CORRUPTION THROUGH AGES
Hamlet: What news?
Rosencrantz: None, my lord but that the world has grown honest.
Hamlet: Then is doomsday near….
1. The Problem of Definition
Everyone knows what corruption is; but it is difficult to define it in exact terms.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English, the word ‘corrupt’ means
“influenced by bribery especially at the time of elections”. Encyclopedia Britannica says: a corrupt practice “includes bribery; but has reference to the electoral system”. But these, as will be seen, are not definitions. The word ‘corruption’ is generally defined in the context of specific normative standards. Thus, according to the Santhanam Committee, the term includes all “improper or selfish exercise of power …show more content…
Ashoka’s dharmic State perfectly portrayed corruption-free ruling and to ensure speedy dispatch of business, he commanded his officials to report to him at all times and hours “whether I am dining, or in the ladies’ apartments, in my bedroom, or in my closet, in my carriage, or in the palace gardens”. Briefly, corruption and bribery during Ashoka’s rule must have been the minimum.
(ii) Mughal Empire
Corruption was rampant in the Mughal Empire, even in the heyday of its glory. Of conditions towards the end of the sixteenth century Sir Thomas Roe wrote: “The people of India live as fishes do in the sea- the great ones eating up the little. For first, the farmer robs the peasant, the gentleman robs the farmer, the greater robs the lesser, and the King robs all”.
About corruption during the days of the Portuguese, an official report of 1542 said “Justice was sold at the tribunals, and the most infamous crimes escaped punishment when the criminals were affluent enough to corrupt the judges. All methods of accumulating wealth were considered lawful, and extortion was openly …show more content…
James’ Square”. Iris Butler says in a new biography of Marquess Wellesley, “In the process of making money they (the Company’s servants) turned a blind eye on corruption”.
The lassiez-faire policy of the Government, which limited the activities of the State to the barest minimum, was partly responsible for reducing corruption during the earlier days of British rule in India. The Government restricted its activities mostly to the collection of land revenue, maintenance of law and order, and rendering such other public services as the limited budget of those days permitted.
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (till India became independent), corruption and nepotism wore a strange pattern. The pattern was contradictory too. Certain sections of the administration such as police, irrigation and public works were singularly free from
Hamlet: What news?
Rosencrantz: None, my lord but that the world has grown honest.
Hamlet: Then is doomsday near….
1. The Problem of Definition
Everyone knows what corruption is; but it is difficult to define it in exact terms.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English, the word ‘corrupt’ means
“influenced by bribery especially at the time of elections”. Encyclopedia Britannica says: a corrupt practice “includes bribery; but has reference to the electoral system”. But these, as will be seen, are not definitions. The word ‘corruption’ is generally defined in the context of specific normative standards. Thus, according to the Santhanam Committee, the term includes all “improper or selfish exercise of power …show more content…
Ashoka’s dharmic State perfectly portrayed corruption-free ruling and to ensure speedy dispatch of business, he commanded his officials to report to him at all times and hours “whether I am dining, or in the ladies’ apartments, in my bedroom, or in my closet, in my carriage, or in the palace gardens”. Briefly, corruption and bribery during Ashoka’s rule must have been the minimum.
(ii) Mughal Empire
Corruption was rampant in the Mughal Empire, even in the heyday of its glory. Of conditions towards the end of the sixteenth century Sir Thomas Roe wrote: “The people of India live as fishes do in the sea- the great ones eating up the little. For first, the farmer robs the peasant, the gentleman robs the farmer, the greater robs the lesser, and the King robs all”.
About corruption during the days of the Portuguese, an official report of 1542 said “Justice was sold at the tribunals, and the most infamous crimes escaped punishment when the criminals were affluent enough to corrupt the judges. All methods of accumulating wealth were considered lawful, and extortion was openly …show more content…
James’ Square”. Iris Butler says in a new biography of Marquess Wellesley, “In the process of making money they (the Company’s servants) turned a blind eye on corruption”.
The lassiez-faire policy of the Government, which limited the activities of the State to the barest minimum, was partly responsible for reducing corruption during the earlier days of British rule in India. The Government restricted its activities mostly to the collection of land revenue, maintenance of law and order, and rendering such other public services as the limited budget of those days permitted.
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (till India became independent), corruption and nepotism wore a strange pattern. The pattern was contradictory too. Certain sections of the administration such as police, irrigation and public works were singularly free from