Corruption in Manipur : Some reflection

Pamreihor Khashimwo *

:: Pix - wikipedia/Jovianeye

Based more on concept than on evidence, it is taken for granted that corruption is cause by few dominating factors; authoritarian rule, intervention in economy and pre-modern cultural values and institutions. In this conception, corruption is a problem among poor state like Manipur. Certainly, corruption in Manipur is conceived as a titanic challenge, causing damage to every aspect of social fabric, political instability and undermining confidence in public institutions. The popular concept of 'petty vs. grand corruption' suggests only a distinction about the amount of money or political and economic actors involved in corrupt transactions.

For a long time, the abuse of public office for private gain- also known as "corruption"- is a part of public life in Manipur. Nepotism, embezzlement and bribes are business as usual, a natural component of political culture of Manipur. Influenced by this context, leaders, academics, politicians met the debate about whether corruption is controllable with pessimism and skepticism. Its prolific growth begs the question: is corruption omnipresent, part of history, culture of state, or are reforms strategies able to attack the problem systematically?

The involvement of politics and reforms to address corruption poses an even greater question: how can corruption be control in the state? This has become the central question challenging policy makers, leaders, student, activist and analysts. The arguments this question raises such as: whether corruption is just a moralist demand to government in the state or new version about homemade obstacles to development, and whether corruption ought to tackle by public policies and reforms, demanding strategies beyond moralist discourse and lip service.

In Manipur the capacity to respond on the policy level to these utmost demands is still weak and produces evasive reactions, like discourse on morals and good intentions. Transforming corruption control and consolidation of good governance into public policy and institutional reforms in Manipur is still a herculean challenge. Growing awareness about the problems link to corruption resulted from either deterioration of moral standards of all stake holders of government or a higher sensitivity to the public or both.

The whole branches of state government are designed along private interests, which means "state capture" by illegitimate groups or organisations, which deeply impact on the social fabric, resulting into frequent ethnic conflicts. Corruption undermines the sense of "statehood" and thus, the very foundations of a "community." This is highly visible in Manipur in current scenario. The impact of the cases involving high-ranking figures among the public depends to a certain extent on the filter of mass media, personal experience of petty corruption in day-to-day service delivery can have a similar on the perception of public institutions. In Manipur, the perception that access to the state as a service provider is not rule by equity, but dependent on good connections or on money, which undermines democratic political culture and deprives basic democratic rights. Is it Manipur embryonic state or failed state?

When the design of public policies follows private interests corrupt networks either influence procedures for key positions in public administration or remove diligent public servants who might cause trouble. Private interests drive law-maker, ultimately paralyzing the steering functions of the state. In these cases, corruption transforms the state into a device serving its own purpose of private benefits. This is what exactly happening in Manipur. Local institutions like police, bureaucracy, courts, and legislative are deeply involved in the network of corruption and organised crime.

The state political system lost its capacity for self-recovery. The expectation of walking scot-free sets strong incentives for corrupt behaviour in the state. Citizens of the state may commonsensically conclude that corruption pays of economically, while integrity depends exclusively on a firm stance on moral and values. The dimension of systematic damaged by corruption is difficult to measure, but nonetheless, has relevant consequences, and includes the impact on citizens' trust in public institutions.

A 'good governance' development concept rests largely on anti-corruption tools. Cohesion of approaches and the set of new actors urgently need to bring down endemic rate of corruption in the state. High moral standards, values, communities' patterns and norms behaviour can result in proper even in a corruption prone environment. Influencing individual norms and changing cultures of social behaviour is not a "mission impossible." However, initiatives to engage in education and cultural change against corruption have to be looking at from a long-term perspective. Civil society organisations are important stake-holder in the fight against corruption. Corruption control and good governance should become the new topic for any gen-next leaders of the state.

Measuring corruption is an important tool to raise public awareness, define reform priorities and monitor result of anti-corruption efforts. Apart from individual morals and cultural context, institutional environment is a factor in propensity for corruption. The analysis of institutions, the clearness of rules in the social environment, the role of transparency, oversight and sanctions are important elements of an ethically sound institutional environment.

We need to provide a panoramic view of loopholes and shortcomings in the institutional environment that need to be tackle in order to prevent corruption. Initiatives dedicated to institutional assessment are part of the effort of state reform centered development policies. However, the focus on governance and anti-corruption efforts has led to specific initiatives. Active media participationhas to nurtured, informed civil society and competitive politics rather than divisive politics need to encourage.

The government institutions are weak, politics and bureaucratic are less accountable, civil society is less affianced and dearth of transparency in Manipur. Corruption has practically become a way of life, whether we like it or not, we are in the system. Consequently, Manipur is certainly trudging towards capitalist society where we find the divide between the rich and the poor ever splaying, the richer getting richer while the poor becomes poorer day by day.

Sadly, there is no concerted effort or campaign in the state to fight against the menace. So, the common people are in tight spot, the state forces unleashing bedlam on the people, while at the same time non-state actors (insurgent groups) generating mayhem in the lives of the people who have no resource and power. The power of the gun, and thirst for money and power make Manipur a moribund society.