Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala
It is good indeed that Laloo Prasad has been sent to jail by the judiciary. But we should not be under the impression that courts will be able to control this malaise in the society. In any case, what has been caught is only the tip of the iceberg. Laloo has been found guilty of fraudulently withdrawing monies for three or four district treasuries. Much more would be withdrawn in other districts as well. Then there are numerous other departments where similar withdrawals would be made. There are other Ministers to reckon with too. Thus while congratulating the judiciary we should realize that the problem has much bigger dimensions.
A ruler of a country being corrupt is nothing new. Ben Ali in Tunisia and Zardari in Pakistan are living examples of widespread indulgence in corruption by head of the state. Likewise there is a natural tendency for our Ministers to become corrupt. Money in such large amounts is floating around them that even a minute fraction of the state revenue provides a grand attraction. The Ministers swim in a tank full of money. It becomes difficult for an outsider to assess how much money has been embezzled by the Ministers just as it is difficult to determine the amount of water drank by the fish in the pond.
Gandhi had an inkling of such things unfolding in Independent India. He started getting complaints about corruption among ministers soon after Independence. Two days before his death he had drafted a new constitution for the Congress. His proposal was like this: The Congress Party would be disbanded and a Lok Sevak Sangh would be constituted in place of it. Workers of the Sangh would live among people. They would educate the voter to send the right person into the government. Most importantly, Gandhiji wrote, Workers of the Lok Sevak Sangh could be influenced by corrupt practices if they joined the government. Thus he suggested that workers of the Sangh would stay out of power and work with the voters. Main point is that power corrupts. The way to secure a corruption-free society, therefore, is to create an institution that remains away from power yet is politically active from outside and exercises check on corruption by the Ministers. Needless to say this proposal was not even seriously considered, let alone adopted by the Congress after his death.
Lenin thought similarly. He was afraid that the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution may degenerate. He called upon the revolutionaries to join the Communist Party instead of the government. They would remain outside power. They would give direction to the government while remaining outside. They could even force a change in the Government by creating grassroots political pressure if the leaders failed to implement correct policies. This, I think, was the correct model. Stalin, however, did not agree. He had himself appointed both as the Secretary of the Communist Party and head of the State. Result was that the check of the Party on the State was eliminated. There was no entity that could restrain the State from moving in a wrong direction. The Soviet Union was dismembered few decades after his death.
Manu Smriti puts forth the same model in a different manner. It is said that the Brahmin alone can exercise control over the Kshatriya. Here ‘Brahmin’ should be understood as a fakir; and Kshatriya as a Minister. Brahmin should not be taken as one born in a family claiming to belong to that caste. Message is that only a person whose livelihood is independent of the government and who lives a simple life can control the state. The basic message of Gandhi, Lenin and Manu is that there is a natural tendency for the ministers to be corrupt. Need is to build an institution that exercises a restraining influence from the outside. This institution is likely to degenerate if it participates in the government. The question is not of the character of the individuals. The question is of them coming under influence of corrupt practices which are part and parcel of the government.
The UPA Government has tried to implement this model half heartedly. A National Advisory Council has been formed under the Chair of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. The NAC has given certain suggestion which have benefitted the Congress immensely. These include Right to Information Act and MNREGA. But the NAC lacs the grit to push the Government in a particular direction. The NAC derives its authority through Mrs. Gandhi, who is also the effective head of the Government besides being a Member of Parliament. The responsibility of giving direction to the Government, therefore, falls wholly on the shoulders of Mrs. Gandhi. Here the same problem arises as that created by Stalin. Mrs. Gandhi is head of Government as well as NAC. She is not in a position to allow friction between the two to play itself out in a situation of confrontation. She is unable to discharge both responsibilities simultaneously. Indeed the two cannot be discharged together. The police and the thief cannot be the same person.
It appears Mrs. Gandhi has given more importance to her role as head of the Government rather than as head of NAC. Persons of doubtful integrity who have had to relinquish important posts because of charges of corruption have been appointed as Chief Ministers, it appears, solely because they are perceived as being loyal to the Gandhi family. More importantly, she is not beyond reproach. The Bofors matter was closed not because there was no corruption; but because there was no evidence available to link the corruption with persons close to the Gandhi family.
We should not pin hopes on a honest person leading the country. We should work with the assumption that politicians are; and will continue to be corrupt. We should strengthen our efforts to continuously build pressure on the corrupt. The war between good and evil ever goes on and it is never won by either side. Sometimes ‘good’ is on a stronger wicket; at other times ‘evil’ is stronger. The sea saw is ever rocking. Our effort should be to push the society on the good side. We should use weapons like the Right to Information Act, Public Interest Litigation, pickets and agitations. We should not get disheartened by the absence of visible results. The fact that there is so much corruption in the society means that our side of ‘good’ is weak.
Author’s phone: 85278-29777
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel