“There is so much corruption in India”— a sentiment often echoed by Indians themselves. Typically, this critique targets the system, the state machinery, and the officials who operate it, from the highest offices to the grassroots level. Public discourse highlights corrupt politicians, inefficient leadership, and even allegedly questions the integrity of the judiciary.
But is corruption uniquely Indian, or a global phenomenon? Observers note that in many developed nations, lower-level bureaucracy and judiciary are comparatively less corrupt in routine matters like issuing certificates, identity cards, passports, or business permits.
In India, however, reports suggest that almost all kinds of permits and certificates can be obtained through informal payments, sometimes even by individuals who entered the country legally or illegally. Despite laws and enforcement agencies, corruption persists, a burden authorities cannot tackle alone without active citizen participation.
Our understanding of corruption often focuses narrowly on the State, overlooking our own role in perpetuating it. As citizens, we seldom reflect on the unethical compromises we make daily in society and in interactions with the state.
From a sociological perspective, corruption is not just structural, it is embedded in social norms, expectations, and everyday behaviors.
Corruption is also deeply intertwined with crime. Commonly defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, through bribery, embezzlement, and fraud, it is often trivialized, especially white-collar crime.
Yet organized crime syndicates exploit corruption to infiltrate political, economic, and social systems, undermining institutions and diverting resources from vital sectors.
Internationally, corruption facilitates human and drug trafficking, often requiring the complicity of state functionaries.
To understand why corruption persists, we can turn to political philosophy, particularly the social contract theorists—Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), describes the “state of nature,” where life without state control is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” a condition of constant conflict. Humans, he argued, are materialistic, possessive, power-seeking, and fearful. Even in modern democratic societies, these tendencies persist. Despite robust institutions, human behavior often reflects jealousy, greed, envy, and a desire for power. Corruption may thus be not merely a systemic problem but also a reflection of human nature. Without strong governance, law enforcement, and ethical norms, social chaos remains a risk.
From a sociological standpoint, addressing corruption requires confronting both structural and personal dimensions. Corruption thrives not only where institutions are weak but also where social norms tolerate unethical behavior. Everyday compromises bribing for permits, bending rules, or ignoring injustice contribute to a culture of corruption that perpetuates itself.
Until we acknowledge this dual nature, our critique of the system remains incomplete. Corruption is not just in laws, institutions, or policies, it is embedded in the attitudes and behaviors that shape society. Understanding this interplay between human nature and structural incentives is essential if we are to move beyond mere condemnation toward meaningful reform.
(Devendra Budakoti us a sociologist and an author and the views expressed in this article are purely his personal)
