I have high respect for Anna who has taught in my course at IIMA and also whose work I had the opportunity to see with him way back in early 80’s.  I have no doubt that the model of watershed development he developed is a viable one and deserves to be replicated.  I have also no doubt that his campaign for removing corruption is well-intended and must succeed.  However, I do not think that the idea of any one institution having too much power is ever a good one in democracy.  After all, institutions are run by people.  People bring values and sanskar of the society in which they live.  There is no reason to assume that merely the character of the chair will change the character of the people.  But the reverse is true.  The character of the people can indeed change the character any chair they occupy.

My problem is that people who join a campaign should show the character and take the vow that they will not pay any bribe, no matter what.  I made this suggestion when the protest was going on in Ramlila maidan in Delhi and I make it again.  I also believe that we are all human and capable of doing mistakes.  Confessions of these mistakes can help in creating a constituency for transparency.  This suggestion also was made and ignored.  I see no reason why everybody who has bought a property and has not paid any black money to a builder cannot say this openly.  I am willing to say this and hope that others will also do that.  The largest amount of black money is generated in construction sector.  There are of course other sectors where even larger amounts have been generated on an episodic basis.  Unless we increase accountability, we cannot remove corruption.  The Right to Information Act has empowered people like never before. May be, we should strengthen this Act and bring more institutions under its purview.  Likewise, let us do a survey of all the properties sold in the last five years.  If the price paid and market price differs significantly, the amount of black money can be easily calculated.  Punishing an illegal act after its commission is necessary in democracy.  But, preventing such acts is even more necessary.   We have to tackle the problem at several levels.  The generation of black money must be tackled first, the expenditure in social functions must be tracked by the citizen watch groups, the incompatibility between the value of the house possessed and the known source of income is so easy to spot and likewise, many other acts of commission and omission by the citizens can be brought into public view.  Government has to be blamed for many things including corrupt practices.  But, will a government servant be able to extract rent and get away with if his or her life style is regularly monitored and his investments are regularly tracked.   I see no reason why, we the citizens should not first undertake the acts which are in our hands.  That is a flat ‘no’ to bribes.  When I had to renew my driving license, I stood in the line for two hours.  And after that I got it without much hassle.  The problem arises when I don’t want to wait and pay a tout to get the work done ahead of the line.  Every participant in the movement against corruption must undertake not to break the queue.  We have been struggling for getting land allotment for last ten years almost to build a live exhibition of innovation.  The files keep going up and down and we are willing to wait.  It is true that society suffers in the process because motivation of young children who would witness such exhibition will increase manifold than if they were to only read about it.  But this is a small price to pay for a cause, i.e., in the larger public interest but is unable to generate empathy among the powers that be.  This is natural in a democratic set up.  Not all causes will get support from whichever party is in power.  One has to struggle, pay the price, keep the means clean and hope that ends will be met eventually.

The tendency to cut corners and use influence for partisan purposes rather than for a public purpose or for helping the disadvantaged has to be condemned.  We don’t need one super institution to track the morality of the entire bureaucracy.  We need several layers of ombudsman, at district level, state level and at central level.  We have several regulatory authorities and some of the regulators are cooling their heels in the jail.  May be more would do if vigilance was stronger.  But the answer is not to do away with all these authorities.  We need to bring outstanding experts in different authorities so that professionalism increases and excessive bureaucratization decreases.

Corruption by teachers who don’t update their teaching notes or plans, by institutional heads who distribute favours to their chosen ones without following transparent methods and by all of us who show preferences on parochial, regional, caste, religion or other cultural and social grounds is equally condemnable.  Jan Lokpal Bill does not address the root of the problem.  It does provide strong safeguards for taking care of problems after they occur.  It will be much better if they focus on removing corruption at the top level.  The rest will be taken care of by the local bodies and empowerment of citizens.   I also do not think that parliamentary process is beyond improvement.  The consultation with the experts and society at large has indeed been attempted in some of the policies.  It should take place in a more widespread manner and not just at central level but also state level.  I am sure that Anna’s advisors will not listen to what I say here.  But that does not worry me.  What worries me is that we are not getting into a discourse that should take place in every house, in every hut, and on every street corner.  And this should not be only about what government can do but also about what we can do and must do.  Small steps with the right value and precise indicators can go a long way in changing the character of the society. We respect Anna because he has practiced much of what he preaches.  Wish we could say the same about the rest.

Anil K Gupta