Virtues like morality, honesty, courage, wisdom etc. are applied to an individual, whereas we always understand corruption in the context of the affairs of a State. For corruption to exist we need a State or a society where some form of governance exists. In the absence of Statehood the word corruption loses its meaning. Therefore a Government is a necessary condition for existence of corruption. Similarly we know that the same is true with justice as well; in the absence of a State justice doesn’t exist. In a perfect State, like Rama Rajyam, justice is said to stand on four pillars. Such a State will be devoid of corruption. The introduction of certain amount of injustice into such a State cant be said to bring in corruption. But once the injustice in a perfect State starts increasing there reaches a stage where something called corruption enters the scene. It is therefore the withdrawal of justice from a State which brings in a variety of evils one of which is corruption. Injustice is of many forms viz., immorality, inequality, dishonesty, lack of integrity etc. Corruption is one such class of injustice where our guardians earn money in an unjust manner.
We understand corruption to have taken place only when there is involvement of pecuniary gain to an official in the public sphere. However there are a large number of unjust acts happening in day to day governance of the State which often go unnoticed. Corruption is the end result of some of such unjust acts. Let us take certain examples of unjust acts and examine if people call them corrupt practices (public official here includes elected representatives).
- Demanding of money from a citizen by a public official for performing his duty. This is bribe taking and hence corruption.
- Public official uses his office for personal financial gain. This is corruption.
- The public official doesn’t demand money but accepts voluntary payment by a citizen for performance of duty. This again amounts to bribe taking and hence is a corrupt practice.
- Official accepts a voluntary payment for helping a citizen beyond his call of duty. There is an act of voluntary help and voluntary payment- a just act and an unjust act. However as an unjust act can never be a compensation for a just act, this should be treated as a corrupt act.
- The father of an official was the subject of injustice at the hands of a Government official because of which he loses his life. The son becomes a Government servant and resorts to illegal earning in order to take vengeance. An unjust act can never be undone by another act of injustice. Hence this amounts to corruption and cant be defended.
- A public official uses undisclosed knowledge of the State (say the alignment of a ring road or setting up of an industry) in order to make legal investments and thereby makes legal money. This isn’t regarded as corruption by many people. However on further examination this is an act of stealing information of the State and encashing it- an unjust act viewed from any angle.
- A rich public official used to moving in a BMW car privately, purchases the same vehicle for public use. This is indiligent action which can be termed unjust.
- A public official uses his office in order to help his relatives or friends earn money legally. We cant call the official corrupt. Is this an act of injustice?
- A public official uses his office to help people belonging to his community earn money legally. This isn’t a corrupt act. Is this injustice?
- Certain communities were historically subject to injustice under various forms of governance. The current democratic regime has offered protection to such groups. A public official, not necessarily belonging to these groups, uses his office to help persons from these groups gain benefits beyond that agreed under law, to the exclusion of deserving persons from other groups. Is this an act of injustice?.
- A public official at his discretion shows undue favour towards individuals belonging to certain class (say a community or region or language) to the exclusion of other equally deserving classes. The official is not corrupt. Is he unjust?
- A public official decides on a policy action with the sole objective of earning votes. Is this injustice?
- Public Officials thrust their wrong opinions in making decisions out of intellectual arrogance; out of a feeling that what they know alone is right without following a process of consultation. Is this injustice?
- A public official allows unjust acts without pecuniary gain but in order to retain the job or assignment of his liking. Is this injustice?
- Doing an unjust act in order to undo historical injustice: An example is facilitation of occupation of private lands by those persons subject to injustice at some point in the past. Is it a just act?
The three benefits: demolition of virtue in the rural folk:- Government of Andhra Pradesh six years ago adopted a policy of saturation to all the eligible beneficiaries in the welfare schemes in the State. Welfare pensions, housing and ration cards have therefore become within the reach of every rural household. The policy is very virtuous, almost redefined the meaning of a virtuous policy. For the first time a State in India has done something for which the State came into existence on this planet viz., to take care of the basic needs (food, shelter and clothing) of its citizens. The State has promised to provide food, shelter, and support to the old and infirm to all the eligible citizens. This extremely virtuous policy-white as milk- had to be implemented through the dirty hands of our guardians.
Now as justice demands, this policy should have blessed all those eligible viz., those without a house, those newly wed without a card, and those old and infirm without a support. We can see that the common factor in all these three classes of citizens is eligibility. As usual the guardians from the cutting edge to the district level (sarpanch to the local public representatives to the officialdom) have taken note of the immense opportunities this virtuous policy has thrown. The two mouth watering dishes any politician survives on, goodwill from the citizens and money for the self, presented themselves all of a sudden without asking. The huge machinery of the guardiandom consisting of the public representatives and officials took the lead as usual in implementing the policy in right earnest. The lead they took is two pronged, in one direction they taught the ineligible ones in the process of purchasing an eligibility, and in the other direction they trained the eligible ones that money alone can make their eligibility visible to the eye of the guardian. Having thus succeeded in training their citizens they started the plunder of goodwill and money from this policy bowl. The policy being virtuous, suffered silently at being contaminated by the dirty hands of our guardians. Today we have citizens demanding benefits under this policy for the following reasons
1. The eligible has not received the benefit despite payment of money
2. The ineligible has not received the benefit despite payment of money
3. The ineligible has not received the benefit despite the fact that a fellow ineligible has received.
4. The really eligible and innocent has not received the benefit without any payment.
The beneficiaries from this are the public representatives- in goodwill and money, and officials-in terms of money and postings.
No comments:
Post a Comment