Kiran,

Why do you view this as mass-hysteria and nonsense? And why do you impose your 
generalisation on the people of this list? 


On 19 Aug 2011, at 18:29, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote:

> Makes a very valid counterpoint to the mass hysteria around AH/Lokpal 
> nonsense. 
>  
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/world/asia/18iht-letter18.html
>  
> Kiran
>  
> India's Selective Rage Over Corruption
> By MANU JOSEPH
> NEW DELHI — The best thing about Indian politicians is that they make you 
> feel you are a better person. Not surprisingly, Indians often derive their 
> moral confidence not through the discomfort of examining their own actions, 
> but from regarding themselves as decent folks looted by corrupt, villainous 
> politicians.
> This is at the heart of a self-righteous middle-class uprising against 
> political corruption, a television news drama that reached its inevitable 
> climax in Delhi on Tuesday when the rural social reformer Anna Hazare was 
> about to set out for his death fast — the second one he has attempted this 
> year to press his demand for a powerful anti-corruption agency.
> He was arrested by the police, ostensibly in the interest of law and order.
>  
> Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his Independence Day address to the nation 
> on Monday, took digs at Mr. Hazare and his tactic of using hunger strikes to 
> twist the arm of an elected government. Mr. Singh said that he did not have 
> “a magic wand” to end corruption in India.
> The anti-corruption movement has the simplicity of a third-rate fable.
>  
> There are the good guys (the reformers and the average Indian citizen) and 
> the bad guys (the politicians). But the real story is not a fable but art 
> cinema.
> Indians have a deep and complicated relationship with corruption. As in any 
> long marriage, it is not clear whether they are happily or unhappily married. 
> The country’s economic system is fused with many strands of corruption and 
> organized systems of tax evasion. The middle class is very much a part of 
> this.
> Most Indians have paid a bribe. Most Indian businesses cannot survive or 
> remain competitive without stashing away undeclared earnings.
> Almost everybody who has sold a house has taken one part of the payment in 
> cash and evaded tax on it.
>  
> Yet, the branding of corruption is so powerful that Indians moan the moment 
> they hear the word. The comic hypocrisy of it all was best evident in the 
> past few months as the anti-corruption movement gathered unprecedented 
> middle-class support.
>  
> When Mr. Hazare went on a hunger strike in April to protest against political 
> corruption, the film stars of Mumbai added much glamour to his cause by 
> coming out in unambiguous support. Two months later, when a yoga instructor 
> called Baba Ramdev went on a fast demanding that the government investigate 
> “black money” hidden in foreign accounts, the film stars went silent. For 
> good reason.
>  
> The film industry is much cleaner today than it was more than a decade ago, 
> but, revenue officials say, huge quantities of secret wealth are still a part 
> of its system.
>  
> One reason the mafia could get such a firm hold on the film industry in the 
> 1990s was that it had established a business relationship with producers and 
> actors and functioned as an efficient conduit for illicitly transferring 
> their money to safe foreign havens.
>  
> Following Mr. Ramdev’s fast, when the government agreed to investigate Indian 
> money hidden in foreign banks, The Times of India ran an intriguing essay 
> that argued that the law should make a distinction between the “black money” 
> of corrupt politicians, earned through kickbacks, and the “black money” of 
> businessmen who had moved their cash abroad years ago to save themselves from 
> unreasonably high tax rates in socialist India. The essay implied that 
> corrupt politicians were the real evil and that the tax-evading businessmen 
> were just smart.
>  
> Corruption is such an integral part of Indian society that the chief economic 
> adviser to the government, Kaushik Basu, has suggested legalizing the payment 
> of bribes. He received enthusiastic corporate support, which is to be 
> expected since the largest bribe-payers in India are corporations.
> Mr. Basu’s reasoning is that if the payment of bribes were legalized, the 
> bribe-payer could be persuaded to reveal the recipient. This would inject 
> fear into the hearts of politicians and officials who expected bribes. N.R. 
> Narayana Murthy, founder of the Indian software company Infosys, said in a 
> television interview that Mr. Basu’s suggestion was “a great idea.”
>  
> In an informal way, Indian society does grant legitimacy to the bribe-payer 
> because “bribe-payer” is a description that fits most of the country, 
> including many of Mr. Hazare’s nicely dressed supporters.
>  
> This legitimacy is a bit absurd when extended to corporations.
>  
> If the lament of Indians is that political corruption pilfers public 
> resources, then who are its chief beneficiaries? It is the companies that 
> secure licenses at discounted rates in exchange for kickbacks.
>  
> But the public rage is directed only at the middlemen — the politicians.
>  
> There are several reasons for this. Among them is the plain fact that many of 
> the new supporters of the anti-corruption movement are corporate executives 
> themselves, and there is a common perception that, while a company has to be 
> practical, a politician has to be virtuous.
> Also, the mainstream Indian news media are efficiently controlled by 
> corporations, which can threaten to pull advertisements in the face of any 
> negative coverage.
> Behind the power of India’s anti-corruption movement is the rise of a new 
> emotion: Young urban Indians are more interested in their nation than ever 
> before. As a consequence they are more politically aware.
>  
> Seven years ago, I went around Mumbai asking fashionably dressed college 
> students questions like, “Who is the deputy prime minister of India?” Often, 
> I was faced with long, embarrassed silences, or “Oh my God, quiz question.”
>  
> When I asked a young Muslim woman the question “Who is Narendra Modi?” she 
> said she had not heard the name before. Mr. Modi, the chief minister of 
> Gujarat, was then and still is accused of assisting riots that resulted in 
> the deaths of hundreds of Muslims.
>  
> Today, there is a perceptible increase in the number of young people who are 
> acutely aware and interested in the fate of the nation. That is because they 
> are different from the generations before them whose only objective in life 
> was to escape India. Now that the world is what it is, there is no place to 
> escape to. So they want their home to be a better place — where bribe-takers 
> are punished and bribe-payers live happily ever after.
>  
> Manu Joseph is editor of the Indian newsweekly Open and author of the novel 
> “Serious Men.”

Reply via email to