Corruption in India has almost become a way of life. It is deep rooted so much that it has spread its tentacles far and wide. Majority people prefer the corrupt system to get their work done. The society has almost accepted it as a norm. For political class, it has become a medium to create a loyal vote bank by extending monetary benefits and favours to get elected again and again. Getting employment, tenders, award of projects, government positions and almost every aspect of government functioning has become corrupt in one way or other. It is not an option but has become a rule in the political landscape irrespective of parties and governments while its degree may vary. The so-called bureaucracy, which is supposed to be the guardian of governance, has either become a part of the problem or prefers to align with the power structure for personal gains. It doesn’t mean that there are no clean and non-corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and government officials but their number has become miniscule and their voices get choked, unheard and sometimes silenced. Thus, corruption has increasingly become ‘the elephant in the room’.
Beyond the governments, it has seeped in to judiciary and media as well. It is often heard that to give favourable judgements sometimes judiciary gets compromised for monetary benefits, promotions, post-retirement positions and various other direct or indirect favours. As per a recent news item, a vacation bench in Chennai openly remarked “None can deny that there is corruption in the judiciary. There were and there are corrupt judges. The judges emphasised that members of the judiciary do not need to be treated as ‘holy cows’ and the institution must allow itself to be open to public scrutiny, robust debate and constructive criticism”. The media getting aligned with the power structure for advertisement revenue and various other favours is nothing new. The corrupt practice of paid news and creating a favourable narrative is often heard.
But there is a deeper and more uncomfortable reality. Corruption survives not merely because some individuals are dishonest, but because certain systems create incentives for dishonesty, tolerate discretion without adequate accountability, and make delay so costly that citizens begin to regard the payment of a bribe as an ordinary transaction. This is where corruption begins to resemble an untamed tiger. It may initially be tolerated as a nuisance, exploited as a shortcut, or even rationalised as a necessary adjustment to an inefficient system. But once it becomes embedded in the functioning of institutions, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the formal system and the informal arrangements that sustain it.
The most dangerous stage of corruption is when it ceases to shock society. A citizen who pays a bribe because a government service has been deliberately delayed may condemn corruption in principle while participating in it in practice. A businessman may regard an unofficial payment as a cost of doing business. An official may regard it as an accepted supplement to an inadequate incentive structure. Each individual may have a justification. Collectively, however, these justifications create a culture in which corruption thrives.
There is a striking paradox. People often complain about corruption while simultaneously learning how to navigate it. The person who demands an illegal payment from someone seeking a legitimate service exercises institutional power that the ordinary citizen does not possess. Corruption flourishes where power is excessive, procedures are opaque and accountability is weak. The more complicated a procedure, the greater the opportunity for discretion. The greater the discretion, the greater the possibility of favouritism.
Digitisation, online applications, transparent procurement, time-bound service delivery, direct benefit transfers and publicly accessible records can reduce the number of points at which an individual official can arbitrarily intervene. But technology alone cannot eliminate corruption. A corrupt process can simply migrate from a physical desk to a digital interface if the underlying incentives remain unchanged. The objective must therefore be less discretion, greater transparency and predictable accountability.
There is another dimension that deserves greater public scrutiny is the financing of politics. Political parties need money. Elections are expensive, political organisations require infrastructure, and democratic competition cannot function without resources. Therefore, it would be simplistic to equate every political donation with corruption. The problem begins when financial contributions become a mechanism through which economic power seeks privileged access to political power. A donation may be perfectly legal on paper but the donor expects favours in return. If the public cannot adequately see who finances political power, how much is given, and whether subsequent governmental decisions disproportionately benefit particular interests, the distinction between legitimate political support and influence-buying becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to evaluate.
But, when the fence itself starts eating the crops, corruption has the potential to emerge as a major election issue. The 2014 Lok Sabha election results were increasingly influenced by various gigantic scams like Coalgate-2012, 2G Spectrum Scam (2008), Common Wealth Games Scam (2010), Adarsh Housing Society Scam (2012), Chopper Scam (2012) etc. In Goa, Parrikar had succeeded in influencing voters on mining scam and rent-seeking casino operations in Mandovi River. In recent years, in Karnataka, the Congress could make it an election boiling point to defeat BJP in Assembly elections. Changing a political party in power doesn’t mean that voters have tamed corruption, it may simply mean that they have opted for what they perceive to be a less corrupt alternative.
It is not merely corruption by those in power. It involves public participation leading to corruption of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore, corruption will continue to thrive until people themselves decide that it must end. It is to be seen whether in the future, the new generations Gen Z, Gen Alpha and the emerging Gen Beta become a potential driving force against corruption in India.
