New Delhi: One of the greatest thinkers of the modern era was a convicted felon. On April 17, 1621, Francis Bacon, the English philosopher, statesman, scientist and author, was fined 40,000 pounds. What was his crime? The lord chancellor, who was responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts, had accepted bribes from litigants.
In 1837 when Benjamin Disraeli got elected to the parliament, a lawyer from his constituency accused the future British prime minister of bribing his way to power. It was embarrassing no doubt but the accusation was the least of his worries. "His electors did not mind the first charge. They lived on bribes," writes biographer Robert Blake. Disraeli's real crime was that he had promised the lawyer a bribe - and not paid. "That was a much more serious matter."
Bribery was such a banal thing in Britain that Disraeli had nothing against it per se. He was just too cheap to pay up. In fact, in 1841 he dumped his original constituency and chose a cheaper seat with fewer voters requiring fewer bribes.
For nearly 200 years, Indians saw the British penchant for corruption up close. Virtually every British civil servant in India had at least one hand in the till. Governor Generals Robert Clive and Warren Hastings were both accused of massive theft. In 1757, Clive received a quarter of a million pounds (an astronomical amount of money in those days) as a reward for winning Bengal for the British. That bounty apparently wasn't enough and he proceeded to steal millions more from the Indians. At his trial, Clive said, with a dollop of chutzpah, that considering the wealth he had seen in India, he was "astounded" at his own moderation at not taking more.
This penchant for greed is indulgently corroborated by the influential Scottish philosopher and imperialist David Hume in his six-volume History of England: "The British conquerors in India directed their pursuits to one object exclusively, the acquisition of money. They considered in every transaction of war, peace or alliance what money could be drawn from the inhabitants. They pillaged not with the ferocity of soldiers but with the cool exactness of debtor and creditor. Before they planned aggression, they calculated the probable proceeds, the debts they might extinguish. They considered war with the natives merely a commercial adventure: by so much risk encountered a certain quantity of blood spilt, and a certain extent of territory desolated, great sums were to be gained. The sufferings of India attached no blame to the nation." Britain has had regular trysts with crooks.
27/05/19 Rakesh Krishnan/Business Today
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
In 1837 when Benjamin Disraeli got elected to the parliament, a lawyer from his constituency accused the future British prime minister of bribing his way to power. It was embarrassing no doubt but the accusation was the least of his worries. "His electors did not mind the first charge. They lived on bribes," writes biographer Robert Blake. Disraeli's real crime was that he had promised the lawyer a bribe - and not paid. "That was a much more serious matter."
Bribery was such a banal thing in Britain that Disraeli had nothing against it per se. He was just too cheap to pay up. In fact, in 1841 he dumped his original constituency and chose a cheaper seat with fewer voters requiring fewer bribes.
For nearly 200 years, Indians saw the British penchant for corruption up close. Virtually every British civil servant in India had at least one hand in the till. Governor Generals Robert Clive and Warren Hastings were both accused of massive theft. In 1757, Clive received a quarter of a million pounds (an astronomical amount of money in those days) as a reward for winning Bengal for the British. That bounty apparently wasn't enough and he proceeded to steal millions more from the Indians. At his trial, Clive said, with a dollop of chutzpah, that considering the wealth he had seen in India, he was "astounded" at his own moderation at not taking more.
This penchant for greed is indulgently corroborated by the influential Scottish philosopher and imperialist David Hume in his six-volume History of England: "The British conquerors in India directed their pursuits to one object exclusively, the acquisition of money. They considered in every transaction of war, peace or alliance what money could be drawn from the inhabitants. They pillaged not with the ferocity of soldiers but with the cool exactness of debtor and creditor. Before they planned aggression, they calculated the probable proceeds, the debts they might extinguish. They considered war with the natives merely a commercial adventure: by so much risk encountered a certain quantity of blood spilt, and a certain extent of territory desolated, great sums were to be gained. The sufferings of India attached no blame to the nation." Britain has had regular trysts with crooks.
27/05/19 Rakesh Krishnan/Business Today
0 comments:
Post a Comment