As India navigates the mid-2020s, the electorate’s relationship with graft is evolving from passive resignation to a complex mix of digital scrutiny and transactional pragmatism.

As the dust settles on a tumultuous year for South Asia, India stands as an island of relative political stability. Yet, beneath macroeconomic optimism and geostrategic posturing, an old, persistent malaise continues to corrode the structural integrity of the republic: political corruption. For decades, the Indian voter’s relationship with corruption was defined by a cynical fatalism—a belief that hamam mein sab nange hain (everyone is naked in the bathhouse). However, a subtle but profound shift is underway. As we stand on the threshold of 2026, the nature of corruption is changing, but more importantly, the public’s perception of it is undergoing a digital-age metamorphosis. The “chalta hai” attitude is being replaced not necessarily by moral outrage, but by a sharp, transactional, and often cynical accounting of governance.

Persistence of the scourge:

To understand the changing perception, one must first acknowledge the changing anatomy of the beast. Political corruption in India has graduated from the crude “briefcase politics” of the 1990s to sophisticated financial engineering. The Supreme Court’s striking down of the Electoral Bonds scheme in 2024 was a watershed moment, yet the opacity of political funding remains the elephant in the room. Data from 2025 reveals that while the instruments have changed—shifting toward electoral trusts and opaque corporate donations—the asymmetry remains. The ruling dispensations, both at the Centre and in States, continue to corner the lion’s share of resources, creating an uneven playing field that fundamentally distorts democratic competition.

This grand corruption - the nexus between policy-making and capital - often remains invisible to the daily wage earner. However, it is the “petty corruption” of the interface between the citizens and the state that has traditionally driven public anger. Here, technology has been a disruptor. The aggressive push for Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) and digitization of public services has undoubtedly reduced leakage in welfare schemes. The middleman who siphoned off pensions or ration supplies is getting obsolete. For a significant section of the electorate, this reduction in daily friction is conflated with a reduction in corruption overall.

Legal labyrinth and public trust:

However, this perception of cleanliness is frequently shattered by the conduct of the political class itself. The recent judicial tussles, such as the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Kuldeep Singh Sengar case regarding the definition of a public servant, highlight the precarious nature of accountability. When high courts split hairs over whether an elected MLA falls under the ambit of anti-corruption or child protection laws based on technicalities, the message sent to the public is devastating. It reinforces the belief that the law is a spider’s web—catching the small flies while letting the hornets tear through.

Chhattisgarh government’s move in late 2025 to abolish the colonial ‘guard of honour’ for ministers was a symbolic but potent acknowledgment of this resentment. The modern Indian citizens are asking a fundamental question: If we are the masters in a democracy, why do our servants live like kings?

The ‘transactional’ voter:

Perhaps the most significant shift is in the psychology of the voter. We are witnessing the rise of the ‘transactional voter.” In the past, corruption charges could bring down governments—the Bofors scandal or the India against corruption movement of 2011 are prime examples. Today, however, corruption allegations often fail to stick electorally.

The answer lies in a new social contract. The electorate, battered by inflation and employment anxiety, has increasingly decoupled “personal honesty” from “political efficacy.” A leader accused of amassing wealth is often forgiven if they are seen as delivering tangible goods—roads, bridges, welfare cheques, or cultural pride. Corruption is no longer viewed as a moral failing but as an overhead cost of doing business. The voter thinks: “If they are all corrupt, I might as well vote for the one who shares the spoils with me.”

This normalization is dangerous. It suggests that the electorate has internalized corruption as an immutable feature of the state, shifting their focus from “eradicating graft” to “navigating it”.

The Gen Z digital reckoning:

If the older generation has become transactional, the younger generation—Gen Z—is becoming the wild card. Born into a digital-first world, their perception of corruption is not shaped by newspapers or TV debates but by memes, Instagram reels, and leaked WhatsApp chats. For them, corruption is not just financial; it is the corruption of opportunity.

When the public sees a politician accused of corruption joining the ruling coalition and suddenly finds the files dusted and stored away, the credibility of the “fight against corruption” evaporates.

Institutional hygiene:

So, where does India go from here? The path to changing perception lies in structural, not just optical, reform.

First, the funding of elections needs radical transparency. As long as the source of political money remains hidden, the public will rightly assume that policy is for sale. The Election Commission must be empowered to audit party finances with the rigor applied to public limited companies.

Second, the judicial system must prioritize cases involving elected representatives. Special fast-track courts for legislators must be fast.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the definition of corruption must expand in public discourse. It is not just about bribes; it is about the decay of institutions.

The Indian voter is watching, not with the wide-eyed innocence of the past, but with a narrow-eyed scrutiny. They are willing to tolerate some rot for the sake of development, but their patience is not infinite. The hygiene of democracy depends not just on cleaning the floor, but on ensuring the people believe the mop is clean.

(The author is former OSD to former Union Civil Aviation Minister)