As more skeltons keep tumbling out of the cupboard…

It is right now very difficult to point out what is the cause and what’s the impact. This post refers to three sets of players: businessmen, politicians and media.

Let me share a few thoughts (without the benefit of structure). (Sorry for this long comment – first time I am posting here.)

1. I believe business got corrupted during the licence raj… as Sanjeev points out, Nehru’s policies – further reinforced by Indira Gandhi – ensured that only the ‘devious’ could get ahead. So, Indian businessmen and entrepreneurs could watch others in India and elsewhere keep moving ahead or join the bandwagon themselves.

2. India has got liberalized in many ways, but in many ways it hasn’t. The plethora of permissions and permits still continues. Take telecom itself. The fact that there was so much “vagueness” in the licensing policy is indication that many sectors are still not truly de-regulated. Opportunities for business to influence policy making and its (selective) implementation continue; the administration benefits and so do some businessmen.

3. The sad reality of the matter is that no business in India can achieve its full potential if it does not participate in this “system”, if not wholly at least very substantially. In particular, businesses that require the Govt. to provide some form of resources (spectrum, land, mines, etc.) and permissions (FDI, licences, etc.) are impacted by this system. Businesses like IT and BPO have managed to avoid this clutch, but most other businesses cannot get away.

4. Should businesses get into influencing policies? Or influencing who becomes a Minister or not? In my view, every stakeholder in the country has such rights, as long as they do not wrongfully influence, i.e. provide inducements to ensure the outcome. Most ministers today are linked to either a business house or some other “cause”; I don’t think there is anything wrong with that (after all, they are people too, with friends and beliefs) as long as (A) they did not get in to their role through wrong influence and (B) they do not use their powers to unduly benefit who they like / support. In the current environment of coalition politics and weak executive leadership, it is highly likely that the PM has limited choice / influence on who his Cabinet colleagues are …. and that for me is the bigger problem.

5. My understanding is that businesses believe that as long as they are not “paying” money to get an outcome, they are not corrupt. Some form of business quid pro quo is treated as par for the course. So, an auto major might seek (“negotiate”) concessions and benefits from a state Government, in return for a promise of investments and job creation. Or social investments. Is that unethical? I don’t think so. Many countries and states “negotiate” tax rates with foreign investors based on level of investments and jobs. I know Singapore does it. As long as an individual or the decision maker does not benefit, but the region / state / city benefits in return for “concessions”, there is nothing wrong.

6. The way to stem the rot in the business-politics nexus is to (A) truly deregulate (and clear rules / procedures) all major sectors so that opportunities for corruption are reduced immensely; (B) immediately punish both sides of the corruption act, when it comes to light.

7. Coming to the media, the absence of “true” competition has caused the current situation, IMO. We do not have a strong public news/broadcast organization; we all know what ails Prasar Bharti. Similarly, there isn’t adequate competition from global media companies because of FDI restrictions. In order to compete with the incumbents, even new players are behaving like incumbents… so we really have no choice from the so-called main-stream media.

8. Recent behaviour by media has shown that you cannot expect MSM to drive independent and objective reporting or analysis. They are now part of the system since they have the same business “compulsions” that other businesses have. Given that (almost) all media houses are controlled by individuals / families, there is little chance for the editorial team to exert supremacy (unlike a truly public-investor owned media company).

9. I have two “solutions” suggestions for the media issue: One, the Government must encourage full competition in the news sector. Competition can come in the form of foreign investors as well as a re-invigorated Prasar Bharti that should go out of government management.

10. In addition, I truly believe that the media has lost its “fourth estate” status. We must treat them like any other business and source of information. The media should lose any ‘special’ benefits it currently receives as an “independent” arm of society. They should be asked to disclose their business interests as well as political / other affiliations.

Thanks.

(I am unable to disclose my identity in public due to work compulsions, but Shantanu has access to my details. My comments, however, are not conflicted by my employment status.)

For a moment, please step back from value judgements and look at the following statement from #1.

“EVERY politician from the major parties is deeply compromised”

and compare it with what Kant said about morality

“If everybody were moral, morality would have lost its meaning”.

Let me suggest that in the present context, the words ‘compromise’ and ‘corruption’ have lost its meaning simply because everyone compromises and everyone, at his level of operation, is corrupt.

Both Tatas and Reliance have contributed immensely to Indian society and Nation. They couldn’t have done so without playing the system. They do have their internal set of standards. Without such standards, they would not have achieved what they have done. Ditto with politicians, parties, media houses. Don’t forget the way Barkha grilled the commonwealth official Mike Fennell.

The problem is with we the people and our own standards and wants. What is it that you want from a party? For example, from BJP? Has anyone or any group spelt it out and measured the performance of BJP (or for that matter, any party, company, media house etc) on those yardsticks?

All that people seem to be doing is to compare everyone with the ideology of Dharmaraja in Mahabharata or Rama in Ramayana. No wonder everyone fails! Dharmaraja himself never believed he passed the test.

Shantanu,
I’m surprised that you are claiming this as a shocking development.
There is little difference between the major parties when it comes to governance. If you have read or watched ‘Yes Minister’ its a near flawless execution of how politics in real life is.
A.Raja would have been looking for drinking partners with the BJP and AIADMK as opposed to his own partymen fighting for his ministry.
I do like Swapan-da’s candor in coming out with his ideological preference. At least he has some integrity when others have chosen to hide behind the fig leaf of journalistic rights (or whatever Barkha and her cronies claim).

Shame, humiliation and nausea were some the emotions on hearing the conversation in the tapes.

There are many amongst us who have, based on honest work, integrity and intelligence, gained recognition internationally. And that is the picture of the changing India that we try to project- where diligence and hard work are rewarded.

The tapes reveal the gory details of how decisions of national importance are being made based on narrow political/individual gains. The rote is endemic. Agreed the primary goal of the lobbying and PR firms is to promote the interests of their clients. But lobby groups also serve a secondary objective of providing the decision makers and wider perspective and educating about the merits/demerits of a policy decision. However, in these tapes one could see only greed, political/family vendetta as the basis for decisions.

Now Shantanu, where is the Maha mrityunjay mantra …

Corruption is a very easy label to attach to the problem of government of a country. Of course if a people choose not to have a government (or a government in mere name only), then each and every person is simply answerable to himself.

In practice such a vacuum should not last long. A people who have not been well fitted to government have ended up being being governed by others with the zeal and organisation to impose the stamp of their rule and secure the fruits of their victories. King Bharat epitomises the conscientiousness of Bharat as a nation and the manner of how such a rule which had the nations great respect was secured: conquest and defeat of challengers. Any person who presumed upon the bounty of the king would have expected to be crushed. We should not underestimate how fragile such authority has been in the history of many countries. Bharat was never again so comprehensively ruled. The India of today only covers a portion of the territory over which King Bharat had dominion: this was despite the constitution which he bequeathed for an elective king: an early experiment in democracy.

Human frailties and ambitions have never been great respectors of such arrangements. Religion often plays a role in the narrative legitimizing rule which was seen in evidence in the Mahabharat. This became the religion of Bharat rather than its history. The real history of Bharat is about scattered kingdoms which only saw advantage in securing outside intervention to secure their advantage. This has provided the genesis of India’s corruption. The strong hand of King Bharat is not even a footnote in India’s long history.

Unrestrained by ethics or religion, it should not be surprising that every Indian has his price. If nobility in Bharat’s society was to be found in the chivalry of its warriors, they had long been vanquished and ceased to be relevant in the modern India given to Gandhianism. When the cancer is so deep, mere exultations does not suffice. Normal class analysis would suggest that the saviour would come from the middle class: this class only exists as a conduit for consumer goods. It remains part and parcel of India’s polity which is divided horizontally and vertically in every way imaginable. India has not for some decades elected a government with a mandate but ones that have been known for shabby compromises. The constitution was wholly inappropriate for the problems of government faced by the country. There is neither the intelligentsia to guide it out of the morass.

If this much is recognised, the first steps might be taken to finding a solution.