During a recent public gathering, Pawan Kalyan, while standing atop his Varahi vehicle, suggested the need for a discussion on an 'acceptable level for corruption' within the nation.
He remarked, "Corruption has unfortunately become ingrained in our society, so it's essential to engage in a dialogue about what level of corruption can be deemed acceptable."
His implication was that not everyone involved in corruption should be subject to arrest, as it has become a prevalent aspect of daily life.
However, the question arises: Is he speaking his own mind or merely reciting the script provided by members of the TDP party? This raises concerns about his knowledge and education.
If individuals like him were to enter the Assembly, it raises questions about the kind of reforms they might champion. One could envision them advocating for acceptable levels of other crimes like rape, murder, and kidnapping if their friends and family were implicated.
Pawan is talking about this 'acceptible level of corruption' as his own ally CBN is facing the music of law at present for some Rs 300 Plus Crore. So, he wants to see a reform that such an amount should be considered as an 'acceptible level of corrution' to the standard of a Chief Minister.
Suggesting a debate on acceptable corruption levels is, frankly, a dubious proposition. Pawan Kalyan also stated that people who accept money in exchange for their votes should not criticize corruption. However, it's worth questioning why politicians continue to offer financial incentives to voters in the first place. The practice of distributing money for votes was initiated by Chandrababu Naidu in the early 1990s. Offering or accepting corruption is equally unlawful.
Setting aside this argument, what would happen if an acceptable level of corruption were established by law? It would likely lead to a situation where politicians and officials would exploit this limit to their advantage. It's difficult to see how this would constitute a meaningful reform, as Pawan Kalyan seems to suggest.
It's important to consider that an otherwise honest government servant may, towards the end of their career, succumb to bribery under certain circumstances, such as paying for their daughter's wedding, and subsequently face imprisonment.
Cases like BJP leader Bangaru Lakshman, who was convicted for accepting a relatively small bribe f Rs 1lakh, illustrate this.
In the Western context, we can observe instances where individuals faced legal consequences despite receiving support from prominent figures.
For example, Rajat Gupta, the former Indian-American director of Goldman Sachs convicted of insider trading, received letters of endorsement from notable figures such as Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan prior to his sentencing. However, the law did not exempt him, and he had to undergo the prescribed punishment.
Similarly, Martha Stewart, who was found guilty of charges including conspiracy, obstruction, and making false statements, was sentenced to serve five months in prison, in addition to two years of supervised probation. These cases demonstrate that even individuals with significant support and influence are held accountable under the law.
Crime is crime, regardless of its scale. There should be no legal provision that allows for minor offenses to go unpunished. Pawan Kalyan's mindless stance on this matter is misguided and calls into question his suitability as a politician.
Madhunandan Akkishetty