Where are the honest people to clean up India?

LK Advani, senior BJP leader, has virtually removed the lid from the stinking gutter of Indian polity: “Good governance cannot be achieved simply by one person being replaced by another in the top.”

The Supreme Court striking down the bungled appointment of CVC PJ Thomas has proved beyond doubt the level of inefficiency that Manmohan Singh government wallows in. Instead of resigning, Singh has only owned “responsibility” and decided to keep the job.

Owning up to guilt yet continuing to be prime minister is sheer hypocrisy; Singh’s resignation would have kept the moral fabric of the country intact. Agreed it would hardly have stemmed the rot. So what was the fun of resigning?

Singh is not personally accused of corruption but that doesn’t lessen his burden as he presides over a corrupt regime. If he had listened to his conscience, which he in first place should possess rather than the sab-chalta-hai-attitude which only deepens the rot, and had decided to resign, there is every possibility that a more corrupt government would have come to replace the present one.

Advani while conceding, “good governance cannot be achieved simply by one person being replaced by another in the top”, has suggested a “four-point systemic change”. 

Advani’s proposals of ‘electoral reforms’, ‘administrative overhaul’ and ‘fast-track mechanism to probe all major scandals’ are well-meaning suggestions.

Hardly anybody will disagree with Advani, but will these reforms which Advani describes as ‘systematic change’ improves the quality of governance in India?

And where are the honest people to undertake a systematic overhaul? It is an irony of Indian political system that in the present circumstances, a corruption-free administration is a task impossible; a less corrupt dispensation replacing the present one also seems to be a difficult proposition.

The fight against corruption in India means adding layers of administrative safeguards and creating more vigilance organisations.

Multiple administrative setups and complicating administrative procedures have only circumscribed the ‘will to take the initiative’ of honest officials; as a result, governance has become a cumbersome process in the country.

On the opposite, despite administrative reforms and more stringent laws being made, corruption is on the increase.  Corruption is eating up the very vitals of society is an oft-repeated cliche.

Yet, it is a fact that corruption no longer invites social censure. On the contrary, it has more or less a social norm. In Kashmir, it is normal for matchmakers to boast: “Boy’s monthly pay might be just Rs8000 but he earns lakhs a month as graft”. 

Corruption triggering an upheaval is also a thing of past.  In the age of ‘relativity’, when morals have been subjected to the changing nature of time, corruption too has become a relative question.

With corruption becoming socially acceptable, does it mean that administrative reforms that have failed to produce the desired results should be done away with, or corrupt officials allowed to have their way?

Doing away the administrative mechanisms of ‘checks and balances’ even top-heavy ‘checks’ is not being argued, without proper checks and balances system will for sure collapse.

A case for anarchy is not being made, yet a proper appraisal of situation is necessary. Earlier, it was said that only clerks and beat constables are involved in petty corruption.

Then it was said that politicians have only joined the clerks but judiciary and higher echelons of bureaucracy are honest. The upright army was even beyond any doubt of suspicion. 

The press, the so-called fourth pillar of democracy, was considered to be the watchdog of the society. In the age of 2G spectrum, CWG sandal, Adarsh land scam, Radia Tapes, ‘something rotten in Allahabad court’, no segment of society has remained corruption free. In a situation where politicians, bureaucrats, judge, army generals and media personalities have lost their moral moorings, the fight against corruption through mere administrative reform becomes meaningless.

This society is in need of comprehensive social reform in order to reorient its moral compass. The social reform too seems to be a far-fetched an idea, particularly when excellence in materiel pursuits is being taught as the key to real success.

In the process, distinction between ethical and unethical has been lost; materialism has become the new god. In the age of laissez-faire capitalism wealth creation is considered to be symbol of creativity. Obviously the issues related to morality, ethics and legality have got consigned to the grey areas.