Corruption Perception Index

Transperancy International ( TI ) is a non Governmental organisation, which has been coming out with Corruption Perception Index of various countries during the last few years. TI has chapters in various countries which are manned by eminent persons. Admiral Tahilani, formerce Chief of Indian Navy, is the Chief of TI Chapter in India.

Governments of countries, which are identified in the higher level of Corruption Perception Index, obviously are chary of both quoting the Index or accepting the veracity of the Index. Yet it is a fact that over a period of time world-wide there is considerable credibility to the Index.

In the Index published by TI for the year, India has been ranked at 74, i.e., there are 73 countries in the world which according to TI have levels of corruption less than that of India. It is the Scandinavian counrtries which are least corrupt. Then comes most of the Western countries.

The Corruption Perception Index has sometimes been criticized as the perception of a select few, since it ignores the perception of the wider population, and instead focuses on that of a few experts like the rest of science does. Furthermore, some have opined that the index analyzes a "mere perception", and that the method followed in preparing the index couldn't measure institutional corruption.

While on can’t dismiss the above view points, still the fact remains that India is a very corupt country, a fact known to all Indians and those foreign inviduals or institutions which had to do business or work in India.

Having lived with corruption for such a long time, unfortunately, Indians tend to accept the same as a fact of life and resigned to the situation. But why should it be so. Consider the massive investments being made by Government for improving the lot of the poor. But a large part of such investment does not reach the poor because of massive corruption. Further, project cost goes up because of corruption. In brief, corruption corrodes our endeavour to improve the position of India and Indians. There is also the danger of corruption being accepted as a part of life in this blesseed country. Today, there is hardly any stigma attached to it. One does not mind friendship at individual or family level with corupt people. That is the tragedy of India.

Downward journey of fourth estate

· Electronic media is increasingly reporting remarks and issues out of context. TV channels ignore wittingly or unwittingly historical context, nuance, explanatory arguments and the innate complexity of issues and personalities involved in the news. There is often ‘ Do you continue to beat your wife‘ syndrome, whereby both answers of ‘ yes ‘ and ‘ no’ would show in poor light the person replying the question .

· There is a wide-spread perception that both print and visual media are slowly pandering too much to the base instincts of human beings and abdicating from giving perceptive analysis on serious matters, with not a single angle but inclusive of both pros and cons. One must hasten to add that there could be developments where there may be only ‘ pros ‘ or ‘con.’ But objective reporting is being increasingly substituted with subjective reporting. Frivolous angles are highlighted. Depth and content are both slipping away slowly. Sort of Americanism is seeping, i.e., unwanted aggression in the coverage and comments and question & answers and in dress style of female anchors. . Scandals are given repeated coverage and often blown out of proportion.

· The arguments of the media that they are all the time pressed for time, that they are only catering to the tastes of the viewers / readers, that they are following the trend in advanced countries, that the time span of viewer on any matter is short, etc., while cannot be dismissed should be taken as an excuse rather than justification. To some extent it is the print and visual media which influences the tastes of viewers. So first they influence viewers / readers by repeatedly presenting news as mentioned above and then they take the stand that what they give is according to the tastes of the viewers.





Why should our worthy Prime Minister curry for favour

‘Indian people love you’ – So said Mr. Manmohan Singh to Mr. Bush. The allergy of Karat against anything American prompted him to caustically comment ‘ Yes, we all know that Manmohan Singh likes Bush but why should he bring Indian people into the statement. While I am not in cahoots with Karat in his total hatred for the Americans, in this instance I agree with him. Why should a level headed Man Mohan Singh make such a statement. Most of the Indians have no admiration and much less love for Bush.

Nobel prize for peace.

Former Finnish President was selected for the Nobel Peace Prize and the print media published this in one of the inside pages with a short write up, as against the hoopla created by the print media when the prize is given to a known personality. Yes, when it is a well known figure, there is bound to be detailed write ups and at times criticism on the choice. But does that mean a figure unknown in Indian circles should be virtually written off with a few sentences.

Resistance to change related to modernity:

A lady teacher in West Bengal School has been taken to task by the management of the school for wearing salwar kameez instead of the usual dress of saree for the teachers in the school. ‘ We have nothing against the salwar kameez but there is something called tradition,’ so said the management. Apart from other reasons for wearing saree, the lady teacher has said that she has to travel in bus for coming and going to school and salwar kameez is more comfortable and convenient for traveling in bus rather than saree. In many parts of the country salwar kameez was taken in the past as North Indian dress. However, during the last few years in many places, particularly in cities and towns, both girls / women in large number, and the number is increasing as time goes by, have opted for salwar kameez. It is also catching up in villages.

Somerset Maugham had said that tradition is a guide and not a jailer. For many elders in this country tradition is a non negotiable mater, rooted as they are to tradition

Sacrifices of judges

When it comes to self interest – or should one term it as ‘ selfish interest, ‘ judges are not above you and me. In the aftermath of Pay Commission recommendations, there have been statements of sitting and retired judges to the effect that ‘ the judges of HCs and SC, who are experts in law, have sacrificed lucrative practice at bar to serve the country.’ It is the hyperbole that was used by serving and retired soldiers of all ranks for claiming higher remuneration, i.e., ‘ sacrifice ‘ for the country. From the bar once a while somebody is seconded to the Bench by Government. Those advocates who have lucrative practice often decline the offer of Government because of level of salary of Judges, which by itself is not on the lower side but when compared to good practice in the bar would be less. But then there is prestige in being a judge.
The job of a successful senior lawyer is very arduous as compared to that of judge. A judge gets his salary and perks irrespective of the level of his performance. Not so in the case of advocates. And then there is life long pension for judges, which is not the case with Advocates. So where is the question of ‘ sacrifice.’ In any case they joined the Judicial service in the beginning because of the prestige. Now you can’t have the cake and eat it too.

The hoopla on banning of smoking in public places

The media, both print and visual, have covered this action of the Government as a momentous one. As if a burning problem ( double entendre intended ) facing the nation, has been effectively dealt with. Now what are the facts. Over 90% of the smoking in this blessed country is of bidis. Though strictly speaking smoking of bidis has also been banned in public places. But the fact is that bidis are never smoked in public places. Even after the ban, one can smoke in his house and in open areas. Only in public places, i.e., offices, cinema theatres, eateries, etc., the ban is applicable. Smokers working in offices would go out of the office and smoke. They will smoke in cars. Yes, a few would be booked. I a m a smoker and yet I support the ban. But I am not going to be hooked in to the wild cheering for this step of the Government