Its been nearly 6 months since I arrived in India from Singapore and I am having a hard time reconciling my standards of ethics with those present in India. Having lived outside the country most of my life, I am also humored, and sometimes distraught, at how my concepts of morality are challenged day in and day out in the country.
Issues which I know to be unethical outside India, are most times the norm within the country. Take corruption for instance. In the extensive traveling I have done around the country recently, in the several conversations I have had with businessmen and students, and in the observation of life around me, I have not met a single individual who didn't pay a bribe at some point in their lives, for some reason or the other. When I inquire of why this is, I get the ever ready sardonic smile: "It is how things get done here." While their remarks made me flinch initially, I now realise how right they may be. Consider a mother who wants to get her son admitted into a school asking for a "donation" or a business-owner who needs his papers processed before the 6 months timeline usually given by the sarkari office. These are problems I have observed and I am often dumbstruck by what I would do if I were in the shoes of that mother or that business-owner. How does a model of ethics survive in a society such as India, where corruption is so ingrained into everyday life?
In the corporate setting, I notice (what I consider) unethical practices being played out day in and day out. These include areas such as exploiting workers by withholding their salaries to carrying out business activities despite clear conflicts of interest. The concept of money laundering and tax evasion in India are also well known of. I often ask myself why this is the case. Are India’s corporate leaders not educated enough in the concepts of business ethics? Are the country’s ethical compliance standards not water-tight enough? Is there no understanding of the malignant chain reaction unethical decisions can lead to?
I believe that the problem in India is that everyone is keen to write their own code of ethics instead of conforming to a prescribed set of rules and regulations. Given the weakness and ineffectiveness of the country's legal system, Indians embark on their own crusades to determine what is right and what wrong, especially for issues that are in the grey. There is also a strong "survival of the fittest" contest being played in the country, where those with the most ingeniously unethical methods to survive prosper. Is it a wonder then that the country's largest industrial house has a shady track record of political graft? Or that most Indian politicians have served at least one prison term before coming to office? For industrialists, entrepreneurs, students and leaders, the idea of dabbling in borderline illegal and clearly unethical behavior is not regarded as shameful or wrong as in countries like Singapore/US. It is, in fact, proudly hailed as 'working the system', a necessary ritual required to get things done effectively.
Further, there is a massive lack of understanding around ethics and morality in India, especially among the common masses. As a student in the US, I remember spending an entire semester discussing concepts of ethics, how they help impact the world around me and my role as a business leader. In the US and Singapore, corporations are also required to hold training sessions for every employee on the corporation’s code of ethics. In India, schools and colleges pay little attention to issues around moral culpability, nor do corporations dedicate resources to training employees.
Perhaps my ideas of ethics, derived from living in two highly developed countries and working in a highly regulated industry, are unfair to apply immediately to India. Even as I tone down my expectations, however, I am left wondering whether things will improve over time or whether a culture that is so beset with a disregard for ideas of ethics (again, I acknowledge that the concept of ethics may be alien to Indians) can be improved and educated. I believe we should bank our hopes on the later; after which, only time will tell.
I think the primary reason for this attitude and scenerio is our pathetic judicial system. The solution lies in its ammendment to suit the country’s issues of today and not of the time when the Constitution was formulated.. but the question is who will do that?! Certainly not our government or polititions, our supposed leaders who use the law to their convenience . They have created the system and allowed it to proliferate. It is the ‘mango people ‘ who need to fear , lest they go against the system ; not the law , of course.
ReplyDeleteIt isnt that Indians arent aware of the ethics. They have come to cynically accept it as part of life to move in the flow , its better than being a lone fighter against the vices, one after the other.
As u said ,” I am often dumbstruck by what I would do if I were in the shoes of that mother or that business-owner.” What would u do? Would u refuse a person who has the power to control ; a small ‘token’ that he wishes for, to do what is supposed to be his work? No, u wud simply curse but do as he asks u to. ( its great if u can afford to refuse)
“The concept of money laundering and tax evasion in India are also well known of.”
Everyone who works hard to earn, wants to enjoy the money too. And the endless taxes levied-which the common man knows , is filling the pockets of the polititions, seem unfair. Of course we have to pay taxes for the functioning of the govt machinery, but sadly little of the money comes back in the form of development. Now who is the big martyr and social worker who wants to pay taxes when they can be evaded using the loopholes?!
“unethical behavior is not regarded as shameful or wrong as in countries like Singapore/US.”
There is no fear of the law. People know they can get out of almost anything , because they know how the system operates. While in the US and in Singapore, people end up paying through their nose for not abiding to the smallest of rules and there certainly is no way out of a punishment .. Hence the shame associated with the unethical behaviour..Naturally they will have a regard for rules!
See, we arent strong enough to go against the tide and begin the change. We arent going to join politics and bring in better leadership in the country. So we have to accept the flaws and try to keep to the right as much as possible.. Things shall improve after they cannot get any worse..
It is awesome if u can still hold on to those ethical concepts u learnt and worked with (in US and singapore), while u work here. Practice it for as long as u can. And then u can become one of us! ;)
Your debate sounds so familiar. Its as if I'm having a deja-vu of my own thoughts and conflicts with people in India.
ReplyDeleteI fail to understand the code of ethics in India and this 'herd mentality' that forms around it. Although its true that people form their own sense of ethics, its all for their selfish and lazy methods to get things done. If they really had a streak of uniqueness, they would challenge the system and still manage to get thier work done.
With each person's ignorance and lack of initiative to change the system the issue just gets more complicated and the country suffers low real growth. Its Ok to be a 'lone fighter' Sayunkta. That's how all the past battles have been won. Its how we got our independence too. Because of one man [and a few others who contributed over the years] who struggled to manipulate and win over the tyrants. Plus, each person makes a difference, when one person puts their foot down to this nonsense, other people will gain courage to do so as well. Also i don't think you should generalize when you use the word 'we' I know Indians who stand against corruption. But how are they to hold their stance when other common people in the same situations make it hard for them?
While you Bhaiya stated some 'difficult' situations, they have a cure too. Its ok to have your kid go to the 2nd best school for Kg!If she is worth going to a great school, she will prove her worth and get admitted to a better school before she reaches middle school. You may have to take a few round of the school but that is how it works in most other parts of the world. Its bearable to have to wait for business papers. Its ok to stand for 3 hrs at the police station to process your fines. The reason- because the more you feed on the system of corruption, the more it will grow. Take a stand. Make a difference! Not to anyone else, but to your own future.
I don't believe every unethical action is due to compulsion. Its due to sheer ignorance and laziness too. In fact, its now become a habit. These same people will wait for 6 months to get papers processed in another developed country, they will admit their kid to a government school in the US, they will pay 40% income taxes in the UK. Then why not in their own country? How long will you keep blaming the democratic government and take no responsibility for your actions? Isn't that part of a democratic nation too?
I know the Ans- "Its how things get done here!"
No no, i wudnt say 'its how things get done here'..
ReplyDeleteVery optimistic and idealistic views, very much like i strongly felt once.. I never said one shudnt fight it, shudnt be the lone fighter.. infact thats what u'll have to be..
There are people who still remain clean and accept the consequences of making a compromise with the opportunities than with themselves.. I really respect that.. But every one cant do that.. and thre arent any prizes for fighting the system either, that other people get motivated and follow their example..Yeah laziness is a pretty good explaination..
Our freedom was achieved by great visionary leaders, who dreamt of a better,free India and gave themselves to the country to achieve it.. where are such leaders now?! Are u and I going to set out to motivate the masses?! No.. What we can do is, do our part by not giving in to the beaurcracy and hope it makes a difference..
I agree to compromises like going to a second best institute or waiting in queques.. but it doesn’t always be such an easy situation. Consider when a traffic policeman stops u for speeding and decides to forfeit ur license, when he really wants money for tea and snacks?..
Or when u need to get a business deal, and ur rival company is handing out gifts, in exchange of an order.. u wudnt want to sit so proper then.. there are situations in which u have a choice, and making the right one is what matters.. and when u cant make the choice, it’s the system…
Again, how Indians become civilised and law abiding in other countries is, they have no choice.. they fear the law. We in India don’t..
I want Mayank to say something, im presenting extremely cynical views so that he atleast argues and doesnt accept the cynicism..
Well, I was trying to make more of an observation than a judgement in this particular essay. Still, I find both Shreya and Sanyukta's comments interesting for a few reasons.
ReplyDeleteSanyukta: If educated, progressive and empowered youngsters like yourself believe there is little that can be done to rescue India, it poses a very grim issue for the country. I agree the problems are complex and diffused; however, you give no solutions to the current scenario. Is this lack of ethics (which you yourself acknowledge) something you are happy to accept and move forward with? How do you think this deeply ingrained system can be turned around, if not immediately then after a few years. Do you think it should be changed?
Shreya: I agree with several points you make including that of being a 'lone fighter' or of the 'herd mentality' of Indians. Yet, I don't know how rational your ideas of moving children to a II-tier school or of standing for long hours in a queue. I think the culture of disregarding ethics is so entrenched that efforts, while worth lauding, will soon be forgotten. I think your ideas would seen incredulous to an Indian living in India since they live in a system that sometimes encourages unethical behaviour (policeman or school example). Dont you think we need a more macro policy change, something like a sheep dog which drives the herd away from danger and towards salvation?
I fail to understand how people can keep criticising 'the system' for thier flaws. Everyone is part of the system. Each one needs to be motivated enough to make a change.
ReplyDeleteSayunkta: you forget that our freedom fighters were not leaders in any sense during thier period. They were ordinary men who revolted against the present government!
Why are we always hunting for excuses to cover our actions? When will we take responsibilities for our own actions.
As for the fines imposed by traffic police men, you bribe them to get yr way out, encouraging bribery. If he actually gives you a slip, it will be registered and won't go to his pockets. I know people who can afford to pay these fines but instead they bribe officers. Why!? And if you can't afford the fine, learn to drive properly. India has the worst and most lenient traffic laws, but that goes into another argument.
Bhaiya:Sure, we can form policies. What what benefit will it do when it won't reach the masses. India is considered one of the most religious nations. People very well know their rights and wrongs when they stand on the temple footsteps. I think its hypocrisy to overlook ethical issues in other aspects of life then. But yes, imposing a policy and ensuring it is followed practically [so not just something we learn though textbooks. Maybe they could perform silent theatre like I'm doing here! Or do other such projects to encourage ethical behaviour as part of the curriculum.]Then the future of India in the next 20-40 years looks brighter.
hey Mayank - hope you don't mind the long response! Feel free to delete if it's spamming up your comment area!
ReplyDeleteWhat a very interesting debate you guys have going on. I'd love to comment on a bunch of the things you've said, but first I'd like to frame my comments by asking two general questions, which are “What is human nature?” and “How much control do we have over our lives versus how much are we controlled by outside factors?”
I'll get back to those questions at the end, but now let me zoom in a level and bring up the countries Mayank uses for comparison throughout his post. Mayank, I assume you're using these countries because you have the most experience with them, and it's really interesting that these countries are, by global standards, probably two of the most “puritanical” countries in the world, based on both the public consciousness about ethics and the government's strict and pervasive codification and enforcement of public morality. (This, of course, excludes a lot of Muslim countries, but I think the motivation in those countries tends to be slightly different). There are many countries in the world which do reasonably well with much laxer ethical and moral standards. I would point out Italy, Brazil, and Japan (the last mostly in the context of business ethics) as examples of countries that have built reasonably successful systems around a much looser morality paradigm.
In fact, zooming in another level, I'll comment on Mayank's points about the pervasiveness of bribes in India vs. the US (I can't speak for Singapore). I'll play Devil's advocate here and say that “bribery” is also extremely prevalent in the US, except that it has in fact been regularized and institutionalized into concepts like “tipping,” “business entertainment expenses,” and “Political Action Committees.” Whether tipping a particularly good waiter a little extra at dinner, taking a favored business client out to lunch at an excellent restaurant, or spending tens of millions of dollars on ad campaigns for favored politicians, these “monetary incentives” for others to do what you want them to do fulfill a very real need to align different individuals' disparate motivations and foster cooperation and cohesiveness within society. The reason “bribery” is frowned upon in the US is not for fulfilling these needs, but for “cheating” and ignoring the prescribed mechanisms for fulfilling such needs. If I am to understand you, in India, there really are no such mechanisms, or at least they are not well established / enforced. If there are no mechanisms to cheat, there is no cheating, and so it is no surprise that people in India look on bribery the same way that people in the US would look at taking a client out to lunch. Of course, if you are used to a system like the US's, these mechanisms would probably seem comforting in that they may discourage excess. However, if you are used to a system like India's, you might look at the US system and see the total spending by lobbyists, special interest groups, political action committees, and grass-roots organizations (which I would not be surprised if it was over half a billion USD) and not see how these mechanisms are useful in reigning in “bribery.” You might, in fact, point out that establishing rules only seems to by create “cheating,” unbalance the playing field further in favor of those willing to cheat, and creating a rule that, in fact, many many people break, so that if someone does go against “the system,” there is always something that “the system” can “get them” on.
On the subject of “survival of the fittest” ethics and worker exploitation (as Mayank brought up in the form of witholding worker salaries), I would say these are definitely terrible things, but not really unexpected at India's current stage of economic development. Although the US and especially Europe today seem like paragons of ethical corporate governance and workers' rights, it is really not that long ago that this was not the case at all. It was only about 100 years ago that the term “robber baron” was being used to refer to contemporary business leaders such as the Rockefellers (Rockefeller Plaza), the Astors (Astor Place), the Carnegies (Carnegie Hall) and the Morgans (J.P. Morgan) who were locked in a struggle to gain competitive advantage by paying their workers the least and working them the hardest and most hours possible, with virtually no limits. In fact, my grandmother grew up working in a textile mill in the classic mill town of New Bedford, Massachussetts. She started working after leaving school in fifth grade, and she worked 14-16 hours a day, every day, sometimes in hellish summertime heat with no fans, for the privilege of enough money to buy food for her and maybe a younger sibling. They played games all the time, witholding money because of “company emergencies,” lowering salaries because of “economic conditions,” and forcing workers into the crowded factories even when they had influenza until they passed out. My grandfather weighed 100 pounds (45kg) when he went into the army, he was 5' 8” (173cm), because his wages before that had not been enough to buy himself decent meals. It was only when the Great Depression pushed things past the breaking point that Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal legislation introduced the concept of workers' rights, and that was only possible politically because the elite had been gripped by fear of a communist revolution. All this history is to say that, it is natural for factory owners to squeeze their workers as hard as possible, regardless of consequences, because otherwise they will simply be pushed out by people willing to do it. I think the change has to come after a period of building awareness 1) from the bottom, that to improve their circumstances they will have to make the difficult decision to join together and press for their rights, instead of going for the short-sighted, but easier, option of outcompeting their fellow workers for who can survive on the least amount of money and 2) from the top, that ultimately, society is more stable and healthier when everyone has a stake in it, and that, since they are mostly powerless to improve worker conditions on an individual or business level, they must support government regulation which forces all businesses to treat their workers with a certain minimum level of decency.
ReplyDeleteI think this also ties in to the next thing that Mayank talks about, which is the complaint that the “common masses” seem especially indifferent to ethical or moral standards. I think Sanyukta's comment on this was really insightful, which was “what *wouldn't* you do if you were . . .” I think this is absolutely true. From a Darwinian perspective, I think ethics and morality as you speak of them is a luxury. You should not steal bread, but if you will starve otherwise, I think most of us would do it and not feel too bad about it. You should not bribe local officials, but if your shop would be closed otherwise and you would be thrown out on the street, can you really afford to talk about what you “should” be doing? In fact, if you do stick by your principles in these cases, you run the high risk of taking yourself (and your ethical standards) out of the gene pool prematurely. And I think this comes to affect a lot of “higher order” moral decisions as well. If you know you “should not” bribe someone, but you are continually forced to do it to get by, you have to eventually accept what you are doing in order to live with yourself. And once you have come to terms with bribery in these situations, I think it all of a sudden becomes a lot more difficult to see the harm in doing such things in other situations, doesn't it? It also fosters a disrespect and disregard for a public morality system which forces you to live as a hypocrite, until it comes to be seen as almost a joke. You might even start to respond to charges of immoral behavior with a knowing smile and a comment that “That's how it is done here.” You might also come to see “working” this hypocritical and unjust system as a badge of honor, a sign that you are in on the joke and are not going to be held down by it.
ReplyDeleteSo how do you respond to a system like this? I saw that between Shreya and Mayank, there was some disagreement as to whether or not you should, for instance, accept admission into a second-tier school in order to stick by your principles. I think Shreya makes some great points that really resonate, but ultimately I have to side with Mayank: if a small bribe to get into the best school is what is done, then to not do so would be “shooting yourself in the foot.” I say this for a few reasons: My first reason, I am guessing that there is a certain stigma that exists in going to a second tier school that may make your later entrance into a first tier school more difficult. Obviously, this is ridiculous, and I don't buy into it at all, but I still have to acknowledge the fact that a lot of other people do buy into it. And even if there is no “real” difference to the quality of my education, if there is a “perceived” difference by others, it will still make a “real” difference in my life if I am treated differently because of it. My second reason is that it might make a “real” difference to the quality of my education. Usually (though not always) there is a reason why a school is considered second tier.
My third reason is that, while I agree that really exceptional people can (and do all the time) overcome my first two reasons to gain later acceptance into top-tier schools, I also acknowledge that not every student is really exceptional. Someone that is exceptional can afford to make a few stands on principle or strategic mistakes and still come out on top, but many people cannot. If a person who might have done “well” but not “exceptional” in a first tier school starts in a second tier school instead and does “well” there, they will most likely end up finishing their education in a second tier school. And then, who will end up in power in 20 years and be making decisions on these kinds of things - that person? or the person who has no qualms paying bribes? That is why I think it is important to do what is best for you, not to make yourself a martyr. I want to respond to what Shreya said about people sending their kids to public schools here in the US. I agree that I think this is a very healthy thing, but I think (without knowing where Shreya is located) Shreya may be misunderstanding the reason people do that here. I think people send their kids to public schools in the US for two reasons. 1) Because the public schools are actually quite good, and usually they are the best options in the area. People are not giving their kids up to second-tier schools for the greater good. In fact, because education in the US is funded at the municipal / town level, there is a huge amount of jockeying by parents to constantly sell their homes and move to towns with better-funded school systems in order to gain access to the best schools for their children. 2) I think there is a strong anti-elitist streak that runs through the US. Even the President and Hollywood celebrities are expected to act and be “one of the guys.” Most people here react very negatively to implications that “social level / social status” even exists, and being seen to go to a private school is often seen as a rejection of the “social pact” and often will get you ostracized more than it will do you any favors. I'd say this is true in most places in the US, although not so much in the New York City metropolitan area (maybe because there are a lot of foreigners who come from more socially stratified countries, or maybe because NYC is a money/power center and so has greater “extremes” of social status than the rest of the country). I'll even tell you that when I first came to New York, I was literally shocked to see the level of social stratification there was, because I had never been exposed to anything even close to that type of environment. But sure enough, in NYC, where there is considerably less stigma associated with going to a private school, you can see the wealthy and well-to-do classes playing the same kinds of kindergarten admissions games that Mayank and Shreya are discussing.
ReplyDeleteIf someone disagrees with the system of bribing school officials to get in to top schools, I think in many cases the right thing to do is to give the bribe anyway, but to use the influence your first-tier education gives you to tell other people why you think it is wrong, and raise public awareness of the issue. These systems are in place not because there has never been a brave individual who has taken a stand (there have been many) - but because the public has never made the collective decision to end the system. The genius of Gandhi was not to make a stand by starving himself - monks in China have burned themselves alive to no great practical effect - but to change and galvanize public opinion by *publicly* starving himself after he had built a movement and made himself an important figurehead to the country who could affect public opinion so deeply.
ReplyDeleteSo now I'll close (finally!) by sort of coming back to my original, general questions. While there many people who are capable of making deep and informed moral judgments regularly and impartially, I think it is human nature to do exactly what Shreya said: 1) follow a “herd mentality” regarding ethics because it is easy, and 2) basing your ethics on pretty much “what will help me,” because there is a strong evolutionary reason to get your ethics that way. And I think “what will help me” is very much dependent on the circumstances that you are born into and the environment that you encounter every day. These are circumstances which are different for every person and which cannot really be controlled, especially for the first 10 - 15 years of your life. So if you have a lot of money, it is very easy and natural to think a poor person stealing from you is unethical: after all, it is your money, they didn't earn it! At the same time, if you have no money and every day is a struggle, I think it is very easy and natural to think that stealing from a rich person is perfectly ethical: after all, they have so much money, they are just going to waste it, but you really *need* that money! All this is not to say that I think it's okay to steal from rich people, bribe officials, or cut in line (“queue”??). I'm saying that it is premature to say someone is a bad person for doing it. It is expecting a lot out of people to ask them to adopt ethical standards which are contrary to their own best interests. If there is so much corruption in India, it must be because society as a whole has found it to be in its best interest. So, if you want to effect change in the moral codes, telling people to stop being so lazy and greedy is probably not going to work. Instead, the best thing you can do is align the incentives of people that work for you or people that you vote for so that they see it as being in their best interest to act in an ethical manner. And sometimes, I think you have to give people a break and acknowledge that people cannot always force themselves to do what is right: on the bribery issue, as I said, I don't think that would ever go away, although it may evolve, as in the US, into those mechanisms I mentioned: sometimes, a nice tip just motivates someone in a way that a smile or a “thank you” never will.
ReplyDelete