Hence, our real problem: there is nowhere to turn for an alternative.

The orientation, and its consequences

Our system, indeed our society is heavily oriented towards the state. He who occupies offices of state at the moment, receives deference, he is surrounded by hangers-on, by pelf; he gets the opportunity, if he is so inclined, to rake in money: in a word, as they say in Punjab, “the usual pump and show.”

Hence, when the party acquires office, its leading figures acquire all this: deference, pelf, the opportunity to rake in money. As they commence to use these, five things happen:

•Even if they are personally honest, the principals in the government are implicated by association: they have the clear duty as well as the clear opportunity to put an end to the doings of their juniors; they do not do so — this is enough to put them in the position in which, when the evidence of wrong-doing erupts, they have only one option: to defend their colleague. And there is a ready rationalisation for doing so: “How can we desert our colleague when he is trouble?” Suddenly “loyalty” acquires a new meaning: it does not mean loyalty to those pristine ideals; it comes to mean sticking by the colleague — the very one who has departed from those ideals.

•That robs, first, the leaders; then the government; and therefore, the party of its claim that it is different, that is inspired by ideals, that it is in politics not for power and pelf but to recast governance and society in those ideals.

... contd.