The Jan Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare, and Baba Ramdev

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 13 Jun 2011 00:29

harbans wrote:Again 90% of this post is something I dont understand. I am just a common Indian knowing english language.

Krsna Ji, lets not get into who is more common, more pious an Indian. Let me explain it in a simple manner.

Harbans,
Somnath took a part of my quote regarding BRD. he posted a few lines on it. The rest were no way connected to it.
I mean to say his post was only about corruption stuff, but he quoted BRD stuff from my post.
My grouse with somnath is

Many posts of yours are your own opinions with less facts. If you have facts you dont bring out them in proper way. The fault is in not making others understand through your posts.

as posted in http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1109225
Hence my comment.
Hope I make myself clear.
The same you are doing now. anyway thanks for trying to help me.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Jun 2011 00:39

Del repeated

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Jun 2011 00:39

Deleted repeated

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Jun 2011 00:41

Brihaspati ji, i actually stuck to the topic. I did'nt discuss BR..or AH for that matter. If you look back i tried to only go beyond the usual Psec-BR camp debate. That's why very early on i did post asking for specifics on the demands he made. 10 plus pages had indeed passed without any discussion on that. I or any other poster should not be harangued for asking for that. Since criticizing BR was being immediately being branded 'Psec', Agenda driven, INC supporter and likes it was avoided. The fact that people here requested the topic change to include Baba Ramdev, the change was made yesterday IIRC. It makes sense also to talk apart from the Jan Lok Pal bill also on what AH or BR stand for? Why get so worked up if folks criticize BR or AH? The topic here for now is:

Re: The Jan Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare, and Baba Ramdev

Right no? Or are you trying to redefine what goes and what can be posted on this thread? Why not suggest to the mods then for a change. We will all be clear on whom we can critic or who is above that.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 00:49

In the interim I am assuming "discussions" and "questions" about persons and their "intent/motivation" all can be discussed freely again.

In the earlier part of the thread, it appears that "who" supported BR could be "analyzed" for "intent/motivation" and suspicion by implications. Here is something from the Jesuit Archbishop of Delhi in support of AH:

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/20 ... -anti.html

Archbishop of Delhi: Anna Hazare Anti-Corruption Commission "Victory of the People”
"It's a victory for the people."

This is the reaction of Mgr. Vincent Concessao, Archbishop of Delhi, to the news that "the government has accepted the demands pf the Gandhian activist Anna Hazare" on the Jan Lokpal Bill.
[...]
From the outset the Indian Catholic Church supported the protest of the civil rights leader, because - Fr Cedric Prakash recalls- over the years "we have institutionalized corruption in the country and the situation" becomes more complicated when the big guys are involved. [...]
Interviewed by AsiaNews, the Archbishop of Delhi Mgr. Vincent Concessao called the news that the government accepted Hazare’s demands a "victory of the people". The prelate has supported the struggle of the activist from the outset and on April 5, was sitting with him on the dias of the observatory.

"Corruption is immoral and wrong - said the archbishop - and is contrary to moral and social teachings of the Church."

He stresses that accepting bribes, cheating, depriving the poor of their rights are all immoral behaviour and the Church, instituted by Christ to work for justice, peace, truth and development, has a duty to join the battle against corruption ". ["battle"!!! that does not have associated imagery of "violence"? shouldnt spiritual leaders avoid terms that can lead to confusion and provocation?]
[...]
"The gap between the rich and the marginalized – he says - is widening and this phenomenon must be stopped." [hmmm - is not that a statement from a political activist and goes beyond "spiritual" upliftment?] Archbishop Concessao welcomes the "mass movement" that has been created in recent days, "it has helped make people aware of their rights," also showing "the way of non-violent protest." [hmm - "mass movements" "welcomed" - and all this still "spiritual" inanities onlee?]
[...]
The Archbishop of Delhi was joined by Fr. Cedric Prakash sj, Director of Prashant, the Jesuit Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace, was also shared Anna Hazara’s battle from the beginning.

"Over the years - the Jesuit denounces - we have institutionalized corruption in our country [...][why make the denouncement specifically "Jesuit" - it could not be done as ordinary humans citizens of India - BR was bad because he was doing the same wearing saffron!]We have taken it for granted that we have to "cough up money" in order to get things done..be it a Railway ticket,the repair of our telephone line or an admission in School". [but then we are supposed to only look at the big-game and not these minor "pick-pockets" of gov servants!]
[...]
The Jesuit points to the recent case that has seen the participation of thousands of poor farmers in Gujarat, who protested against the forced expropriation of land by a powerful industry, without success.

And again, the case for human rights activist Amit Jethwa, who was killed in broad daylight for denouncing the interests of a group affiliated to the BJP, involved in a series of illegal excavations in the Gir Forest.

"With all these episodes and others - concludes the Jesuit - we urgently need a real anti-corruption law in order to understand how widespread the rot is."

[No we must not read much into this - when only those incidents that can be used to paint the "saffron" black - miraculously comes to the mind for public statements. No religious agenda, no political agenda - just mere foibles of selective memory and "accidents" of recollection!]

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 00:58

harbans wrote:Brihaspati ji, i actually stuck to the topic. I did'nt discuss BR..or AH for that matter. If you look back i tried to only go beyond the usual Psec-BR camp debate. That's why very early on i did post asking for specifics on the demands he made. 10 plus pages had indeed passed without any discussion on that. I or any other poster should not be harangued for asking for that. Since criticizing BR was being immediately being branded 'Psec', Agenda driven, INC supporter and likes it was avoided. The fact that people here requested the topic change to include Baba Ramdev, the change was made yesterday IIRC. It makes sense also to talk apart from the Jan Lok Pal bill also on what AH or BR stand for? Why get so worked up if folks criticize BR or AH? The topic here for now is:

Re: The Jan Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare, and Baba Ramdev

Right no? Or are you trying to redefine what goes and what can be posted on this thread? Why not suggest to the mods then for a change. We will all be clear on whom we can critic or who is above that.

I have no problem if insinuations [you still have not answered my query as to whether you found discussions on BR's comments on homosexualism was a relevant part of the substantive "debate"] are acceptable, "ideas" behind "proposals" suspected for "intent/motivation" can be dissed as "bunkum", "POV's can be dissed, for all indviduals related to the supposed anti-corruption campaign as well as posts and individual posters who support/oppose those individuals in the campaign.

It also does obfuscate your concept of "substantive" debate! Can you please clarify if you think "discussions" and questioning of "intent/motivation" of individuals apparent to me based on "proposals" and the inferred "ideas" behind such proposals - are very much a part of what you mean by "substantive debates" on "concrete proposals"?

I have for example used exactly the same method - based on the "draft" to raise "questions on the intent/motivation behind the ideas behind the proposal! I have followed exactly the procedure to justify "questioning" the "hidden motivations" of BR base don his "proposals" to question and raise suspicions about the motivations behind the "civil society" group propping up the draft. Are you not saying that I cannot apply the method applied against BR?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 01:19

http://www.eurasiareview.com/india-anna ... -14052011/

Second, is Anna Hazare’s crusade unique? Or, has all this happened before with varying degrees of success? Protagonists have given his campaign a grand remit by comparing it to the Quit India movement, an obvious exaggeration. It has also been compared more routinely with the JP movement against misgovernment and corruption in the early seventies; it gave Indira Gandhi the excuse to impose her infamous Emergency when the Allahabad High Court set aside her election. It has also been compared to the VP Singh-blessed Mandal agitation in favor of greater reservations, which led to the tragic self-immolation of many young persons. What did these major agitations achieve? One can argue that the JP movement catalyzed the break-up of the Congress party and the emergence of regional parties that are now competing for power at the Centre and in the States. The Mandal agitation led to a further splintering of political parties, with the politics of caste getting firmly embedded in the national polity. In other words, these public agitations severely challenged the basic structure of the Indian democracy. Whether this was good or bad for India would be demanding a value judgment regarding an essentially political phenomenon.[hmm are we saying AH is leading a political campaign?]

Third, can it be said that Anna Hazare’s movement is unconstitutional and undemocratic? After all, the NDA government in the Centre and those ruled by different political parties in the States were duly elected. [of course the mandatory potshot at the "saffron" needed] No doubt, the elections lack total credibility. They are visibly vitiated by money and muscle power, liquor and cash are used to buy votes; and, once in office, the elected representatives are too busy with other activities to care about their constituencies. All this is true. But, does it justify forcing a duly elected government to act in a pre-determined way by exercising ‘people’s power’? Here, one might recollect the Congress-led agitation in 1959 against the Namboodiripad government in Kerala. It was directed by one Mannath Padmanabhan against its agrarian and educational policies. Indira Gandhi, then Congress President, had actively inspired this agitation. After it reached suitable proportions, Nehru decided to dismiss the State government; an action which his biographer Sarvepalli Gopal holds “tarnished Nehru’s reputation for ethical behavior.” Now, the Congress party finds Anna Hazare’s public agitation to be unconstitutional and undemocratic!

But well - does not the same argument apply also to BR's movement?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Jun 2011 01:22

I have no problem if insinuations [you still have not answered my query as to whether you found discussions on BR's comments on homosexualism was a relevant part of the substantive "debate"] are acceptable,

Why do you want my opinion for everything under the sun? Did i comment on his views on homosexuality? Did i comment on his (BRs) views that he wants to execute Adulterers? Did i comment on Anna Hazare's reported running on his village where he ties people to poles and flogs them?

Flogging and fear become a part of everyday life and belief. Not only the authority employing it has the sanction to use it; others legitimise its use. Pathare Bala Sahab Ganpat’s accounts:

“In previous days, there were liquor brewing units in the village. They all are closed now. Annajee gives punishment to those that take liquor. The person is tied to the pole and flogged overnight. The gram sabha has decided to form a group of 25 youth of the village, who can also give this punishment to the drunkards. Only last year, two-three villagers were caught in a drunken state. Annajee and the youth gave them the standard punishment and then handed them over to the police.”

The use of punishment got its expression within the ambit of law and elected representatives. A vice sarpanch of the village, Kailash Pote, says, ‘I was drinking. I was also tied to the pole and flogged two-three times. It is normal. Annajee will try to make you understand once or twice and thereafter, he will beat you badly.’ The need for fear and punishment in the social organisation becomes all-pervasive. Anna states:

http://kafila.org/2011/04/14/the-making ... an-siddhi/

If such people demand changes in legal structures, sure i and others do want to know what the **** they stand for. That's how some dictators have ridden into power, on the power of rhetoric and some genuine grievance people have. I certainly want to know who they deem corrupt and what legal changes they seek. I certainly don't want to rally around someone who does the above, irrespective of what he stands for, i'm not rallying for him. I'll look into the law making and what is being proposed with some trepidation and fear.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 13 Jun 2011 01:30

ONE MORE SCAM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 829971.cms

while people protest these politicians are busy doing one scam after another, there is nothing that is stopping them
we really need some very hard law to stop these %^$*(

A fortified Lokpal bill is an urgent requirement
severe punishment should be included within its clauses,
then we will see who dares to play with the fire

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 13 Jun 2011 01:42

That article on Anna from kafila has some good food for thought

To forge a common will, an all-pervasive concept of unity becomes a crucial factor for an environmental organisation, which can be created through logic and/or coercion. According to Anna, rural development must become a powerful instrument of national regeneration and for this the village people have to work together with the firm conviction that ‘Our Village Is One Family’. Unity becomes the representative of all interests, substituting all other structures of political institutions. Thus, in most of the villages under the program, for the first time in years the sarpanch of the village has been nominated through consensus. Elections are not welcomed. This is considered a significant step towards removing conflicts within the village and unifying it for development.

History and culture become reference points in the search for a common good. An environmental movement can use the given and accepted cultural symbols of a glorified mythic past to fulfill its needs of the present. They are part of the dominant value system, and can very well fit with the contemporary body politic. Anna declares:
“In olden days, our country had much wealth. We had a great civilisation. Our people were strong. Our villages were the place of mutual love, affinity and closeness. There was a lot of community work. Our mythology gives us a reference of 33 crore Gods…. Now we have lost our national culture, pride and spirit.”

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Jun 2011 01:58

Vikram Ji focus on this:

Flogging and fear become a part of everyday life and belief. Not only the authority employing it has the sanction to use it; others legitimise its use. Pathare Bala Sahab Ganpat’s accounts:

I think many of here are not going to stand behind a Taliban in India. Whatever the ideology or religion behind. AH is not representing 'civil' society. I felt bad on BR and his supporters being subject to danda by Govt might. Rethinking, i don't think it's a bad idea, had AH been given the same treatment that he espouses for furthering his cause. He's not a Gandhian by any stretch of imagination. He's antithesis to Tagores' famous poem on the future of this country..'Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high'.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 13 Jun 2011 02:09

harbans: AH is a former army man and on issues where there was broad social consensus he was willing to enforce Army like discipline.

What I wanted to highlight was not what Anna did but some very basic truths highlighted in those two paragraphs. For a society to make true progress it needs some thing to rally behind. That unity can be enforced either by coercion or via a thought behind which the masses can rally behind.

The UPA's strategy behind the divide and rule is to ensure that national unity or consensus does not arise. The problem with India is that the right wing which can actually use the national icons to unite the nation is also defunct.

I do not know the reasons why and I do not understand the intricacies of Indian politics and social life too well, but I have been told that BJP is still hindered by caste baggage and hence unable to rise above that.

That is why I felt really good about BRD movement since it was truly grass-roots, used basic Indic symbols to unite the people and had a mass appeal. It fulfilled the unity criterion.

I feel that BRD should be very careful about his security from now on. In fact I would recommend that he stop using a private plane. So far the INC has been able to get rid of any potential challenger to the 2G (Madhav Rao Scindia, Rajesh Pilot, YSR) via unnatural events. I would not be surprised if BRD too is made a target.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 02:28

harbans ji,
can you have a look at my criticisms [forget the "intentions" bit at first] for the draft, on page 37?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 02:55

Is there really a broad social consensus against "alcohol"? I had referred earlier to the issue of "moral straightjackets" in "crusaders" against what they see as deviation in "public life". I was concerned that only BR was being explored for this angle while AH was being exempt.

An ex-army man trying to run society according to what he had seen to be working in the very different institutional framework of the army, or picking on a particular segment of the society as the source of all "evils" in his society, gaining popularity and "mass support" using some of their grievances - does have a precedence in history. The difference in this case is of course the age at which they catch public imagination.

More intriguing would be to look into the type of people who gather around him, in his crusade to rid the state of perceived "evils". BR of course lacks that "army exposure", but the people around AH also significantly differ in composition from those that circle BR. The draft especially throws up discomforting patterns. It singles out the existing "civil service" in particular while going softer on the "judiciary", it does not like public accountability for actions, nor does it like the dirt and dust of getting "elected" directly, and keeps criteria for entry that itself allows potential for a lot of corruption - through the vague terms like "civil society". The draft has no provision for preventing corruption in the very methods applied to prosecute the accused. Given the supreme immunity provided, and the "selected" nature of the composition, this is a dangerous body being proposed.

Another nitpick : wiretaps are sought to be legalized to be freely used by this body, and all "documents" or information placed before the body will be made public, even if the case is closed for lack of sufficient information or the "accused" cannot be proved to be guilty. It will be a wonderful means of invasion of privacy and harassment on those babus who have refused to bow down to political or organized pressure. No provision to disincentivize false accusers or those who concoct evidence to accuse - most of the time such is possible in regular courts of law.

These are exactly the same profile that coalesced around determined and fanatical "individuals" leading to regimes of Nazi Germany, or Bolshevik Russia.

I have grave doubts about a body that tries to protect the "judicial profession", targets only one and half wings of the modern state, keeps a vague and elitist "civil society" clause for recruitment, and want to appropriate almost Catholic Inquisitory powers without being accountable to the people, and getting "selected" and not "elected" to boot to exercise such extraordinary powers.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 13 Jun 2011 03:24

Why not Indian government declare some of the Swiss banks operation in India as illegal? Because they do not wish to reveal the names. There should be a boycott by people and banks with Swiss banks unless they reveal these politicians and others who are keeping bribe money in swiss banks. Such pressure will bring Swiss bank to reveal Indian names. Let us try to boycott all those banks that are dealing with Swiss banks. RBI should be stopped either legally or politically.

India has more money in Swiss banks than all other countries combined
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... lack-money

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Jun 2011 03:37

Brihaspati Ji, i have read your take and Somnath ji's take on proposed reforms. Honestly i am in favor of a way which increases transparency and openness. On an internet forum there will be many views whether to bring in the PM in the ambit of a bill who or what institutions manage it and who controls these institutions and how transparent they are. Concerns about whether they will be used as political tools to subdue opposition are all valid.

BTW: The IA does not indulge in floggings. Values on which the IA runs do not translate to Civil society. I think it's abhorent of AH to be doing what he does in his village. I won't rally around him for any cause he espouses from now on. I have made a judgement on him. Bracketed him into a slot. He now comes very low in my scheme of things. Like it or not.

Now i look at BR. Demands for death sentence for adulterers. Hanging 'corrupt' people. I think i and others would like to know how he defines 'corrupt'?

That's why i agree with Somnath ji here. How do we conclude that there is really some 10 trillion USD in Swiss and foreign banks. If i was corrupt why should i keep it where i get 1% returns. Or are we seeing people who are defining 'corrupt' from the 70's socialist era and slipping in their agenda by making time bound demands? It's important we see what demands they make and seek. Are we seeing people who are riding on the bandwagon of deep public distrust and disgust and making huge political gains to either get village style floggings for drinking or death for adulterers at an appropriate time. I don't want a ride on them to accomplish what possibly can be done much more simply by Tax and other legal reforms.

Your proposals on legal reforms for example, i certainly would read them. Your discussions and views on that i certainly will like to go through. But it's too early to make my mind on many aspects of really how to curb corruption.

What i am clear about are 2 or 3 things:

1. That people like AH or BR are not representative or knowledgable enough to bring about positive change. Their visions are not holistic enough for this nation.

2. That such folks that encourage floggings for drinking and execution for adulterers, are folks that will end up bringing large numbers of people into the INC camp. Something i don't want and the GOI is sensing.

3. The result of the above sadly is that they will fail to do much about the issue they are rallying for presently, and the Psec will gain.

4. Hitler too came into power riding on the German peoples disgust and revulsion on the treaty of Versailles. I don't want that to happen in India. An AH or BR in power that may make India resemble the Taliban next door. This is bad coverage really at the minimum.

So i'd rather understand or try what folks like Somnath Ji are saying regarding reforms on taxation and stuff. And your discussions and views on legalistic changes or the other finer points in the Lok Pal bill. On the legal issue part from your posts i do think you have a lot to contribute, if you can stop the attacks and slants on other fellow posters here. You certainly are a very well read and educated person. Your views will be valued. but lets not get on the hidden agenda part. IMHO that's where you are straying.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jun 2011 03:43

Propose the changes - as a separate thread.
Review the changes

then ratify and becomes a model for propagation for non BR junta.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 13 Jun 2011 06:09

British initiative to bring back money stashed by tax evaders abroad

Estimates of black money:

The Wanchoo Committee estimated the share of a black economy as 7 per cent of the GDP in 1971. Then came the report by the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in March 1985 estimating the quantum of black money in India as 21 per cent. Today, we have the estimate by the Global Integrity Report indicating the share of the black money as 50 per cent of the GDP. Black money is generated according to the 1985 report through ‘kickbacks, cuts and commissions on Government projects and purchases”. Our economy is categorised as a trillion-dollar economy.

(The author is a former Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax)

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Jun 2011 06:16

KLNMurthy wrote:It is very strange that you seek to refute my point that Lok Pal is old wine in new bottles, by, in fact, listing all the ways in which the Lok Pal would be like existing institutions!

In principle, by your logic, there is no need for a lok pal designed on the lines of the CBI, CVC, EC, judiciary, etc. if those institutions are seen to do their job satisfactorily.

At somwhat glib level, extending that logic, there would not be any need for any industry regulator if all economic agents and contract enforcement machinery and the govt policy-making apparatus worked "satisfactorily"..

First, you disregard the concept of "independence"..It is very powerful, in some cases instittuional heritage and competence can assert that (best example - RBI), but in most cases need solid legal-institutional frameworks..

Second, what the LokPal does is to bring parts of the investigative machinery distinctly outside the influence of the political executive..This by itself is a long lamented reform - police reforms for example is a larger agenda around the same theme (which people like Prakash Singh and others have been long agitating about)...Also, it brings the (another long awaited provision of) whistleblower protection under its purview - a whistleblower blowing the whistle against a high state functionary will feel that much more confient if the execution is not in the hands of the same state department that reports to the functionary...

Third, about your point on "expertise"...The sort of mandate that the Lokpal has primarily has to deal with 2 things - legal and "ways of the govt and the jurisprudence process"...In that respect, dont see what is wrong in a preponderance of judges (ex-judges) and ex-bureaucrats in the team...Its as if insisting upon an economist by training as a precndition for the position of RBI guv is somehow not desirable...BTW, the phrase of "unimpeachable integrity" has a recent background - the SC case on Thomas's appointnemtn as CVC - the court lay very high emphasis on this....

Last, the point on economic activity..

The power they wield is over the economic activity of the citizens of the country. If (as is in fact the case with the present bunch of civil society mavens) these people carry the presumption that any productive economic activity is suspect and potentially criminal, then we will be back to license-permit raj and crony capitalism operating within safe boundaries with no innovation

Not sure how/why that is the case for private economic activity...But yes, I would be more comfortable if PSUs are kept outside the ambit of th LokPal...As it is, decision-making in PSUs is famously hobbled by the 3 C's (CBI, CVC, CAG), not much benefit in adding an L to it! Which is what I have said in my feedback...

BTW, there is an amusing insistence by some postors here on the "vested interest" theory, repeatedly alluding to the fact that Lokpal in its current form tries to "protect the judicial profession"..They might want to read the current draft before comenting - it includes the higher judiciary...There are some people who believe that the judiciary should not be under Lokpal ambit, but not Arvind K & Co...And even more amusing is the constant allusion to "islamist and ideologically motvated types hijacking a selected, not elected group"....I reiterate, by that logic, RBI should have been "hijacked" many times over, as well as EC, CAG...Well..............

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Jun 2011 06:28

Airavat wrote: Estimates of black money:

From the above, the author's take on the 2 (of the 10) measures suggested by BR..

Demoneitsation

Baba Ram Dev demands demonetisation of the currency notes of the denomination of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000. This shows a rustic approach to the problem. Cash has never been a significance form of holding black money. It yields no return. Large quantities of cash are vulnerable to detection in tax raids.

The government resorted to demonetisation of high denomination currency notes on two occasions, namely 1946 and 1978. It was an utter failure. In 1946, out of a stock of Rs 144 crore in circulation, only a sum of Rs 9 crore was not presented for conversion. In 1978, the value of unconverted high denomination notes was Rs 20 crore out of a circulation of Rs 145 crore (see the study by NIPFP, page 436).

As the Shankar N. Acharya Committee pointed out, cash is not an important form for holding black wealth for those who are active participants in black income generation. Baba Ramdev is gullible in making the demand for demonetisation.

Nationalisation

A mere declaration even by an Ordinance of the President will achieve no purpose. Who will decide what is black wealth and how it is unaccounted. We are a society governed by the rule of law. The existence and ownership of black money will have to be proved in a court of law. We have to contend with the doctrine of mens rea.

Not much different from my original critique of these two "points"..

In terms of solutions, this point is interesting..

There is no column in the income-tax return at present to get a declaration from the taxpayer about the foreign bank accounts, if any, held by him. This is a significant lacuna

I am actually surprised that its not there yet...Residents in India have been legally allowed to remit money out offshore for 6-7 years now (the cap per individual now is a fairly significant 200k USD/per annum)...As per RBI records, the outflow on this account has not been very material - but it is there...IT should be accounting for it in their returns statement...

The "tax retention" idea is germane as a tax mobilisation tool, if it works out ...But it does nothing about identifying the account holders, or indeed identifying the ones who are guilty of any crime, or for that matter "bringing the money back"...So beyond some tax revenues, it doesnt solve the essential purpose..

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 13 Jun 2011 06:34

PM must come under Lokpal ambit: Diggy

Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh on Sunday created a flutter by endorsing civil society's demand to bring the prime minister and the higher judiciary under the ambit of Lokpal, taking the government and his party colleagues by surprise.

The government has ruled out including PM and higher judiciary within the ambit of the anti-graft ombudsman and appears to be headed for a confrontation with civil society on the issue.

watch the fun. seems to have a plan( RG mentor) - Target MMS.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jun 2011 07:00

So civil war inside the UPA? The same guys will exempt it if Rahul baba becomes PM.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 07:23

harbans ji,
maybe you have to read up the last few posts from this post of mine to see - where the "slants" keep on coming from, and then they naturally invite response in kind. Well if you say everyone has the right to place his POV and this is not a "slant" on fellow posters, then hopefully you will excuse my responses too as my POV and not "slants".

It almost always starts out with unprovoked slants on one of "Hindu/saffron/RSS-BJP/nationalists/hindutva" and then goes on an on under the pretension of POV/Sense of humour/right to "question" etc. Can you expect non-response in kind?

Asa for Islamist or EJist manipulation and presence in the proposed Lokpal, we have reasons to worry - from the experience of who the INC put up in the NAC as eminent personalities from the "civil society". A list of NAC was provide on the forum, that included some of the the most virulent open campaigners against "Hindu/saffron/RSS-BJP/nationalists/hindutva", and included such campaigners from both the "Left", and Islamist backdrop.

I have already quoted the "Jesuit" Archbishop of Delhi and a "Jesuit" "human rights" activist in this thread, the former in fact accompanying AH - seemingly the most eligible prototype or model "civil society" candidate as per the drift of pro-existing-draft lobby. I also pointed out how even "human rights" had to be placed as "Jesuit" demand and not just plain old Indian citizens' demand.

Ridiculing is an old tactic in debates to try and delegitimize or divert attention from a point which if explored further can expose the debater's own logical or informational fraud. In this case, it does not help in anyway the cause of the small "civil society" group around AH - because the danger of the religious contamination and underlying bias is very very real. Do read through the list of the NAC "civil society" as "selected" by the Gov/INC every time you hear that such a pointer is amusing.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 07:34

As for "judiciary" not being "spared" people can look up and compare the sections that deal with "civil servants" and the "judiciary" in the draft. Of course the judiciary is not "spared" but there are much more checks and balances and cautions in subjecting them to the arbitrariness that is assigned for the "non-judiciary".

The question would have been less prickly if it was not consciously sought to reduce and cap the representation in the committee from the "civil service". If "judges" or people of judicial background are assumed to be impartial for going against their fellow professionals - so that a higher proportion of the "judicial types" can be safely allowed in a body that is supposedly also going to go after the "judiciary", why cannot it be assumed that the "civil servants" in the body too will be "impartial" to their fellow professionals? Only an assumption that the "civil servants" cannot be "impartial" and/or that the body will mainly target the "civil servants" - can we find any reason to justify "more" of "judicial types" without any caps.

But then given the impressions and hints of "judicial corruption", more of "judicial background" can be interpreted as an attempt by the "judiciary" to ensure that they are better protected than the "others" they are going to target.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jun 2011 07:37

Infosys founder also wants to bring PM under Lokpal and give gratuitous comparison to himslef and his company.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Jun 2011 07:45

Airavat wrote:British initiative to bring back money stashed by tax evaders abroad

Now this is an interesting intiative...In fact, seems that it has been "copied" in toto from India..We have had multiple rounds of "voluntary disclosures" of income programmes (at least 3 I think) over the years..The most successful one was by PC in 1997, when it generated ~7k crores in tax revenues, implying monies worth 25-30k turning "white"...Not entirely coincidentally, this initiative coincided with the last tranche of big bang reform of direct tax rates (effectively concluding the agenda started by MMS) - so people declared their income, paid taxes and went on firm with the knowledge of a more rational tax rates regime in the future..Laffer Curve implications playing out in a way...

Maybe we can try this out as an idea - a VDIS for "offshore" wealth...It would need some changes in offshore money regs as well (the capital acocunt is still largely controlled in India) - so administration will be complicated...But if RBI can find out a way of rationalising the regs - difficult but not impossible - a VDIS type scheme will work..

And we have more red herrings here - Lokpal will be populated by "islamists" because NAC suposedly has been! A statutory (maybe Constitutional if people have their way) body with executive and regulatory powers set up by an Act of Parliament compared to an advisory body with nothing but an advisory mandate! Of course, in typical style, from judiciary "not covered - elitist conspiracy!" has now changed to judiciary "Oh God, given extra checks and balances - elitist conspriracy!"...Its hardly a fundamental fault with the concept, and many people (including likes of Fali Nariman) want to exclude the PM and judiciary out of the ambit totally, for good reasons...It would actually be good if both are brought under the ambit with some extra precautions (my feedback to the comittee on the PM was around the same lines) - its a typical process of give-an-take in policy-making, in a democracy even more so...Strange people with high concern for "elected mandates" dont think actual brass-stacks policy is done in a similar manner to electoral politics!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 08:01

I find it rather mean-minded and indicative of the underlying thinking in the drafting body - as to the possible stereotyping that is going on or is being used as a model of the "eternally" corrupt babu as the sole source of all "corruption". If the babus could produce a T.N.Seshan [at least even in the controversies he played perfectly to the ball - writing out prompt cheques when targeted], whereas the highest courts nowadays produces judgments which have to be withdrawn and "re-edited" [because they have infringed on politically correct positions], or some really strange pronouncements on "defining" particular religions [like "Hinduism"], or ex-judges write long pieces giving out interesting clues as to their long-held ideological leanings - don't see why there should be a dis-balance between the two in representation.

The babus would have hopefully a better understanding of threats to the nation and administration and keep a check on possible over-zealous judicial "activism".

Strawman arguments again needed - in typical fashion again - since no one said that the "judiciary was being completely spared"! Interesting to see that "greater checks and balances" for the judiciary "compared" to "civil servants" is being smoothly glossed over or dismissed as somehow the most natural and unquestioned thing to do!

Hmm! so legislature/constitution mandated body - but which is still selected from "undefined" categories [except the "civil" servants and the "judicial" background] by a small group of people consisting of the PM and the CJ and their "nominations" - automatically rules out selection of people in the Lokpal having underlying ideological agenda? After all I can see why the urgency to ignore the essential commonality between NAC and the propose Lokpal - is not about advisory or non-advisory - but about who or what is considered "civil society" material by those who are likely to be the "selectors"!

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 13 Jun 2011 08:03

KLNMurthy wrote:Investigative offices in any government are an inherently intractable problem--they have to be part of the government machinery while remaining independent of it. CBI, CVC, all of the judiciary, and in the US, the attorney-general's office all try to square the circle in some way by building in some combination of constitutional firewall, administrative convention, and penalties for abuse. The designers of the Lok Pal and its proponents haven't shown at all that they understand the nature of the problem, the variables involved, and how to go about designing and evaluating a solution.

KLN, I find your views to be the most rational of the lot on this forum.

Can you provide some elaboration on the bolded part above? This is exactly what is missing in the current Lokpal bill.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2011 08:06

If judges are "going" to be under the scope - the same reasons that argue for limiting the total number from "civil servant" origins should also apply for "judicial backgrounds". Given the resistance shown so far by the "judiciary" in getting "judged" or probed - they should be equally treated for suspicions of lack of impartiality as that of the civil servants.

Anyway, folks why should not the Lokpal be directly elected?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2011 08:27

To abolish black money we need to abolish personal Income-Tax first.Let there be VAT based upon costs of goods,tax luxury goods in a steeply ascending scale.Only 15% of the country pays IT,mostly the Middle Classes,who will to have more money in their pockets.Tax returns however have to be compulsorily filled in for stat,/planning purposes for those earning a certain income (3L) and above.Stiff enalties for not doing so.Corporate taxes will remain.Individuals will then be able to spend and show off their wealth without fear,thus boosting the economy.Once thi happens,the money stashed away abroad will return in large measure as interests rates will be higher here for deposits,etc.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Jun 2011 08:41

harbans wrote: Now i look at BR. Demands for death sentence for adulterers.

Harbans ji, please try and separate genuine information from strawmen put up by detractors. The "death sentence for adulterers" is from a fake facebook page, and this has been pointed out to you before.

One member Nesoj claimed, like yourself, that Baba Ramdev had claimed a cure for AIDS. When challenged he came up with a satirical report from a spoof website as "proof".

Thanks.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Jun 2011 08:42

Philip wrote:To abolish black money we need to abolish personal Income-Tax first.Let there be VAT based upon costs of goods,tax luxury goods in a steeply ascending scale.Only 15% of the country pays IT,mostly the Middle Classes,who will to have more money in their pockets

Tax reforms are a sine qua non, that is the big necessary condition to tackle black money...But abolishing IT completely? That makes no sense..

For one, direct taxes are "progressive" in nature..So people earning more pay more tax..Indirect taxes (VAT et al) are on non-progressive, if there is a VAT of 15% on grains, a chap earning 1 lac rupees pays as much as a chap earning 10 lac...Globally therefore, public finances have moved towards greater share of direct taxes in the ta kitty, including India in the last 10-15 years..

And the number of tax-payers in India is much less than 15%..More like 2-3% of the population pays any tax at all..The % filing returns too is a small number...

The issue isnt about people being "afraid" of showing off wealth, on black money the issue is about tax rates being "high" (not true mostly anymore), or the tax regime being overly complicated, or there being too many loopholes (incl exemptions) encouraging people to evade - the last two need to be tackled...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Jun 2011 08:50

Nesoj · Post by **Nesoj** » 13 Jun 2011 09:31

brihaspati wrote: Anyway, folks why should not the Lokpal be directly elected?

The moment you talk of 'elections' ... there will be direct (most likely) or indirect (least likely) involvement of political parties.

Again, given the history of our fascination with personalities... It wouldn't surprise me to see cricket stars (Sachin), cinema stars (Rajnikanth), political mavericks (Mayawati / Lalu) commanding more votes than say, AH.

Direct elections would immediately bring in issues of caste, region, language, reservations into the committee

On another note, I am surprised that no one has yet not raised an issue about SC/ST reservation in the Lokpal Committee. Probably this will be an issue raised by members in the Parliament to derail the process further

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 13 Jun 2011 09:32

>>Lokpal will be populated by "islamists" because NAC suposedly has been!

This is a mischivious statement. No one has ever accused the NAC of being Islamist. The few accusations pertaining to religion that have eveb been made regard NAC as anti-Hindu.

That statement above is misdirection. By accusing NAC detractors of being 'anti Islamic', it attempts to direct attention away from the fact that the NAC is in fact crypto-Christian and anti-Hindu.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Jun 2011 09:46

abhischekcc wrote:No one has ever accused the NAC of being Islamist

Ahh, my mistake - should have been more explicit..NAC has not been described as "islamist", only as a body with "islamist presence and manipulation"...Not sure how that makes any chage to the essential point though - comparison between the appointments to a constitutionally mandated body and an advisory body to a govt department......OR in fact which of the following "similar" bodies - RBI, EC, CAG - have been subject to such "presence and manipulations"...

Nesoj wrote:Direct elections would immediately bring in issues of caste, region, language, reservations into the committee

That is true...But the bigger issue is of practicability..How many such constitutional bodies will need to be directly elected? CEC, RBI guv, CAG, CVC, TRAI-Chairman, SEBI chief, IRDA chief, DGHC, and yes the new NRAI (Nuclear Regulatory Authority) - and many more...

The issue about the so-called elitism of the selection panel proposed is a huge red herring..While the proponents have gone overboard with some of it (the issue of "youngest" judges for example), fundamentally it is probably the most intensly rigorous of all such selection processes..There is PM, Vice President, Leader of Opposition, judges from SC and HC and members from "civil society"..The last bit is problematic unless defined - in effect the attempt is to get people from outside the establishment as well...The issue is how to delect these selectors...I am sure in the final draft they will narrow this down to something more practical...

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 13 Jun 2011 09:47

somnath wrote:One, its not a silver bullet - which it isnt, nothing is...

self evident, obvious, and moot point. Not sure why you are repeating this.

somnath wrote:
Dhiman wrote:Ahem, this suggestion sucks! You might as well create a cabal that will control LokPal selection And what about the funding aspects of LokPal, when are they funded, when is there funding increased/decreased/kept stable and by who on what quantifiable parameter. LOL, otherwise if a corrupt simple only state government clerk who goes to office at 11pm and comes back by 4pm like myself becomes in charge of LokPal funding, then rest assured I will reduce it to zero so that lokpal becomes in name only yet completely ineffective.
This is pre-empting the trial process, and getting it done at a slightly advanced level...

So? ... Whats the point? Please explain.

It is required to protect the PM from frivolous complaints, especially politically motivated ones...

PM and government already have an army of Lawyers to protect them. The common man doesn't, PM and government are rich enough to buy any protection they need. The common man has hardly enough money to feed himself. It's the common man who needs protection from a corrupt government, not the other way around. You need to be worrying about how to protect the mango rather than PM. PM is expendable. I would rather loose five honest PMs rather than to sustain even one corrupt one on the chair for five years.

On the issue of funding, the point is a bit disengenuous...Funding for all instittuions finally come from two sources - Consolidated Fund of India and state govts..That includes the legislature, the judiciary, EC, CAG - all instittuions "indpeendent" of the executive...NOt sure why Lokpal's funding needs to be a "concern"...

You must be kidding me. Its statements like this which make me wonder whether you actually read the news despite your repeated claims to that effect. I mean 1) didn't the supreme court recently complain regarding government being lax in providing proper funding to the court system, 2) 20 million court cases pending some dragging on years end and years out, 3) large number of vacancy of judges in the court system.

The fact, Sir, is that the court system in India currently is as ineffective as it gets and if that is the example you are going by, the rest assured, LokPal would probably be even more ineffective due to lack of funding.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 13 Jun 2011 09:49

I am afraid this line of critique is perhaps the flimsiest of all...

One, the critique that the Lopal isnt "directl elected"...Well, how many people by that logic will need to be "directly elected"? RBI guv, Election Commisioners,, CEC, CVC, Supreme Court judges - just a few in random first thoughts...About "mainowadis" (amazing how a political leader has been elevated to the level of an ideologue!) "taking over" lokpal, lets see how other such cosntitutional offices are appointed..

CVC: a selection panel comprising PM, HM and Leader of opposition
RBI guv: appointed by the Finance Minister (in fact he technically reports to the FM)
Election Commissioner: Appointed by the PM
SC judges: appointed by a collegium consisting of senior SC judges

Never heard of any of the above instittuoins being "taken over" by "islamists et al"..Given the impracticality of direct elections for every important post like this, the process suggested is as comprehensive and fool proof as it can get..The PM and Leader of opposition represent bulk of the "elected will" of the country...

if I didn't know your arguments from past history, I would say you were being facetious. instead, I know that you are really providing the above examples in all seriousness.

CVC, RBI, EC are all bodies with specific purpose. they have a specific mandate. a specific agenda. and are limited to a specific role. RBI performs the role of a Central Bank. and the role of a Central Bank is very well defined in modern times. every major country has a central bank. EC is also a body specifically formed to run elections. they have a specific mandate, and once again, every democratic country has a dedicated Election running process. so, the purpose of this also is very clear.

Lokpal is a completely different game. it will have authority over vast numbers of departments and ministries. it is responsible for "anti-graft," which can be in any place/ministry/state, etc. its mandate allows it to exercise power over a much larger arena. the hesitancy about Lokpal is that it is being supported and framed by people who have been associated with extreme P-secs and NAC. this gives cause to worry that Lokpal will become another NAC, which specifically targets "communal" forces as per their whims and fancies. I simply don't trust any "independent" body that is appointed by MMS. when MMS is involved, it means that Maino is making the real decisions. and we all know what kind of people Maino likes to have, based on her staffing of NAC.

and NO, Maino is not just a "political leader," as you so fallaciously put it. deliberate underrating her power and influence might be a trick that you can pull off some other place, but not on BRF. Maino is the power behind the throne. the real Nucleus which powers UPA. she is arguably the most powerful politician in India, and has been for 7 years now. "just a politician" my a**.

Nesoj · Post by **Nesoj** » 13 Jun 2011 09:56

somnath wrote: Tax reforms are a sine qua non, that is the big necessary condition to tackle black money...But abolishing IT completely? That makes no sense..

For one, direct taxes are "progressive" in nature..So people earning more pay more tax..Indirect taxes (VAT et al) are on non-progressive, if there is a VAT of 15% on grains, a chap earning 1 lac rupees pays as much as a chap earning 10 lac...

People earning 'more' money normally buy 'more luxurious' items. By abolishing income tax and 'progressively increasing' the rate of VAT on (say) semi luxurious (30%), luxurious (45%) and super luxurious (60%) items, will bring in the money that we stand to loose in direct taxes. This could be for all items across the board (food, clothing, electronics, vehicles, building material etc etc)

Further this will bring in additional monies from the so far untapped 'rich agriculturists' income. I personally know of farmers (if one can call them so) earning incomes of 2 to 3 lakhs a month and splurging on super luxury items (Carrera marble floored farms, luxury SUV's etc) but not paying tax as the income is 'agricultural' in nature.

The consumer would then have nothing to hide (no direct taxes) and forced to pay (in the form of indirect taxes) in the event of wanting to spend ones money. Again there would be no

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 13 Jun 2011 09:59

somnath wrote:
The issue about the so-called elitism of the selection panel proposed is a huge red herring..While the proponents have gone overboard with some of it (the issue of "youngest" judges for example), fundamentally it is probably the most intensly rigorous of all such selection processes..There is PM, Vice President, Leader of Opposition, judges from SC and HC and members from "civil society"..The last bit is problematic unless defined - in effect the attempt is to get people from outside the establishment as well...The issue is how to delect these selectors...I am sure in the final draft they will narrow this down to something more practical...

so, what is your definition of "civil society" now that you've recognized it as a "problem?"
and what is this that you're so "sure" of? do enlighten us. b/c in all our dark ignorance, we can't figure out something that you're so confidently "sure" about. you began the debate by not even acknowledging the "problem" about "civil society." and now that your arguments have been ripped apart by a host of people, you revert your stance and make some cosmetic changes by saying "sure," "problem," etc. now that you've come around to acknowledging these issues as relevant and more than just propaganda by "communal forces," you can tell us what ideas you have to solve these "problems."

on a side note: this thread is the greatest example of hijacking by one poster. seriously, everybody except somnath has agreed on the "problem" about "civil society" from page 1 itself. but one guy keeps posting various strawman arguments and shifting goal posts and eventually we have 40 pages of posts and finally he comes around to saying that there is a "problem" with how you define "civil soceity."