Related Links
Please Pay Your Bill Before You Leave, Mr Tata!
The Reality of Mining in India
Environment and Forest Ministry Rejects Vedanta Project
Sacrificing Human Rights And Environmental Rights At The Altar Of “Development”

The rationale for liberalization was that it would make India an economic and political superpower. Its leaders said. Dr. Manmohan Singh. Dr. Motek Singh. Mr. P Chidamabaram. That the sale of national and community assets, and disinvestment in these assets was part of the strategy - to raise money.

The strategy was rationalized even when it threatened the lives of millions in tribal lands. In villages. In cities. The state brought in its military might to put down people protesting this strategy that was resulting in loss of lives and livelihoods. Slums were burnt down. Arrow-wielding tribals were mowed down without a question. Anyone questioning this grab has been labeled a naxalite or a maoist. And the extent of corruption is so devolved that all levels of administration want to go after them. The liberalization of corruption has thus developed its own self serving logic, its own mission and strategies and its own system of merit with all levels of India's administration.

The PM did not even feel it necessary to visit these people to really understand what these policies were doing to them. (Heck, he does not even fight elections so he does not need to know what people want.) He was happy to sit and chat with corporate leaders to understand how more money could be made.

And now we find that in his leadership, senior ministers have been at the forefront of scams. Not a crore. Or hundred crores. But lakhs of crores. That is where we used the money from the sale of these assets that were the basis of many communities in our country. So why are we sure that the PM or his office is clean?

We have seen links. Of corruption in the highest courts. Of Chidambaram's links to Vedanta. Of Montek's to WB. When a majority of policies are being driven to help companies access national assets, when checks and balances are being diluted through new laws in all sectors (mining, agricultural, industries, energy) and when we see attempts to influence these policies, why can we not ask whether these policies are indeed for the benefit of the nation or for corporate entities.

Why then are these not being viewed as a threat to the state? After all, we are a democratic state and these practices (such as Mr. Raja's, or efforts by lobbyists) are attempts to undercut due democratic processes? After all, corruption threatens the economic viability of the state? After all it results in policies that threaten national good. Or set the precedence for such processes? Why are they not greater threats to the State than the words of an individual?

The naive might argue that it is a result of checks and balances not commensurate to the policies of liberalization. However, the banking practices in US that led to recession (and was that not a bigger threat to US security than Wikileaks) have shown that when political-corporate nexus exists, checks and balances can be thwarted as needed.

Some social leaders (Swami Agnivesh, Baba Ramdev, Shri Ravi Shankar, among others) have made a plea to end corruption. However, it is hardly solved by feeling good and wishing good any more. The liberalization model has developed its own mechanism and is impossible to dismantle by such good wishes. It needs much more.

Thus, the liberalization of corruption requires not just that Raja et al. be brought to justice. It requires the dismantling of the nexus that Dr. Manmohan Singh has led and its replacement with a political process that requires that the leadership be directly understanding and approachable by the people of India. It requires greater transparency in dealings between leaders of the State (Judicial, Executive and Legislative) and the corporate sector and greater checks on their dealings. And it requires more accountability of these government officials at all levels to all the citizens of the country.

The first step, though, has to be a change in leadership. While changing the leader cannot change such a deeply entrenched system evolved over years, it does send a message. India requires a different PM. Someone who is democratic, who attempts to understand people and their needs rather than the economics of corporate interests.

Second, some tools need to be used extensively and others strengthened. RTI and Social Audits have worked effectively in many instances to hold local officials accountable. More such tools need to be developed - especially in areas of public policy, in Environmental Impact Assessment, acquisition of land and rehabilitation and use of commons (forest, water, etc).

There are no clear answers or strategies, many smaller efforts. However, it is increasingly clear that these last decades have liberalized corruption, not development or opportunity.