The Jan Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare, and Baba Ramdev

[chetak]

Received by email

Unable to post the chart as the formatting is lost during the paste.

A pdf link is provided at the end of this post


Govt’s Lokpal Bill Vs Jan Lokpal Bill: Comparative Chart


Rather than gunning for the corrupt and corruption, government’s Lokpal seems to be gunning for those who complain against corruption.

How will Government’s Lokpal work?

Suppose some citizen files a complaint to Lokpal against some corrupt government servant.
Before the investigations actually start, the government servant can file a cross complaint against the citizen straight to the special court, without any preliminary enquiry by any agency, that the complaint is false or frivolous. The government will provide free advocate to the government servant to file this case. The citizen will have to defend himself on his own!
Then there is stiffer punishment for the complainant than the corrupt government servant. If the Special Court concludes that the complaint is frivolous or false, the citizen faces a minimum of two years of punishment. But if the corruption charges against government servant are proved, there is a minimum of six months of punishment for the corrupt government servant!
Government’s Lokpal will have jurisdiction over all NGOs in the country but it will have jurisdiction over less then o.5% of all government employees.
Government argued that the Lokpal would get overwhelmed with too many cases if all public servants were brought under its ambit. So, government has restricted its jurisdiction only to 65,000 Group A officers. Also, state employees will not be covered by Lokpal. There are 4 million central government employees and 8 million state government employees.
In sharp contrast, all NGOs are covered under government’s Lokpal, small or big, whether in state or centre. Even unregistered groups of people in remote villages are covered under the ambit of Lokpal. So, in a remote village, if a group of youngsters detect corruption in panchayat works using RTI, the youngsters can be hauled up by Lokpal but Lokpal would not have jurisdiction over Sarpanch, BDO or their corruption.
Whereas Lokpal would not have jurisdiction over Delhi government officials, it would have jurisdiction over all RWAs in Delhi. All small neighborhood groups who raise donations to do Ramlila or Durga Puja would be under Lokpal’s scanner.
Lokpal could haul up activists from any of the farmers, labour, anti-corruption, land, tribal or any other movements. All the movements – whether registered or not, are under the jurisdiction of Lokpal.
There are 4.3 lakh registered NGOs. But there would be several million unregistered groups across the country. Lokpal would have jurisdiction over all of them.
No one can dispute the fact that corruption in NGOs needs to be addressed. But how can you leave most public servants out of Lokpal’s purview but bring NGOs upto village level within its purview?


You can access the PDF from here.

[Muppalla]

muppalla,
but is that (free money) based power distribution sustainable? large sections of the population will not be able to compete for positions of power. that will create discontentment.

^^^ Must agree with shaardula here.

More immediate is the concern that there's really no way to keep phoren money and influence away. Our bourses run on black money brought back in via P-notes. Our paper currency printing system is itself mortgaged to phoren vendors for everything from raw materials (paper, ink, template designs) and the actual printing process to fraud detection machines.

Heck, we saw what an investment of a mere few 100 million USD did for cheena in clintoon's campaign back in the early 90s. Gifted them pervasive access to sensitive tech and facilities (W88 anyone?) and market access (WTO, US markets) and what not. How will we prevent our eagerly venal netas from being bought out lock stock and barrel for a few dollahs more, eh?

agreed with the disadvantages of power == more money. The fear may be that the government will become by and for more moneyed folks. We will have some balance in the form of existing SC ST reservations in LS seats. Another balance comes from whoever spends money will still have to get the votes of the poorer sections and hence they just cannot neglect the poverty or such constituency. In addition, as you allow even surrogates to spend money on behalf of the contesting candidate, even a poor fellow can have certain consessions to rich folks so that they can spend on his behalf. Probably deal making. All road contracts in my constituency, I will strive to get it to your company if you spend for me. If you do not my poor people will not vote for you.

In a straight contest where there are no splinter votes, and when the candidates cannot afford to be non-inclusive then the damage due to moneyed folks or money spending is not that fatal IMHO. We still need to put rules like the money can be unlimited but should be legal money and that should be used in legitimate activities.

Alternatively, if we try to limit the spending, there is no way in the world you will be able to strictly implement. If the enforcement people find ten ways to stop money, the politicians will find another 1000 ways to bring the black money to elections. These restrictions are only useful to do a witchhunt on those who cannot influnce the system.

I somehow still see lesser the restrictions it may be better inspite of the few disadvantages.

Added later - Hari, there should be no foriegn money. Clinton's fund was fradulent and legal from a backdoor. Such things should be handled by the enforcement agencies.

[somnath]

Heck, we saw what an investment of a mere few 100 million USD did for cheena in clintoon's campaign back in the early 90s. Gifted them pervasive access to sensitive tech and facilities (W88 anyone?) and market access (WTO, US markets) and what not. How will we prevent our eagerly venal netas from being bought out lock stock and barrel for a few dollahs more, eh?

How do we prevent it even today? the rumoured spend by seriosu candidate in a large Lok Sabha constituency is 100 crores..The limit is 25 lacs or some such - no one's ever been disqualified...They should lift the cap completely, and then get candidates to report every single paisa that they spend...With better vigilence, it should make sources of campaign funding totally transparent..

On the question of "first past the post"..

You are very good in changing what is said by someone.

I am confused.."strategy these days is to find a way to win with just 15% of votes polled" is not the same as "get 15% and win?"..Anyways..

In the earlier days until Rajiv Gandhi times, INC used to have a decent percentage of votes even under the voting block using KHAM. The K part is different in different state and that is the leadership (mostly feudal portions of erstwhile India) which also facilitated rest of the HAM.

KHAM is a Gujarat concept - brought around by Chimanbhai Mehta...In various states, the INC "rainbow" looked different...In UP/Bihar, it was the brahmin/dalit/muslim combine..In Mah, it was the Maratha/Dalit/Muslim....If you have to take broad trends, INC's social coalition was the dalit/muslim/brahmin in most places....
But that did not guarantee them 50% votes ever...But the point on an elborate CT by INC is very far fetched...

Now the new strategy seems to be divide the rest of the electorate by funding multiple caste parties so that every party that it funds can get 8 to 10% of votes while it get its base

The biggest loser in the post-Mandal/Mandir splintering has been the INC, as its rainbow coalition withered away...Unlikely they would cause their own downfall, isnt it?

Even in terms of resources, today INC has no such monopoly...If they did, then BJP wont be matching INC rupee to rupee in general elections...Or BSP outspending it in UP...

Anyway, a discuission around electoral reforms cannot be confined to CTs by/against a specific party..The 50% vote idea is very reasonable, my questions are around execution....We could end up having eac election in a 5-6 month cycle...

Rather than gunning for the corrupt and corruption, government’s Lokpal seems to be gunning for those who complain against corruption.

How will Government’s Lokpal work?

This article is quite confusing..First up,

the latest draft (2.3) of the Bill is here - was posted before..
http://www.persmin.nic.in/Lokpal/DraftL ... ll2011.pdf

Suppose some citizen files a complaint to Lokpal against some corrupt government servant.
Before the investigations actually start, the government servant can file a cross complaint against the citizen straight to the special court, without any preliminary enquiry by any agency, that the complaint is false or frivolous. The government will provide free advocate to the government servant to file this case. The citizen will have to defend himself on his own

Where is this provision given? Any complaint will be investigated by the Lokpal for establishment of prima facie case..The public servant is only given an opportunity to be heard by the Lokpal...(Chapter VII of the draft)..

Government’s Lokpal will have jurisdiction over all NGOs in the country but it will have jurisdiction over less then o.5% of all government employees

The former is ocmpletely wrong - Lokpal deals only with public servants, how do NGOs come into the pic?

About restricting the mandate to the "top" public servatns, its a good, practical step...there is an entire elaborate infrastructure - department vigilence, police, CBI, courts to tackle various types of corruption...If Lokpal were to be responsible for every pandu taking a 100 rupee traffic violation bribe, then it would have to replicate the whole thing...the rea deal is really cases like 2G, in terms of both impact as well as optics...We would rather have the Lokpal concentrate on the big fish....I really dont understand this fetish for universal coverage..

There are 4.3 lakh registered NGOs. But there would be several million unregistered groups across the country. Lokpal would have jurisdiction over all of them.

Again, where did this come from?

[devesh]

the Mandal and reservation stuff was introduced just when Vajpayee/Advani combo was ramping up the Ayodhya movement. to ensure that any possible broader Hindu coalition didn't get consolidated under Hindutva, reservations, etc were invented. BJP still carved a base for itself. but without the divisive politics, BJP had the chance to form an even broader base of political support. Reservations (Mandal) effectively shafted any Hindu consolidation. it was a master stroke. once again, INC is not a superhuman. but it was a calculated move to bring in caste based politics to the forefront. the rest is history.

[somnath]

the Mandal and reservation stuff was introduced just when Vajpayee/Advani combo was ramping up the Ayodhya movement. to ensure that any possible broader Hindu coalition didn't get consolidated under Hindutva, reservations, etc were invented

Thats quite a leap of historical interpretation...The Ayodhya "movement" started pretty much with Rajiv andhi's unlockign of the gates...And BJP rode that to go from 2 to 84 in 1989....Mandal, on the other hand, was hardly an INC creation...It was a panic reaction from VP Singh to upend the challenege from Devi Lal..INC was as taken aback by it as anyone else...Of course, VP Singh lost out too - laws of unintended consequences...

[devesh]

Thats quite a leap of historical interpretation...The Ayodhya "movement" started pretty much with Rajiv andhi's unlockign of the gates...And BJP rode that to go from 2 to 84 in 1989....Mandal, on the other hand, was hardly an INC creation...It was a panic reaction from VP Singh to upend the challenege from Devi Lal..INC was as taken aback by it as anyone else...Of course, VP Singh lost out too - laws of unintended consequences...

any empirical proofs of the bolded part? it's simply an assertion without any proof? and later on, during the 90's and in UPA-I and II, INC has shown a consistent tendency to milk the reservation phenomenon. the very first controversy of UPA-I was Arjun Singh's OBC reservations. it was a ploy to dip into BJP's and other parties' vote banks like Mulayam, Nitish, TDP, etc.

[somnath]

any empirical proofs of the bolded part? it's simply an assertion without any proof

Look at INC's track record in "mandal territories" right after mandal - Bihar and UP...They got wiped out, and has still not recovered (though there have been some progress in 2008)...They would have hardly brought about mandal to hasten their own downfall in India's "richest" electoral states! And if they thought it would be a good idea, why wait for mortal enemy (and then BJP ally!) VP singh to do it? They should have done it in 1989, when they were clearly fighting with their backs to the wall...

[Arjun]

Talks of revolution and usurpation of the Constitution are not commensurate with aims to reduce or eliminate corruption. On the contrary that line of thought may end up creating tremendous unintended bureaucracy, unaccountable power structures and may not touch the mechanisms that actually perpetuate corruption. So we have to be very careful in giving support to people who are riding on this wave of disgust.

Hi Harbansji,

Certainly I'm in synch with the thought that there needs to be a 'touchstone' of sorts to determine whether a person or his / her views are anarchist or are part of the solution towards improving the system.

The touchstone I would use is the following-

1. Governance to be based on true liberal and democratic principles. Liberal here would mean based on the underlying principles of freedom of choice and checks and balances that limit unrestrained & concentrated power. Democratic would mean that the system should appropriately reflect the will of the citizens.

2. Economic betterment and growth as a central goal of the system

3. Governance based on principles of accountability, transparency, justice & meritocracy

4. The governance system should be outcome and result oriented, ie there needs to be a process to track if the objectives of the system are being met appropriately and an inbuilt incentive / disincentive mechanism for the system to improve performance.

As long as any person signs up to the above, I don't care what other language or threats he uses...his views need to be heard with respect. If a person does not sign up to the above - he is just being an anarchist.

As far as the dynasty goes, there's a huge improvement from the 1st 40 years of independence and the last 20 years. The 1st 40: The dynasty ruled almost all the time and initiated nil reform. We wallowed under the License raj. The last 20 the dynasty max has ruled, that too by proxy 7 or 8 years. So there has been an improvement on that front, you cannot deny

The last 20 years have been phenomenally better than the first 40. There's no question about that. But I would be extremely chary about concluding that a continuously improving trend has been established either on economy or on governance or on the presence of the Dynasty. I do think unless society takes an activist stance on the latter two fronts - there is not going to be any continuous improvement and on the contrary we could see regression on some of these parameters.

For example - I think it was a matter of extreme luck for the country that the Dynasty was not in charge in the early nineties during the liberalization phase - I would place my bets on the Dynasty having scuttled whatever liberalization we have had so far if they had indeed been in charge.

[Arjun]

The former is ocmpletely wrong - Lokpal deals only with public servants, how do NGOs come into the pic?

I think Clause 17(e) refers to NGOs.

[Arjun]

Perhaps OT here, but a good opinion piece from SA Aiyar today....reminds us of the real hero of India's liberalization.

Unsung hero of the India story
SA Aiyar
26 June 2011, 04:33 AM IST

Twenty years ago, Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister and initiated economic reforms that transformed India. The Congress party doesn’t want to remember him: it is based entirely on loyalty to the Gandhi family, and Rao was not a family member. But the nation should remember Rao as the man who changed India, and the world too.

In June 1991, India was seen globally as a bottomless pit for foreign aid. It had exhausted an IMF loan taken six months earlier and so was desperate. Nobody imagined that, 20 years later, India would be called an emerging superpower, backed by the US to join the UN Security Council, and poised to overtake China as the world’s fastest growing economy.

For three decades after Independence, India followed inward looking socialist policies aiming at public sector dominance. The licence-permit raj mandated government clearance to produce, import or innovate. If you were productive enough to create something new or produce more from existing machinery, you faced imprisonment for the dreadful crime of exceeding licensed capacity.

Socialism reached its zenith in the garibi hatao phase of Indira Gandhi (1969-77), when several industries were nationalized and income tax went up to 97.75%. This produced neither fast growth nor social justice. GDP growth remained stuck at 3.5% per year, half the rate in Japan and the Asian tigers. India’s social indicators were dismal, often worse than in Africa. Poverty did not fall at all despite three decades of independence.

In the 1980s, creeping economic liberalization plus a government-spending spree saw GDP growth rise to 5.5%. But the spending spree was based on unsustainable foreign borrowing, and ended in tears in 1991.

When Rao assumed office, the once-admired Soviet model was collapsing. Meanwhile, Deng had transformed China through market-oriented reforms. Rao opted for market reforms too. He was no free market ideologue like Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher: he talked of the middle path. His model was Willy Brandt of Germany.

His master stroke was to appoint Manmohan Singh as finance minister. Rao wanted a non-political reformer at the centre of decision-making, who could be backed or dumped as required. He presented Singh as the spearhead of reform while he himself advocated a middle path. Yet, ultimately, it was his vision that Singh executed.

In his first month in office, the rupee was devalued. There followed the virtual abolition of industrial licensing and MRTP clearance. At one stroke, the biggest hurdles to industrial expansion disappeared. Who was the industry minister who initiated these revolutionary reforms? Narasimha Rao himself! He held the industry portfolio too.

Yet he did not want draw attention to himself. So he ingeniously made the delicensing announcement on the morning of the day Manmohan Singh was presenting his first Budget. The media clubbed the Budget and delicensing stories together as one composite reform story. In the public mind, Manmohan Singh was seen as the liberalizer, while Rao stayed in the background.

Singh initiated the gradual reduction of import duties, income tax and corporate tax. Foreign investment was gradually liberalized. Imports of technology were freed. Yet the overall government approach was anything but radically reformist. When bank staff threatened to go on strike, Rao assured them that there would be no bank privatization or staff reforms. When farmers threatened to take to the streets, Rao assured them there would be no opening up of Indian agriculture.

The IMF and World Bank believed that when a country went bust, that was the best time for painful reforms like labour reforms. However, Rao took the very opposite line. He focused on reforms that would produce the least mass losers (such as industrial delicensing) and yet produced 7.5% growth in the mid-1990s. These gave reforms a good name, and ensured their continuance even when Opposition parties later came to power.

In the 2000s, the cumulative effect of gradual reform finally made India an 8.5% miracle growth economy. Rao got no glory for this. He had lost the 1996 election amidst charges of buying the support of JMM legislators. This led to his exit as Congress chief. Although he was eventually exonerated by the courts, he died a political nobody.

How unjust! He deserves a high place in economic history for challenging the Bank-IMF approach on painful austerity, and focusing instead on a few key changes that produced fast growth with minimum pain. The World Bank itself later changed its policy and started targeting “binding constraints” (like industrial licensing)

Manmohan Singh said repeatedly that he could have achieved nothing without Rao’s backing. Today, 20 years after the start of India’s economic miracle, let us toast India’s most underrated Prime Minister — Narasimha Rao.

[harbans]

Arjun ji, as you can see i am not in disagreement with your points of view. I see a lot of convergence with mine on these issues. Anyways excellent article by SS Aiyer. That's what i meant..the biggest scam was the pre-reform 1st 40 years of left socialism inflicted on this country. When India matures, history will indeed put PVNR right up on top.

20 years into reform this is a time also to reflect on all what good has been done due to delicensing and reform. And all that needs to be done still. It's on the latter that we will have to focus on and push harder the leadership and if it doesn't deliver..deliver them off power. For that the focus cannot be taken away by 'virtuous' left socialists taking up center stage. These were the biggest scamsters in the first place. Irrespective whether they were dead honest or otherwise. Garibi hatao was just a slogan. Garibi was perpetuated and vote banks exploited. Entrepreneurship discouraged. Good people and money fled this country, because the country was rejecting their worth. Ironically some of the voices the hardest against corruption were also the hardest against reform, then and now.

We have to differentiate between Punishment and cure. Punishment under a prevailing un-reformed system will tend to victimize people with legitimate concerns. Like successful entrepreneurs who tried and created wealth were victimized in the 1st 40 years. You just have to see the movies of the 70's and 80's how the private sector company owner was portrayed..today at least civic pressure is getting to punish those that should be victimized, the Raja's, Kalmadi's, daughters of powerful CMS.

What i fear is a very powerful JLPB that may become a bigger monster than what it sets out to be. People like Arundhati Roy, Pankaj Misra, VS Naipaul and likes sitting as Civil Society reps (they have a better chance than most who'm we'd like to put up) and bossing over elected institutions PMs. Supreme Court judges etc.

Our media in that sense has done a very poor job. This 20 years of reform deserved a great TV series on the benefits that have accrued. But i guess that's not happening because the INC doesn't want PVNRs legacy to be popularized. That's a real shame. OF the 2G's if i may suggest i think it's RG that's interfering more with MMS's functioning. I may be wrong, but he seems to have a very low grasp on things..and has been known to barge in on MMS's Offices with some hare brained scheme or two. And he has a coterie too, much like SG did.

[Arjun]

People like Arundhati Roy, Pankaj Misra, VS Naipaul and likes sitting as Civil Society reps (they have a better chance than most who'm we'd like to put up) and bossing over elected institutions PMs. Supreme Court judges etc.

Agree. Don't know about Naipaul but the others, or even somebody like Prashant Bhushan- would be disasters. Leftists, and esp those with activist leftist views, should be barred from the post.

In fact every piece of regulation, though done with good intentions, can have unintended consequences on business activity. For example, even in the US, when the Sarbanes Oxley Act was introduced in 2002 which placed enormous regulation and burden on publicly listed firms - one unintended consequence was that London eventually surpassed New York as the financial capital of the world by the middle of the decade.

Which certainly does not mean that regulation is not required - but every such measure needs to be thought through. Growth is of paramount importance.

[saadhak]

Speaking of PVNR, below is an old Walk-the-talk interview when he was in retirement (from 2004)
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/print.php?content_id=46723
Also covers a points from SA Aiyar's article on how he was an agent of change.
And speaking of change, one can learn from him on how to initiate and deliver change (through team work and leadership) and also to successfully sell it.
Quoting from the discussion on the economic situation in 1991 that lead to the reforms being initiated

SG:So for you it was not such a big instinctive shift. It was not like Deng Xiaoping changing the Chinese economy.
PVNR:Not for me. You have to read my presidential speech at (the AICC in) Tirupati in 1992... I traced from Nehru to what I was doing and no one could say that it was a sudden shift. You cannot afford u-turns in this country.
SG:So how does one make a U-turn without making a U-turn? That’s a special Narasimha Rao art.
PVNR:It’s not like that. If you understand that where you are standing is itself in motion...
SG:That’s a clever way of putting it.
PVNR:... The turning becomes easier. You are not static. That’s what I just told you.

‘‘making a U-turn, without making a U-turn and presuming that the ground under you is moving’’

That IMO can be categorized as Chankian.

[harbans]

Saadhak Ji, good pointer to PVNR's thinking, though i don't think he mean't it in a Chanakyan way. A particular U turn was taken in the late 60's by IG. That of nationalization of Industry and banks. But it was just a few changes in legal rules and bills passed by the executive.

PVNR did also do a U Turn from the thinking. But he didn't do it outside the system. He made only a few changes. Like the one mentioned in SS Aiyers article about the delicensing of Industry along with the reforms in the Budget proposals. So Shekar Gupta is right and so is PVNR. All major changes (we can call them U Turns) done within the context of the continuing set up. I have maintained the biggest changes don't require much of legalese and extra institutions. It's a mindset and the changes in each un reformed Ministry required would not cover really a page of A4.

[somnath]

^^^PVNR is absolutely right..You dont make Uturns in this country, because change comes from within the system..George Yoe, former foreign minister of Singapore (perhaps one of the most accomplished people to have held FM portfolio in Asia) said something similar as well...

It will be OT here, but its a pity PVNR didnt write his memoirs...Not just in the economic domain, but also in critical areas of nuclear weapons and Look East foreign policy (pity even JN dixit died without writing his memoirs) - his imprint is immense...Best PM India has had, outside JLN's first 7-8 years...

[somnath]

The former is ocmpletely wrong - Lokpal deals only with public servants, how do NGOs come into the pic?

I think Clause 17(e) refers to NGOs.

Yes, thats right...But only covers govt funded, foreign funded and publicly funded NGOs....The first two are unexceptionable..The last, well, maybe maybe not...But its disengenuous to say that RWAs and the like will be covered as a result - no RWA is "publicly funded", they are privately funded by the members of the RWA....

[chetak]

Yes, thats right...But only covers govt funded, foreign funded and publicly funded NGOs....The first two are unexceptionable..The last, well, maybe maybe not...But its disengenuous to say that RWAs and the like will be covered as a result - no RWA is "publicly funded", they are privately funded by the members of the RWA....

In my very private and gated housing colony, the roads and street lights are maintained by the muncipal corp. The garbage is also cleared by them. This takes a lot of money, government money.

This means that our RWA is government funded, one way or the other.

[somnath]

In my very private and gated housing colony, the roads and street lights are maintained by the muncipal corp. The garbage is also cleared by them. This takes a lot of money, government money.

This means that our RWA is government funded, one way or the other.

That does not qualify as govt funding for the society/RWA...There are lots of trusts/think tanks etc that are funded by the govt...CLAWS for example, or Council for Policy Research...Building societies are not, unless they directly take funding from the govt...

[somnath]

For that the focus cannot be taken away by 'virtuous' left socialists taking up center stage. These were the biggest scamsters in the first place

HArbansji, its alwats useful to divorce the ideology from the policy...Perhaps the biggest blow to corruption in recent times came from a single measure piloted by the known left liberal types - the RTI Act..So we need to take the best ideas from wherever they are..

For example, even in the US, when the Sarbanes Oxley Act was introduced in 2002 which placed enormous regulation and burden on publicly listed firms - one unintended consequence was that London eventually surpassed New York as the financial capital of the world by the middle of the decade.

OT here, but how, by which measure?

[chetak]

In my very private and gated housing colony, the roads and street lights are maintained by the muncipal corp. The garbage is also cleared by them. This takes a lot of money, government money.

This means that our RWA is government funded, one way or the other.

That does not qualify as govt funding for the society/RWA...There are lots of trusts/think tanks etc that are funded by the govt...CLAWS for example, or Council for Policy Research...Building societies are not, unless they directly take funding from the govt...

The legal situation as per some acts passed in karnataka gives the govt a big say in the affairs of the associations (RWAs).

They can even under some circumstances, supercede the management and directly appoint an outside administrator who will be paid by the RWA to run the day to day affairs.

Not only govt funded, they are certainly ammenable to government control at the slightest whim or manufactured situation..

[Pranav]

A good case-study:

Man pays heavy price for taking on corruption

Meet Hussein Mueen Farooq who in 2009 got Y Sampangi (MLA) caught red-handed while accepting a bribe. It has been downhill since. His business has folded up. Now, he is wondering if it was all worth it, having lost Rs 50 lakh as against the Rs 5-lakh bribe demand.



The price for bravery has been terrifyingly high for Hussein Mueen Farooq. Not long ago, he was hailed a hero for helping the Lokayukta trap BJP MLA (KGF) Y Sampangi red-handed while accepting a bribe. Now, Farooq’s world has turned topsy-turvy. He fears for his life and the safety of his family members.

Farooq claims his powerful adversary is doing all he can to get him to withdraw the case. He has already been attacked, allegedly by Sampangi’s henchmen, and he has been paying the city police Rs 1.20 lakh each month for security. He spends a fortune fighting false cases foisted on him, allegedly at Sampangi’s behest. He has done the rounds of constitutional bodies, including the Lokayukta, Rashtrapati Bhavan apart from CBI officials and judges.

Except for sympathy, there is no help forthcoming from any of those quarters. He has already spent more than Rs 50 lakh fighting the MLA, his thriving advertising business in KGF has long been closed down, thanks to the MLA. He has no idea where his next rupee would come from and is now at his wits’ end.

There is no room either for honesty, whistle-blowers or for those who expose corruption in the state, going by Farooq’s tale.

On January 29, 2009, Farooq had Sampangi arrested for accepting a bribe of Rs 50,000 in cash and a cheque for Rs 4.75 lakh. Lokayukta sleuths headed by IPS officer Madhukar Shetty arrested Sampangi on Farooq’s tip-off. Lokayukta Justice Santhosh Hegde heaped praise and appreciation on Farooq for his bold act. The media too sang Farooq’s praises, but the euphoria lasted for only a few days.


The cheque by which Hussein Farooq paid the police Rs 1.2 lakh for security in March


In hindsight, Farooq believes he would have been infinitely better off had he just paid the bribe of Rs 5 lakh.

Sampangi was arrested, but instead of going to jail, he feigned chest pain and was sent to a hospital. He was discharged only after a court granted him bail. Almost immediately after, Farooq began receiving threat calls. His house and place of business was attacked by unidentified men in KGF. Local police took the side of the goons.

Farooq shifted base to Bangalore, but instead of a little peace and quiet, he only began to be assailed by more powerful people — ministers and politicians who attempted to pressurise him to withdraw the case against Sampangi.

“Unidentified people began to stalk me and my wife,” Farooq told Bangalore Mirror. “They brandished weapons. This drove us to seek security cover. We approached police officials and Justice Hegde. The police flatly refused my request. Hegde was sympathetic, but said he could do little. I then approached the high court which passed an order in December 2010 asking police to provide Y-category security (a cover of six policemen round the clock). In spite of the order, the Bangalore Police did not provide security.”

Farooq then complained to the then state police chief Dr Ajai Kumar Singh, and home minister R Ashok. “They too directed police commissioner Shankar M Bidari to obey the court order. Bidari finally provided security in March this year, but he asked me to pay a fee of Rs 1.20 lakh every month. I had no choice. Even after taking Rs 1.2 lakh from me, they scaled down the security to two policemen. I have to pay one more instalment tomorrow. If I don’t, they will withdraw the cover. This is the price one pays for exposing the corrupt and powerful.”

The fee for security is only the tip of Farooq’s financial burden. “Every month, I have to spend about Rs one lakh to pursue the case against the MLA. The MLA and his cronies have foisted four unrelated false cases on me. The total expenditure has already crossed Rs 50 lakh. I have borrowed from everyone who was willing to lend me money. I’m deep in debt. Some people in power, including a former chief minister, have hinted that they would reimburse my entire expenditure if I strike a deal with the MLA. But, I haven’t given in. There are times when I feel like dying. I even wrote to the authorities to grant me permission to end my life. They refused.”

“The state spends between Rs four and five crore on providing security for VVIPs, but they charge a hefty fee from those who expose the corrupt. I hope somebody like Anna Hazare takes up my case and comes to my rescue.”

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.as ... 072ebd0c0d

[Arjun]

For example, even in the US, when the Sarbanes Oxley Act was introduced in 2002 which placed enormous regulation and burden on publicly listed firms - one unintended consequence was that London eventually surpassed New York as the financial capital of the world by the middle of the decade.

OT here, but how, by which measure?

There are well-known annual rankings of international financial centers based on industry professional ratings, where London is currently rated #1.

Also if you are looking for specific financial markets where it is quantifiably #1 - these would include foreign exchange trading, international bond trading, cross-border bank lending (syndicated loans), OTC derivatives & marine insurance. Also at one point in middle of last decade it was #1 in international Listings / IPOs as well as in hedge fund assets managed. On the last two I am not sure if London continues to be #1 - but will definitely be a close #2 if it is not.

[Manishw]

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/171 ... t-see.html

Government does not want to see me alive: Ramdev
New Delhi, June 26 (IANS)

Three weeks after he was bundled out, yoga guru Baba Ramdev Sunday returned to the capital to visit a woman who was critically injured in the crackdown on his agitation against corruption and accused police of a conspiracy to kill him.

[Manishw]

Now everyone please read my post it’s a request.

I am going to tell you something which govt don’t want you to know. DECEPTION AT THE HIGHEST I HAVE SPEND LAST FEW YEARS STUDYING LAW FIGURING OUT WHY GOVT TREAT US LIKE GARBAGE.THEN AFTER RESEARCH I CAME ACROSS SOMEONE WHO HAS CRACKED THE CODE .SO MY BROTHERS & SISTERS HERE IS THE SYSTEM THAT YOU ALL WANT TO CHANGE LET’S WORK TOGETHER TO CHANGE IT.
LOOK AT YOUR PASSPORT WHAT DOES IT SAY REPUBLIC OF INDIA. ( FOR GOD SAKE WHY DOESN’T IT SAY DEMOCRACY OF INDIA)
OUR FOREFATHERS SHED THEIR BLOOD SO THAT WE CAN BE A REPUBLIC NOT DEMOCRACY.A REPUBLIC IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. : if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

NOW ONE MOST IMPORTANT THING DEMOCRACY,CITIZEN,TAXPAYER ETC YOU THINK IT IS ENGLISH THAT YOU ARE READING NO IT’S NOT IT IS CALLED legalese.(IT’S THE LANGAUAGE THAT GOVT USE TO ENSLAVE YOU)

I feel sad that you guys are so smart & yet waste your energy on childish debate (policies,reforms,lokpal etc). NOW Earth shattering statement CONSTITUTION IS NOT MADE FOR YOU.ALL OF YOU ARE ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.You want proof I can prove it right here right now but tell me how many of you want to learn because after ramlila maidan incident when I saw govt beat children & women I said to myself enough is enough it’s time to tell govt that their masters are back & I am looking for a group of sharp minded people who can understand what I am putting across gladly I found you guys.

Interesting post, have already x-posted to derac... thread in GDF.
Perhaps you would like to share more of your thoughts there.

[Pranav]

Baba Ramdev press conference in Delhi:

[nikkap]

Interesting post, have already x-posted to derac... thread in GDF.
Perhaps you would like to share more of your thoughts there.

[/quote]

Manishw thanks brother for your consideration. ShauryaT took a cheap jab at me which was totally uncalled for but I don’t mind truth is stranger than fiction & I am going to prove it right here that I am talking sense & backed by lawful evidence.

Preamble to the Constitution of India
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
ACTUALLY EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOVE IS AN ELEMENT OF TRUST. HOW LET ME EXPLAIN

STRUCTURE OF PREAMBLE
TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]

PURPOSE: in Order to solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC to provide JUSTICE, FRATERNITY & EQUALITY.
BENEFICIARY: to ourselves
ENABLING ACTION : ENACT [establish /bring into existence]
WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for trust]
TRUSTEE: for CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (GOVT). [trustee]
ANALYSIS OF PREAMBLE
The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished( give up) any of their own power and authority. The People established the Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of their own power and authority.
What was before, continues to be so today.
From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the govt of india do not apply to People. The People, as establishers of the country are sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the GOVT OF INDIA.

That much power of the people really make govt very uneasy so began the grand deception. GOVT OF INDIA started converting people into CITIZENS.you say what’s difference remember legalese.
ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?

The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one entity have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court without a clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen, or there as one of the people.
If you claim you are a citizen of the india, then it is strongly implied (though not necessarily true) that you are subject to the laws of the govt of india. On the other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied that you are a legal king, with a sovereignty superior to that of the govt of india, and subject only to the common law of the other kings (your peers). In short: the People are superior to the government, the government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.
PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS
As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an allegiance to you.
As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law (the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign).
Here is a typical example:
As one of the People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.
As one of the citizens, you may not travel by automobile unless you are either a licensed motor vehicle driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun ownership is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do not have a right to a jury trial in all cases, and no right to grand jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the people.

please send me the link where i can continue my posting since nobody is intrested here.

[somnath]

here are well-known annual rankings of international financial centers based on industry professional ratings, where London is currently rated #1.

Quite right, but London's been #1 for many years...Wasnt aware of how SOX was responsible for NY's decline vis a vis London...By and large, SOX was welcomed by all market participants, espeically equity markets, where NY retains a huge lead over everyone else..anyway, OT..

[sumishi]

...
.... You are one of the owners of the American government , and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone.
...

Err..., Was that truly your thought-out post, or is it based on arguments of those American thinkers who argue that the US is legally a corporation?

[ShauryaT]

ShauryaT took a cheap jab at me which was totally uncalled for but I don’t mind truth is stranger than fiction & I am going to prove it right here that I am talking sense & backed by lawful evidence.

OK, I am all for diversity of opinion, but what is your opinion? I have not understood. Let truth be strange, but let truth be backed by evidence and reason.

Added: Also, after calling all of us Childish, and using caps (which translates to screaming), you should have it in you to take a few jabs in stride.

please send me the link where i can continue my posting since nobody is intrested here.

By all means, keep on posting till a moderator stops you. Why are you running away? If you do post, do expect questions and critiques and sometimes compliments.

[Manishw]

please send me the link where i can continue my posting since nobody is intrested here.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1117486

[ShauryaT]

Since you have decided not to post, I was going to let this go, but will respond for the sake of completion.

But really, you seem to saying, in this post at least (and correct me if I am wrong) that somehow, either God or people will find a way to create the change from within the system, because of "the spiritual genius of this land" and because the "corrupt are few". You then go on to say that "the corrupt will further dwindel in numbers", once an efficient system is in place. Fair enough. Let me address this one by one.
....
But now about the disagreements. although ever so slight and subtle.

2. Unfortunately, the corrupt are not few. They are a lot. I happen to think they are now the overwhelming majority. Rich, poor, middle class, across all demographics, all religions, all castes, all tribes and all sects.

Those that are corrupt because the system forces them no other alternative - there are many. Put these same people in a system that does not force such a situation and you will see, that the number of corrupt collapses.

3. While I also whole heartedly believe and share your optimism, that our people will find a way, you dont seem to specify some of the possible ways. I am just taking your assertion a little further to its logical conclusion by specifying some worldly ways of how our people will accomplish the change. I call it revolution. You would call it revolution too, for, if indeed change comes from within as you prefer, then it will certainly be a revolution bigger than a conventional revolution. Because the current conditions are so bad, that it is much much more difficult to affect change from within than outside.

Do you know what he NDA government did, when they were in power to reform the system. If you do not, I will suggest you to lookup the NCRWC report. Even though this effort was strictly within the structure of the current system (only due to political compulsions driven by numbers and not a unwillingness to adjust the structure) even this fairly benign reform to the constitution was rejected by the INC. My biggest conviction and faith that a change from within the system is possible, comes from the fact that the BJP as a party realizes the need for this change. However, they lack the political muscle and sometimes the proper leadership to effect this change and take it to its logical conclusion. Certain events and pressure groups and the right leader can propel these changes to happen quickly. Maybe not in full measure and not to the satisfaction of what a "revolution" might provide, however, I do see this route as the most probable one.

4. You say, the "corrupt will dwindle in number, once an efficient system is in place". But this is a circular argument. Kind of like the proverbial "chicken or the egg". An efficient system will not be in place unless and until the corrupt dwindle and the corrupt will not dwindle until an efficient system is in place. All the "genius of our land and people" and all your optimism and mine, cannot solve this riddle, this "chicken or the egg" situation. So, I believe the "genius of our land and people" will manifest itself in a revolution.

A good leader can cut through this theoretical quandary, as in evidence in some parts of our land. Like you said, many things can happen, which have not happened before. I think your issue comes from your sense that there is "no one" in the system today, who is not corrupt and willing to make a change. Such a pessimistic view really has no basis. A radical "revolution" is sought by the ill informed or the uninterested. If you can preset a case for the probablity of a revolutin then i am all ears, but it cannot simply be there is no one left who is good enough.

I would still be interested in some possible scenarios, concrete and practical scenarios, in your view, of how "the genius of our land and people" can conceivably bring about the desired changes from within the current system and without a revolution, given our current sorry state.

You either believe in the people or you do not. For me I do believe and do believe that there shall be no "revolution" - as understood in the classic sense of the term. The change of the system, will be from within the system - extra ordinary events shall propel this change.

And just one request. Please dont tell me that "you dont know enough about history and that you should read some more on certain forums". You will agree that, that is like telling someone that he is ignorant. Was that your intent ? If not, then I would prefer, if you would like to enlighten me, to correct my assertion with a more correct assertion openly and overtly, and then attaching a link, where I can go to read more and where specifically your assertion is supported. If you merely tell me that I dont know without even pointing out where I am not correct, isnt it a bit...........clumsy at the very least ?

Your characterization of the Marathas and Rajputs is in gross disconnect with my readings of their history, a lot of which is covered in this board and hence felt that you have not read enough. It is simple enough to search for relevant threads and other forums that I provided you with, finding the link you will have to do so yourself.

[Arjun]

Quite right, but London's been #1 for many years...Wasnt aware of how SOX was responsible for NY's decline vis a vis London...By and large, SOX was welcomed by all market participants, espeically equity markets, where NY retains a huge lead over everyone else..anyway, OT..

Am surprised you are not aware of this....London's strong show has only been since the middle of the last decade. Even in equities, the main battle is not in domestic equities but in attracting international listings where London surpassed NY in '06 but today may be a close #2. There were a whole series of articles by the likes of PWC and others in 06/07 timeframe, that talked about the reason for London beating NY, with SOX right at the top. All of this is highly public information.

[Dhiman]

Those that are corrupt because the system forces them no other alternative - there are many.

Sounds like a lame excuse to hide one's misdeed, a classic example of blaming personal faults on the "system". No body is forcing people to take bribes. In fact there are honest people in each and every government office who go about their business and work honestly. They way they do this is by ignoring the corrupt activities that their colleagues indulge in. As long as you overlook the activities of your corrupt colleagues in the government, no one is going to bother you.

A more accurate statement would be: the corrupt have gamed the system, they have formed mini-cartel's (extending through various levels of government machinery) in order to bait people, take bribes, and abuse the government machinery for their own benefit.

To break this corruption, you need a strong enforcement, ability to find, investigate, and break such cartels and set example by stringent punishment for the guilty. What is needed here is good implementation not some abstract policy making up in the air.

Put these same people in a system that does not force such a situation and you will see, that the number of corrupt collapses.

Put the same people in a clean system and rest assured, over time, as opportunity presents itself, they will abuse that system as well to the best of their abilities unless off course that system has measures to guard against such abuses. In any case, such people are a dime a dozen.

What we need is people who are willing to go out on limb and fight to change the system for the benefit of all. A few more people like this and you will have a revolution in making. Otherwise, I don't think the systemic problems that exist in governance of this country can be fixed in a lifetime.

Whether you like the word "revolution" or not, what we need is an event that would truly change the direction and apathy in governance in this country. That is if you want the government in this country to start working for common people 10 years from now rather than waiting a lifetime and relying on "faith".

The change of the system, will be from within the system - extra ordinary events shall propel this change.

What is the "factual basis" behind your belief that the "system" can reform itself without any external pressure?

[harbans]

Sounds like a lame excuse to hide one's misdeed, a classic example of blaming personal faults on the "system". No body is forcing people to take bribes.

Dhiman Ji, allow me to give an example:

1. If the wealth tax is 95% (say above an income of 10 LPA), would you try and evade taxes? A majority would. They'd become corrupt overnight. Irrational tax laws thus force people to become corrupt.

2. If a Govt Dept comes into licensing and production caps and the Industrialist has the capacity to earn more by producing more what happens? Easy, the Minister says you can underhand produce more. The profits from the excess are not shown in the books, but 50% is mine and 50% which you cannot keep in Indian banks you can send them through hawala outside to Switzerland. The Minister of course shares the loot with the entire dept.

Result: The Industrialist and the entire dept in the Ministry is corrupt. Come next election, corrupt Neta's are vying for that Ministers berth. Corrupt and inefficient indiciduals and groups are vying for reservation in that Department, because they know there is extra income to be leached. I.e, the system has now not only made people corrupt but gone to the level of attracting bad characters also. The system is now being gamed for money. Root Cause: Stupid law on production caps.

Both the examples 1 and 2 have happened in India. Many Industries and Ministries have been rid of these quirks/ cartels in the last 20 years. There's more obviously still to go.

3. When police pay is hardly enough to feed their family, the family itself pressures the cop to take a bribe. A better growth rate ensures pay rise. A cop getting 40k Rs/ month will be less tempted to accept a bribe than one getting 4K Rs/ month.
Corr: So economic growth==pay rise==reduction in temptation to take bribes and implement law==better traffic, better service==improvement.

To break this corruption, you need a strong enforcement, ability to find, investigate, and break such cartels and set example by stringent punishment for the guilty.

I agree, this is an important aspect. But then it will go nowhere if you don't change irrational laws or put up better pays for Govt employees. Removing the temptations and quirks within the system are of paramount importance along with punishment. By stressing on this solution you give the impression that all is well within the status quo of the system and only punishment is the deterrent. I am not in entire agreement with that as i feel there are lots of reforms within the system that are still pending.

From my perspective a very important development from the POV of good services is the ability to sack/ down size GOI employees/ departments. At the moment this is a very tough task. Known inefficient and corrupt ones still occupy chairs and no one has the power to do anything about it. That's 'punishment' is the biggest disincentive to corrupt, harassing normal citizens type of GOI babu's in various departments.

I do agree with you that not all GOI babu's are corrupt. There are very clean and upright institutions within the Govt too.

[somnath]

A more accurate statement would be: the corrupt have gamed the system, they have formed mini-cartel's (extending through various levels of government machinery) in order to bait people, take bribes, and abuse the government machinery for their own benefit.

To break this corruption, you need a strong enforcement, ability to find, investigate, and break such cartels and set example by stringent punishment for the guilty. What is needed here is good implementation not some abstract policy making up in the air.

You are abosutely right on the first part - the corrupt have "gamed" the system...But I would reiterate an example I have quoted many times - how come the same principals are not able to "game" the elections? How are industrialists able to "game" sectors like telecom repeatedly, while they are not able to do so with banking? Because the policy frameworks are different...Put in the right framework, and it will take care of a large part of the problem..The balance is a mix of vigilence and monitoring...But the necessary condition is the right policy framework..

BTW, Arjun, thanks for that info - I had alwasy taken London's numero uno status as ceteris paribus!

[harbans]

HArbansji, its alwats useful to divorce the ideology from the policy...Perhaps the biggest blow to corruption in recent times came from a single measure piloted by the known left liberal types - the RTI Act..So we need to take the best ideas from wherever they are..

I don't disagree with that notion and do believe that the left has it's uses. I doubt MMS would have bargained so hard with the US but for the left pressures for example..so in effect the N Deal came out better because of Left pressure.

What i meant was the socialist left thinking pressure also in making ridiculous laws during the first 40 years that led to so much endemic corruption. I have seen the left Babu's in WB in Kgp and Cal, it's amazing, what they used to get away with. But yes you are right, it's better in this debate to keep policy away from the ideology bit..but to make it clear i was just using that more as a marker to highlight what can drive some stupid policy initiatives.

[Sanku]

How are industrialists able to "game" sectors like telecom repeatedly, while they are not able to do so with banking?

Says who? Telecom has been gamed only under UPA I && II so no repeated case here. Secondly, banking has been gamed too with many scandals past and present. (trivially easy to list the reasons)

Why the difference? Well even UPA with "loot as much as you can" outlook, has limits on how much it can loot in one shot. They are not everywhere after all. They went for low hanging fruits, where they did not expect public focus.

The key is "how much can you get away with" in terms of public focus. Earlier, since Nehru-Menon times, defense was useful for such exercise since it was most opaque. However with bofors the opacity broke because the public was no longer willing to look the other way and new ventures needed. Note there was little difference if procedures (though 2033-4 time frame attempted a bold revamp and was partially successful too)

So basically it boils down to -- transparency -- if some thing is not transparent, there is a greater tendency to loot from that till.

Hence big ticket items like looting Air India, KG basin loot, coal loot.

The policy frame work that are needed to tackle corruption include making things transparent, by acts such as Jan Lokpal and freeze on assets illegally parked abroad.

So yeah to oppose Jan Lokpal and Baba Ramdev and to claim frame work needs to change can not be considered honest. It is paying lip service to real framework changes, why in reality opposing any and all moves to create frame work to stop looting.

[harbans]

B Raman Ji writes a balanced perspective: Blames the dithering INC, asks for reducing rhetoric, consultative talks on the nature of the Bill and senses some unpredictable consequences if not handled appropriately:

Anna Hazare has put the government on notice that he would go on fast again from August 15 if a solution satisfactory to his group is not found.

No government worth its salt can let itself be dictated by a segment of non-governmental opinion. The government has to reject firmly, but politely the pretensions of Anna and his team to be the custodian of the morals of our society as a whole.

They have to have an important role in policy-formulation on anti-corruption issues, but as advisers with a restricted mandate and not as non-governmental dictators with a self-assumed, unrestricted mandate.

The government has done well to initiate an exercise for consultations with the other political parties to reach a national consensus. It is incumbent on the other political polities to respond positively to the government's initiative.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110626.htm

[somnath]

What i meant was the socialist left thinking pressure also in making ridiculous laws during the first 40 years that led to so much endemic corruption.

Absolutely, they didnt realise that while talking of "welfare of masses" et al, the policy they engendered only made corruption easier...

In the meanwhile, what political parties think of AH's JanLokpal draft..
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/all-p ... m/809132/0

Obviously a diversity of opinion, but as expected, everyone insisting on the sovereignty of Parliament...

[harbans]

Article cross posted by Sum ji in another thread depicts how corruption grows/ breeds as a result of bad policy:

Many factors brought about the descent of the Mumbai police into corruption and criminality. To begin with, there were the policy blunders, both at the state and the national level. Prohibition and the ban on the import of gold, which helped create smuggling syndicates, immediately come to mind. But IPS officers generally remained outside this circle of infamy. What ultimately sucked everyone into the whirlpool was the crazy ’90s property boom.

Stupid policies — a draconian law protecting tenants; the decision to keep big business out of construction; the land ceiling law; and the failure to create housing for the poor — all helped bring the underworld into Mumbai’s real estate business in the ’80s, either as enforcers or as builders. The ’90s boom made many fabulously wealthy. Today, the builders and land sharks, straight or “history-sheeters”, have become so influential that they virtually run Mumbai. And preside over a vast empire of graft running into thousands of crores.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/polit ... er,%20bhai

Also from Somnath Ji's link in the post above:

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, touted as a BJP chief minister who has taken conspicuous anti-corruption measures, told The Indian Express that it is his experience that corruption can be weeded out by plugging leaks in the system and bringing in enabling laws.