[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Well ... I'm confused ...

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 Prabhu Guptara wrote:

>      Corrupt people will  (be) 
>      corrupt any system.  This is what has happened to us since 
>      Independence.
>      Our political system was not badly designed at the time of 
>      Independence.  The increasing corruption of our people increasingly 
>      corrupted the system.

Let me study the implications of these hypotheses. 

a) Let there have been X number of corrupt people in India at the time of
independence. Hypothesis I is that this number remains constant over time
(i.e., the disease of corruption has a half life of infinity)  "corrupt
people will be corrupt in any system." So, despite "our political system
not being badly designed" in 1947, these corrupt folk were irrecoverable
scum, and remained so. 

In other words, the ratio X/Total population, should have declined over
time in India, as the denominator increased. 

b) Corruption perhaps is not proven to transmit genetically (doctors on
this list, please confirm the existence, if any, of the corruption

In other words, these X could not have transmitted their disease to their
children. As time passed on, the age of these folks would become higher
and higher, till today, they would be Age(Xsub47) + 51 years old. Most of
these guys would have been so old by now that they would perhaps have
died. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

We would thus be fortunately left with only Y < X number of corrupt scum. 
In other words, the influence of corruption in India would have been
declining rapidly as both the numerator decreased and the denominator

c) Our political system was very well designed in 1947, hence no
corruption could have been "caused" by that system. 

d) However, the hypothesis II is that "the increasing corruption of the
people increasingly corrupted the system."

I am now at a loss.

I thought that Hypothesis I said that Y/tot pop was declining. So how did
corruption increase? 

Second: A system that is good is presumably corruption-proof. Else, how
else is it supposed to be "good?" So now the hypothesis is that this
increasing corruption corrupted the system.

I am really at a loss. 

a) ENDOGENOUS TRANSMISSION:  This shows that corruption does indeed
transmit genetically (i.e., there has been a mutation and these X corrupt
folk have transmitted it recklessly throughout the population, by having
large numbers of corrupt babies). 


b) EXOGENOUS TRANSMISSION: There was a major external force causing
corruption. Prof. Prabhu's earlier hypothesis related to 'modernization'
and 'industrialization.' Data show that India is hardly modern or
industrialized.  Quite to the contrary, only 26% people live in cities,
74% in rural areas. It cannot even produce a simple electric outlet which
does not shock the person who uses it (I barely survived a shock in
elementary school). That is of course of relevance only if you do have
electricity. Most people do not have electricity, so that does not matter. 
Of course, if they do have the tools to tap it, it hardly ever pays
"darshan," being more of a "door-darshan." Hardly anyone has seen a
computer, either, thankfully. Pretty much out of the modernization racket,
we are in India, once again, thankfully. (Let us sing the praise of the
Gods for these little mercies!) 

Given the data and electrifying experiences cited above, I would tend to
rule out this exogenous variable as a possible cause. I am unfortunately -
so far - left with only one other viable option: the system was BAD at the
time of independence. That is terrible! We have a dilemma, a conflict, a
puzzle. That can never be!

Prof. Prabhu, as you can easily see, I must have erred somewhere. Where? I
am too dense to figure out.

Please do take the time to correct me.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: india_policy@cine.net
Rules, Procedures, Archives:     http://www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/