History of anti-corruption measures

Corruption has assumed alarming proportions despite the fact that efforts to eliminate this vice took start in 1947 the very year of the birth of Pakistan. Under the Anti-corruption Act of 1947, anti-corruption courts were set up which themselves turned out to be agents corruption. Why it happened & so and what actions were taken against those who engineered the failure of these courts? No one cared to explain in the seminar. In pursuance of the protests of the common man who suffered at the hands of the corrupt at all levels, Ehtasab Commission was created and a year later Ehtasab Bureau was set up to supplement the Commission. Both failed for various reasons. What were the reasons of their failure, no one cared to probe into. What actions were taken against those who ensured the unfortunate end of the Commission and the Bureau, no one cared to mention.

The next major action to fight corruption was the replacement of Ehtasab Bureau by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in November 1999. This powerful body has now been it existence for about six year. How much of corruption it has managed to control during this period? This was indicated by S.M. Zafar’s statement mentioned above, which is a very sad reflection on the performance of NAB. Instead of scaling it down the NAB has perhaps become instrumental in converting a low intensity storm in to a devastating holocaust. One of approachs to stem corruption is to get hold of a big fish, make it cough out part of the boot. has gobbled and let it go. The result is that instead of discouraging corruption it has virtual, encouraged it. The offender surrenders part of the ill-gotten wealth in favour of the government and keeps the rest of it as his legitimate share. He has not been subjected to any kind punishment. This sets a road map for the corrupt who are engaged in multi-billion worth of ma. practices to go ahead confidently with the only fear that eventually they might have to share par of their grabbed wealth with the government, which they would happily prefer to do. The question is: how far this approach of NAB is morally, ethically, legally and religiously justified and how much of the corruption it has been able to control through such compromises? What right the government has over this black money that it appropriates through ignoble act of give and take with looters of nation’s wealth. Isn’t it a case fit for the Supreme Court to take ‘Su moto’ action? With this sort of negative approach, NAB is bound to fail and meet the unfortunate fate o f its predecessors.