“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It is this canonical (= set as a rule) statement of a political philosopher that lies at the root of this notion that power always corrupts. But I feel that as an idea or a concept it needs to be qualified (= made less severe).
Power is stored-up energy, and English equivalent of our “Shakti”. In our religion it is the primal seat of all kinds of activities, physical, moral or spiritual. In science, too, it is source suprenfe of all projects. It is not necessary to stretch the analogy (= parallelism) too far, as it is a self-evident truth.
Now, if power be such a thing, in other words if it is the basis of all positive creations, how can it be a corrupting agent? Is there not a fallacy (= false logic) in the argument?
The above, however, can be traced to its logical source: power or energy is not self-creative. (Here, we have to rule out the faith that God is self-creative, as we are discussing worldly behavior). It is entrusted to men, agents, institutions for various purposes. Naturally, such object like an individual, a group, a society or a political party-to name only a few-are the custodians of power. Therefore, power, as such, can never be a corrupting element; it is the user that has to account for any such thing.
From my analysis, so far, I infer (= conclude) that the term ‘Power’ in the celebrated quotation is metonymic: that is, the object referred to means the authority that wields or uses the power. We can now deal with the matter better.
‘Power’ and ‘pelf’ (= wealth) are, today, almost a kind of hendiadys. [This latter is a rhetorical expression where two words of equal significance are joined in a tag, like ‘stress and strain’.] I say it because today power leads to a greed for pelf and vice- So, versa. They are, in fact, the two sides of a medal. The reason, however, is not far to seek. Both imply grandeur, show, dominance and what not. The great poets or savants have warned against this bent since time immemorial. But it is a hard truth that selfish passion dies hard. In one of his sonnets the immortal bard of England (Shakespeare) says that it is good to have a giant’s strength, but it is not good to use it like a giant. We know how Rabindranath Tagore converted wealth into charity. It is a laudable (= praiseworthy) event for boys like us who look forward to the future with any dream. When he got the famous Nobel prize, the fabulous (= unbelievable) sum became a problem for him. He was of saintly habits and he was at a loss to decide what he should do with the money. At last he opened with it a Bank to advance agricultural loan to the tillers of his ‘zamindary‘, charging only a nominal interest. The tillers were his ryats (= peasants), who felt relieved. For lack of resources these ryats had to pawn (= mortgage) their ornaments to pawnbrokers who behaved with them like tyrants. Tagore’s action freed them from a cruel bondage.
The above example can serve as an argument to prove my analysis that, whether it is ‘power’ or it is ‘pelf’; it is the a agent that counts. A parallel example, where Power Beneficent (= a powerful but kind person) can work miracles, can be drawn from our ancient King Ashoka. He turned the levers of power to spread the message of the Lord Buddha through the length and breadth of his vast kingdom.
In fact the bad name that hangs on ‘power’ is due to the dominance of corrupt politics. History is littered (= scattered with wasteful objects) with instances of corruption of power. The human race have already experienced two wasteful wars. We are still bearing the brunt of power lust that has given our country this partition into India and Pakistan. In one convocation address Jawaharlal Nehru had made a very accurate remark. He had said that the function of a politician is, first and last, to administer, to govern the various forces of a nation towards a peaceful and harmonious end. He had also said that if a nation become self-regulated (-disciplined by itself), the politician ceases to function.
I was charmed and inspired to read that speech. But as I deeply ponder on the statement, I am struck by the note of contradiction. Does not the partition of our motherland wherein everyone lived like brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-owe itself to power politics? Again, has not a politician, today, become more concerned with his personal and selfish interests than even an ordinary man?
To conclude, it seems to be an irony of fate for the human race. Today entrusted power makes demi-god of even a trite (= insignificant) individual and turns him into a tyrant of power. This universal equation, lends strength today, to the theme ‘Power Corrupts’.
