Opinion Turn the gaze inwards

So,having paid the price,we should be deriving value in return. But are we? Eventually,every hypothesis has to be tested at the altar of results. And results prove that,on the global index of corruption,India measures poorly,and is sliding. Equally,it is not as if many wielders of power are a representative cross-section of society in terms of venality. They are a caricature (obviously with innumerable exceptions to a general proposition). If they are a mirror to society,then it is a distorting mirror. Inanities mouthed about the greatness of our Constitution ring hollow,if their only purpose is to provide a spin. When the public sees new Al Capones at the helm of affairs,some on the equivalent of new temperance committees,then they know that the plot has gone horribly wrong. Our checks and balances are not quite working!

The reasons are not hard to find. Checks and balances work on the assumption that the crooked in any wing of the state constitute the odd black sheep. So the probability,that a perverse action of one wing of the state will escape the check of another wing,is remote. Unfortunately,over time,this assumption itself has turned invalid. As in the process of the natural selection of species,the flock is populated increasingly by black sheep,with the lighter-coloured sheep a dwindling,endangered lot. There are wings of our state where the barriers to entry and the barriers to progress are such that,as you look up the ladder,you see that the colour of sheep in the flock is progressively darker. Under such conditions,the principle of checks and balances turns on its head. Instead of serving as a check against wrongdoing,the principle degenerates into an incestuous self-perpetrating rubber-stamping monster. The remedy becomes the ailment.

The treatment of any ailment requires a correct diagnosis. Our problem is not that we do not have checks and balances. We have too many! The problem is that the system has been perverted. Course correction does not lie in creating a plethora of new checks. Illustratively,common sense suggests that the proposed Jan Lokpal should not be an add-on,but instead should subsume the CBI,and the focus should be on how to make it independent,accountable and populated with persons of calibre and character.

But systemic enhancements will take us thus far,and no further. We did not have a bad system to begin with. And look where we are. Fortunately,countervailing societal forces are building. A post-colonial citizenry is shedding its inherited insecurities and asserting itself,sometimes noisily. Well-intentioned opinion leaders are speaking up. But,as yet,they prepare to strike but are afraid to wound. So we watch TV anchors beginning to take on the high and the mighty,but not yet a word against corruption in the media. We read of some judges expressing anguish at what they see,but the judiciary has yet to start cleaning up its own house. Respected business leaders are demanding better governance,but none has yet demanded that their industry association raise the bar for corporate governance. Thoughtful political leaders are analytical in generalities,but the last Kamaraj Plan was half-a-century ago. This is not to undermine the significance of these recent changes. But these are yet just the stirrings of change.

Is there,then,any technique to harness this energy? Is there,at all,anything like a “management” of change at the national level,or do civilisations have their own dialectic? Without taking such agonising questions head on,responses range from “be the change you want to see in the world” of the Mahatma,to “a messiah will turn up” wishful thinking of most.

In our search,let us turn our gaze to what lies between the very small and the very large,between change at the level of an individual and change at the level of our nation. Between these two poles are units of society, for example,a college,a government department,a gram panchayat,a factory. Now,such units display unexpected,often counter-intuitive,behaviour. So you will have the same set of people exhibiting one standard of civic behaviour in the streets of Kolkata,and quite the opposite in the Kolkata metro stations. You will find recruits from the same educational institutions happening to join two different organisations,but just five years later their ethical conduct will be as similar as chalk and cheese. Who would assert,for example,that at the level of the individual,the Scandinavian people display a different sense of right and wrong from Indians? Yet,only a die-hard will dispute that Scandinavian society is immeasurably more just than Indian society. These pointers lead to two general conclusions: a) unit behaviour is not an algebraic sum of the quality of individuals who constitute the unit,and b) individuals within a unit respond as they perceive the unit. If they perceive the unit to be fair,they will be fair. If they perceive the unit to be unfair,they will be unfair.

In this insight lies embedded our opportunity. Once the tipping point is crossed,small inputs at the level of a unit fetch disproportionate change. Change that is positive,rapid and infectious. Just close your eyes and imagine a traffic administration in Mumbai that is of international standards. The change in the well-being of Mumbai in one short year would be so dramatic,so dramatic,that you would later wonder what took the obvious so long,and no other big city in India would have any choice but to follow.

Meaningful change will accelerate once we shed our preoccupation with the woolly and the top-down,and turn our gaze inwards upon the social units we can directly influence. It may appear frightening,but half the fright is because it has just not been attempted. More than anything else,it calls for the peeling off of yet another layer of inherited insecurities and inhibitions,and for us not to imprison our imagination. If we want the world we desire,we have to reach for it.

The writer,former MD of Idea Cellular,is adviser to corporates and not-for-profit organisations
express@expressindia.com