combat corruption. It is upto the government, particularly the Ministers, to take the necessary care to restore public confidence in the CBI and other investigating agencies under the government.

What the government has to keep in mind is that there has to be public confidence in the government agencies. These have been badly mauled since the days of Indira Gandhi, and it would be the height of folly on the part of the government to ignore this aspect of the problem. In this connection, Prime Minister Gujral’s statements have not helped : after promising to fight corruption, he was warned against “witch hunting†—which is the very excuse that the defenders of corruption often raise. In the name of witch-hunt, the star suspects have often been exonerated and one sees them running about quite nonchalantly as if they are not even under suspicion.

One of the most effective instruments by which the public has been able to bring quite a number of cases to book is the Public Interest Litigation. If one goes into its origin, it would be seen that some of the outstanding jurists of the country permitted its use as a means by which to fight the notorious delay in law and also to cut short the intricacies of the law, by which the corrupt often make their escape. In recent years, it is mostly the vulnerable sections which have raised an outcry against PIL (Public Interest Litigation). Therefore, any attack on the institution of the Public Interest Litigation would amont to weakening the campaign against corruption which has been spreading in recent months. If the PIL is wrongly used by any interested party, it is for the authorities to rectify that lapse, and not to attack the very institution itself. However, the last protection for the PIL can only be provided by the public. A vigilant public can never afford to be divested of this law-earned weapon even if it is inconvenient for the government or other establishments under attack. Rather there has to be public outcry against such moves or criticism or even adverse comments by those in authority.

Recent months have shown that those who have been hauled up in major scams take advantage of loopholes in the law. The manner in which the system of “anticipatory bail†is being used by star performers in corruption is a case in point. Unless there is strong public resentment at such loopholes, there is always the possibility of the arraigned taking advantage of the loopholes in the law to escape punishment or delay being punished. It is sickening to find persons directly implicated in mega scams, moving about with all the facilities that a common citizen enjoys.

The case of Bihar raises some serious questions. There is not a whiff of evidence to show that the Bihar Chief Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav has not been implicated in the notorious fodder scam case. The public fury and administrative dislocation that he brought about before his arrest show the danger of handling such corruption cases. The game in such cases is to hold a snap election in which the accused may come out triumphant taking advantage of the loopholes in the law. And once an election is won, it may be claimed that “the people†(that is, the voter) has exonerated such a person who is being unncessarily harassed by the arm of the law. Let it be clearly asserted by those in authority that nobody who faces a charge of corruption can escape the clutches of the law by taking recourse to the electoral process. Winning an election is no guarantee of insurgance against corruption. Rather corruption should debar a citizen from the electoral process. The vote must never be an insurance for protection against corruption.

One of the VIPs in our politics has recently commented about corruption benefiting communalism. He has not made it clear to the public as to whose alibi he was pressing when he chose communalism as his main target, leaving aside the corrupt. It is a pity that other political leaders did not take this up to upbriad his politics in the present context. One would expect that the Prime Minister’s campaign against corruption would not make such a sinister demarcation and would brand corruption outright without making the finer distinction with communalism. Today the menace of corruption is all-pervasive. Since the very exalted VVIPs have been found involved in corruption, it is but natural for those down below to indulge in this anti-social act without any hesitation. The media has not been amiss in showing up criminals getting into politics with the support or blessings of those at the top.

It is precisely because of this reason that Gandhiji’s injunction as spelt out by President Narayanan makes it clear that there must be a social movement, if not a political one, against corruption. However, Prime Minister Gujral’s call against corruption makes it more imperative to start a nationwide crusade. This is a superhuman undertaking which cannot be taken up by individuals. It has to be a mass movement. Which means there has to be social ferment—including social boycott of the corrupt—which will make the society vigilant about the need to weed out corruption. This is not just one individual case caught in the wrong. It is more important for a society to be in ferment to clean itself up.

What better could be the mandate for this great democracy after it has celebrated its first fitty years?

(Mainstream, August 23, 1997)

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.