ONE of the main causes of political upheavals throughout history has been the widespread prevalence of corruption and nepotism among the holders of political power, whether they be kings, princes and oligarchs or politicians in a democracy and administrators in general. This is well illustrated by recent political upheavals in the erstwhile colonial countries.

The Chiang Kai-shek regime in China failed because of widespread corruption and nepotism among both politicians and administrators. The democratic regime in Egypt gave place to a military dictatorship because of political and administrative corruption. The same has been the case in Indonesia and Pakistan. The recent troubles in Burma and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) are also due to the prevalence of corruption among the politicians and their lust for power at any cost. That is why every revolution, whether it be democratic or totalitarian, tackles the problem of corruption first, so as to gain the confidence of the people.

Under British rule, corruption in India had two distinct faces. One, which was not recognized as such, was the fundamental corruption consequent upon one nation ruling over another and exploiting it. The other was the ordinary corruption in administration.

As soon as the John Company established its rule, it systematized and sanctioned administrative corruption. Officials of the Company were paid incredibly low salaries. They were expected to supplement their income by getting or extracting compulsory levies from those who were obliged to have dealings with them. When the administration was transferred from the John Company to the Crown, the higher services manned by the British received emoluments out of all proportion to the functions they performed or the capacity of the Indian people to pay. The result was a top-heavy administration, which was condemned by the Congress year after year in its annual sessions.

 

Big salaries to high officers successfully induced a certain degree of honesty. In the lower grades of the administration, however, corruption continued owing to custom and the low salaries of the employees. Yet, there was some check upon it because of the fear of the big Sahib. It was known that if he was not satisfied, the punishment would be swift and final, and there could be no appeal from the wrath of the British officer. He was the government.

There was some change in this pattern after the two world wars. War always provides opportunities for corruption. Total war increases these opportunities. It also undermines moral and conventional restrictions. Moreover, the amounts involved are so great that they place a heavy strain on the honesty and integrity of the average government employee and corruption spreads even to the higher services.

After World War I the British were able to clean the administration of much of the war-time corruption, but after World War II, the task became more difficult. Also, the British Government had no time to use the broom. The uncertainty about the future political set-up, and the Hindu-Muslim rioting and blood-bath that followed, afforded fresh opportunities for corruption

When political power came to be definitely transferred it was expected that the politicians now in power, who had always denounced corruption under the British, would immediately take stringent measures, as in every revolution, to suppress this evil. It was also known that some of the leaders, especially Prime Minister Nehru, would give short shrift to all corrupt officials. Unfortunately nothing was attempted. Even the services of officers who had indulged in sadistic acts of cruelty against the nationalists, beyond the ample provision of the repressive laws of the foreign government, were retained. Occasionally, such officers were even promoted.

No revolutionary party coming to power has ever done this. One wonders what was behind all this compromise! Was it that the Congress government, harassed by the many difficult problems arising out of the transfer of power and the Partition, did not relish the idea of adding yet another problem by increasing discontent in the services? Was it that the politicians and the members of the services often came from the same strata of society, from the same caste and families? Was it that members of the services had powerful connections among the new holders of power?

 

Whatever the reasons, no effort was made to clean the administration of undesirable elements. Rather, the prolonged retention of war-time controls and the issue of lucrative import permits worsened the situation. The politician conveniently thought that the magic touch of the transfer of power to Indian hands had changed everything! The cruel had shed their cruelty; the dishonest had become efficient and the unpatriotic had become patriotic! This was clear from the praise lavished upon the administrative services by the political bosses even when there was no occasion for it. Is it therefore any wonder that the problem of corruption was not tackled after Independence?

It is unfortunate that the evil has increased with the years. Political corruption has been added to administrative corruption. A Persian proverb says that if a king takes a grain of salt from his subjects without payment, his officers will rob the people of their entire possessions. The result is that today nothing can be got done unless some payment is made, or there is a note of recommendation from those who can influence them. This wide-spread corruption has let to inefficiency in the administration and to inordinate delays in the transformation to business .The pity of it is that nothing is done to check it. Indeed, at first even its very existence was denied.

 

From the very beginning my voice was raised against this corruption. One of the reasons for my resignation as President of the Congress, as mentioned in my statement before the A.I.C.C., was the prevalence of corruption and an open black market. In Parliament, year after year, I have denounced this evil. Annoyed at my criticism, the prime minister in reply once said that corruption is created by those who incessantly talk of it. My answer was that we were not living in the age of Aesop’s Fables where a wolf appeared because the shepherd-boy had raised the cry ‘Wolf! Wolf!’ Even in Aesop’s Fables, the wolf did not come out of nothing, as the rabbit from the juggler’s hat, but it was there in the jungle.

After some time, owing to universal complaint, the existence of corruption was admitted, but only in the lower ranks of the services. It is at this level that the services come in contact with the people. What can one think of the efficiency of an officer if he cannot check corruption in his department.

Sometimes it appears from the prime minister’s utterances that he is out to do a job as quickly as possible, the job of industrializing the country and making it modern, corruption or no corruption. He seems to be oblivious of the corroding effect of this evil. If it were merely the question of greedy officials and their clients making money, it would not matter much. But it is the moral effect on the whole community that is most dangerous. Corruption has the tendency of turning the average citizen, who is not made in the heroic mould, dishonest.

 

Take, for example, the case of an ailing child in the family. It is useless to ask his parents to refrain from going to the black-market for medicine which cannot be purchased in the open market at the prescribed price. Similarly, it is useless to expect a merchant to refrain from indulging in bribing officials if his business is likely to suffer. Often the giver of the bribe gives it out of necessity. Sometimes he gives it to get an undue advantage. But in no case is the government employee obliged to take it. His sole motive is to make profit immorally and illegally and, in the process, to undermine the social fabric. He is a public danger and a public enemy.

The average citizen, and we all come into that category, is neither honest nor dishonest. There are a few who are congenitally honest or dishonest. We become one or the other according to social circumstances. I recently gave my own example in Parliament, and shocked the House. I am the Director of the Gandhi Ashram which produces khadi. The ashram has a branch in Bengal producing silk. The goods produced have to be distributed. But the railway clerks would not book them in time. When booked they would not load them in time. The goods deteriorated. The ashram had to suffer losses. My workers were harassed. These complaints were brought to me. The highest railway authority was approached, yet no relief was forthcoming. What was I to do? The ashram is a public charitable institution. It provides work for the poor. It does not do business for profit. If it suffers losses, the poor have to suffer. Had I, as the director of the institution, the moral right to make the poor suffer? I did not know. Anyhow, in desperation I asked my workers to give the necessary gratification of a few rupees and save the hundreds of rupees of the poor. The workers pointed out that the ashram was a public institution. How were they to account for this money before the auditors? I said I would certify the expenditure as being a bribe and take the legal consequence.

 

I related this story in Parliament. There was an electric effect in the House. The minister said that he would look into the matter. I had telephone calls from railway officers, assuring me that the matter would be attended to. I expected that after this public exposure my workers would be free from harassment. But this was a vain hope. The railway staff would neither accept the customary gratification nor give the ashram booking facilities. My workers were manhandled and abuse was showered upon me for the exposure in the House.

I again received complaints from my workers. I did not know what to do. I sent a formal letter of complaint to the minister. I also wrote to the prime minister, not in his official capacity but in his capacity as a trustee of the ashram. I pointed out to him that now, since gratification was not accepted and the goods were not booked, the only course left was to close the branch in Bengal. In that case I said there would be a loss of a couple of lakhs and some thousand spinners and weavers would be thrown out of work and lose their livelihood. It was then that some effective action was taken and we are now free from harassment. I hope permanently. However, it is not possible for average citizens to seek relief in this way.

 

This shows how deep corruption has gone into our political system. The pity of it is that even complaints of corruption in political and administrative circles by highly placed leaders, who were once in government, receive no adequate response from the authorities. This is what makes the situation appear hopeless. The foreign government dealt with complaints against a senior officer by sending him back home, beyond the seas. Gandhiji had his own method of dealing with corruption in high places. He would call the man, place the evidence before him and ask him to retire from public life or be exposed. In all the cases I know of, the offending politician chose to slip away quietly from public life.

Today, instead of any remedial measures being taken, the general impression is that the authorities, to retain their prestige, make every effort to see that corruption at the higher levels is not exposed. It is no use saying that public opinion is wrong. It may be wrong even in continuing Congress in power! But it is accepted. In politics and administration it is not enough that the authorities be right and correct. The public must also feel that they are so. If this does not happen there will be moral and political demoralization, with consequences which are bound to be evil but which cannot be foretold. Will the holders of power act before it is too late?

 

* Reproduced from ‘Corruption’, Seminar 8, April 1960. pp. 24-26.