The statement suggests that despite the existence of institutional mechanisms and legal provisions to combat corruption, there is a pervasive 'policy of non-action' within Indian administration, hindering effective eradication. A critical examination reveals a complex reality where mechanisms exist, but their implementation and enforcement often fall short, leading to a perception of inaction.

Arguments Supporting the 'Policy of Non-Action' (or its effects):

1. Delayed Implementation of Key Reforms: A prime example is the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, which, despite being passed in 2013, faced significant delays in its operationalization and appointment of members. Similarly, the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, has seen limited effective implementation, leaving whistleblowers vulnerable.

2. Weak Enforcement and Low Conviction Rates: While laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in 2018), are robust on paper, their enforcement is often weak. Investigations can be slow, and prosecution rates, especially for high-profile cases, remain low. This creates a sense of impunity among corrupt officials.

3. Lack of Autonomy and Political Will: Anti-corruption bodies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) often face allegations of political interference, compromising their independence. The requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants, particularly at higher levels, can be misused to shield officials.

4. Bureaucratic Inertia and Resistance to Change: The administrative machinery itself can be resistant to reforms that enhance transparency and accountability. Vested interests within the bureaucracy can actively or passively obstruct anti-corruption initiatives.

5. Inadequate Resources and Manpower: Many anti-corruption agencies are understaffed, underfunded, and lack the necessary technical expertise and infrastructure to conduct thorough investigations, especially in complex cases involving financial fraud or cybercrime.

6. Procedural Hurdles and Lengthy Judicial Processes: The Indian legal system is notorious for its delays. Corruption cases often drag on for years, sometimes decades, leading to loss of evidence, witness fatigue, and a diminished deterrent effect.

Counter-Arguments and Measures Taken (to provide a critical balance):

1. Existence of Robust Institutional Frameworks: India has a multi-pronged approach to combating corruption, including the CVC, CBI, Lokpal, Lokayuktas, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and the Right to Information (RTI) Act. These institutions are designed to provide oversight and investigate corruption.

2. Comprehensive Legal Provisions: Beyond the Prevention of Corruption Act, other laws like the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (amended in 2016), the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, and the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, demonstrate legislative intent to tackle various forms of corruption.

3. Judicial Activism: Indian courts have, at times, played a proactive role in pushing for anti-corruption measures, issuing directives, and monitoring investigations, especially when executive action has been perceived as insufficient.

4. E-Governance and Digitalization: Initiatives like online services, direct benefit transfers (DBT), and digital payments aim to reduce human interface, discretion, and opportunities for corruption, thereby enhancing transparency and efficiency.

5. Role of Civil Society and Media: An active civil society and vigilant media have consistently highlighted corruption cases and advocated for stronger anti-corruption laws and their effective implementation, putting pressure on the administration.

Critical Examination/Synthesis: The 'policy of non-action' is not an explicit government policy but rather an outcome of systemic deficiencies, lack of political will, bureaucratic resistance, and implementation gaps. While the institutional and legal architecture to fight corruption is largely in place, its effectiveness is often undermined by a combination of factors: insufficient autonomy for anti-corruption bodies, delays in justice delivery, inadequate resources, and a culture that sometimes tolerates or even enables corruption. The challenge lies not in the absence of mechanisms or laws, but in their consistent, impartial, and vigorous application. Therefore, the statement holds a significant degree of truth in highlighting the gap between intent and action in India's fight against corruption.