[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Charu, now we are speaking in one voice:



Charu wrote:

> I don't care who gets money from whom. 
> I do care if, in return for getting that money, officials/politicians
> commit theft of public property on behalf of their paymasters.
> 
> I think it is wrong if in return for payment from "Birlas and Tatas"
> they are allowed to pollute the air and water [a theft of public
> resources, IMO].
> 
> I think it is wrong if in return for payment from "Birlas and Tatas"
> they are allowed to exploit their workers and then have strikes busted
> by public agencies like the police and paramilitary [a theft from the
> workers, protection provided at public expense].
> 
> I think it is wrong if in return for payment from "Birlas and Tatas"
> they receive the benefit of the construction roads and other public
> infrastructure before people who don't payoff.

This is exactly what I have been saying: accountability. Today, the funds
are give in an underhand manner. Nobody knows what quid pro quo deals are
being struck. The whole thing is a racket. Bring it above the table. Let
you and I be able to examine the exact behavior of politicians, knowing
full well how they got funded. 

Let us take this wool away from our eyes and monitor the behavior of
the wolves. That is what I am saying:

	* Let all donations (limitless) be above board
	* Let all donations be fully documented and publicly available	
		for inspection on the internet
	* Let citizens groups take up the responsiblity of monitoring 
		closely the actions of the politicians and businesses
		and swiftly come down if there are cases of quid pro
		quo detected. Let decisions be taken after due
		process and due consideration of all sides, and only
		on pure merit.
	
> Was it fair Gandhi to get money from the Birlas? 
> I don't see why not because in return Gandhi was not stealing public
> property and delivering it to the Birlas- he had no ability to do so. He
> was not promising the Birlas anything material. I don't see it as all
> that different from charitable giving [with no strings attached].

Clearly, the article I pointed out (later : refer to "Goldmine") showed
the quid pro quo there. The workers in Birla factories had no hearing from
Gandhi; Birla was able to get the necessary shelter from inspection
through his links to Gandhi. There is nothing like a free lunch,
unfortunately. Gandhi was no Thoreau. He did not run the ashrams from the
proceeds of the chappals he sold (like Bunker Roy tries to do, honestly).
Gandhi was liberally funded in his uncompetitive businesses. Neither the
yarn he spun, nor the chappals he manufactured could have supported his
Ashrams. He was therefore a free-rider on somebody else's hard work and
earnings. 

> Of course, if in return for the money Gandhi were to promise Birla
> control of say the entire textile industry through government control
> upon independence I would consider that wrong.

The quid pro quo that has gone on after independence is too well known.
Unfortunately, now, it is a hidden and underhand thing: the entire economy
of India has been driven underground. Honesty is completely lost in this
process. And decency.

So, if you now agree we can go for the three points that I mentioned
above.

SS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: india_policy@cine.net
Rules, Procedures, Archives:     http://www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------