Recognizing Structures of Corruption: Indian Context
By Vivek Kumar
31 August, 2011
Countercurrents.org
Defining Corruption: Broader definition in Indian Context
Corruption can be defined as a mechanism by which, a numerically small section of society denies majority of its people a plethora of rights and privileges whether it is ‘Human Rights for dignified existence’, ‘equality: economic, political and social’, ‘liberty of occupation , residence and religious practices, fraternity etc. By doing this numerically smaller group monopolizes religious, political, economic, educational and judicial institutions etc. Historically this mechanism is created, at the inception of the society, through religious texts and sanctions. Later they are legitimatized socially by theories of Dharma and Karma. The traditional structures created, in this fashion; do not die in modern times. But they remain alive changing their form and style of functioning and influence keeping the monopoly of the numerically small section of the society intact. The existing dominance in and composition of modern institutions of governance, production, and education in India amply prove the point.
Corruption: The Narrow Definition
However in contemporary times in India the so-called leaders against corruption have promulgated a very narrow definition of ‘Corruption.’ According to this definition ‘corruption can be defined as misuse of a government or public office for personal gains’. In other words how a government servant or a politically elected member, or a judge misuse his office is called corruption. This is very reductionist and sweeping definition because of different reasons. One, this definition has taken cognizance of corruption in government offices only. That means this assume that by nature people are honest but they become corrupt when they join the government institutions. But the fact is that individuals are not born in Parliament, Bureaucracy, or judiciary. They are born in society which socializes them before they join institutions of governance or public life. That means we can argue that the institutions by nature are not corrupt rather there is something wrong with the people who man them or run them.
In this context, it is important to note that this definition does not take note of corruption induced by social sector. This is the second lacuna of the narrow definition of corruption. For instance, every year number of women are burnt alive because of dowry. After burning their bride the groom’s parent bribe the police so they are not caught. One can call it a crime. But I will call it social corruption because of greed certain people commit this act and then indulge in corrupt practice. Similarly, corrupt practice comes to fore when huge offerings of gold and silver are made temples without any transparency? Nobody gives a receipt of donation neither one knows whether a person has paid income tax on that gold. Further, temple income is also not taxed even though temples have gold worth trillions of rupees. Thirdly, the narrow definition does not take into account of corruption that exists in and because of private sector and Civil Society organizations. Again the fact is that corporate sector and big Industrial houses have lobbyist to get them government contracts and bribe the government employees to grant them concessions in the tax, excise and import duty by making laws for legitimizing their act. Industrial houses do not pay their labourers even their minimum wages. They now have higher and fire policies as well. Is this not corruption? But this narrow definition of Corruption does not take all this into account. However the narrow definition of corruption reveals certain important facts. Most importantly this definition reveals that corruption is a caste phenomenon.
Is Corruption a Caste Phenomenon?
Generally it is propagated that corruption is a faceless enemy. However according the analysis of both the broader and narrow definition of corruption we can argue that corruption is not faceless but has an identity of caste. According to broader definition of corruption, corruption can be defined as, “a mechanism by which, a numerically small section of society denies majority of its people a plethora of rights and privileges whether it is ‘Human rights for dignified existence’, ‘equality: economic, political and social’, ‘liberty of occupation , residence and religious practices, fraternity etc. By doing this numerically smaller group monopolizes religious, political, economic, educational and judicial institutions etc.” Going by the aforesaid definition of corruption who are the people who have made such structures in ancient period which denied majority of people from plethora of rights for thousands of years? Who were the people who monopolized the institutions of governance, education, and production? Of course the so-called upper-castes! They could do this because they misused their ritual and social position in the society. And hence they were responsible for a corrupt social order from its inception which was in-equal and devoid of equality, liberty and fraternity (Dr. Babasaheb Amedkar Writings And Speeches Vol. 3 Pages 96-115).
If that was the case in ancient period when there were no modern institutions of governance what is the condition in the present situation. In the contemporary times even if we consider the narrow definition of corruption then what picture emerges? According to narrow definition of corruption, corruption can be defined as, ‘misuse of public office for personal gains’. In this context let us analyse who are the people who dominate and monopolize the modern and secular institutions viz. Polity, Judiciary, Bureaucracy, Industry, University and Media? Again the answer is the so-called Upper-castes! This can be proved on the basis of composition of the three institutions namely- Judiciary, bureaucracy, and Media. The available data clearly shows that these institutions are totally monopolised by the so called upper-castes (for Judiciary and bureaucracy see 4th National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe report 1996-7 & 1998-9, Pages20-22). According to this report there are only 3% of SC and ST in High Courts as judges and Additional Judges. Now there is no SC and ST Judge in Supreme Court of India. Further this report says that Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas, and Banyas constitute approximately 83% of Class – I government and Non-government services. SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities roughly constituted only 13% and rest were other castes. That means in these institutions again so-called upper-castes are directly responsible for corruption.
Corruption and Socialization
True individuals do not become corrupt in a day or two. Rather there is a long drawn direct and indirect process of socialization for the same in the society and culture where they live. If we take the Hindu society in particular then we can find institutions, ways and means in which people are socialized from the childhood which facilitates the practice of corruption in the society. For instance the way children see their parents making an offer in cash or kind to priests at the time of ritual performed in the home or in the temples. Children are also told to offer to gods and goddesses whenever there is an exam or some result of competitive exam is about to come. In their youth they are socialized to demand dowry in marriage and keep demanding from the bride’s family for all their lives. And
parents of girls are socialized to pay dowry helplessly. It is not only the individuals are trained to offer and demand but they are trained for not giving what is due to someone. For instance in the villages the so-called upper castes have a habit of not paying for the labour of the Dalits and other artisan classes. Landlords do not pay minimum wages to landless labourers. The Priests are not supposed to work and produce instead socialized to survive on the hard labour of others and accumulate capital in the temple as their private property without using it for public good. That is why Indian temples have been found to possess gold and silver worth trillions of dollars beside ready cash. The moneylenders specifically the Vaishyas are trained to lend loans to villagers at an exorbitant rate of interest. They exploit the masses by manipulating their records as the masses were illiterate and powerless. Even dacoits make offerings to Goddess Kali for big haul. Above all the Hindus are also socialized the way out of sin or these corrupt practices. The way is simple. Keep your gods-goddess happy by offerings or keeping fast, chanting Mantras and by taking dips in holy -river like Ganges. In medieval ages Nazrara (Trailer), Shukrana (Thanks Giving), and Zurbana (Fine) continued to socialize people in illegal practices. In modern times the huge gifts the elite’ exchange on the eve of the different Hindu festivals especially on Diwali is akin to socialization and initiation in the corruption. In this way we can argue that Indians have many structures and processes which train individuals to indulge in corrupt practices later in the life. And they do not hesitate to give or take bribes.
Conclusions
So what are the conclusions we can draw from the above analysis of structures and mechanisms of corruption? Firstly, there has to be a broad definition of corruption in Indian Society which can highlight the structures and mechanisms of corruption. This definition should include corrupt practices in every -spheres of society. The narrow definition does not explain the evolution, development and processes of initiation in the phenomenon of corruption. Neither it gives picture of corruption existing in different spheres of society. From the above analysis we can also conclude that corruption is not a faceless entity rather it can be identified in Indian society with institution of caste. It can easily be called a processes associated with the castes which dominated and monopolized the institutions like political, economic, religious, educational, production etc. These castes deny the so-called lower castes access to these institutions. Even if they are inducted they remain in minority and at peripheries in the institutions of governance. Corruption does not have legitimate structures and caste only; there is processes of initiation in a particular act of corruption in Indian society. Hence, individuals do not hesitate in indulging in the real act of corruption when he begins to perform his role in public life.
Vivek Kumar is Associate Professor, CSSS/JNU, New Delhi.
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
