Analysing Corruption

(please visit the following link to see my article on the same subject that was published in the March 20, 2011 issue of the Organiser weekly http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=389&page=24

and http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=398&page=44 )

Let us begin this discussion with an honest admission that we all are corrupt. Let us rise above the level of the blame game in which we invariably engage ourselves if we really want to leash this menace. Believe me, if you are picked up for scrutiny under income tax act, you will never be able to convince them that you never violated any rule unless they are paid for that. If you are under police custody for any reason it will be impossible to plead your innocence without paying bribe. No business can survive in India if all applicable taxes are paid faithfully. None of us will be able to explain/remember each entry in his/her passbook for a period spanning last three years if entries run in thousands. There is no way that one can avoid corruption in India. We must finally admit that it is just impossible to escape corruption in this country and one can only set an acceptable limit for oneself.
Let us try to understand the cause of the existence of corruption and the reasons for its growing acceptability. Let us also try to measure its multi-dimensional spread while admitting its exponential increase in our bid to overpower this bull by catching it with its horns. Let us try to find a way out from this desperate situation.
Hope lies in the conclusion that this state of hopelessness is actually forced one on us. Rules have purposefully been framed with an intention to keep a handle of possibility to prove anybody corrupt despite all his/her sincere efforts. The conspiracy is to make everybody feel vulnerable so that they do not have the courage to raise voice against corruption. It seems we have not changed after becoming independent. We somehow still live in a situation similar to the pre-independence era. The government still identifies itself with the ruler-class and engages itself in enacting rules that simply can never be abided by if one tries to follow all the applicable fine prints. These rules only help them in providing teeth to bite the commoners and get away with any corruption in return. On the other hand we too posses no respect for the rules, the attitude that we used to carry proudly before independence, as we still think that government is an entity separate from us and most of the times works against our welfare. With this sense we feel committing no wrong while draining out the government funds. Another factor that hugely contributes to the unlimited rise of corruption is the absence of social security to the citizens. While high end corruption is driven primarily with an urge for acquiring luxury, the seeds of low scale corruption are generally sown with the social insecurity prevailing everywhere in our country. Many of us fall prey to corruption in our resolve to secure future for all the future family members.
Instead of raising the acceptable limits of corruption by each passing day, let us resolve to wipe out corruption from our attitude itself. For this let us urge the government first to make rules with an intention to make all of us feel that we all are living in an independent country where we are not merely stakeholders but also part of the policy makers. Let us have simple rules to follow. Let us follow 5% tax rule on all our expenditures. Let us abolish all tax saving schemes. Let the government start a decent social security scheme. Let us also end the era of cash transactions. These efforts should be followed by a zero-tolerance regime for all kinds of corruption as we are left with no soft options now. We must feel the importance of independence and confront this menace of corruption by declaring a war against it or otherwise this has a potential to wipe-out our independence.

No One Killed Jessica – a review

Rani Mukherji could order somebody to ‘fly alone’ only in a film scene after arousing his desires just because the script did not allow him to go rightfully mad. Not everybody would disappear from the scene after simply asking Rani as to what he was supposed to do when he was being left unattended by her. If you keep on playing with flares it is bound to burn you sometimes. The pub-culture that is glamorized and sold on the page3 of the media and that wants all other components of the society to bend and shed their sensibilities to allow some insensitive individuals to live their life according to their wishes, in fact help in promoting an attitude that sparked the Jessica-incident. Talking of a limit in a world where you want to break all limits is hypocrisy. Expecting a drunk to behave sensibly defies all logics. Ironically the pub-culture that advocates enjoyment shorn of all responsibilities was never the target of attack in any media discussion.
To me, justice to Jessica should not end only after punishing the drunken shooter who weighed a life less than his desire to showcase his political connections but should continue with finding, devising and implementing ways and strategies to restrict the explosion of pub-culture. As a matter of fact, the media activism in this case was meant merely to exhibit the supremacy of media over the political class before the general public. I would have acknowledged their ‘noble intentions’ had the media taken the responsibility of dissuading youth from falling into the trap of pub-culture instead of glamorizing it. Jessica’s murder was lapped up by the media primarily because the victim represented the page3 class with which the Indian media identifies itself. Media felt victimized because the incident established supremacy of political class over the page3 class. After all they never thought of fighting it out for the general public that has remained at the mercy of the political class right from the day India became independent.
The Jessica-case was used by media not only to dethrone the political class from their position of absolute strength but also to stake the claim for the same simultaneously. The media activism that peaked with the ‘Tehelka expose’ and felt triumphant after succeeding in turning around the decision in the ‘Jessica-case’ eventually fall deflated with the ‘Radiagate expose’ only because the media never intended to change the power structure but only wanted to replace the political class with itself in order to form a new power equation.
The movie is a true portrait of the incident just from the media point of view. If you were following media reports earlier – you will find nothing new here.

Why Precautions?

I have often wondered why - those who willingly accept suggestions for taking any number of precautions in order to avoid theft of car; those who are open to any discussion to find ways to prevent stealing of valuables from house; those who never ignore any suggestion for how to keep all information of cash transactions secret from others; those who also take pains in ensuring safety of their child while commuting to and fro from school; relentlessly keeps on reminding their spouse how can they avoid accident while driving, suddenly turn non-receptive to any suggestion for observing precautions in order to avoid becoming a victim of a rape incident. All the cases mentioned above are crimes and undoubtedly neither the offender should be left unpunished nor the police can be spared for any laxity on their part, but does this mean that we should not be told how to take prohibitive measures. Can we become complacent merely by putting all blames on the government and the police? We know that no amount of precaution can be considered as adequate enough to make anyone feel relaxed in this regard. Yes, we alone will never be sufficient but then, don’t we know that even efficient policing will have its own limitations. Since losing a car can never be compared to that of losing one’s dignity and peace of mind, is it not fair to expect a matching level of effort from those who are vulnerable to these crimes?
To me, it appears that any suggestion for observing precautions in these cases generally offends the potential victims not only because it, in a way, helps in justifying the crime but more because it is considered as an advice directly emanating from an offender’s mind-set. These advices are also considered as originating from another outright offending assumption that the victims were not serious about their own safety. And it hurts them more when these suggestions come from those who have the responsibility to ensure their safety. With this view, it is often argued that instead of subjecting the potential victims to pass through these sessions of preaching there is an urgent need to change the mind-set of those who preach. However I feel that sometimes even genuine suggestions go waste in this regard due to the light in which these suggestions are generally scanned.
Any suggestion to the potential victims for observing precautions and that too just after a Dhaula-Kuan-rape kind of crime is indeed blatantly insensitive but I find even the reactions to this absurdity equally insensitive when it is made to appear as if they do not want to share any responsibility of their own safety.

Objects that can’t Object

‘Let the rule of law prevail’ – is this true only for teachers who reacted with only a seven-day strike in installments during a period beginning from 16th July to 30th October, in response to a barrage of letters hurled from the registrar’s office aimed at humiliating teachers who had engaged themselves in saving their dignity and also what they perceive as soul of the higher (non-professional) education. Are we required to shed our right to participate in a process that decides what and how to teach, under the threat of salary cuts? Are we being told that university rules are not that are written in the rule-book but it is the orders of those whom they consider to be the ‘authorities’?
The only mistake the teachers made was that they felt they are part of the education system itself and not mere external instruments for helping just another system, controlled by others, to function. Mr. Justice, teachers were the ones who wanted only the rule of law to prevail and not the University ‘officials’ (not defined as ‘authorities’ in our rule-book), who kept on issuing illegal orders. We are covinced that our University officials can think of destroying this temple of learning by using this as a ladder for achieving personal gains in their life outside the university but we would always like to preserve this and feel pride in considering this to be our sole duty.
We can never imagine of a teacher ‘Dronacharya’ advising Draupadi to have first abided by the orders of ‘Duryodhan’; to have cooperated with 'Duhshasan' in helping him execute the orders by allowing him to make her sit on Duryodhan’s lap after shedding her clothes, before filing a suit and waited for ‘Dhritrashtra’ to have termed the order eventually as illegal. Lots of lives lost in 'Mahabhrata Yuddha' could have been saved had she let the then rule of law to prevail. History has not forgiven Dronacharya for even being a mute witness to a blatant immoral and highly unpardonable act of his 'authorities'. Can our court suggest that a member of ‘Haryana Lawn Tennis Association’, Ruchitra Gehrotra, should have followed the orders of her authority, the founding president of the association, Mr. SPS Rathore? She should have cooperated in her molestation as she had no right to deprive India of many winning medals in the sport? She could have gone to the court afterwards to know whether SPS Rathore’s advances were legal or not as no one else has a right to know or interpret the law.
I am just hoping that these queries will be answered in the final verdict to be delivered on December 13. Only the final verdict will hint whether the teachers made a mistake of not approaching the courts or not. In this era of privatisation, are we supposed to behave as mere objects that cannot object?