Thursday, February 14, 2013

Does demolition drive not benefit the corrupt?

(What of honest answers, we don't even ask honest questions. )

The unholy alliance of bureaucracy and politics continues to push the most burning issue facing the country on the back burner. Although the public is well aware of that issue of corruption, it finds itself unable to bring that issue to the fore or its right priority – the first. The politician and bureaucrat combine has devised methods to find scapegoats or shift every issue of corruption behind some other issue of seemingly greater priority. The situation projected by them is miles away from the reality. They conveniently forget that widespread corruption is essentially associated with every other issue and problem the country faces. We should not forget that like in diabetes all organs of the human body are suspended in a corrosive liquid called sugar, in a corrupt system all organs of administration float in a corrosive liquid called corruption. Any plan theoretically healthy will turn out to be damaging in practice in such system. Thus solution to every problem essentially lies in first removing corruption. As long as corruption is not tackled every problem becomes a fuel for corruption and it continues to gain strength. It has acquired a demonic dimension that will consume everything including even the corrupt ultimately. But, in their inebriated state the corrupt fail to take notice of this and the non-corrupt turn a blind eye revealing lack of moral courage to renounce available facilities and comforts.

The most common and visible example of this malady is demolition drive. All unauthorized or illegal construction is a partnership enterprise simply because it is effortlessly visible. Demolition punishes only one partner. The other partner, a limb of administration, is left unpunished on one pretext or the other. Has any demolition drive anywhere included punishment of the corrupt and the negligent people in the system? After marking a place with encroachment or unauthorized construction, have they inquired that since when it exists and what action the responsible person in administration took? If no action was taken and the place fell under his jurisdiction why should he not be punished if not for corruption at least for dereliction of duty? And why the punishment should not be according to the graveness of the consequences of the neglect? Why should this action against administration not be taken prior to demolishing and punishing the other partner? Mostly the answers to all these questions are mere assurances that yes action will be taken in due course, and the due course is conveniently stretchable. In such conditions why should any such sudden enthusiastic demolition drive not be considered as a planned effort to create new sources of earning for the corrupt?


1 comment:

  1. Doubts of the writer appear to be genuine. Such cases should be considered and examined on their merits and not in a general way, with all its consequences.