The country was outraged over the treatment meted out by Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalitha to former chief minister M. Karunanidhi on June 30. A little over a month earlier, there was outrage over Jayalalitha becoming chief minister despite corruption charges against her. The Tamil Nadu governor Fatima Beevi was roundly castigated for having sworn Jayalalitha in. There were endless debates on the legal, technical and moral aspects of the decision. But there’s another, far more worrying aspect, which should engage the nation’s attention.
An Indulgent People
This is not about Jayalalitha or about Fatima Beevi, or even the law. It is about the indulgent attitude we, as a people, have towards corruption in public life. The only place where one finds indignation about corruption is in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, seminars and television talk shows. And in all these, we – the middle class – are quick to blame the politicians for things coming to such a pass. But when it comes to showing these politicians the door, when it comes to exercising the ultimate weapon to fight corrup-tion, all of us prefer to turn away.
How else does one explain the fact that the AIADMK gets an obscenely overwhelming majority in spite of projecting Jayalalitha as chief minister? (It’s another matter that even if it hadn’t done so, it would have been Jayalalitha who would have been the de facto chief minister). How can one explain the victory of Shri Neelalokahitadasan Nader, accused of sexual mole-station? How does one explain the fact that Rabri Devi (Laloo Yadav, actually) came back to power in Bihar in spite of the fodder scam and the complete abuse of power and lack of governance there? Remember, no one is charging the AIADMK or Shri N. Nader with having rigged the elections. In Bihar, rigging may have played a part, but that alone could not have brought Laloo and Rabri back to power. Clearly, people have voted for all these politicians.
All of us believe in the supremacy of the people’s court and the wisdom of the voters. That, never mind the flaws in our laws and legal systems, corrupt politi-cians will meet their comeuppance in the election arena. We take strength from the drubbing the Congress got in 1989 where Bofors was the main plank of the opposition parties. But a lot seems to have changed in these past 12 years. Corruption, obviously, is no longer an election issue. It is this which is more worrying than criminals using muscle and gun power to win elections. This is not condoning poll violence. But when someone has to resort to violence, it means they know that people, if given a choice, will not vote for them. It means people are suffi-ciently revolted by them to use the anonymity of the ballot box to deliver their verdict against them. It means people will not tolerate them willingly.
In Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Bihar and countless other cases, voters have voted for corruption. The victory of the corrupt in elections shows an acceptance of corruption as a way of life. What a sad day for Indian democracy.
Remember, when we blame politicians and bureaucrats for corruption, we are merely passing the buck. Every time we give a bribe for something we can afford to wait for or something we can do without, every time we cast a vote for a corrupt politician, we are as much the guilty as the victim.
Seetha is Associate Editor, Business Today, and a member of the Indian Liberal Group.

A Worrisome Response
An opinion poll by India Today shows what a difficult task we liberals have before us. It’s actually the response to two questions that is worrying. The first is who is the best prime minister India ever had. 43% said Indira Gandhi, the next was Nehru with 13%.
The second question is who is the best person to lead the Congress if Sonia is replaced? Priyanka Gandhi wins hands down with 23%. Manmohan Singh comes far behind with 11%.
Clearly dictatorship and dynastic rule don’t disgust our people.
Seetha

Performance-based Politics
Think for a moment that all our netas are involved in politics to “serve” people. How do you determine how well the politician has “performed” in serving people. How do you compare one politician with another?
I suggest that there be performance-based incentive for a person to enter politics.
Let’s say that when an MLA takes office there were 100 children in his constituency, out of school, if at the end of first year he is able to bring that number down to 50, he gets paid a bonus.
Similarly performance can be judged by an independent agency in areas like education improvement, employment generation, pollution abatment, industries opened etc. in the constituency.
Krishnan Kandasamy
nkandasamy@hotmail.com