Corruption is a systemic disease and the existing social relationships permit it to grow and flourish. It takes different forms and is imbibed as a part of the prevalent culture. The disease having crept into the system, it is very difficult to uproot it unless there is a social movement to eradicate such rampant distortions in our sociological framework. Many have dreamt of India free of corruption. Newer mechanisms like Lokpal, etc., are yet to be implemented though quite a few years have elapsed. This shows our sincerity in eradication of corruption and in bringing in a new era. In the international scenario, our position is not flattering. Several laws claiming to be having sufficient teeth have been brought into the statute books. Even the juristic attitude in the anti-corruption cases appears to be coloured in some ways. It is laughable when warrants for search and seizure are handed out for the asking. Every Indian’s house is not treated as his own castle. Search and seizure are not treated as measures of last resort. A media report then circulated stating that household goods and cars worth lakhs have been seized. There is no car below rupees one lakh available in the Indian market. Therefore, having properties worth lakhs, may be financed by loans, cannot, per say, disclose corruption. It is more hype than the truth.
One common option to understand corruption is to employ a cultural perspective. It is attributed to something like national character. For instance, it seems suggestive that all the least corrupt nationals, with the exception of Singapore, are European or are European-settler states. Even Singapore has a highly ‘Europeanised’ structure. Another common explanation is basically historical: For instance, one can refer to the top-down power structures of feudal or colonial regimes in places like Morocco, China and India until just a few decades ago. The cultural ethos and historical precedence play a role. After all, both abiding by the law and lawlessness have a dominant effect: if you follow the law, other people around you are more likely to do so; if you break the law, other people around you are also more likely to do so. A history of unresponsive authoritarianism might increase the tendency to break laws if one can get away with it because the citizen has nothing invested in the status quo. Only fear upholds the law; and the moment the citizen can get away with it, he or she breaks the law. This can also lead to a greater tendency towards corruption.
Transparency International, a global anti-corruption coalition, ranked India 81 out of 180 countries in its corruption index of 2017. The least corrupt nations New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK appear just above India. In the list are China, Serbia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ghana (less corrupt). And below India are Morocco, Turkey, Argentina, Benin, and Kosovo (as corrupt or more corrupt). 81 out 180 might not seem too bad especially to skeptical Indians, but it is misleading: often the same rank is occupied by as many as three countries (for instance, rank 71). As such, in terms of numbers, India is placed in the bottom third of the list if not the last quarter. This should not surprise skeptical Indians. However, ranking the corruption level of a country is less of a science and more of an art. It is an art that naturally occludes the advantages, which others might see in terms of invisible corruption of the rich First World nations, where polity and economy, Parliament and corporation often have long-established uncontroverted relationships. This does not mean that nations like Ghana, India, Morocco and Turkey do not have considerably more corruption than nations New Zealand and Denmark. What it means is that the ranking game is not sufficient to understand corruption at the global, national and local levels.
Culture and history are misleading as primary explanations. Far more important is another factor that few people talk about. If you look at India and the countries around it on the index and at the top 10 (least corrupt) countries, you realise that the former group contains nations with huge socioeconomic inequalities and the latter contains nations with a high degree of social and economic justice. In that sense, Singapore belongs to the European and European-settler countries ranked as the 10 least corrupt nations. In short, corruption is directly proportionate to the socioeconomic gap in a nation. Cultural and historical factors add to this or subtract from this, but the greater the socioeconomic disparities, the greater the incentive towards corruption.
This happens in many ways, both among the rich and poor. For instance, in country where, say, Rs.10,000 is nothing for the rich, it is easy for the rich to offer a bribe of that sum. But it, in the same country, Rs.10,000 is what a poor man may earn in an entire month, it is difficult for him to refuse a bribe of that amount. This leads to the gradual erosion of morality and ethics on both sides. Some find it easy to spend money to get things done; others find it difficult to refuse to accept that money. On both sides, there builds up a disrespect for the system and for each other. The system itself is seen as thoroughly corrupt because of such individual acts of corruption. This further ‘justifies’ the corruption on both sides. Moreover, the poor look at the affluence of the rich as basically a consequence of corruption, which is by no means the case all the time. The rich look at the vulnerability of the poor as the sequence of a corrupt morality, which is again by no means the case all the time. Such a nexus saps the entire social fabric of a country, also creating apathy towards a demand for greater transparency in the corridors of power. This further leads to the spread of corruption. If we in India want to cut down on corruption, we have to start working far more seriously on reducing the huge (and some say, widening) chasm between the rich and the poor.
According to a report of Oxfam, one per cent of Indians own 51 per cent of the income and wealth of the society. Such a disparity in income levels, coupled with conspicuous consumption on the part of the super-rich, bring to the fore the distorted position of the social structure. Money becomes the common denominator for buying the services, unethically and illegally. The system breeds within itself the maladies that come to the forefront a few months later. As Harold Laski once said, “Charity is a price that the rich must pay to maintain their position in relation to the poor.” This scenario has not been altered despite the anti-corruption tirades. The youth power is the biggest loser in the bargain. They must rise to the occasion and not be corrupted by the elders but stand erect for a corruption-free India and a transparent India.
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)