Capitalism
is supposed to bring in modernity, which includes a
secular polity where ''babas'' and ''swamys'', qua ''babas''
and ''swamys'', have no role. Many have even defended
neo-liberal reforms on the grounds that they hasten
capitalist development and hence our march to modernity.
The Left has always rejected this position. It has argued
that in countries embarking late on capitalist development,
the bourgeoisie allies itself with the feudal and semi-feudal
elements, and hence, far from dealing the requisite
blows against the old order, reaches a modus vivendi
with it that impedes the march to modernity; it is only
those social forces that seek to transcend capitalism
which can also carry the country to modernity.
If the rapid GDP growth rate of the country, its new
found ''prestige'' in the international arena, and the
globalization of its elite had created an impression
that the Left position was wrong, a single incident,
of four senior central ministers kow-towing most abjectly
to a ''Baba'' who threatened to go on a fast-unto-death
against black money, should have dispelled it. The incident
did not just underscore our lingering pre-modernity;
it expressed something infinitely more disturbing, namely
that neo-liberal India, far from countering pre-modernity,
is actually strengthening it. We have seen a revival
of khap panchayats, and now we have a ''Baba'' demanding
Constitutional amendments of his personal choice under
the Damocles sword of a fast- unto- death; and the government
of the day, which proudly proclaims our growth performance,
rushes in to appease such a Baba. Would Jawaharlal Nehru
, or even Indira Gandhi, have rushed four cabinet ministers
to appease a Baba who was on a Constitution-amending
spree?
The fact that the government has fallen so low is, paradoxically,
not despite its economic ''success'' but because of it.
The economic trajectory being followed is one which
necessarily embroils the entire bourgeois political
class in ''corruption''. It devalues politics, and hence
leaves the field open for all kinds of ''babas'' ''swamys'',
''godmen'', and self-styled messiahs, who are accountable
to no one, and who are not even themselves necessarily
free of corruption, to move in and impose their own
agendas that have no social sanction upon the State.
The devaluation of politics is necessarily an attenuation
of democracy, and a throwback to the pre-modernity against
which our freedom struggle was fought.
But how is ''corruption'' linked to our economic trajectory?
What is called ''corruption'' refers to payments for services
which are illegitimate, i.e. which are not supposed
to be a commodity at all; or to payments in excess of
the prices which happen to be fixed for certain goods
and services, to ensure that they are actually obtained
in excess of what would have otherwise accrued in a
system of rationing (which accompanies fixed prices).
If I have to pay a bribe in order to get a telephone
connection for which I have already deposited what is
legally necessary, then that is a case of ''corruption''
of the first kind. If my child does not get admission
into college (i.e. is rationed out), but I get him admission
by paying an amount over and above the admission fee,
then that is ''corruption'' of the second kind. Most cases
of ''corruption'' can be classified under either one of
these categories. But the basic point is this: underlying
the concept of ''corruption'' there is a distinction between
two spheres, a sphere of free commodity exchange, and
a sphere outside of free commodity exchange. We do not
talk of ''corruption'' in the realm of free commodity
exchange. ''Corruption'' arises when in the sphere designated
to be outside of free commodity exchange a price is
charged as if it belonged to the sphere of free commodity
exchange. The elimination of ''corruption'' simply means
that the boundary between these two spheres must remain
intact, must not be transgressed. Is this possible?
One of the deepest insights of Karl Marx was that under
capitalism there is a pervasive tendency towards commoditization,
i.e. there is a tendency for everything to become a
commodity. The boundary between the sphere of free commodity
exchange and the sphere outside of it is forever being
pushed outwards. But if this boundary is legally fixed,
then this pushing outwards occurs in violation of the
law, i.e. becomes ''corruption''. In the pre-neo-liberal
era, i.e. under what is called the ''license-quota-permit
raj'', there was a palpable legal fixing of such a boundary.
This provided an easy explanation of ''corruption'' (on
the grounds that the boundary was wrongly and arbitrarily
fixed) and created the impression that if this boundary
is pushed out through neo-liberal reforms then ''corruption''
will disappear or at least get minimized.
This argument missed two obvious points: first, no matter
how far outwards we push the boundary, a legal boundary
will always have to remain, for a society in which literally
everything is for sale is simply inconceivable(imagine
what would happen if examination results became a commodity);
and if any such legal boundary remains then the immanent
tendency under capitalism to push it outwards will necessarily
still generate ''corruption''. Secondly, the force with
which the tendency to push the boundary outwards beyond
its legal delineation operates depends upon the degree
to which ''money-making'' becomes respectable, i.e. capitalist
values become pervasive. Neo-liberal reforms have made
such values pervasive; the force with which ''corruption''
has entered our public life has accordingly multiplied.
And since the ultimate responsibility for the executive
enforcement of the existing legal boundary of free commodity
exchange lies always with the political personnel of
the State, the logic of capitalism makes the bourgeois
political class the most significant practitioners of
''corruption''.
The idea that ''corruption'' can be weeded out by simply
making it legal is flawed, not just ethically but also
analytically, because a boundary for the terrain of
commodity exchange must always remain, and in a world
of pervasive capitalist values, this would still breed
''corruption'': for instance even if medical college admission
is made a commodity sold to the highest bidder this
would still not end ''corruption'' in medical colleges,
since examination results will then be surreptitiously
bought and sold. The idea that a mere Lok Pal bill will
end corruption is flawed, because again in a world of
pervasive capitalist values the Lok Pal office itself
will become an abode of ''corruption'': as a senior Supreme
Court judge recently explained, in the current environment
the desire for post-retirement ''sanctuaries'' (which
are at the government’s discretion) makes sitting judges
curry favour with the government through judgments in
its favour.
The point is not that the scale of ''corruption'' is absolutely
invariant to all measures and can never be decreased;
the point is that the entire discussion of the spreading
capitalist values, the passion for money-making, the
intrusion of commoditization into every sphere of life,
all of which are integrally linked to our current economic
trajectory, has receded into the background, and in
its place all kinds of facile quick-fix solutions are
being sought to be rammed down the throat of the nation
by parvenu godmen and self-styled messiahs; and the
bulk of the political class opportunistically acquiesces
in their doings to the detriment of democracy.
To be sure, everybody in a democratic society, including
swamys, godmen and messiahs, has a right to have views
on what is good for the nation and to fight for those
views. But, two caveats are necessary: first, fasts-unto-death,
though justified in my view for getting redress against
personal victimization, cannot be a legitimate weapon
for demanding specific public policies in a democratic
society where there are constitutionally stipulated
mechanisms for determining such policies; second, a
mobilization for a political end, namely demanding a
particular set of public policies, cannot be done on
the basis of non-political loyalties. If a person commanding
the loyalty of millions of devotees for religious, spiritual
or other reasons, uses that loyalty to mobilize them
behind political demands, then we have a subversion
of the secular polity. A government appeasing such a
person is abetting that subversion.
Contemporary India alas is threatened with such subversion.
Current events will embolden other swamys, and babas
to come forward with their own demands. Such a tendency,
no matter how fine-sounding the demands, will undermine
our democracy and secularism, which have been our biggest
achievements in the last two millennia.
|
