Corruption in India

"Sultan Balban was struck by the fact that many military grantees of land were unfit for service; they never went out on campaigns and yet had continued in possession of their land and its revenues. ... "Some of them went leisurely to perform their military duties, but the greater part stayed at home making excuses, the acceptance of which they secured by presents and bribes.... to the Deputy Muster-Master and his officials."... [Balban] left the above mentioned corrupt practice to continue unchecked, although its defects were more than obvious."

"And yet, corruption was there, well-grounded. The reason was that autocrats could not always behave as autocrats, and in matters of government there is above all laws the law of expediency.... Corruption in medieval India could not be stamped out because it was perhaps never meant to be stamped out..."

"Generally, the death of a judge, in what seem to be mysterious circumstances, while presiding over a case against the second most powerful person in the country, and the closest associate of the head of the government, would be make prime-time television in a democracy. Similarly, the allegations of corruption against the family of the same person would have garnered media attention. But recent events in India prove otherwise. [...] Despite the explosive nature of the story and its potentially unprecedented implications for Indian democracy (in independent India's history, to my knowledge, there is no instance of a judge being assassinated) there was a stunned silence in the mainstream and big media, especially, the English-language television channels that have a disproportionate influence in the setting of the political ."

"Much of Narendra Modi's legitimacy among the Indian public comes from the perception that, unlike most of the political class, he is personally beyond reproach when it comes to financial corruption. Moreover, it was he who declared a war on corruption, the most emphatic example of which, the government claims, is the demonetization exercise. But Mr. Modi's silence on the corruption story finally exposed the hollowness of the government’s crusade against corruption, which in any case, has so far amounted to nothing more than targeted attacks against rival politicians. In politics, perceptions play a huge role. This is the first time that Mr. Modi's carefully crafted image as incorruptible and as a crusader against corruption has taken a considerable beating. WhatsApp messages, tweets and Facebook posts were rife with jokes about Mr. Shah’s businesses, and Mr. Modi’s silence. As examples from history show, when jokes start circulating about a powerful leader, cracks in political legitimacy begin to appear."

"You said I am not a challenger this time. That is not true. I am a challenger who is fighting against those things that harm India. Corruption weakens our country from within, I am challenging it. Dynasty politics weakens our democracy, I am challenging it. Terror threatens our nation’s very existence, I am challenging it. ‘ Chalta Hai’ attitude held our nation’s progress hostage for a long time, I am challenging it. Forces of negativity try to obstruct an aspirational India from rising, I am challenging them. The people of India too are challengers. Along with us, they too, are fighting parties like Congress that want to take India back to the era of corruption and loot."

"In 1989, Rajiv Gandhi lost the election because he was seen as corrupt by ordinary, rural Indians who made up ditties about the ‘son-in-law of Italy’. The Congress party has never explained why the best friends of Rajiv and his wife, Mr and Mrs Quattrocchi, were bribed in this deal. Nor has there been a credible explanation for why Rajiv did not make public the names of those bribed in this deal, even after Bofors officials came to Delhi and offered to give them.... whoever advised the Congress president (Rahul Gandhi) to continue charging Modi with corruption should have reminded him that the ghost of Bofors still lurks in the shadows of 10 Janpath."

"[In a veiled criticism of the removal of Hindu clerks (mostly Xayasthas and Xhatris), and appointment of ‚unprofessional men‛ in their place, Bhimsen in NuskhÁ-i-DilkushÁ writes,] ‚There is a great difference between (hereditary) professional writers and unprofessional. Those who are of this profession are not wanting in generosity, while unprofessional (writers) disregarding the good and harm of the soldiers extend their palms for bribes. In the present age, unprofessional men having learnt the art of arithmetic have become master of authority, and engage in plundering the public. The mansabdÁrs have been thus reduced to the extreme point of poverty; how can they keep troops? I wished to name in detail these writers who (have risen) to the rank of Assistant Peshdast, to the Diwani (revenue) officer, bakshÍ and others, who accumulate large sums and give improper bribes. But I proper.‛"