Valson Thampu

There seems to be a curious parallel between the war on terror and the war on corruption underway in our country. Both presuppose faith in the efficacy of might. Consider the war on terror. The perversity of terrorism is that it reposes faith in violence alone. The war on terror too does likewise. The difference pertains only to who resorts to violence.

Not infrequently, the war on terror becomes a mirror image of the war by terror. The insignia of the State is that it enjoys the exclusive right to resort to violence. Citizens taking the law into their hands is anathema because wielding the law is the exclusive prerogative of the animators of the State. Resorting to violence is not the issue; the issue is who resorts to it, as the pirate chief said to Alexander the Great. When asked by the emperor, ‘How dare you disturb the peace of my seas?’ he replied unfazed, ‘I have only a small boat and twenty men. So I am called a pirate. You have a large fleet and thousands of seamen, so you are an emperor!’

The war on corruption seems to stand on the dogma that pitting the might of the State against the corrupt suffices to eradicate corruption. Surely, every Indian would readily agree that corruption needs to be eradicated. At the same time, none sensible enough will agree that merely by turning the crushing might of the State against the corrupt -which needs to be done- this cancer in the body politic can be eradicated. Corruption is a disease of the mind. It signals the decay of human nature. Unless the individual and national psyche is refined and reformed, corruption will remain endemic and ineradicable. The war on corruption could even prove counter-productive, and result in the institutionalisation of corruption as the monopoly of the agents of the State.

Corruption issues from greed which is fuelled by the shared notion that the worth of human beings depends on what, and how much, a person possesses, irrespective of how it is raked in. Belief in intrinsic human worth is incompatible with corruption. It is impossible to be self-respecting and corrupt at the same time.

This confronts us with possibility that the idea of development we pursue, which measures development by material gains alone, could well be a catalyst for corruption. Available evidence –the astronomical enlargement of corruption in the wake of globalisation- points in that direction. The power of being –in which Gandhi believed- is substituted with the power of having. The more you have, the better you are. Black money has the power to make you white.

Given that, what are we to make of the much-touted war on corruption? What has come to light so far affords a peek into what it takes to containing corruption. Bringing about a change in the individual and national outlook on what constitutes human worth as well as what should comprise the essence of authentic, meaningful patriotism, is the core task. There is no indication anywhere that this is in the offing under the aegis of the war on corruption.

Instead, the dogmatic faith in the power of money is being intensified. Consider the assumption that if you can afford top-notch lawyers, you can get away with murder. Add to that the impression that you could enjoy assured impunity, no matter what you do, if you are in the right political camp. Regard also the fact that money can procure people’s representatives from any party. Also, a great deal of money is needed to protect your MLAs, via resort politics, from being poached and painted in different hues. Above all, reckon the intriguing logic of the mega-crore horse-trading in MLAs being deemed as the sine qua non for waging the war on corruption. In Karnataka, for example, the BJP can attain power by procuring MLAs and also press the panic button that if Congress is voted to power there will be corruption. That is to say, it is dangerous for the citizens to shift from ‘our corruption’ to ‘their corruption’. This can be stated with aplomb, without even minding the allegation of being the ‘40% sarkar’.

In such a scheme of things, war on corruption could amount to no more than a war on the corrupt outside of one’s fold. ‘Who’, not ‘what’, becomes the issue. No one – in the ruling party or in opposition parties – wants corruption to be eradicated. Every party wants all other parties to be excluded from its massive advantages. So long as money-power remains decisive in politics, corruption will remain and reign. Money of the order that swings elections, or procure people’s representatives in the numbers required, can be gained only through mega corruption. So, corruption will persist as the mainstay of politics. To maximise one’s advantage, however, it is necessary to exclude one’s rivals from its advantages.

It doesn’t have to be argued that the pattern sketched above is germane to the sphere of religion. Religious hypocrisy persuades us that what is indefensible in others is proper in ourselves, provided it conduces to the gain of our religion or denomination. Hence Jesus taught, ‘Do to others as you would that they should do to you.’ The need to teach thus arises because the contrary is the operating norm in religion. ‘Do as the Pharisees teach you, but do not do as they do,’ said Jesus. Why? Because there will be an ineradicable contradiction between the two; and it is bound to be so, so longer as love for God is pitted against love for fellow human beings.

The pressing danger to Indian democracy today is that politics is envisaged and practised in the mould of religion, which is inevitable when democratic processes are hitched to religious majoritarianism. Communal fervour suppresses ethical sensitivities entirely. It makes practising double-standards an honourable duty. ‘Everything is right’ not only in ‘love and war’. It is even more so in promoting the interests of one’s religion. The High Priest, who used ‘false witnesses’ in trying Jesus, was acting in fidelity to his duty to defend Judaism. Nothing is ill-legitimate when it comes to that. This becomes the normal when politics is communalised. This democratic immorality gets enormously legitimised when leaders of various religions, presumably acting on behalf of their communities, endorse it, even if they do so as forced by intimidating exigencies and insufferable forebodings.