Anna Hazare is in town and so it is inevitable that at any conference or event you go to and are given the microphone, everyone feels that you must tell the audience how to tackle the evil of corruption engulfing India. As it is, economists are blamed for everything; what is worse is that they have filled reams of papers on the topic of corruption. So, it is difficult for them — and hence me — to avoid questions on corruption. The only silver lining with Annaji coming to town is that economists get a respite from having to answer questions on inflation.
I remember that when I first came to Delhi, I needed a ration card to get a gas connection, apply for a phone connection and even for a passport. I was a poor lecturer then, but really not a poor person and I still was entitled to a ration card. I remember that all of my senior colleagues, some of whom had cars and, hence, could be considered less poor than I, also had a ration card. And, indeed, so did everyone I knew and came to know. All of us complained about the quality of food in the ration shops and their irregularity of supply. A group of people who did not have ration cards in Delhi were the people who worked as domestic help and were in Delhi as migrant labourers. However, they all had ration cards in their native places. Most of us who did not want to buy the low quality rations and could afford to buy the higher priced, higher quality cereals in grocery stores did so. And the ration cards of the non-poor were used by their domestic help, who did not have any cards of their own in Delhi.
There were two outcomes of this. First, the poor domestic help was assured of enough food in their jhuggis because they lifted our rations. Second, the price of domestic help was lower than it would otherwise have been because part of their wages was implicit in the food subsidy they enjoyed because of the non-poor’s ration card.
But then we came up with the bright idea that the non-poor do not need ration cards. So, the concept of ration cards changed from one of food security and an identification card to that of a food subsidy for the poor. And now we know that the public distribution system has become one of the most corrupt institutions in the country. And that hunger stalks the country. We also have examples of states like Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh where the PDS is better implemented but they do not target the poor.
Given that we are very knowledgeable, we know everything about what happens abroad. For example, we wanted a Lok Pal, or an ombudsman, like they have in Sweden. We also know that Sweden and other Scandinavian countries are welfare countries. Nevertheless, in every single study by every single entity — individual or organisation — these countries score the highest in their lack of corruption. And yet, they spend many times more than what we do for the welfare of their citizens. The small detail some of us forgot to read, or notice, is that they do not target any of these expenditures to any particular sections of their citizenry. Others who have noticed this are quick to point out that Sweden is richer than we are and our fiscal situation forces us to choose those who should get subsidies and others who should not. The latter group, in turn, have failed to notice that when the Scandinavians implemented these measures they were not the rich countries they are today — and, very importantly, they (barring Sweden which was still quite poor) were coming out of a very, very destructive war. It is not that only now they are rich, with no corruption and with no targeted subsidies.
There is another thing that we need to keep in mind about the corruption in our public distribution system or in the system of getting driver licences. It is not just the officials who are corrupt but we, the common citizens, who trigger this corruption. It may be that it is the officials who have their hands in the cookie jar but if they give us a few we tend to look the other way. So our sons get their driving licences through a tout without giving any road test and, often, before sitting behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. We are quick to point out that it is very difficult for honest citizens to get what they are entitled to unless they use unfair means. In other words, the cost of getting a licence through correct procedures is very costly compared to getting it through a tout. Well, if honesty came at no price, everyone would love to be honest; the cost of honesty is not an excuse for dishonesty. What would you have said if Mir Jafar, or Mir Kasim, said that their reason for treason was that life under the British was better?
Finally, recall the discussion in the early part of the 1980s when every government office was busy setting up vigilance cells. The promise was that they would weed out corruption. But Annaji is on a fast and there are many who sympathise with him, suggesting that the weeds of corruption have actually grown bigger. So, now it is time for the Lok Pal. Till some Bapuji comes along 25 years from now and suggests that the weeds have now choked up everything. My only fear is that the future Bapuji, instead of fasting, may decide to wield a gun.
The writer is research directorat IDFand director of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, SNU
