In acts of corruption, the focus is often only on the demand side of the equation, on public officials who abuse their office for private gain. Frequently, the supply side is given less attention. Those who pay bribes are sometimes depicted as innocent parties and victims of extortionary practices of wily public servants. Do you agree that 'collusive corruption', in which there is a willing bribe-giver, is a formidable challenge for institutions fighting corruption?

1. Responsibility of official to uphold integral work culture.
2. For probity in governance → uphold the right precedent.
3. Official is accountable to the government & the process.

Yet, the role of the giver of bribe is equally important -

1. Collusive corruption - bribe giver knows its wrong to give bribe → Dayanand Saraswati's knower

doer split

1. Bribe giver is violating Kantian categorical imperative → not universally allowable
2. Using wrong means for any work.

However, many times the bribe giver is actually innocent -

1. Officers catch files in the red tape → call for money to get work done.
2. Culture of corruption → attitude of "courtesy money".
3. Socialization flawed as consider little money as fine for corruption.

Way ahead

1. Both bribe giver and taker need to be punished → proportionately more to the taker
2. Integrity is about wholesomeness of character → little money not possible.
3. Attitudinal change via nukkad/natak.