​ONE STEP AT A TIME

Based on a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), Transparency International arrives at a ranking of the least corrupt nations each year. And each year, it’s the same suspects that make it to the top: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Iceland, Holland, Singapore, Australia, Japan.....the list is well known.
Remarkably, ‘least corrupt’ isn’t the only list that these hero-nations star in. With just a bit of rank-juggling amongst themselves, they also monopolise the leading roles in another feature presentation. Yes, the said nations also happen to be the ‘cleanest countries’ in the world.
Hardly a coincidence, you might say. For it is only obvious that least corrupt nations should have the most efficient delivery of all public services, hygiene & cleanliness included. And though such an argument wouldn’t be entirely facile, it would by no means be a comprehensive appreciation of the situation. The argument fails to take into account the fact that neither cleanliness, nor a corruption-free milieu, can be state enforced; that both of these require an active endorsement by the majority population. And because they are brought about and sustained by the free-will of a million ordinary citizens, the said attributes cannot be said to result from one single occurrence i.e. an honest government.
 
That of course is not to say that a cleanliness-corruption correlation doesn’t at all exist. It does. And all it requires for it to be ferreted out are a few basic questions. So, what constitutes corruption? Or more broadly, what constitutes morality. What exactly is it that makes something ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’?
“Moral,” answers Hemmingway, “is what you feel good after, and immoral is what you feel bad after.” And while that may be as good a working definition as any, it’s definitely far from perfect. It slips up on account of its dependence upon the element of individual conscience. Because conscience, as we know, is hardly the sacrosanct touchstone that it’s touted to be. Conscience is little more than a socially induced habit that varies across time and space.(Aristotle’s conscience never pricked him about keeping slaves. And after they’ve slapped their respective wives, the conscience pangs of a feudal villager will hit him a tad softer than those of an elite Mumbai banker. Time and space!)
 
We’re therefore prompted to go exploring for another definition of morality. A definition more sociological, more robust, more inspired by the gentle Spinoza; a definition that draws its being from “....and the moral man desires nothing for himself that he doesn’t desire for his fellow men.” Morality, hence, isn’t necessarily the set of wings that fly you into heaven. First and foremost, morality is the lattice which holds societal structures together. Morality is common-sense equipped with foresight. A thing becomes moral because if a majority of people didn’t abide by it, the fabric of society would begin to abrade. For example, if a majority of people didn’t speak the truth, communication would have no meaning at all. If a majority of people weren’t honest to their jobs, nations wouldn’t get built.
 
Cleanliness, curiously, works on the same principles. It requires everyone to chip in. More importantly, it requires everyone to possess the awareness of that duty. Which is why it makes great sense to root for the Swachh Bharat Campaign. Should that campaign succeed, its core principles just might spill over to other aspects of our public behaviour. And we could well become the nation that we aspire to be.