The rationale behind this proposed bill stems from the fact that existing competition enforcement is supposedly sluggish and ill-suited to today's fast-paced digital environment.
Data shows large public sector banks received highest number of complaints in absolute terms, but fared better than several private banks when looked at on complaints-per-branch basis.
Sitharaman, who is only the second woman defence minister in India's history, is expected to work closely with the Finance Minister to take key industry-related decisions
For BJP, CAA was strategic move that did not quite work out because those it would benefit could’ve been accommodated under existing laws, and new entrants would remain excluded.
This argument is akin to retrograde men admonishing women wearing short casual dresses, and terrifying them of being raped if not wearing burqa type dress.
Why would the non ruling/ ruling or receiving/ non receiving party victimise those not donating to it or donating to rival. This means those donating to it would be favoured or incentivised, doesn’t it. So your argument implies existence of rampant crony capitalism.
How can they being victimised if there is rule of law and business contract allotment is fair, or it is not? Your argument implies it’s not.
So how would maintaining confidentiality will solve these problems if they are creating and perpetuating them in the first place.
I couldn’t get past this opinion piece beyond the first paragraph.
1. How do u explain corporations, especially regulated and contractual based corporations, making most donations (or bribing) only the ruling parties, be it BJP in centre and states or Congress in states.
2. What is their motivation behind these act of bribery? Aren’t all these only corrupting the business/ political environment of our country, where honest corporations are discouraged. Aren’t they increasing crony capitalism?
we all know which companies are cronies of the government, don’t we. These companies don’t subscribe to any particular party, they bribe only the party in power. So how would they be victimise? I mean we all know about Ambani and Adani. Ambani, tata, birla etc all have donated to Congress in past, have they been victimised by BJP. No they flourished in BJP ruling as well. so shut your nonsensical thinking.
How could they be victimised by any govt, there is rule of law, not? If not, isn’t we have bigger problem to deal with in the first place. I mean if there is no rule of law how could we have any policy at all.
This ‘would be’ attitude has misguided policy making ever since there are policies. “Don’t empower courts they would subjugate govt” etc. what’s the reality (all over world and history) courts subjugating govt or the OPPOSITE. The reality is that only honest corporations/ business practices and honest parties/policies are victimised. This is the reality, not “would be”.
Instead we must have Completely TRANSPARENT Electoral Bonds and some political maturity that running a political campaign is a costly affair. And u will absolutely see that this revelation of SC only prove my point– It will victimise absolutely nobody. Meh, electoral donations are OPEN SECRETS in our country, aren’t they. Who has been victimised, name one!
Elon Musk openly opposes the most powerful man on the planet of Earth, yet his company is doing more than fine: Rule of Law is supreme. And Americans act like the Rule of Law is supreme.
I repeat this again: Transparent Electoral Bond will do no harm to any body. It will only strengthen honesty, freedom, economy, and democracy. And if encouraged, it will also increase the quantity and quality of donations. It will encourage economically prudent parties and policies. It will also encourage honest businessmen to participate more in financing economically sound ideas and their originators.
End this paranoia of confidentiality. Let us focus on the bigger problems of our country, which are so difficult that even the best and sincere effort of ours might not be enough.
This argument is akin to retrograde men admonishing women wearing short casual dresses, and terrifying them of being raped if not wearing burqa type dress.
Why would the non ruling/ ruling or receiving/ non receiving party victimise those not donating to it or donating to rival. This means those donating to it would be favoured or incentivised, doesn’t it. So your argument implies existence of rampant crony capitalism.
How can they being victimised if there is rule of law and business contract allotment is fair, or it is not? Your argument implies it’s not.
So how would maintaining confidentiality will solve these problems if they are creating and perpetuating them in the first place.
I couldn’t get past this opinion piece beyond the first paragraph.
1. How do u explain corporations, especially regulated and contractual based corporations, making most donations (or bribing) only the ruling parties, be it BJP in centre and states or Congress in states.
2. What is their motivation behind these act of bribery? Aren’t all these only corrupting the business/ political environment of our country, where honest corporations are discouraged. Aren’t they increasing crony capitalism?
we all know which companies are cronies of the government, don’t we. These companies don’t subscribe to any particular party, they bribe only the party in power. So how would they be victimise? I mean we all know about Ambani and Adani. Ambani, tata, birla etc all have donated to Congress in past, have they been victimised by BJP. No they flourished in BJP ruling as well. so shut your nonsensical thinking.
How could they be victimised by any govt, there is rule of law, not? If not, isn’t we have bigger problem to deal with in the first place. I mean if there is no rule of law how could we have any policy at all.
This ‘would be’ attitude has misguided policy making ever since there are policies. “Don’t empower courts they would subjugate govt” etc. what’s the reality (all over world and history) courts subjugating govt or the OPPOSITE. The reality is that only honest corporations/ business practices and honest parties/policies are victimised. This is the reality, not “would be”.
Instead we must have Completely TRANSPARENT Electoral Bonds and some political maturity that running a political campaign is a costly affair. And u will absolutely see that this revelation of SC only prove my point– It will victimise absolutely nobody. Meh, electoral donations are OPEN SECRETS in our country, aren’t they. Who has been victimised, name one!
Elon Musk openly opposes the most powerful man on the planet of Earth, yet his company is doing more than fine: Rule of Law is supreme. And Americans act like the Rule of Law is supreme.
I repeat this again: Transparent Electoral Bond will do no harm to any body. It will only strengthen honesty, freedom, economy, and democracy. And if encouraged, it will also increase the quantity and quality of donations. It will encourage economically prudent parties and policies. It will also encourage honest businessmen to participate more in financing economically sound ideas and their originators.
End this paranoia of confidentiality. Let us focus on the bigger problems of our country, which are so difficult that even the best and sincere effort of ours might not be enough.