arnab wrote:In other words - the Bofors purchase (an excellent gun btw, which underwent extensive tests in Indian conditions. This was before the T-90 purchase) could not be a case of corruption, since there was no DPP at the time which specified that middle men couldn't be used to seal a deal
What is this love of other words? Why not stick to the original posters original words?
Once more and slowly -- The issue of corruption and purchase decisions are not necessarily linked. The DPP codidfied in 2004, aims to streamline the same, and codify the process, but is no guarantee that hanky panky wont happen, like we saw in C 17 case. So yes systems can be strengthend and should be, but directly causality is not guaranteed.
One can have corruption even with trials, like in Bofors case.
One can have no trials and no corruption -- T 90, Su 30 etc etc.
One can have no trials and corruption. -- Tatra.
Of course any one (like a Kerjirwal) can claim corruption without proof, without a CAG report, without a report from any public oversight committee, without a shred of evidence -- it goes these days. But doesnt make that kite flying accurate.