From the daily revelations, accompanied by reprimands andreprisals, it would seem that as a society we have left no stone unturned to bethe most corrupt one in the country. If we have failed in our endeavours, it isdespite our best and concerted efforts!
The “India Corruption Study” by the Centre for Media hadranked J&K as the second most corrupt state after Bihar in 2005. J&Khas since “slipped” to the fifth rank in 2017; beaten as it has been byKarnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
Whatever be the facts, relativities and perceptions, thereality is that the incidence of corruption is undoubtedly pervasive and high.Tragically, so is its social acceptability. It now stands almost sanctified.
In its incidence, corruption is not unique to Kashmir. Whathas made it unique are the accredited causes and ascribed consequences: it isproffered as a one of the main reasons for youth alienation, stone pelting andeven militancy. Also, a consequence has been the indictment of a people:”corruption in the psyche of Kashmiris”; an attitude which has now come tobecome an attribute. Corrupt politicians, corrupt administrators and corrupt people.These causal extrapolations are not just problematic but also degrading.
In Kashmir, corruption is not merely an individualisticphenomenon where individuals enter into unethical relations or transactions.Rather it is a dense social phenomenon in a volatile and vicious politicalenvironment. Unlike elsewhere where it is generated in the sphere of businessand administration, corruption in Kashmir is generated and thrives in the worldof political relations. It has been a part of the process of governing Kashmirwhich goes much beyond the transactional corruption emanating in the course ofadministrative decision making.
When placed in the wider context of politics, Kashmir is acase study in political brokerage and deal-making which will put high streetinvestment bankers to shame! Therealpolitik of, and in, Kashmir has worked through a web of surreptitiousnetworks created on graft. It is this which provides a fertile ground andcatalyses’ everyday retail corruption.
It was former Army chief General V K Singh, now a juniorUnion minister, who revealed that many J & K ministers received funds fromthe Army. This was corroborated by A S Dulat, former intelligence chief, in hisbook. He dwelt at length how he corrupted virtually the entire political establishment.It got international ratification from former U.S. Ambassador to India DavidMulford. He cabled the US State Department, in 2006 and 2011, that”everybody in Kashmir gets money”, describing politics in Kashmirbeing “as filthy as the Dal lake”.
All these”revelations” are important not because of the individual named or unnamed. Noralso about a political party or parties being bankrolled. These are importantinsofar as they reveal the manner in which the edifice of democracy has beenconstructed and has been managed in J&K.
All this makecorruption layered in its origins, objectives and operations. The real issue isthat there is political corruption in Kashmir for a reason and a purpose: forthe last seven decades and more it has been used to mask democraticauthoritarianism as democracy.
From the Kashmir perspective, it is about the deep distrustthat the Union government has had of the people of Kashmir and their electedrepresentatives. From the national perspective, it is about ensuring that theelected representatives play a predetermined role and don’t deviate from thepolitical play that is scripted by sleuths sitting in New Delhi. It has beenabout how, in a situation of alienation, corruption has been used as a mode ofcohesion. This started way back in the early 1950s.
The liberal “furtive funding” are indeed the “chains ofgold” that Jawaharlal Nehru spoke about in the Parliament, of “binding thepeople of Kashmir with”. And here we are, bound hand and foot!
It is to this political corruption that attention must bedrawn to. It is not only corrosive for political stability, but undermines thefoundations of democratic society and brings governance in disrepute.
The many “covert interventions and operations” have mademost of the institutions in J&K bankrupt. The institutional structures, beit political or administrative, belittled by the lack of legitimacy andburdened with the failure to perform are now bound by corrupt practices.
While the covert interventions of the deep state havegenerated corruption, subversive political processes have socialized it, andmainstream political activities have normalized it; made it acceptable. Theadministrative, organizational and institutional apparatus have operationalizedit.
This has resulted in corruption becoming a very particularsocial construct of a society that, in the throes of political uncertainty,sees it as a compulsive requirement for, and price to pay, to get to power. Ithas become a political necessity. All these kinds of corrupt acts have beenmade to appear as “normal” under a given political situation and not under anyparticular dispensation. Corruption in Kashmir has been regime agnostic. Overthe last 70 years, the society has, at different levels, internalized thenormalization of corruption and socialized the standards and even the moralprinciples. This has now been embedded not only in political arena and also insocial spaces.
If indeed this is so,then corruption will have to be dealt with at all these levels. Otherwisedealing with it as an end product is just optics: the current bunch of corruptwill be replaced by another bunch of corrupt; the reproduction of corrupt andcorruption will not stop. To accuse an individual or a group, for example,could just be what is beneficial to the emergence of the new power structure;it will not be about morality but about polity. For, in the existing scheme ofthings, the corrupted are not “liabilities”; they were “assets”.
Given this understanding of corruption and how it has beenengendered, any attempt to stop it not just welcome for what it is — a movetowards better governance – but also what it signals. It is a major politicalinitiative; a change in the strategy of dealing with Kashmir. It is anextremely significant initiative to change the dynamic of the bonds andrelationships, temporal or transitional, which have been built between thedifferent agencies and agents. Thesebonds not only underlie, but also drive the political dynamics in the state.
If the cleanup is accomplished at this level, it will be abig service to politics of the state and ethics of the society. For the longterm conduct of democracy in the state, it will perhaps rank alongside thefabled first fair election in J&K conducted under the watch of Janata Partyin 1977.
The government may do whatever it has to eliminate”individual” corruption, be it among bureaucrats or politicians. For it to beself-sustainable and not just a phase, the elimination of corruption at the individualisticlevel with a moralistic dimension is for the civil society to ensure. The civilsociety has to do engender social processes that stigmatize and not sanctifycorruption.
Tail piece:
An interesting case in point is the ad hoc appointment in governmentand elsewhere which is under the scanner now. It was started by Bakshi GhulamMohammed, Prime Minister of J&K from 1953 to 1964. Srinagar street lore hasit that Bakshi sahib used to appoint people or rather issue their appointmentorders on the packaging foil of cigarette packets!