India’s Biggest Reform Must Begin With Its Citizens
India has celebrated its 80th Independence Day. For eight decades, generations of Indians have lived in a sovereign republic that has survived wars, political upheavals, economic crises, insurgencies, coalition governments, reforms and extraordinary social change. We have every right to demand more from the country we live in: better roads, schools and hospitals; safer streets; faster courts; cleaner politics; competent governments and accountable institutions.
But after 80 Independence Days, perhaps another question deserves equal attention: what have we done for the country whose failures we so readily condemn?
This is not an argument for blind patriotism or an attempt to excuse governments, politicians, bureaucrats, judges or journalists. Governments must govern, courts must deliver justice, politicians must remain accountable and journalists must tell the truth. But citizenship cannot consist entirely of demanding services and condemning failures. A republic is ultimately shaped not only by laws and institutions, but by the everyday behaviour of its people.
We complain endlessly that “the system” is corrupt. Yet the system is not some alien creature detached from society. It survives through millions of individual choices — officials demanding bribes, citizens offering them, politicians exploiting divisions, voters rewarding them, television channels manufacturing outrage and audiences consuming it.
If India genuinely wants transformation, perhaps its biggest reform must begin not in Parliament, a ministry, a courtroom or a television studio.
It must begin within us.
We Condemn Corruption — Until It Becomes Convenient
Corruption is easy to condemn when we are its victims. The contradiction begins when honesty becomes inconvenient.
A family wants admission to a particular institution and pays a hefty “donation.” Someone approaches a government office without complete documents and searches for an agent who can “manage” the file. At the RTO, passport office or another public authority, the legitimate process looks cumbersome, so a shortcut suddenly becomes attractive.
None of this absolves an official who demands money. Abuse of public office is a serious offence and carries greater institutional responsibility. But corruption cannot become deeply embedded unless there is also a market for shortcuts.
We cannot condemn corruption nationally while purchasing convenience from it personally.
The uncomfortable question is therefore not merely, “Why is the system corrupt?”
It is also: how often do we ourselves make corruption profitable?
We Want Strict Laws — For Everybody Else
The hypocrisy becomes clearer on our roads.
We demand action against dangerous vehicles and irresponsible drivers. Yet our own insurance expires, the PUC remains overdue or some required document is missing. When caught, instead of accepting the lawful penalty, the first instinct can be negotiation: can this be settled for less?
The same attitude appears elsewhere. We want illegal construction demolished until ours is questioned. We demand queues until we know somebody inside. We complain about VIP culture but happily use influence when a powerful acquaintance can make our problem disappear.
Money is not the only currency of corruption. Influence is often corruption’s respectable cousin. A telephone call from a politician, senior official or well-connected friend can bend the same rule that a cash payment would have bypassed.
We demand strict systems in theory while repeatedly seeking personal exemptions in practice.
Black Money Does Not Begin in Parliament
We speak about black money as though it exists only in political scandals and giant corporate frauds. Yet ordinary economic behaviour also sustains it.
A property transaction is negotiated and someone asks how much can be officially declared and how much can be paid in cash. Gold or other assets are bought with undeclared money. Transaction values are understated because paying the full tax feels unnecessary when evasion appears commonplace.
At the same time, we demand better highways, defence, policing, hospitals, public transport, courts and infrastructure.
Governments must absolutely be questioned about wasteful spending and misuse of taxpayers’ money. But government inefficiency cannot become moral permission for citizens to evade lawful obligations.
We cannot demand world-class public services while celebrating tax avoidance whenever compliance becomes personally expensive.
Democracy Cannot Work If Citizens Treat Voting Casually
Perhaps our greatest contradiction appears in politics.
We complain about politicians for five years, yet many citizens do not register to vote. Some who register do not turn up. Others vote primarily because a candidate belongs to their caste, religion or community, because someone offers money or because a local network promises favours.
Then we complain that politicians practise caste politics, communal politics, vote-bank politics and patronage.
But politicians understand incentives. If voters reward identity, candidates will sell identity. If voters reward cash, political organisations will distribute cash. If polarisation wins elections, campaigns will manufacture polarisation.
Bad politics is not produced only by bad politicians. It is also produced by bad incentives created by voters.
Parliament Is a Mirror, Not an Alien Planet
There is a comforting tendency to treat politicians as though they belong to a separate moral species.
They do not.
Our MPs, MLAs, councillors and ministers emerge from the same society as our doctors, teachers, lawyers, businessmen, bureaucrats and journalists. They grow up around the same prejudices, compromises and attitudes towards money, influence and power.
We elect them. We campaign for them. We defend them. And very often, we excuse behaviour by politicians from “our side” that we would condemn instantly if the opposition did exactly the same thing.
Political parties must answer for fielding corrupt, criminal or incompetent candidates. But society must also confront an uncomfortable reality: if voters repeatedly reward transactional politics, political parties will keep producing transactional politicians.
Parliament is not an alien planet.
In many ways, it is a mirror.
“Shivaji Should Be Born — But in the Neighbour’s House”
Marathi has a wonderfully revealing saying: “शिवाजी जन्मावा, पण शेजाऱ्याच्या घरात.”
Shivaji should be born — but in the neighbour’s house.
We admire courage, sacrifice, discipline and integrity, but preferably somebody else should pay their price.
We want honest officials until one refuses to process our incomplete application. We want strict enforcement until we are penalised. We admire whistle-blowers, soldiers and reformers, but expect others to accept the risks and sacrifices that courage demands.
Someone else should refuse the bribe. Someone else should pay the full tax. Someone else should challenge wrongdoing. Someone else should sacrifice convenience for principle.
We want the benefits of a principled republic while repeatedly outsourcing the cost of principle.
That is the contradiction at the heart of the problem: we admire virtue collectively while seeking exemptions from it individually.
The Judiciary: When Justice Itself Becomes an Ordeal
Citizen responsibility cannot become an excuse for institutional failure.
If citizens are expected to respect the law, the institutions administering justice must earn that respect. India’s judicial system suffers from enormous pendency, prolonged litigation, expensive legal processes, capacity constraints and cases that can continue for years or even decades.
When a civil dispute consumes a lifetime or a criminal trial takes years to reach finality, the eventual judgment may no longer fully repair the damage. In such circumstances, the process itself can become punishment.
There are also legitimate concerns about judicial accountability, inconsistent reasoning and allegations of misconduct or corruption. Not every unpopular or controversial verdict is evidence of corruption, and reckless allegations against individual judges should be avoided. Judicial independence remains indispensable.
But independence cannot mean immunity from scrutiny.
Courts should be capable of defending public confidence through transparency, sound reasoning, institutional accountability and credible mechanisms for dealing with misconduct.
A democracy cannot ask citizens to place complete faith in the rule of law while making justice painfully slow, expensive or unpredictable.
Television Media: From Watchdog to Political Theatre
The media, particularly television news, deserves equally serious introspection.
Journalism should investigate wrongdoing, scrutinise power, separate fact from propaganda and help citizens understand complex issues. Yet large sections of television news increasingly appear driven by TRPs, viral moments, ideological positioning and personality-led confrontation.
Debates become shouting contests. Anchors become protagonists. Complex national issues are compressed into dramatic political binaries.
Some media houses appear reflexively sympathetic to particular political parties or governments. Others appear reflexively hostile. An allegation that receives relentless coverage on one channel may barely register on another, depending on whose political interests are affected.
When journalism becomes tribal, facts risk becoming subordinate to positioning.
A watchdog cannot perform its democratic duty if it begins behaving like a political campaign office with a studio.
But We Feed the Media Machine Too
Yet here again, citizens cannot escape responsibility.
Why does television outrage sell? Because audiences watch it.
Why do provocative thumbnails, screaming headlines and political humiliation clips dominate digital platforms? Because people click and share them.
Why does partisan media flourish? Because many viewers increasingly prefer news that confirms what they already believe.
Media organisations must answer for their editorial choices. But attention is also a currency. Every click, share and hour spent consuming political theatre tells the industry what audiences reward.
We cannot endlessly complain about TRP journalism while supplying the TRPs.
If citizens want better journalism, they must reward factual reporting, read beyond headlines, question misinformation even when it supports their preferred political side and stop treating news as an extension of party loyalty.
Two Pillars of Democracy Are in Serious Trouble
The legislature, executive, judiciary and press are commonly described as pillars supporting democratic life. Two of those pillars — the judiciary and the media — are showing serious signs of institutional strain.
When courts become unbearably slow, citizens lose faith in formal justice.
When news becomes partisan entertainment, citizens lose a reliable mechanism for judging those in power.
These institutions must reform themselves. Judicial capacity, speed, transparency and accountability need improvement. Journalism must restore the distinction between reporting, commentary, activism and propaganda.
But society must also stop rewarding their worst tendencies.
We cannot demand politically convenient judgments and simultaneously complain about politicisation. We cannot consume partisan television every night and then complain that television has become partisan.
Institutions respond to incentives. Citizens help create those incentives.
India Does Not Need 1.4 Billion Saints
India does not need every citizen to become morally perfect before anything can change.
It needs enough people to stop cooperating with everyday dishonesty.
Imagine if a clear majority simply refused to offer bribes. If people completed the required paperwork instead of searching for someone to “manage” it. If motorists maintained their documents rather than bribing their way out of penalties. If more property transactions were fully declared. If voters rejected cash inducements and judged candidates on competence and integrity. If audiences stopped rewarding deliberate misinformation.
The idea that “six out of ten” people changing their behaviour could transform the system is not a mathematical formula. It expresses a much simpler truth: corrupt ecosystems depend upon predictable participation.
Reduce that participation sufficiently and corruption becomes more difficult, expensive and risky.
India does not need universal sainthood.
It needs enough ordinary honesty to make dishonesty less profitable.
Government Must Still Be Held Accountable
None of this gives governments permission to lecture citizens while avoiding their own obligations.
The State possesses power, public money and authority. Corrupt officials must face consequences. Politicians must answer for failures. Police must enforce laws impartially. Government procedures must become simpler and less vulnerable to discretion. Courts must be strengthened. Public money must be spent responsibly. Journalists must remain free from intimidation while being accountable to professional standards.
Citizens cannot be expected to respect institutions that repeatedly demonstrate contempt for them.
But accountability cannot flow in only one direction.
The State owes duties to the citizen.
The citizen also owes duties to the Republic.
A mature democracy should be capable of acknowledging both.
India’s Biggest Reform Is Not Another Law
India has no shortage of laws, regulators, commissions, anti-corruption agencies, election rules and administrative procedures.
But there is a limit to what legislation can accomplish.
No policeman can stand beside every citizen. No regulator can observe every cash transaction. No anti-corruption agency can witness every bribe. No Election Commission can decide why a voter pressed a particular button.
Ultimately, a functioning society depends upon millions of decisions made when nobody important is watching.
Do I offer the bribe or refuse?
Do I declare the transaction honestly?
Do I use influence to jump the queue?
Do I vote responsibly?
Do I condemn wrongdoing when the offender belongs to my political side?
Those decisions rarely make headlines.
Collectively, however, they determine the character of the Republic.
Before Changing India, Change the Indian
Eighty Independence Days should be a source of pride. They should also be an invitation to introspection.
We must continue demanding cleaner politics, better administration, faster courts, accountable institutions and professional journalism. But perhaps India’s next stage of democratic maturity requires us to stop treating the Republic merely as a service provider and ourselves merely as customers filing complaints.
Citizenship also means accepting inconvenience when the alternative is dishonest. Paying the lawful fine rather than bribing the officer. Completing the paperwork rather than finding a shortcut. Declaring the transaction. Voting. Rejecting a candidate who believes caste, religion or cash can purchase loyalty. Refusing to defend wrongdoing simply because the offender belongs to our political tribe.
India certainly needs better politicians, better bureaucrats, faster courts and better journalism.
But beneath all of them lies something even more fundamental.
India needs better citizenship.
For decades, we have asked what India should become for us. After 80 Independence Days, perhaps it is time to ask what we are prepared to become for India.
The country we complain about is not created only inside Parliament, government offices, courtrooms and television studios. It is created every day through our transactions, our votes, our compromises and our choices.
And if India truly wants its next great reform, it cannot only come from above.
It must begin from within.
