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

Let us now summarize and agree

Charu's point:

"I don't care who gets money from whom."

Clearly: he does not care if money comes from corporations, citizens
groups, etc. Subject to:

Kush's point:

Kush believes clearly: "corporations will ALWAYS FIND THEIR WAY to a
politicians heart"

Clearly, Kush is a realist. He does know that water finds its own level.
No utopia here.


Charu's point:

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.

Kush's point:

"it proves what Charu and I have been saying all along.  That corporations
will always find their way to a politicians heart because they have deep
pockets.  Should such alliances be allowed with no check and
accountability?  I do not think so."

My point in summation:

Folks, there is no dispute here. This is what Gandhi said: that people are
not very particular about how they make money (Charu does not care who
gives money to whom). The reality is admitted clearly by all: that
polticians will be sought out (whether you like it or not) by the rich
businessmen. And politicians will prefer to get money from one source than
from 10000 individuals. On the reality check, I would say, both of you
finally get a pass mark. 

Now - GIVEN THE ABOVE REALITY (and please don't get me wrong: I would have
liked this reality not to exist in the ideal world):

All three of us (in fact ALL of us, unanimously) want one single thing:


So, do not deny reality. Do not once again start off by saying that you
want to put limits on corporate or business funding. That CANNOT work. It
is futile. It is utopian. It is like asking water to flow uphill. It is
not scientific. That is not the way the world works.

I revert to the three points again:

	* 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.

Charu has some confusion on what I mean by pt. 3. I will elaborate. Kush
in fact can elaborate better than me.

This time, if you do wish to rebut point 1 (which is the cause of this
horribly long debate), then do tell me WHY is it that you insist on
changing human nature, and on changing the reality of the world. What is
wrong with this world that you wish to create a different world? Have
limits ever worked? Do you know that limits are the facade behind which
the entire corruption of India (and in the world) flourishes? 

Insist on transparency (that will be difficult, but it is achievable). Do
not waste time and energy in setting limits to reality.

When all of us know exactly who has contributed what to whom, then we will
be better judges of our political parties and candidates. That is all I am
saying. Give me, a citizen, a chance to know whom to vote for. Do not pull
wool over my eyes.


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