I received this through an email forward and I totally accept it. The points mentioned have been on my mind for a very long time. The point where it is mentioned that Indians build temples in foreign countries I have been opposed to this same idea for a while now. Something I will try to pen down in a different post. Read along for this analysis.
Corruption in India is a cultural aspect.
Indians seem to think nothing peculiar about corruption.
It is everywhere.
Indians tolerate corrupt individuals rather than correct them.
No race can be congenitally corrupt.
But can a race be corrupted by its culture?
To know why Indians are corrupt, look at their patterns and practices.
Religion is transactional in India.
Indians give God cash and anticipate an out-of-turn reward.
Such a plea acknowledges that favors are needed for the undeserving.
In the world outside the temple walls, such a transaction is named- “bribe”.
A wealthy Indian gives not cash to temples, but gold crowns and such baubles.
His gifts cannot feed the poor. His pay-off is for God.
He thinks it will be wasted if it goes to a needy man.
In June 2009, The Hindu published a report of Karnataka minister G. Janardhan Reddy gifting a crown of gold and diamonds worth Rs 45 crore to Tirupati.
India’s temples collect so much that they don't know what to do with it.
Billions are gathering dust in temple vaults.
When Europeans came to India they built schools.
When Indians go to Europe & USA, they build temples. (will write about my opinions on this in a different post)
Indians believe that if God accepts money for his favors, then nothing is wrong in doing the same thing. This is why Indians are so easily corruptible.
Indian culture accommodates such transactions morally.
There is no real stigma. An utterly corrupt Jaya Lalita can make a comeback, just unthinkable in the West.
Indian moral ambiguity towards corruption is visible in its history.
Indian history tells of the capture of cities and kingdoms after guards were paid off to open the gates, and commanders paid off to surrender.
This is unique to India.
Indians' corrupt nature has meant limited warfare on the subcontinent.
It is striking how little Indians have actually fought compared to ancient Greece and modern Europe.
The Turks’ battles with Nadir Shah were vicious and fought to the finish.
In India fighting wasn't needed, bribing was enough to see off armies.
Any invader willing to spend cash could brush aside India’s kings, no matter how many tens of thousands soldiers were in their infantry.
Little resistance was given by the Indians at the “Battle” of Plassey.
Clive paid off Mir Jaffar and all of Bengal folded to an army of 3,000.
There was always a financial exchange to taking Indian forts.
Golconda was captured in 1687 after the secret back door was left open.
The Raja of Srinagar gave up Dara Shikoh’s son Sulaiman to Aurangzeb after receiving a bribe.
There are many cases where Indians participated on a large scale in treason due to bribery.
Question is: Why Indians have a transactional culture while other 'civilized' nations don't?
Indians do not believe in the theory that they all can rise if each of them behaves morally, because that is not the message of their faith.
Their caste system separates them.
They don't believe that all men are equal.
This resulted in their division and migration to other religions.
Many Hindus started their own faith like Sikh, Jain, Buddha and many converted to Christianity and Islam.
The result is that Indians don't trust one another.
There are no Indians in India; there are Hindus, Christians, Muslims and what not.
Indians forget that 400 years ago they all belonged to one faith.
This division evolved an unhealthy culture.
The inequality has resulted in a corrupt society.
In India everyone is thus against everyone else, except God and even he must be bribed.