The Hindu Business Line : <I>A matter of honesty </I>

In a recent essay, Paul Johnson asks: "Are people less honest than they used to be?" and answers that most people would "bitterly" say yes, adding that it basically depends on what happens to you personally. He ends the essay with the comment that, "When I hear people condemn the morality of teenagers ... I am tempted to say: why not point the finger at the place where the rottenness starts — Westminster?"

How would this translate vis-à-vis Indian conditions? At a very simple level, what Johnson wants to say is: Do not point your finger at the average citizen when it comes to matters involving honesty; point to the Parliament, instead.

Rot in society

Clearly, this way of looking at the problem is not something new because very often, over the past decades, one has heard the complaint that the quality of the people who have been sent to Parliament has `deteriorated' perceptibly, the inference being that if the rot has set in at this level, it has permeated the whole of society.

Logically, this makes good sense because if the electorate does not find anything amiss with people who are not `honest', so much so that it does not hesitate to send them to Legislative Assemblies and the Lok Sabha, then it is clear that, in its own scale of values, the so-called dishonesty of the people concerned is not a mark black enough to prevent their choice for legislative representation.

To take an example, someone with a history-sheet hanging around his neck is sent to a State Assembly or Parliament by the electorate, defeating in the process a person who is considered `clean' in the conventional sense of the term. Assuming that the elections have been held in a free and fair manner, this would mean that the history-sheet is not a strong enough deterrent to prevent the `tainted' candidate from making it to the House concerned.

Choice of people

As far as the candidate is concerned, he derives legitimacy in an elective democracy by virtue of being the choice of the people. In other words, to society at large, a leader's capacity to deliver is not affected by the existence of a history-sheet, the fundamental inference being that there is no distinction between a person who does not have a history-sheet and someone who has one.

So, where is the problem as far as the subject of honesty is concerned? Paul Johnson points his finger at Westminster. In India, its equivalent would be Parliament and the State Assemblies. And if the people have elected the members of Parliament, then, actually, what one is doing is pointing a finger at the people themselves.

Hope for society

It is said that the electorate will get the sort of House it deserves. How then can one point a finger of accusation at an institution which one has created through one's own actions? Inevitably, the focus of attention will turn to who is doing the pointing. Is it the majority or the minority? If it cannot be the majority, it has to be the minority. If so, there is hope for our society because, at the end of it all, where there is social confrontation, good will always triumph over what is not so good.

Ranabir Ray Choudhury