Our nation has come to grips with an anti-corruption movement. It is considered a good sign and an appropriate step towards the purification of our socio-political system. As such, everybody is supporting this movement and thinks it necessary to get rid of this epidemic which is rampant in every walk of our lives, spoiling the very fabric of our social system and endangering the survival of innocent, honest and poor persons. The common man is in euphoria and dreaming of a bright future with the hope that corruption will be removed from our society. Politicians find it a good strategy to influence the mind of the populace, get their support and think to be able to sabotage and subvert the persons who are in power. Social leaders and champions of the movements take the credit of belling the cat and forcing the ruling elite to enact the bill according to their own choice, and that will be applicable to everybody without any exception.
The question to ponder over is how one can remove corruption. Can we remove it by enactment of a law? There are many laws to curb corrupt practices and they have also provisions to give severe punishment to persons who commit such acts, but they could not stop corruption. ‘The disease is aggravated as much as we try to cure it’. Everybody knows that in government offices no genuine work is done without money or threats from musclemen. In courts the clerk under the very nose of the person who is in charge of pronouncing justice takes money from both the parties of a suit to give the next date. Police involve innocent people in criminal activities, creating fake encounters, while culprits walk on the road with clear hands. Most of the politicians and public representatives patronise ‘useful’ criminals, influencing the establishment to save them from the clutches of the law enforcing bodies and give them different kinds of privileges in lieu of the public support criminals manoeuvre in favour of the politicians at the time of elections. The poor are deprived of their rights of existence, suppressed and exploited; innocent people are murdered and women are raped. Young capable and competent persons, the core of our workforce, are frustrated because they do not get job while the mediocre flourish and are given preference. Honest and sincere officers feel suffocation because they are forced to do undesirable acts by politicians and their seniors. Hatred among different sections of people is intentionally created and riots are organised at the cost of national unity for petty socio-political gains. These bases and sources of corruption do not cause raised eyebrows. They are not important for our leaders and activists because they are very common and common features of our system and people have no alternative other than bearing these things.
The bitter fact of the day is that the entire socio-political and administrative setup is corrupt; there is no room for honesty, probity, fairness and genuineness. Politics is the easiest game to earn handsome amount of money and various sorts of privileges. Our elected representatives get attractive salaries and lots of privileges without any substantial work, perks which would be denied them in private enterprise. Besides, they get huge amounts of money in the name of development in their respective constituencies. The irony is that they give contracts to their own men or cronies, who spend nominal amounts on so-called development work and distribute the lion’s share among themselves. Complementary to this semi-legal embezzlement, they also earn money for using their offices to provide undue benefits to their contacts, or to get their personal work done in a way not possible in due course. They can go to any extent to earn money, whether it is human trafficking or raising questions in legislative bodies on behalf of ‘donors’. Our leaders and social workers close their eyes to these facts; they never go on hunger strike or raise their voice to stop these practices. Perhaps they do not consider such phenomena to constitute corruption.
The fact is that the political system prevalent in our society is the largest source of corruption. Politics, particularly the membership of legislative bodies, is a lucrative business. Money, privileges and power are associated with it and, furthermore, it is easy to access for those in the loop. The result is that everybody tries to enjoy its fruit, and in this process persons concerned adopt all means – legal or illegal, appropriate or inappropriate, just or unjust – to manoeuvre the support of the public and enter the ruling group. Our politicians and leaders flare up the caste and religious sentiments of people and give the impression that they are the benefactor of the group which will flourish only if they will be sent to legislative bodies. Electors, sometimes due to their affiliation and primordial loyalty to a group, and sometimes with a view to tap the state gravy train, cast their votes in favour of disingenuous candidates who know the art and skill of befooling the public.
The other source of corruption is our public servants. The high officers are, by and large, under the influence of politicians and leaders who more often than not pressurise the officers to take decisions which suit the politicians or favour them and their factions. In most cases they use their offices to get things done for the benefit of their own cronies, and provide them with undue advantages. The officers who act according to the wishes of the politicians get promotion, high positions and other privileges. Those who hesitate to do so get transfer order and deprivation of their genuine rights.
The serious problem in our administration is that it still maintains and continues the British legacy according to which the decision-making process is time-consuming, lethargic, difficult and troublesome. At that time the purpose was to exhibit the superiority and significance of officers, who were mostly British, in order to create fear among people so that it could be easy to control those considered subjects. The entire officialdom was involved in making decisions in the way that an application used to pass from bottom to the top official and every one of them was supposed to write notes according to his ability and skill. Generally, the officialdom used to raise different sorts of objections in an application so that people could go from one person to another and realise the importance of administration and officers. In spite of that, the British were considerate and tried to decide the cases on merits. After achieving freedom and the implementation of democracy, the trend of administration and the attitudes of officers were expected to change. Now officers were indigenous personnel and were expected to provide as much facility and comfort as possible to the suffering public. They were considered to be public servants and were expected to ease the administrative complications and help the public to solve their problems. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Our officers emerged more despotic, exhibited more power in finding loopholes in applications, and did not show any concern with public comfort. They expected people to approach them, entertain them and offer ‘facilitation fees’ to get work done. Thus, the merit of the case, according to them, depended on how much and what sort of entertainment was provided by the client.
The public is constrained to accede to the demands of officials. In case they are unable to do so, they approach the politicians, who bargain with them in a different way. Thus, corruption takes root. It is shocking and painful when people say that British officers were better than ours. These are the known facts but nobody raises their voice against it and pressurises the establishment to stop and check these practices. These are so common that people tolerate them unquestioningly, accepting them as the status quo. Officials consider it their right to demand ‘facilitation fees’ and the public tolerate it if they want to get their work done.
Modern living is very costly and full of pomp and show. One has to acquire the requirements of modern living in order to lead a respectable life. If one has no such requirements then one will not get respect in society, and people will not pay attention to such a person because they are impressed by the modern amenities rather than principles. The old axiom ‘simple living and high thinking’ has been transformed into ‘high living and high thinking’. Moreover, the general public is impressed by opulent persons and their way of living. They always try to follow the splendid life of opulent persons which they cannot afford. As a matter of fact, they try to have more and more and in this attempt they cross all limits of sobriety and solemnity and earn money by any means. They always avoid social and legal provisions and develop different devices to make money through official roles.
Combating corruption requires a meaningful change in the attitude of people as well as in the social environment. We have to change the minds and hearts of people and make them realise that leading life with honesty, morality, probity, dignity and with appropriate and sanctioned means of society is far better than leading it luxuriously based on illegal, immoral, dissolute and degenerated means. Virtuous and righteous ways of living have no comparison with any other ways. They enable human beings to live in peace and harmony with dignity and cooperation with our brethren taking care of each other’s needs and aspirations. Living in opulence and luxuriousness at the cost of others’ needs and comfort as well as at the cost of national and societal interests and welfare always shatter the fabric of social living and endanger human existence.
Religion preaches the same principles and impresses upon humankind to live and let others live in a dignified way. But in the wake of modernisation and development, satisfaction of material needs became so important that humans cross every limit to satisfy them to the best possible way. They do not even hesitate to deprive others of their genuine and basic needs.
This is, no doubt, a difficult task because we have to restrain our desires and ambitions, observe certain principles and lead a moral and honest life. Instead of blaming and shifting responsibility to others we have to come forward and establish a precedent to others to follow. For this purpose our leaders, politicians, social activists and persons of media should take an active part, first in presenting convincing image of themselves as honest, sincere, principled and righteous persons dedicated to societal and national welfare, and second, in moulding public opinion against corrupt practices and earning money from undesirable means. The government should encourage honest and sincere people, give them rewards and recruiting them to high positions. Promotion in various departments should be made on the basis of honesty, sincerity, dedication to the work and commitment to public welfare. People should also give high respect and preference to righteous, virtuous and conscientious persons. They should try to have close relations with them, preferring to marry their sons and daughters to their families. At the same time they should denounce and castigate those who make money from undesirable means, particularly at the cost of public interest and the needs of the poor.
It is also necessary to tone up the process of socialisation and make it more and more effective. This requires drastic changes in our education system. The basic purpose of education is to produce good and profound humans who can deliver good to humanity and enrich it in all aspects. Education as a significant social matrix has to produce able and potential citizens who can contribute positively to smooth functioning of social system rather than money-making individuals who extract money from the pocket of the poor and public exchequer. In case education fails to produce such persons it will adversely affect social structure and endanger the very existence of society. For this purpose a special course on ‘human resource and human potential’ should be designed and made compulsory for the completion of higher secondary and undergraduate programmes of studies.
The nation should also impose certain restrictions on public representatives. A comprehensive code of conduct should be enacted and made it mandatory for public representatives to strictly follow it. They should be made accountable to public. They have to present full accounts of the money given to them in the name of development to the government. They should publish it in the media and also distribute it among the people of their constituencies, so that the public must know how much money was spent on which item, what sort of work was done, what was the quality of the work and who was the contractor. They should not be given ‘right’ to influence public servants and pressurise them to give any kind of favour to public representatives and their men. Public servants must perform their work and do their official duties according to law, justice and public interest and not as dictated by their whims. If public servants want to suggest anything, it should be in writing, be included in the file of the case, and be given due consideration. If it is genuine and in the public interest, it should be accepted; otherwise, it should be rejected.
The fact is that in the governance of society two factors are very important. One is the type of persons involved in it, and the other is the importance of the public interest and public comfort. If persons on whom the liability of the system is thrust are capable of doing their job, conscientious, sincere, committed to the system and their duties, they can strengthen the system, deliver the good and produce anticipated result. In case they are incapable, interested only in their own welfare and comfort, twist official rules and procedures and manoeuvre official positions to get money and privilege, they corrupt the system and shatter the bedrock of a civilized society.
Al Farabi, an eminent philosopher of the Muslim world, described the qualities of the head of the state. One of them, according to him, is that he should have no interest except the interest of the state. This applies to all persons who are involved in the administration and governance of the state. At the same time the ruling elite should give preference to public interest and public comfort. They should try to understand the situation of the person who comes to them, and try to solve their problems rather than create difficulties.
The purpose of administration in a democratic state is to provide facilities and not to make administrative procedures difficult and complex. This is the difference between developed and undeveloped societies. In the former the society is well-managed, and in the latter the society is mismanaged. In the former the officials try their best to solve the problems of the public, and in the latter the officials raise objection after objection so that people may be compelled to please them.
If one wants to eradicate corruption from the social scene, one has to establish a moral society and make it more and more humane. This is possible only when one instils spirituality in the mind of individuals and develops fear of God.