I guess everybody agrees that a law against murder saves so many lives daily. We all understand the importance of having just laws. It does not matter what we call the law or whether it is brand new law or an old law with more amendments. The focus should be on strengthening it and not on questioning the necessity of the law itself. Drafting such a law may even involve abolishing earlier one or merging it with the new one.
There are bad people on both sides of the argument. One thing to note however is that the laws are meant to be "used" by those who are victims of corruption, mostly honest men on both sides. Hopefully, I am making sense. :-)
Even though there may be 5 honest officers (HO) in passport office, one needs to understand there are at least 5 more that are dishonest (DO). Same applies to common men as well. Suppose, an honest common man (HC) and a dishonest common man (DC) both apply for passport.
Lets analyse each combination:
HC goes to HO: HC does not offer bribe, neither does HO ask for it. No issues at all. In fact, HOs should be rewarded for upholding their integrity. Despite having the power he does not try take undue personal advantage of that power, it is quite commendable.
DC goes to DO: DC offered an INR 500 bribe and got his job done. If he knew about the presence an HO in the same department, he would have chosen HO for his work (given he had such a choice). DO just gobbles up those INR 500, smiles and stamps on the passport for dispatch to DC. Such a corruption never comes to light because neither DC nor DO wants to showcase their dishonesty. In such case, the only alternative to know that the corruption took place would be to keep a tab on transactions taking place out of both DC and DO's bank accounts. Considering, we have such a large population; it is not possible to keep a tab on each and every person's bank account. However, since the number of bureaucrats is less in comparison, it is easy to monitor their bank accounts and see if they inflate inordinately. Given that such transactions almost always happen in cash, even banks may not be able to help identify such corruption. If such money goes out of the country to Swiss banks, then there is a bigger danger to the country's well being due to such corruption.
HC goes to DO: HC is not happy because DO is asking for bribe. What should HC do now? HC can't even wait because he wants his passport as soon as possible (for any personal reason it may be). He can file a complaint against DO, but what will happen under current laws? Some Kaka, Mama, Dada or even Anna of that DO is in politics at a high post. As is clear from current laws, MPs & MLAs are sacred, nobody can touch them. What will HC do then? Just wait for the passport forever? DO in the meantime gets arrogant and threatens HC to go to hell, he will never get a passport. HC gets depressed and goes home regretting - why did he complain. Next time, whatever the job is, if DO at the other end asks for bribe, HC does not dare to complain and meekly shells out money from his pocket. Now, do you call this HC a criminal? Technically, yes. But fundamentally, No. If the law does not guarantee him any fairness, he is bound to feel left out. HC will keep that in mind and accept that "bribe is part of life", unless something drastic happens and a clean man like Anna gathers public support around him and challenges the "right" of MP or MLA to support corrupt people.
DC goes to HO: In this case, HO denies bribe, and does the job in stipulated time. So, DC is happy. However, if DC is not taught a lesson about social responsibility, he will keep spreading his corrupt practices all over. Especially, if there is a conflict of interest or competition between a DC and a HC, DC might be able to arm-twist the HO into accepting bribe by influencing him through a corrupt MLA above HO. What should HO do in this case? HO can't keep getting transferred all over the country just because he denied accepting INR 500 bribe. He has his family, kids who are attending school etc. etc. So, he will have to accept bribe under pressure from corrupt MLA. It takes only one corrupt MLA/MP like Lalu to cause trouble in the whole parliament, especially if the power equation depends on his party's support (in other words "blackmail"). So, to stop the problem at the root, such a DC & MP/MLA who comes in support of such DC should be punished. I think the current Jan Lokpal Bill does not address this yet, but I am 100% sure that Standing Committee, PAC, NAC and MPs will think about it and include sufficient provision to punish that dishonest common man (which should also include punishing MP/MLA who comes in support of such DC).
Of course, the problem can't be explained in above 4 paragraphs only. We should go deep beyond that to address minute process aberrations. However, the point of my comment/note is that such a holistic, empirical and methodical problem solving approach needs to be undertaken rather than squarely putting the blame on either politicians or common man only. Study of corruption cuts across multiple disciplines viz. Behavioral Science, Political Science, Public Administration, Economics, Public Relations, Human Rights and Law etc. It cannot be defined within one blog or one note or one comment or one bill. Of course laws are necessary, but they must be retrofitted into a bigger picture where all the scenarios of corruption are addressed closely to the extent humanely possible. To bind all the people in that law is the real challenge. Keeping anybody (be it common man, Sarpanch, Tehsildar, MLA, MP, lower and upper bureaucracy) out of the ambit of the law itself will cause an imbalance in the execution of the law and pose questions about the impartiality of that law.
Calling all common men culprits is as good as calling all parliamentarians corrupt. If both sides do not rationally analyse the problem, the conflict will never get resolved and both sides will become bitter enemies of each other, which will be a bigger problem to solve.
There are bad people on both sides of the argument. One thing to note however is that the laws are meant to be "used" by those who are victims of corruption, mostly honest men on both sides. Hopefully, I am making sense. :-)
Even though there may be 5 honest officers (HO) in passport office, one needs to understand there are at least 5 more that are dishonest (DO). Same applies to common men as well. Suppose, an honest common man (HC) and a dishonest common man (DC) both apply for passport.
Lets analyse each combination:
HC goes to HO: HC does not offer bribe, neither does HO ask for it. No issues at all. In fact, HOs should be rewarded for upholding their integrity. Despite having the power he does not try take undue personal advantage of that power, it is quite commendable.
DC goes to DO: DC offered an INR 500 bribe and got his job done. If he knew about the presence an HO in the same department, he would have chosen HO for his work (given he had such a choice). DO just gobbles up those INR 500, smiles and stamps on the passport for dispatch to DC. Such a corruption never comes to light because neither DC nor DO wants to showcase their dishonesty. In such case, the only alternative to know that the corruption took place would be to keep a tab on transactions taking place out of both DC and DO's bank accounts. Considering, we have such a large population; it is not possible to keep a tab on each and every person's bank account. However, since the number of bureaucrats is less in comparison, it is easy to monitor their bank accounts and see if they inflate inordinately. Given that such transactions almost always happen in cash, even banks may not be able to help identify such corruption. If such money goes out of the country to Swiss banks, then there is a bigger danger to the country's well being due to such corruption.
HC goes to DO: HC is not happy because DO is asking for bribe. What should HC do now? HC can't even wait because he wants his passport as soon as possible (for any personal reason it may be). He can file a complaint against DO, but what will happen under current laws? Some Kaka, Mama, Dada or even Anna of that DO is in politics at a high post. As is clear from current laws, MPs & MLAs are sacred, nobody can touch them. What will HC do then? Just wait for the passport forever? DO in the meantime gets arrogant and threatens HC to go to hell, he will never get a passport. HC gets depressed and goes home regretting - why did he complain. Next time, whatever the job is, if DO at the other end asks for bribe, HC does not dare to complain and meekly shells out money from his pocket. Now, do you call this HC a criminal? Technically, yes. But fundamentally, No. If the law does not guarantee him any fairness, he is bound to feel left out. HC will keep that in mind and accept that "bribe is part of life", unless something drastic happens and a clean man like Anna gathers public support around him and challenges the "right" of MP or MLA to support corrupt people.
DC goes to HO: In this case, HO denies bribe, and does the job in stipulated time. So, DC is happy. However, if DC is not taught a lesson about social responsibility, he will keep spreading his corrupt practices all over. Especially, if there is a conflict of interest or competition between a DC and a HC, DC might be able to arm-twist the HO into accepting bribe by influencing him through a corrupt MLA above HO. What should HO do in this case? HO can't keep getting transferred all over the country just because he denied accepting INR 500 bribe. He has his family, kids who are attending school etc. etc. So, he will have to accept bribe under pressure from corrupt MLA. It takes only one corrupt MLA/MP like Lalu to cause trouble in the whole parliament, especially if the power equation depends on his party's support (in other words "blackmail"). So, to stop the problem at the root, such a DC & MP/MLA who comes in support of such DC should be punished. I think the current Jan Lokpal Bill does not address this yet, but I am 100% sure that Standing Committee, PAC, NAC and MPs will think about it and include sufficient provision to punish that dishonest common man (which should also include punishing MP/MLA who comes in support of such DC).
Of course, the problem can't be explained in above 4 paragraphs only. We should go deep beyond that to address minute process aberrations. However, the point of my comment/note is that such a holistic, empirical and methodical problem solving approach needs to be undertaken rather than squarely putting the blame on either politicians or common man only. Study of corruption cuts across multiple disciplines viz. Behavioral Science, Political Science, Public Administration, Economics, Public Relations, Human Rights and Law etc. It cannot be defined within one blog or one note or one comment or one bill. Of course laws are necessary, but they must be retrofitted into a bigger picture where all the scenarios of corruption are addressed closely to the extent humanely possible. To bind all the people in that law is the real challenge. Keeping anybody (be it common man, Sarpanch, Tehsildar, MLA, MP, lower and upper bureaucracy) out of the ambit of the law itself will cause an imbalance in the execution of the law and pose questions about the impartiality of that law.
Calling all common men culprits is as good as calling all parliamentarians corrupt. If both sides do not rationally analyse the problem, the conflict will never get resolved and both sides will become bitter enemies of each other, which will be a bigger problem to solve.
No comments:
Post a Comment