India! I dare you to be rich

Conclusive evidence that Arvind Kejriwal is a hard core socialist #2

My first post on this topic, being a compilation of evidence accumulated over well over a year, was prompted by the following Twitter conversation:


It is clear that Surajit Dasgupta, who has some broad sense of economics, is badly deluded about Arvind's worldview, which is PURELY leftist. Everyone has a view, and it is impossible to be into politics without a view about the relationship between citizens and the state. That view, in the case of Arvind, is socialist.

Let's review what Surajit has written in defence of Arvind's ideology:

The thousands of largely urbane youth that poured into the streets following the call by Anna in April and August 2011 are not interested in regressive socialism of Indira Gandhi’s vintage. Further, if after raising a hue and cry over government’s corruption all powers are returned to that very government, it would be a betrayal of people’s trust. So the youth like me came in to make the movement stay on course.
 
And we found to our sheer joy that the alternative system being proposed by the members of the National Executive of the AAP was indeed not hackneyed. It’s unfair to look at them as socialists (in the sense that this term typically conveys, notwithstanding the fact that all political parties registered with the Election Commission of India have to pledge on paper that they would be socialist).
 
The whole AAP team now — with social justice champion Yogendra Yadav and free market advocates like Mayank Gandhi, Prithvi Reddy, me and many of the thinking minds that attend the party’s policy meetings alike — is pushing for a new era where civic amenities would be managed by gram sabhas (in villages) and mohalla sabhas (in cities); thrust would be on conservation of nature; natural resources would need community clearances to be exploited; health and education would be state priorities; competition would be allowed wherever competition is possible; secularism would be observed in the strictest sense, moving away from turn-by-turn communalism practised by the Congress/SP and the BJP; foreign policy will be determined by reciprocity, etc.

I hope this is the course the Gandhian Kejriwal stays. And for information of all and sundry, once and for all, Gandhism is not (Indian) socialism. [Sanjeev: I trust you are aware that Gandhi was in many ways a classical liberal, even anarcho liberal. He totally opposed socialism.]. It’s a distinct school of thought. Jayaprakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia et al and their followers thought otherwise because they were suffering from a hangover of Marxism which they grew up on during their formative years. The model I have just explained finds no place in Das Kapital. If the AAP assumes power and then imposes on the country a Pranab Mukherjee-style economic thought, massive disappointment and desertions will follow. As an insider, I’ll try not to let that happen.

I'll use this information, plus information I've already discussed in the past, to bring together a CONCLUSIVE proof of Arvind being socialist. After this post, let no one ever come to me saying that Arvind is not socialist, or that he is somehow intellectually "asexual" – neither this nor that. Somewhere in between. EVERYONE in the world is either socialist (collectivist) or capitalist (focused on the individual). No one is dead in the centre [totally "neutral"].

GLOSSING OVER THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF INDIA'S CORRUPTION

Socialism is the underlying cause of India's misgovernance, but neither Kejriwal nor AAP oppose government control over our life. It is imagined in their model that simply by having more local power things will become miraculously better. There is no mention of defence of our liberty as the ONLY reason for the existence of government. It is often, under AK's model, possible for liberty to be crushed just because a local collectivist body ("gram sabha is not LESS of a state than a "big" government) decides to do so. AK's model is not CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSCRIBED. It is based on TOTAL faith in the collective, and total disregard for the individual and his/her liberty.

JANLOKPAL, YET ANOTHER GOVERNMENT BODY, IS BASED ON SOCIALIST ASSUMPTIONS

A small Jan Lokpal may be relevant at a certain stage in India's development, but by missing the CAUSE of corruption – socialism and the discretion embedded within government – Arvind merely wants YET ANOTHER large government entity.

It is not by stopping the 100s of unnecessary things India's governments do, but by creating yet another – almost extra-constitutional MEGA-body with thousands of bureaucrats – that Arvind wants to solve India's problems. That is a purely socialist approach.

Had there been a TINY Janlokpal along with fundamental electoral reforms/ compensation reforms (including contractual appointments of senior officials and scrapping the colonial IAS, etc.), I could have accepted it, but it is not a minimalist approach. It is a MAXIMALIST approach that will do NOTHING to reduce corruption.

GLOSSING OVER YOGENDRA YADAV'S MASSIVE OBSESSION WITH COMMUNISM (TOTAL ECONOMIC EQUALITY)

The presence of mega socialist Yogendra Yadav is being brushed under the carpet. He is being portrayed as an innocuous "social justice champion". And what does this "champion" (such a positive word!) want? ECONOMIC EQUALITY.

“How can we not be wedded to the idea of economic equality? What is so 1960s about it?”

Economic equality, not equal opportunity.

That is pure Das Kapital. That also gives away the underlying theory of AAP.

Earlier, I had vigorously opposed this idea of economic equality that is embedded in the DNA of AAP, thus:

Why stay in a country that doesn't value you? – in a country where you are expected to be an "economic equal" of those without talent or capacity for hard work?

Why stay in a country that INSULTS your talent and hard work?

I am NO ONE'S EQUAL. I am unique.

So are you. So is everyone. (By the way.) [Source]

The next thing Yogendra says is: "the party does not believe that in critical areas like health and education – the state should withdraw its support at all."

From the previous conversation of Yogendra, it is clear he wants PUBLIC SECTOR services in these areas. So the government will run schools and hospitals in Arvind's world. That's pretty much what happens now in socialist India, and has happened for 65 years. It is a total recipe for disaster – regardless of teacher appointments by the "community". Instead, we need a system to deliver equal opportunity. We should get the government out of RUNNING any of these institutions but ensure that the poorest are able to access high quality education.

GLOSSING OVER PRASHANT BHUSHAN'S PASSION ABOUT NATIONALISATION

Over the past few months, evidence about the hardcore socialist ideas of AAP has been emerging from various key members of Arvind's team. Prashant Bhushan is perhaps the most critical member of AK's team. And this is what he had to say:

  • their political party would adopt a “socialist-type” [Sanjeev: a polite and misleading word. There is nothing like "socialist-type". It is SOCIALIST. PERIOD.] economic policy, but would not be totally against private sector participation. [I.e. it would be MOSTLY against private sector "participation". Note this paternalistic word: these Gods, these Government Ministers called Prashant Bhushan would very "kindly" "let" ordinary citizens "participate" in India's economic life. Not that it is our BIRTHRIGHT to engage in any occupation or trade of our choice and the government as SERVANT must not even dream of dictating to the master: instead the Master, the Government, comprising AAP's Ministers, will "kindly" condescend to let us, the citizens of "FREE" India, "participate" in our own country!!!]
  • their party wanted to give priority to the public sector [Sanjeev: Surajit – are you able to read this? Can you distinguish this from what Nehru or Indira Gandhi stood for?], but would not be averse to private sector participation in certain areas in which there would be competition
  • Airports and power would be nationalised [So "smart" IAS officers would run the airports???? Is running airports a core function of governments? A government can't provide justice and security but wants to run airports!!]
  • people in villages got all facilities and that they did not migrate to urban areas [So here is one more form of social engineering. China did that too: it worked out ways to prevent natural urbanisation. Instead of letting people CHOOSE where they want to live and work, we'll have Mr. Smarty Pants Prashant Bhushan who will "give" – from where – his own pocket? – "ALL" facilities to everyone in India in villages. So I'm presuming there will be government managed universities in each village, planetariums, museums, etc. etc.?]

This fool Bhushan wants MORE nationalisation even as Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan, towards the end of his life, OPPOSED all nationalisation, INCLUDING OF RAILWAYS. When a government should not even own the railways, WHY should it own the airports?

Some industries, banks, life insurance have been nationalized. Railways were nationalized long ago. New large public-sector industries have been established. But all this adds up to state capitalism and inefficiency, waste and corruption. State capitalism means more power to the State, mainly the state bureaucracy [Source]

KEJRIWAL KNOWS THAT HIS TEAM IS MAINLY SOCIALIST

Do you have ideological inclinations?

Let me speak about the people in the leadership as I cannot speak for all the people who have participated. There cannot be anyone in the leadership who has a communal background. Our core team consists of 25 people and most of them are left  centre. I hope that answers your question. [Sanjeev: Although this was said of Team Anna, this is as true of AAP as it was for Team Anna. Indeed, many non-socialist elements of Team Anna did NOT join AAP.]

ARVIND'S STRONG ANTI-TRADE POSITION

This is my note about his book, Swaraj: "I notice that Arvind made some very strong (and significantly ill-informed) comments re: the role of foreigners in India, in particular against trade."

ARVIND'S NON-MARKET CONTROL OF PRICES

On 26 November 2012 at his party launch, Arvind said: "If this tax is levied (from the corporations), then it will be possible to sell petrol at Rs 50 per litre and diesel at Rs 40 per litre".

Clearly when Surajit tells me that competition will be allowed where it is possible, AAP doesn't think that selling petrol is one area where competition should be allowed. The "IAS Brahmin" (like I was) is somehow best placed to fix the price. Why does India's government have to set petrol or LPG prices?

More problematically, "People will decide the price of essential commodities". Why? And how can "people" fix prices? Is it not the purpose of markets (ALL people, through their buying and selling decisions) to "fix" prices based on supply and demand? Does "people" mean the producer or consumer? If wheat is an essential commodity, then a farmer will want a HIGH price, the consumer a low price. So who will decide? And how? Is AAP "the people"?

SUMMARY

Let me partially rephrase what I wrote some time ago

THESE PEOPLE ARE SOCIALISTS – NO DIFFERENT TO THE CONGRESS AND BJP LEADERS THEY CLAIM TO OPPOSE.

If Arvind will kindly do me the courtesy of reading BFN  we can discuss further. 
 
Else – if he continues down his socialist path – I'm going oppose his attempts to destroy India's future.
 
Sorry, I can't tolerate socialists. They are THE ENEMIES OF INDIA.
 
I'm sworn to destroy socialism. For the HUMONGOUS DAMAGE it has done to my country.

If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:

Breaking Free of Nehru

Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.

Google
Print Friendly

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
5 thoughts on “Conclusive evidence that Arvind Kejriwal is a hard core socialist #2
  1. Surajit Dasgupta

    The owner of this blog is grossly misinformed about the Aam Aadmi Party, or is into a propaganda campaign to malign it. I explain how. His statements appear in quotes and my responses to each of them follow, step-by-step.

    “neither Kejriwal nor AAP oppose government control over our life.”

    On the contrary, Arvind Kejriwal has said in private and public platforms alike, time and again, that it is unfair for the Centre to decide how local affairs of every nook and corner of the country would be managed. As a result of this centralised decision-making process, essential services are denied to the people for long, and money reaches the local administrations as tied (qualified) funds. So you have situations like a defunct street bulb lying unattended for months and years because the corporation would care to fix not one light but the lamp posts of an entire stretch of road. We add to it that often when a village is inundated, the panchayats cannot carry out relief work and take preventive measures (like building embankments or trying to change the course of the river) despite money lying in their coffers because the money might have been despatched to them exclusively for, say, drought relief! And it’s illegal to spend it for some other purpose. Several democracies across the world allow local decision-making. In the film shown to our volunteers, which is a part of the speech delivered from the stage at Parliament Street on 26 November 2012, Kejriwal speaks of transferring such authority to local administration as it happens in Brazil, for example.

    “There is no mention of defence of our liberty as the ONLY reason for the existence of government. It is often, under AK’s model, possible for liberty to be crushed just because a local collectivist body (“gram sabha is not LESS of a state than a “big” government) decides to do so.”

    Liberty is meaningless until the people offered this opportunity are not educated and evolved enough to use it. Your point of view is that of an urban elite. If individual liberty is granted without preparing the ground for it, big sharks will gobble up the smaller fries. We are not against liberty; we are against unprepared liberty, which translates to liberty only for the privileged class, wherein the disadvantaged classes will keep wondering what or who pulled the rug from beneath their feet. We are for liberty at a time when intense competition is indeed possible.

    “A small Jan Lokpal may be relevant at a certain stage in India’s development, but by missing the CAUSE of corruption – socialism and the discretion embedded within government – Arvind merely wants YET ANOTHER large government entity.”

    An ombudsman of a state is necessarily a government body. It is ludicrous to denounce it while not stating clearly whether the alternative is the prying eyes of a private body. Does the blogger instead propose voyeurism by the likes of Internet-based businesses that spam our email accounts with advertisements after eavesdropping on our conversations over telephone or even those at home outside which their detective gadgets loiter about?

    “It is not by stopping the 100s of unnecessary things India’s governments do, but by creating yet another – almost extra-constitutional MEGA-body with thousands of bureaucrats – that Arvind wants to solve India’s problems. That is a purely socialist approach.”

    Let’s not be prisoners of isms. I am not debating with you in the capacity of a socialist or a capitalist. The AAP proposes things that will work, no matter what ideology a certain action is a part of. And you did not explain how an ombudsman is extra-constitutional. For your information, the Lokpal debate is of 1967 vintage. No political party or political commentator has so far levied the charge of extra-constitutionality on it so far.

    “It is a MAXIMALIST approach that will do NOTHING to reduce corruption.”

    Wrong premise! An ombudsman comes into force post-crime, not pre-crime. We are suggesting other mechanisms to prevent corruption.

    “GLOSSING OVER YOGENDRA YADAV’S MASSIVE OBSESSION WITH COMMUNISM (TOTAL ECONOMIC EQUALITY)”

    Wrong sub-heading! Yogendra Yadav is a socialist, not a communist.

    “Economic equality, not equal opportunity.”

    Bad distinction! Yadav has nowhere denied equal opportunity. But how does one ensure equality of opportunities when a minuscule section is domineering and the majority underprivileged? How do you expect a school drop-out from Bihar’s Begu Sarai to take on the might of those dwelling in Delhi’s Vasant Vihar or Mumbai’s Juhu?

    Let’s take a sample of less differences. How about an SEZ? Have you ever surveyed the businessmen of one? Did you know that the Blue Chip companies managed to reach the top because they are offered equipment in their factories at throwaway prices while smaller companies in the competition have to shell out a fortune to procure the same?

    “Why stay in a country that doesn’t value you? – in a country where you are expected to be an “economic equal” of those without talent or capacity for hard work? Why stay in a country that INSULTS your talent and hard work? I am NO ONE’S EQUAL. I am unique. So are you. So is everyone.”

    You have left the country already. Why bother about those not moneyed enough to set sail overseas? As such, your accusation is wholly presumptuous. You jump the gun every now and then. While India has a lot more to do to appreciate individual talent, in centres of excellence like the IITs, the joint entrance examinations push to the fore far more poorer candidates than they uphold the affluent.

    Where the country lacks is putting in place a regime that makes launching businesses easy, which would offer more competition to the cronies that influence government decisions.

    “… the government will run schools and hospitals in Arvind’s world. That’s pretty much what happens now in socialist India, and has happened for 65 years. It is a total recipe for disaster – regardless of teacher appointments by the “community”. Instead, we need a system to deliver equal opportunity. We should get the government out of RUNNING any of these institutions but ensure that the poorest are able to access high quality education.”

    Uneducated comments! One wonders how socialist India has been, with the likes of GD Goenka Public School, Delhi Public School, Amity, Apeejay, Lotus Valley, Heritage, etc ruling the roost while municipal schools get a raw deal. It is comparable to the transport sector where the authority connived with car manufacturers and deliberately neglected public transport, while abruptly ushering in an era of metro rails, monorails and bus rapid transit systems after the car makers told the government that their market was now saturated, with even lower middle class people earning as little as Rs 10,000 a month now owning cars! Wouldn’t metro and BRT have made more sense 15 or 20 years ago? Why were these poor people forced to invest in a commodity that constantly depreciates post-purchase when they could have invested the money spent on cars in their children’s better upbringing?

    The municipal schools will continue to be low in government’s list of priorities as the owners of private schools keep bribing it to keep their business brisk. The situation is, in fact, worse than that in the transport sector. For, unlike the market for cars, that for education will never saturate.

    Second, teachers have never been appointed or sacked by communities anywhere in India. They are all centrally managed, due to which teachers continue to draw regular salaries and other perks of the job despite poor performance of the students. It happens because the local folks, who witness the laxity in teachers’ duty day in and day out, have no say in the continuation of the teachers’ employment.

    Third, the last sentence of the paragraph betrays total ignorance of the recent development where private schools were taken to task by the government for denying candidates from the Economically Weaker Sections admission to their schools. In Sanjeev Sabhlok’s world of exclusively private schools then, how do the poor access education?

    Fourth, one wonders how, after all the recent (two decade-long) experience with private sector universities, one could repose faith in their competence. Would Sanjeev Sabhlok argue that cerificates from a Lovely Professional University or a Sharda University is more credible than that from a Delhi, Madras or Calcutta University?

    “… their political party would adopt a “socialist-type” [Sanjeev: a polite and misleading word. There is nothing like “socialist-type”. It is SOCIALIST. PERIOD.] economic policy, but would not be totally against private sector participation. [I.e. it would be MOSTLY against private sector “participation”. Note this paternalistic word: these Gods, these Government Ministers called Prashant Bhushan would very “kindly” “let” ordinary citizens “participate” in India’s economic life. Not that it is our BIRTHRIGHT to engage in any occupation or trade of our choice and the government as SERVANT must not even dream of dictating to the master: instead the Master, the Government, comprising AAP’s Ministers, will “kindly” condescend to let us, the citizens of “FREE” India, “participate” in our own country!]”

    Your conclusions in parentheses are nothing but mischievous play with words, putting words in our mouth.

    “their party wanted to give priority to the public sector [Sanjeev: Surajit – are you able to read this? Can you distinguish this from what Nehru or Indira Gandhi stood for?], but would not be averse to private sector participation in certain areas in which there would be competition”

    That is not what Nehru and her daughter Indira did. They nationalised sectors where competition was possible: airlines, banks, etc, while privatising many where competition was not possible: basic amenities, natural resources, etc.

    “Airports and power would be nationalised [So “smart” IAS officers would run the airports???? Is running airports a core function of governments? A government can’t provide justice and security but wants to run airports!]”

    Airports and airlines are not welfare sectors. Taxpayers’ money is uselessly drained in managing these loss-making ventures. I do not support their nationalisation. This must be Prashant Bhushan’s personal view. The party’s document on economic affairs will be published by April 2013. Your remarks about where our policies stand with respect to this sector are, therefore, wholly hypothetical.

    “Instead of letting people CHOOSE where they want to live and work, we’ll have Mr. Smarty Pants Prashant Bhushan who will “give” – from where – his own pocket? – “ALL” facilities to everyone in India in villages. So I’m presuming there will be government managed universities in each village, planetariums, museums, etc. etc.?]”

    First, your language is uncouth. And yet you want to be taken seriously?

    Second, it seems by now you have forgotten the contents of Kejriwal’s book, Swaraj, which, in some of your previous posts, you claimed to have read. Is this how the book proposes the villages will be managed?

    Third, are you an advocate of mushrooming slums? What has the ‘liberty’ — I didn’t know a villager’s migration to a city was as pleasant an exercise as exercising a choice — of moving to a city offered to a villager? Only worse conditions of living: high cost, low income, living in shanties, being treated as subhumans by the police, etc. Why would you oppose rural job creation dictated by the culture and core competencies of the respective villages of the country?

    “When a government should not even own the railways, WHY should it own the airports?”

    So, are you dreaming of dozens of — for the sake of competition — privately owned railway stations because you are not satisfied with the one in each city/town run by the government? Where will the stations be constructed? Up in the air? Even the air space of a country is not limitless.

    “State capitalism means more power to the State, mainly the state bureaucracy”

    The AAP is against state capitalism. We advocate replacement of management by bureaucracy by community management and ownership.

    “Our core team consists of 25 people and most of them are left centre. I hope that answers your question.”

    That was unfortunate and somewhat undemocratic, I concede. However, as the last paragraph of my first comment in your blog predicts, imposing the personal ideology of the National Executive members on the National Council and the supporter base of urban youth will be a mistake. People have flocked to our party in huge numbers, looking up to Kejriwal’s Gandhian ideals of fighting corruption by decentralisation and democratic ideas like referendum, initiative, right to reject and right to recall. It is not the image of the ‘socialist’ NE members that pulled the crowds. They should keep that in mind while framing policies.

    “On 26 November 2012 at his party launch, Arvind said: ‘If this tax is levied (from the corporations), then it will be possible to sell petrol at Rs 50 per litre and diesel at Rs 40 per litre.'”

    This message has been truncated mischievously to send across a wrong message to the readers. The whole context of Kejriwal was something like this: If the people were to decide what should be taxed and what should not be, would they tax the corporate sector or themselves? The current regime goes soft on the former and levies heavy taxes on petroleum products, thus almost doubling their retail prices. If the people take the decision on taxes, they will obviously want the taxes on petro-products to go, and this will drastically reduce the prices, thus having a cascading effect on prices of all the products that are high because their transportation costs are high.

    Having said that, I would request my leader to go through my research on the past record of Manmohan Singh, especially the part where he was a bureaucrat: http://surajitdasgupta.blogspot.in/2009/04/manmohan-singh-chronology.html

    A part in my exposition reads: In 1979, knowingly or inadvertently, Singh made the breakaway Janata Party’s Government (led by Charan Singh’s Bharatiya Lok Dal) look worse by increasing corporate tax manifold… not to be cowered by the hike in tax, the companies passed the additional cost on to customers. Result:
    • Prices of essential commodities like soaps, toothpastes, etc – held as a monopoly by Hindustan Lever Ltd, thanks to the government’s complicity – skyrocketed
    • Followed by the second oil shock, the rate of inflation shot up once again to 17%…

    “AAP doesn’t think that selling petrol is one area where competition should be allowed. The “IAS Brahmin” (like I was) is somehow best placed to fix the price. Why does India’s government have to set petrol or LPG prices?”

    Exactly! Why? More importantly:
    (a) How come the prices in India go up when the international crude prices rise but do not follow the global trend when it goes down?
    (b) Why should the government act as a broker between the petroleum companies and consumers?
    (c) If the market is now really deregulated, as the government claims, how come we still pay taxes added to the prices at which the companies release their products to the retail outlets?

    I quote from a source (hyperlink at the end of the quote in parentheses): Domestically produced crude oil costs the nation something around $55 per barrel and if the global price is taken to be around $150 per barrel, the average weighted domestic price comes to be around $122 per barrel. When converted to per litre, it costs the country about Rs 31 per litre. The refining and distribution costs included, the average cost of petroleum products like diesel and petrol should not be more than Rs 35 per litre, while the average rate of these commodities has been fixed higher… the petroleum products are the most taxed commodities in the country. If the government is so much concerned about the prices of the petroleum products, it must reduce the excise duty and the VAT rates across the country. But such a decision would result in loss of revenue. It looks like the loss to the oil companies is a myth created by the government to protect its own revenues. [http://www.competitionmaster.com/ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=1e07f90f-7bb4-4c80-9cc7-dcb595729eb9]

    “More problematically, ‘People will decide the price of essential commodities’. Why? And how can “people” fix prices? Is it not the purpose of markets”

    Complete canard! The only price other than those of petroleum products that the AAP says should be people-determined is Minimum Support Price for crops. One of the main reasons for large-scale farmer suicides is that the MSP offered to them does not even cover their production costs.

    “If wheat is an essential commodity, then a farmer will want a HIGH price, the consumer a low price. So who will decide? And how? Is AAP ‘the people’?”

    You are in a question-asking spree without adequate research. The farmer will never want an MSP so high that the consumer is disadvantaged. He is not only concerned about his poor living conditions but also sensitised to market realities. The APMC Act has to be revised or done away with. We are working on it. While personally I advocate removal of the seven layers of brokers between the farmer and the consumer, I will await the party’s final decision on the matter. I have sent my detailed article about foreign direct investment in retail to them: http://surajitdasgupta.blogspot.in/2012/09/blog-post.html

    By the way, one of your favourite organisations, Bharat Swabhiman, is opposed to FDI in retail.

    “If Arvind will kindly do me the courtesy of reading BFN we can discuss further.”

    Because of your uncouth lingo, I am told by one of your fellow activists at FTI, Kejriwal had shot back at you, ‘Do you think you are the only wise economist around?’ Is this true?

    “Sorry, I can’t tolerate socialists. They are THE ENEMIES OF INDIA. I’m sworn to destroy socialism. For the HUMONGOUS DAMAGE it has done to my country.”

    That makes it totally meaningless to engage with you in a debate. Because you want to learn nothing new. It is you who is a prisoner of an ism, not the AAP.

     
  2. vijay

    Sanjeev, after Surajit’s clarifications above what are your sticking points still about the AAP?

    Surajait, why did Kejriwal mention about having a salary of just 25K for all MPs? dont you think its a little impractical? Not to mention something that can actually drive corruption. This seems to be more populist than practical. Compare with how senators and president is paid in USA

     
  3. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Vijay, I’m very deeply engaged in preparing a few key documents for SKC, and will not be able to respond to Surajit’s comments at this stage. Pl. draw your own conclusions. Overall, I’ve not yet changed my mind about AAP.

     
  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks, Surajit

    I’m currently up to my neck in critical SKC work. As soon as it is out of the way, I’ll resume the discussion. It can take a few weeks.

    s

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.