Bribe-giver < bribe-taker

Talk of rotten luck. Right when the government was readying to fight bribery and corruption, it was smacked silly by the ghost of bribes past. Darn! As we say, our bad luck is worst only.
So just as Kaushik Basu, chief economic advisor in the finance ministry, stated that the government was looking at possible changes in law to give immunity to bribe-givers to help transparency, the cash-for-votes scam resurfaced with a vengeance to rock Parliament.

According to a WikiLeaks expose, sneaky American diplomats in India had reported that the last United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had bribed members of Parliament (MP) to buy their votes during the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2008.
Dr Basu, of course, was talking of more mundane cases of bribery, in the context of a policy paper being prepared to combat corruption intelligently and through critical policy changes. Right now, Indian law sees both giving and taking a bribe as offences. And under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a bribe-giver is protected only if he does it to nab the bribe-taker. For years, many have been pointing out the unfairness of this law that further victimises the victim. Now, finally the government seems ready to break the nexus between such shifty givers and takers that would help people report corruption without fear of punishment. “Complete immunity should be available to the bribe-givers in all cases”, Dr Basu said.
And right then comes the charge revealed by WikiLeaks that the last UPA government doled out crores to buy the confidence of the House and stay in power. Now, it wouldn’t do to claim that the alleged bribe-giver (i.e. the government seeking the confidence of the House) should get immunity while those who received the bribe (i.e., voting MPs including those who are supposed to have happily pocketed the dough and then not voted for the government) should be prosecuted. So “complete immunity” to “bribe-givers in all cases” may not work. Perhaps, we need to look at the mechanics of bribery and the role of compulsion.
Compulsion does fuel most of our corruption. A study by Trace International, an anti-bribery organisation, found that 77 per cent of all reported bribes in India were out of compulsion, not real choice. Most bribes — 51 per cent — were paid to access the timely delivery of a service to which we are entitled. We have all faced this demand for chai-paani of varying lavishness, most of us have given in, the rest are probably still fighting to get their water connection installed or police case registered.
Next came bribing as self-preservation — to avoid harm, at 16 per cent. Then there was the matter of the kickback, where 10 per cent had to be coughed up to receive your legitimate payments for services rendered. All that’s compulsion, wouldn’t you say? Bribing just to keep going, to live your life, to stay alive.
Out of bribes given to gain unfair advantage, three per cent went to influence government officials, four per cent to get inappropriately favourable treatment and five per cent to win new business. So only 12 per cent of bribes were paid to get an edge over others.
That bribes play a vital role in Indian business is common knowledge. A couple of years ago Transparency International did a study on countries most willing to pay bribes abroad, and apna India topped that Bribe Payer’s Index. In certain areas, we have unparalleled expertise.
From the angle of those demanding bribes in our country, it turns out that 91 per cent of demands is from government chaps. National-level government officials lead the pack with 33 per cent, the police come a close second with 30 per cent, state government and city officials come a joint third at 10 per cent each, state employees are fourth at six per cent and after most of the pie is mopped up, representatives of the ruling party can still claim two per cent. And you thought government service was just about warming chairs?
Our bribescape ranges from the sublime to the magnificent. Right now, trapped in an unstoppable roller-coaster of scams — from the Commonwealth Games to the 2G spectrum scam, from Adarsh apartments to bulletproof jackets, from paid news to cash for votes, among numerous others — we have a kaleidoscopic vision of how money makes the world go round. What we don’t have, though, is a clear picture of how to stop it and get off.
The Congress-led UPA government’s attempt to curb corruption could bring this roller-coaster screeching to a halt, predictably with some unfortunate fallouts. But to bring in real reform, we need intelligent changes in law. And our legal system — though not beyond corruption itself — seems ready for it as well.
This month, the Supreme Court made two significant rulings that refused to punish victims and went beyond legal statutes to deliver real justice. First, it ruled in favour of decriminalising suicide, pointing out that one who attempts suicide was in desperate need of help and punishing him would be unfair. In another case, it ruled that a woman and her family cannot be treated as an accused under the Dowry Prohibition Act for giving dowry at the time of marriage. The woman is a victim and not culpable, it said.
As the judiciary refuses to treat victims of crime as criminals themselves, the time is ripe to push for immunity for bribe-givers who are essentially victims. I only hope that we do not get distracted by these high-profile, high-value bribery cases that shake up the national imagination.
Even if it sounds unfair, immunity to all bribe-givers may work. If the bribe-taker knows that he can be safely put away by the bribe-giver at any time, he may be less likely to accept so graciously. The fact remains that no one can force a bribe down your throat — but a bribe-taker can indeed withhold services or endanger lives to force the giver to bribe him. The two are never on par.
Of course, it may seem more civilised to have a case-by-case evaluation of which bribe-giver gets immunity and which does not. Sadly, that allows too much discretionary powers to decision makers. Usually, in our country, discretionary powers are not conducive to justice. They are used merely for profit.
Why on earth did the silly old cash-for-votes scam have to erupt now? Nah, our bad luck is worst only.

Antara Dev Sen is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com