Search the Internet           Tips

Are politicians the only ones to blame?

When I wrote about Narasimha Rao's trial two weeks ago, it had just come to an end and the sentence had yet to be pronounced. My immediate thought at the time was to concentrate on the procedural matters -- nuts 'n' bolts issues such as the Special Protection Group guards who must, under the law, follow him. These issues must now be decided by the courts and I understand that behind-the-scenes consultations have already begun. So let us move on and take a look at some of the larger concerns.

Coincidentally, Jayalalitha too got her comeuppance at about the same time as her erstwhile ally. This has led many people to conclude that most politicians, if not all, are corrupt and deserve to be locked up. Fair enough, but are they the only ones to blame?

Let us begin with ourselves, meaning the Indian electorate. To be honest, we made a mess of things in the general election of 1991. We made the Congress the single largest party, thereby ensuring that the President would be forced to invite it to form the government. Simultaneously, we denied it even a simple majority -- that magic number of 272 -- which could have given it a measure of stability. What happened next was inevitable.

Politicians are human beings, not angels; they are, like us, driven by the instinct for survival. A drowning man would happily reach out for poison ivy if it would save him -- Narasimha Rao and, lest we forget, the Congress reached out for the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. Not exactly admirable, but understandable enough in those circumstances. Mark this well for future reference: India's voters don't have the luxury of opting for a herd of fringe parties and demanding stability at the same time.

There are other people who must be taken to task -- bureaucrats and businessmen. It is ridiculous to say that Rao, alone and unaided, did everything that he is being condemned for today. The brain may be the one that gives the command, but the hands are the ones that actually perform the deed. Actually, that may not be a good metaphor -- Rao's "hands" had minds of their own and they could have chosen to act in concordance with the law. They did not and must be punished accordingly.

So who exactly are these "hands?" My answer is "businessmen and bureaucrats." Returning to the charges of bribery against the former prime minister, it has been proved that large sums of money changed hands. Shouldn't we find out who provided the large chunks of change?

In the trial of Narasimha Rao, it is the bribe-givers who have been convicted while those took the cash got away (I understand that this might change since Justice Bharihoke has ordered the investigators to take another look). By the same token, the businessmen who provided the Congress's managers with money should be held guilty.

If some of India's crorepatis were the left hand, then sundry bureaucrats were the right hand. In Narasimha Rao's case there were a few civil servants who were named as possible conspirators. They were let off. In Madras, I understand that there were some minor characters standing behind the leading lady, but they were understandably ignored by the audience. And how about Bofors? We insist on talking about the politicians involved, but neither the original scam nor the (still continuing) cover-up would have been possible without bureaucratic support.

Just after World War II, the victorious Allies set out to purge Germany of Nazism. An offshoot of this process was the trial of several high-ranking Germans at Nuremberg and a couple of other places. Many of those in the dock offered the explanation: "We were just following orders!"

It was pointed out to them that this could be accepted as an explanation, but not as an excuse. Is there any reason why the same sorry words should carry any more weight today?

There is nothing in the rules of service which says that a civil servant is required to follow illegal orders. Let us also admit that some of them have become suspiciously wealthy; evidently, it is not just politicians and their relatives who fatten on the State...

I believe too that the scope of the word 'corruption' should be expanded to cover sins where money is not the focus of the crime. I have seen non-corrupt (in the monetary sense) officers who go out of their way to turn a blind eye. Occasionally they do even more, helping offenders to escape.

In Narasimha Rao's day, both types flourished -- those who took money and those who stood by pretending not to notice but occasionally bursting into applause. One of these I remember was a police officer hand-picked by the then prime minister to take on sensitive jobs. The list of bureaucrats who were on the take themselves is far longer. We can argue endlessly about which type is more guilty, but questions about degrees of guilt should not make us forget the sin itself.

There is need to send home the message that corruption will not be tolerated in the bureaucracy. Putting the focus entirely on politicians only serves to shield all those others who participated, or at least condoned, corruption.

Well begun is half done and taking our precious elected lords and masters to task is good. But don't forget the bureaucrats and the businessmen who made it possible to do so much damage in the first instance. Unless they too are tackled, India will continue to be plagued by corruption.

T V R Shenoy