According

EDITORIAL
Moral Intelligence
Austerity, purity, fellow-feeling, and truth are
the four qualities of dharma, represented by the
four feet of your bull-form. Your three feet have
been cut off, O Dharma, by the three forces of
Adharma—austerity by egotism, purity by attachments,
and fellow-feelings by blinding passions. O
Dharma! Now there remains only one of your feet,
namely truth, to sustain you. The evil spirit of Kali
[Yuga], flourishing on untruth, is now out to cut
off that foot also.
—Parikshit to Dharma
Corruption is a major roadblock to
progress in the majority of developing
countries, and Indian society continues to
be particularly hamstrung by it. India ranks a dismal
eighty-fifth on the global corruption perception
index and reports suggest that over 20,000
crore rupees are annually given in bribes by Indians.
Besides large scams involving major government
agencies as well as the corporate sector and individual
operators, what has been particularly worrying
is the widespread corruption faced by ordinary
individuals on a day-to-day basis which has a particularly
negative impact on society’s moral fibre.
The moral disengagement of otherwise religious
people is a particularly intriguing aspect of Indian
society. Social psychologists believe that persistence
of feudal ways—with primacy of allegiance
to relations and acquaintances, deference to hierarchy,
and the traditional practice of sharing gifts
and favours—is one of the reasons for corrupt behaviour.
Thus many Indians may feel greater guilt
in not helping their relations secure a job than in
using corrupt practices to do so.
It has also been suggested that there are significant
cultural differences in perceptions of corruption.
Mahathir Muhammad observed that
‘Asians generally pursue their goals with others in
PB August 2009
ways which are subtle, indirect, modulated, devious,
non-judgemental, non-moralistic, and nonconfrontational.
Australians, in contrast, are the
most direct, blunt, outspoken, some would say insensitive,
people in the English speaking world.’
Daniel Goleman writes: ‘Culture is a basket of
frames. To the degree that frames differ from culture
to culture, contacts between people from different
lands can be sticky. For example, bribery is a
normal part of doing business in much of the world,
a fact that makes Americans indignant. But Americans
have a style of frank openness that Mexicans
may regard as weakness or treachery, that Japanese
may see as boorish and crude. In many Asian countries,
“no” is used little; “yes” can mean yes, no, or
perhaps. … In India, people can’t bear to bring bad
news, so they lie: the train they say, is “just coming”,
when in fact it is five hours late.’
Non-Westerners have also been quick ‘to point
to the gaps between Western principle and Western
action. Hypocrisy, double standards, and “but nots”
are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy
is promoted but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists
to power; non-proliferation is preached for
Iran and Iraq but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir
of economic growth but not for agriculture; human
rights are an issue with China but not with Saudi
Arabia. … Double standards in practice are the unavoidable
price of universal standards of principle.’
It would appear that realpolitik and corporate
pragmatism render all moral considerations contingent
on the possibility of immediate gains and that
universal moral principles are a mere illusion. But a
closer look at some of the important success stories
in business belies this stereotype.
The Tatas have built a reputation for business
integrity and social concern. Ratan Tata has this to
453