Corruption, in India’s highly charged political environment, has ceased to be only a question of governance – in fact, it has become a weapon. In 2024 Lok Sabha elections, BJP positioned itself as the marshall of the anti-corruption campaign in the entire country and accountability became their main election slogan. In West Bengal, where each of the 42 parliamentary seats was a duel of ideology and influence, the slogan was strong and decisive: purify the system.
But beneath the surface of this moral crusade lies a growing and uncomfortable question: why does the application of anti-corruption scrutiny appear so uneven depending on who is in power?
In fact, the West Bengal teacher recruitment scam is considered by many as one of the deepest institutional breakdowns of the state in recent times. Judicial interventions revealed serious mismatches with the procedures in a series of large-scale recruitments which have now been called off by the courts. So, for thousands of candidates, the scandal wasn’t merely their entry into the system but also their plans and dreams.
Those on the other side argue though that scandals in opposition-run states are highlighted so much and shown as the main examples of systemic corruption, while the same depth of investigation of the issues and the resulting expose do not occur when the politics is favourable. On a national scale, the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation have expanded their operations over the last ten years. From 2014 to 2024, the number of financial and corruption-related investigations has jumped in various states.
That said, opposition leaders and quite a few analysts maintain that the manner of these investigations often hints at a bias, where the opposition members are under the spotlight of investigation very intensively, whereas the friends of the ruling power, less frequently, are the ones investigated. Whether it is an accident or a plan, the notion of selective enforcement politically has become very explosive.
This perception only gets stronger when we consider the controversies related to the electoral integrity. The report on the Alipore incident, in which close to 4,000 Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and election materials were consumed by fire, led to a heated political argument. The opposition called for a demand for independent inquiries, casting doubts about the method of storage and the transparency of the institutions. The Election Commission of India, which is responsible for ensuring the credibility of elections, was in the center of two opposing narratives- one was talking about the accident and the other was suggesting a neglect of the system.
At the same time, the political tension rose even more after the allegation by West Bengal Ex Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee that more than 100 seats had been “stolen” and that the election result was “murder of democracy.” The ruling party refuted the charges totally, but the uproar exposed a serious breakdown of trust not only among the political players but also the institutions. The Indian Supreme Court, the last resort for resolving electoral and constitutional issues, is still the place of the ultimate test for such disagreements. Though, even the intervention of the judiciary cannot completely bring down the political heat beyond the courtroom.
The picture that comes out of this scenario is not just a rivalry of political parties but a struggle of two different stories. In this case, going after corruption even becomes a matter of using it for one’s own political advantage. Actually, each inquiry is given prominence in the news, the campaign is carried out by making the most of the accusations, and the legitimacy of the institutions is a matter to be correlated to the one that has the most support in the struggle for power.
The risk along this path is far from the exclusive concern of one party or state only. It is really about the slow wearing away of people’s belief in the impartiality of democratic institutions as such. When responsibility is carried out in a patchy way, fairness starts to seem a matter of choice. And as fairness becomes a matter of choice, democracy very soon is perceived as something that can be bargained for rather than a right that is simply accepted.
In the end, the scenario is not about corruption in Indian politics, which obviously does exist. The actual primary concern is whether the eradication of corruption is in fact neutral in character, or more and more influenced by the one who has the power at that particular time. The answer to this question must be given without any deviations for India’s anti-corruption politics to not only survive but also thrive in the aspects of being both a reform and a political theatre.
