TOP 10 CORRUPT POLITICIANS.... :)

Corruption in India

‘Merely shouting from the house tops that everybody is corrupt creates an atmosphere of corruption. People feel they are in a climate of corruption and they get corrupted themselves.’ The words of Jawaharlal Nehru, spoken shortly after India’s independence from British rule, seem particularly apt given the overtly Gandhian style of today’s anti-corruption crusader, Anna Hazare. But for most Indians, Hazare’s movement has produced few surprises: there is a long-standing popular critique of the country’s apparently growing crisis of corruption that cuts across nearly every strata of society.

Popular resignation about the permanence of corruption is partly explained by the political purchase of ‘corruption’ as an idea and a term. Accusations of corruption have historically been wielded as a political weapon – a means of tarnishing rivals in the right circumstances. During India’s very first General Election in 1951-2, newspapers and party offices, particularly those of the Congress party, were bombarded with allegations about corrupt electoral candidates. The system of food and civil supply was subject to commodity controls and rationing – a legacy of the war years which had generated complex systems of patronage. These involved deeply entrenched black markets in lucrative industrial and agricultural concerns. This was the background to what was later known as ‘Permit-Licence-Quota Raj’ – the linking of business interests with political brokers. It is partly this nexus that underpins the protests in post-liberalization India.

But it wasn’t just the circumstances of war that generated concerns about graft in the 1940s and fifties. More broadly, the problem of corruption seemed to correspond to phases of rapid political transformation. The first, officially coordinated ‘anti-corruption’ drives, described as such, took place under the auspices of provincial Congress governments in the late 1930s, while the British still ruled at India’s centre. The Congress juxtaposed its democratic principles against ‘corrupted’ systems of colonial despotism.

Photo source: PBS, The Story of India

The Congress governments of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in those years also aimed to project themselves as realistic alternatives to the Raj – regimes which took the notion of ‘public service’ seriously. The Special Police Establishment, which undertook to prosecute (albeit quite ineffectively) instances of government servant corruption, followed from 1941. And in March 1947, on the eve of independence, the Government of India passed the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the wake of Partition’s mass migrations, seizure of evacuee property and mob violence, state governments across India sought to ‘clean up’ their administrations. In Uttar Pradesh, this operation was described by the early 1950s state government as an ‘efficiency drive’ to ‘root out useless officers’. Conveniently, many of them were actual or intending evacuees to Pakistan.

It took a massive (pending) regime transition to initiate official drives for anti-corruption at that time. On the streets too, independence helped to generate citizens’ movements in the late 1940s to protest against corrupt local rationing or police officers. The vernacular and English newspapers, previously muzzled by the British, were replete with corruption scandals, especially those linked to black marketeers. But there was something more profound happening in early postcolonial India, just as there is today. The larger discussions of ‘corruption’ reached to the roots of what Indians thought about the state, and their own sense of national belonging or alienation. The recent criticisms of Anna Hazare bear this out. The writer Arundhati Roy points out the danger of creating another unaccountable anti-corruption ‘oligarchy’. Others argue that Hazare’s proposed Lokpal Bill could jeopardise constitutional protections for disadvantaged communities. Some Dalit organizations fear that Hazare’s Lokpal Bill, the drafting of which has not hitherto involved minority representation, may undermine some structures of reservations. Still others suggest that Anna Hazare’s style, and that of his supporters, smacks of demagoguery and ‘aggressive nationalism’. In some ways, this is business as usual: India has a complex and highly developed system of fundamental rights provisions within its Constitution, and the country is certainly no stranger to vibrant public debate.

Anna Hazare

Ever since the 2010 protests by the ‘India Against Corruption’ activists, and more forcefully since Hazare’s recent fast, the issue of corruption has led Indians to re-evaluate what the state really means to them. What is its role? How far are its agents accountable, and to what extent does it protect civic and democratic rights? Such questions reflect back on the colonial past. Most stark in both the anti-corruption protests, and the recent critiques of Anna Hazare is something which both sides share – a profound distrust of the state itself. Hazare’s Gandhian style is not only significant in its evocation of the ‘father of the nation’, but also in its reflection of older critiques of the colonial system as being ‘corrupt’, and as a regime which encouraged and nurtured societal corruption.

Despite running a byzantine structure of administrative rules and procedures, the British in India rarely referred to the problem of ‘corruption’ as such. ‘Integrity’ among government servants was expected, but it was poorly policed and based on the assumption that the (largely white British) superior administrator was ultimately the principal figure who could be ‘corrupted’ in a serious way. He, unlike his Indian subordinate, had much to lose and more to maintain as far as the regime was concerned.

When faced with elected Congress regimes’ attempted exposure of administrative and police corruption in the late 1930s, colonial officials fell back on arguments that what Congressmen described as ‘corruption’, might often be better defined as ‘custom’. The British Raj was run on a financial shoe-string, with officers thinly stretched over vast areas and populations. It was heavily dependent on armies of Indian subordinates, and could ill afford to consistently root out the ‘customary’ arrangements which secured its authority in the locality. Powerful landowners might control the local police constable, or compel free labour among the landless poor. The Raj needed him to help maintain law and order, and pay revenue. A local revenue official might take a commission (or ‘dasturi’ – customary payment) to allow cultivators access to land records, or a railway official might accept a ‘gift’ (or ‘daalii’) to arrange faster carriage for consignments of goods.

But for most colonial officials, such arrangements were seen as an intrinsic dynamic of Indian society: classically, British utilitarian thought, represented by the likes of James Mill in the early 19th Century, presupposed the wastefulness, indolence and corruption of ‘Oriental’, ‘Asiatic’ and ‘despotic’ forms of governance, as found in India.

John Stuart Mill

Britain’s supposedly ‘rational’ system of revenue might thereby discipline the essentially corrupt societal interactions of India. The son of James – the philosopher John Stuart Mill – was influential on British administrative thinking about corruption as ‘custom’: the younger Mill in his later political theory, privileged the idea of ‘sentiment’ as much as ‘reason’ in human affairs. Studies of national habits, imagination and traditions were a means of comparing different social institutions across the world, and particularly the difference between Occident and Orient. In studying the permanence of such ‘native institutions’, many advised against their reform, as natural facets of the social environment.

In 1952, following its first General Election, India became the world’s largest democracy. But its political system still rested (as it does today) on a structure of power inherited from the Raj, principally in its administrative and police cadres. The 1950 Constitution was based to a great extent on the colonial constitution passed in 1935. When Indira Gandhi, following allegations of electoral irregularities, declared a State of Emergency in 1975, she was exercising a state power that had underpinned the colonial system. Yet since 1947, and largely because of past struggles against imperialism, citizens have asserted the right to contest these vestiges of authoritarian power. Elements of this right to protest are writ large today – and whatever the outcome of Hazare’s campaign, and whether or not a tough Lokpal Bill finally finds its way into the statute book, it is clear the turbulent relationship between Indian citizens and the state will continue to flourish.

William Gould, Senior Lecturer in Indian History, University of Leeds, is the author ofBureaucracy, Community and Influence: Society and the State in India, 1930-1960s(London: Routledge, 2011)

UFOOOOOOO................. :) OUR BEST LOVING CORRUPT POLITICIANS

While everyone has been animatedly supportingAnna Hazare's fight against corruption, people seem to have forgotten who the people are who actually led to this situation.

The peak of irony was when Anna was, allegedly, lodged in the same jail that housed the people who were responsible for two of the biggest scams in the country ever. How must the authorities have felt when they saw Raja and Kalmadi fill their plates while Anna was on a fast because of their misdeeds?

Corruption has become an unavoidable part of politics and every now and then, one or the other politician re-affirms this fact.

Here is our pick of the 10 most corrupt politicians of India.

Suresh Kalmadi

Suresh Kalmadi, almost single handedly caused a loss of hundreds of crores of rupees to the country. The Commonwealth Games, organized by Kalmadi was no less than a loot with numerous reports of the magnum opus event being soaked in corruption making headlines way before the Games had even started. Apparently, out of Rs. 70000 crores spent on the Games, only half of the amount was actually spent. Owing to his involvement in the scam, Kalmadi was charged with corruption and sent to Tihar jail.

A. Raja

A scam worth Rs. 176,000 crore had former Union Cabinet Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Andimuthu Raja at the centre. A. Raja as he is generally called, was the prime accused in the 2G spectrum scam, which was the largest that the country had seen in a long time. Following the shocking exposure, Raja was indicted and forced to resign. Presently, he is too has been lodged at the Tihar jail and is awaiting his trial.

Mayawati

Mayawati has always been criticized for ostentatious display of power in her state. She has allegedly used her status as chief minister to amass large amounts of personal wealth. She was charged with corruption when the Taj Heritage Corridor Case was uncovered. Mayawati's birthdays have always been media events, where she usually appears decked in diamond jewellery and also accepts public donations for which, she often comes under fire. Her assets are worth millions of dollars and in the year 2007-08, she had paid an income tax of Rs. 26 crores, which placed her amongst the top 20 taxpayers of the year.

Lalu Prasad Yadav

The fact that Lalu Prasad Yadav has been an accused in 63-odd cases serves for the fact that Lalu stands as one of the strongest competitor in the list. The biggest scam that rocked Lalu's political career was the fodder scam which involved the embezzlement of Rs. 950 crore approximately. The accusation of nepotism against him has come up time and again but hardly any action has been taken against him owing to his 'connections' in the government.

Madhu Koda

Former Jharkand Chief Minister, and only the third independent legislator to assume the office of chief minister in India, Madhu Koda was responsible for a scam worth over Rs. 4000 crore. The man exploited the state's natural resources by licensing illegal mining leases and stashing away the wealth amassed during the undertaking. Furthermore, the Maoists received a 30% share of the booty. Koda was arrested on charges of money laundering and is still in prison following the rejection of numerous bail applications.

Mulayam Singh Yadav

Mulayam Singh Yadav is also known as one of the most corrupt ministers in the country despite not being directly involved in any major scams. Apart from his name being involved in appointments of tainted officers and mishandling of his power as chief minister, Mulayam Singh had one major allegation levelled against him– accumulation of disproportionate assets. The case drew limelight on his sons and daughter-in-law as they too were holders of the assests that amounted to crores of rupees.

Karunanidhi

The corruptions charges against M. Karunanidhi are so many that he is often referred to as the king or emperor of corruption. He was accused of lending support to the LTTE and was indicted for abetting the LTTE in the interim report which oversaw the investigation into Rajiv Gandhi's assassination.

Karunanidhi reportedly institutionalized corruption in the South. He was a leading player in the cash for votes scams that are common in the southern region, as well as notorious foe extreme nepotism shown under his rule. Not so surprising, is the fact that the main accused in the 2G scam, A, Raja, considers him to be his mentor.

Sharad Pawar

Very few people can miss the cosy relationship that Sharad Pawar shares with power and money.Every now and then, Pawar draws flak for alleged investments made by him and his family in various illegal projects. He was named by Abdul Karim Telgi, during a narcoanalysis test, stating that it was Pawar's brainchild to print fake stamp papers across the country and mint money. He was also accused in a multi-crore scam involving wheat imports and institutions headed by him and his close associates were served notices by the Bombay High Court for showing favoritism to his family.

Jayalalithaa

The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has a staggering 46 corruption cases against her. Amongst the various scams were the Rs. 70 million coal import scam, Tansi land deal case, case of disproportionate assets and colour TV case, amongst many others. A raid in her residence and business establishments led to the seizure of some 28 kg of jewellery (worth Rs 51 crore), 91 wrist-watches, 41 air-conditioners, 10,500 sarees, 750 pairs of footwears, etc. She along with her former cabinet colleagues and senior bureaucrats who worked with her are still facing investigation with regard to corruption.

BS Yeddyurappa

The most recent politician http://www.mensxp.com/special-features/top-10/5458-meet-the-top-10-young-politicians-of-india.html to be caught in the web of corruption is former Chief Minister of Karnataka, B. S. Yeddyurappa. While he has a number of corruption lying against him, the one that toppled his career was his alleged involvement in the illegal iron ore export scam in districts of Karnataka. A lot of blame game followed and ended up with Yeddyurappa losing his ministerial post last month. Despite his denial, his image as one of the most corrupt politicians of the country will not fade anytime soon.

...............................................................................................................................................................

Virtually no key institution or sector in India is seen as being free from corruption in the latest survey of the international anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International, which, in its report 'Global Corruption Barometer 2013' states that bribe paying levels remain "very high" worldwide.

Data from the report offers interesting insights into global corruption trends, but few surprises - most people in India believed that corruption has worsened during the last two years - 40 percent of respondents felt that corruption had increased 'a lot' and 31 per cent 'a little'.

Virtually all key institutions and sectors in India, including the private sector, were regarded as being corrupt or extremely corrupt by respondents - at the top of the list were political parties (86 per cent), police (75 per cent) and public officials and civil servants as well as parliament/legislature (65 per cent each). Least corrupt was the military (20%).

Institutions/sectors	Percentage of people who think they are beset by corruption
Political Parties	86
Police	75
Parliament/legislature	65
Public officials/civil servants	65
Education system	61
Medical and health	56
Business/private sector	50
Judiciary	45
Religious Bodies	44
Media	41
NGOs	30
Military	20

Source: Global Corruption Barometer 2013

If it is any consolation, many countries in the world face similar problems in confronting corruption - in 51 countries political parties were seen as the most corrupt institution and 55 per cent of respondents thought that governments were 'run by a few big entities acting in their own best interests.'

As for various public services and bribes being given to secure them - 62 per cent in India reported that they or someone from their household had paid a bribe to the police, 61 to 'registry and permit services' and 58 per cent to 'land services'.

Public service	Percentage of those who had paid a bribe
Police	62
Registry and permit services	61
Land services	58
Utilities	48
Education	48
Tax revenue and/or Customs	41
Judiciary	36
Medical and health	34

Source: Global Corruption Barometer 2013

Among the common reasons for paying a bribe, 36 per cent in India said it was the only way to get a service and 35 per cent, to 'speed up things'.

About 47 per cent in India viewed corruption as a very serious problem in the public sector, placing it fifth in terms of severity on a 1-5 ranking scale. And 33 per cent placed it in the fourth position on the scale. Most people in India also felt that personal contacts were important to get things done in their dealings with the public sector - 31 per cent felt it was 'very important' and 35 per cent 'important'. (For the purposes of the survey, 'public sector' meant public sector institutions and services that are owned and/or run by the government.)

And not surprisingly, the majority in India did not think the government was effectively fighting corruption - 26 per cent felt it was least effective and 42 per cent ineffective. The percentage of those who 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that ordinary people could make a difference in the fight against corruption was 55.

The survey covered 1,14,000 people in 107 countries. Globally, 27 per cent of respondents reported having paid a bribe when accessing public services and institutions during the last 12 months.

The report has come out with these recommendations to globally combat corruption: make integrity and trust the founding principles of public institutions and services; bring back the rule of law; hold the corrupt to account; clean-up democratic processes and give people the tools and protection to fight against corruption.

Family Politics | How nepotistic is the Indian Parliament?

Do young people stand a chance of joining national politics in India?

• - A shocking 100% of Indian MPs under the age of 30 are hereditary
• p
• - Two-thirds of Indian MPs under the age of 40 are from political families
• p
• - Less than 10% of MPs over the age of 70 are hereditary
• p
• - 27 MPs are classified as ‘hyperhereditary’, and 19 of them are in the Congress party. By hyperhereditary, we mean that they have multiple family connections, and several family members who have made a career out of politics.

India may indeed be the world’s largest democracy, and everyone has a right to vote – and that is a precious thing. But does everyone really have an opportunity to stand for Parliament? You can vote, but what are the chances you will ever be voted for, given the growing lack of internal democracy in many of the major political parties?

While researching his book India: A Portrait, Patrick French conducted a one-of-its kind survey which tried to answer the following question: What does it take to join politics at the national level today? Is it within reach for the many millions of capable Indians who might like to throw a hat in the ring?

Look at this graph, which shows the proportion of ‘hereditary’ MPs in relation to their age: