It is no wonder that places, where the impact of corruption is corrosive, are prone to conflict – one causing and exacerbating the other. Jammu and Kashmir, a case in point, is facing conflict as well as corruption with the latter mostly, though not entirely, sustaining and perpetuating the former.
Here it is important to clarify. Conflict came first; corruption second when it comes to Jammu and Kashmir.
All it takes is a little surface scratching to find that corruption is rampant in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The newly formed UT does not possess much of what are known as the ‘portable economic commodities’. Previously, it had vast forest cover and the logging was milked to the hilt by the successive elected governments. On one hand, the influential people were given forest lands on a lease that made huge fortunes, for themselves as well as their masters and mentors in the political executive. On the other hand, the unemployed and the uninfluential people found sustenance by way of their engagement as woodcutters and labourers, drivers and millers only.
Once the forests were bled dry, another resource, and fortunately in quite an abundance here, held out a promise of driving the economy. With the potential to generate over 20,000 Megawatts of hydro-electricity, all that Jammu and Kashmir needed was financial resources to harness and market its hydropower potential. But the money was hard to come by. The history of partnerships with the central power PSUs like NHPC, its greedy economic predation, and unwillingness to return the projects even after having earned several times more than its investments, compelled a cash-starved state to look towards the government for money. But the counter-guarantees that foreign investors needed wouldn’t come by.
It is a proven fact that the state’s powerful political executive together with its bureaucracy and wealthy elite was only aiming and eying their private interests under the garb of what was visibly a big public interest venture. Instead of lighting the homes of the ordinary people, they were only interested in bringing sun and moon to shine on their private mansions.
Corruption, as has been the case in J&K, dramatically weakens state institutions, rendering them ineffective, particularly when faced with a lack of public trust. It breeds popular discontent by undermining general economic well-being, which in turn create conditions for conflict. Similarly, continued conflict may bring profit for the few, those ‘masters of war’ as Bob Dylan called them, but it creates economic misery for many. J&K is a classic example of this self-sustaining system, which holds this place in the deep recesses of the corruption and conflict trap.
The broader exploration of the relationship between “Corruption and Conflict”
Behind corruption there are often numerous breaks to the rules that agents of the state should follow “but which they violate when pursuing their private interests,” says Giorgio Spagnol while elaborating on the correlation between corruption and conflict. “When corruption is endemic, public officials, both bureaucrats and elected officials, redesign programs and propose public projects with few public benefits and many opportunities for private profit.”
The connections between development and peace are firmly supported by social science research. All the standard indicators of economic development, including per capita income, economic growth rates, levels of trade and investment, and so on and so forth are significantly correlated with peace. Virtually every study on the causes of war finds a strong connection between low income (lack of development) and the likelihood of armed conflict. Economist Edward Miguel describes this link as “one of the most robust empirical relationships in the economic literature.” Irrespective of all other variables and indicators, poverty as measured by low income, as well as lack of development (as indicated by peoples inability to access and avail government’s welfare measures, including proper economic avenues, healthcare and education) bears a strong and statistically significant relationship to increased risk of civil conflict.
Paul Collier and his colleagues have shown that civil conflict is heavily concentrated in the countries with widespread joblessness, and a general lack of development. They famously conclude “the key root cause of conflict is the failure of economic development.” They also make the reverse point. Raising economic growth rates and levels of per capita income may be “the single most important step that can be taken” to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict.
World Bank says “conflict is development in reverse”. If lack of development fuels the conflict, then there is a reason to conclude that everything that puts brakes on the process of development also contributes to the initiation and continuation of conflict. Corruption thus certainly gives to conflict what air gives to fire – its life and sustenance.
Corruption, as the definition suggests, is the “misuse of public power for private or political gain” and has a deleterious impact on economic growth, equitable wealth distribution and the legitimacy and efficiency of governing institutions. Such impact is aggravated when corrupt practices have no concern for the long-term sustainability of the economic sector, or fail to reinvest its proceeds in the community or country, thereby ‘bleeding’ the economy.
According to the UN, corruption remains the “most daunting challenge” to good governance, sustainable economic growth, peace, stability and development. In many corruption perception surveys, it has been proven that most corrupt regions in the world are also more susceptible to underdevelopment and hence armed conflict.
A case in point is represented by South Sudan, born amid great hope. The citizens of the world’s newest nation voted with one voice in support of independence for a country that boasted vast natural wealth — oil resources. Goodwill from the international community brought significant international development assistance and the country was expected to quickly transition to self-reliance. But the ruling elite diverted oil revenues to fund patronage networks. The country’s kleptocratic regime controlled all sectors of the economy and squandered a historic chance for the development of a functional state. For a few years, the patronage system worked in South Sudan: loyalty was bought and violence kept in check, but a global decline in oil prices led to decreasing production and lower revenues. Within a year, civil war and a humanitarian crisis hit the country. Today, much of the conflict there is driven by elites attempting to re-negotiate their share of the politico-economic power balance through violence thus causing economic collapse and creeping international isolation.
Corruption has also contributed to the failings of international interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq by making it much more difficult for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) (2003-2014) to achieve its key mission goals, from security to effective governance, thus driving Taliban recruitment in Afghanistan.
In Iraq, corruption in army recruitment and promotions, the existence of ghost soldiers, and theft of weapons and supplies rendered the army – superior on paper – ill-armed, under-manned, and ultimately unable to halt the rise of ISIS/Daesh. To stop the jihadi fighters, international troops had to return to Iraq a couple of years after the previous training mission was concluded.
In Afghanistan corruption prevents money and services from being delivered to the population and, in many cases, corrupt officials actually take money from the people in the form of bribes. Corruption also promotes impunity and fuels anger over injustice by enabling powerful and predatory leaders to buy their way out of accountability for crimes they have committed. As the Afghan government is seen by a majority of people as taking more from corruption than it gives in the form of justice and security, it is losing popular support in favour of tribal or Taliban leaders.
Corruption creates a system whereby money and connection determine who has access to public services and who receives favourable treatment. Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, called corruption an “insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies,” and added that “it diverts funds intended for development, undermines the ability of governments to provide basic services, feeds inequalities and injustice….”
“Corruption is costing the developing world billions of dollars every year,” indicates the UN Development Program. It siphons off scarce resources and diminishes a country’s prospects for development. Corruption often leads to the diversion of scarce public resources to uneconomic high-profile projects, such as big office complexes and shopping centres, to the exclusion of necessary infrastructure projects such as schools, hospitals, water treatment plants, and roads.
Corruption incurs very high costs for society, particularly in places that experience conflict, by halting the development and effective working of institutions of governance. When money and other resources meant for development are misused by corrupt officials instead of being channelled for the benefit of citizens, the situation gives rise to instability and huge challenges in all spheres of life.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of JKPI
Leave a Reply
You must belogged in to post a comment.