- If Land Bill has anything against farmers, I'm ready to change it, says PM Modi
- Essar Leaks: ‘Guests are very important people... Kindly see they are comfortable’
- Mufti to head 25-member cabinet; PM to attend his swearing-in on Sunday
- Economic Survey pegs India's growth at over 8 percent, says inflation easing
- Rail budget missed the opportunity to lay out an agenda for the future, writes Nitish
In her column 'Not "corruption" again' (IE, November 4), Tavleen Singh wants us to forget about corruption and the "brawling leftists" who protest against it. But all those protesting against corruption are not leftists, and most sane people are not against growth. Corruption has increased inequality and bred helplessness in a large section of society, which has not benefited from growth. Singh finds fault with the complex regulations that drive businessmen to corruption. But it is also possible that there is a nexus of corrupt businessmen, politicians and bureaucrats who, in the name of growth, are exploiting the poor.
— Anil Kaushik
THIS refers to 'Call to account' (IE, November 9). Indian democracy provides a well-designed system of checks and balances. The editorial raises a legitimate question — "What is the professional duty of CAG?" It is not a regulatory authority, but it should provide a systematic assessment of various programmes and institutions. It is very difficult to create flawless system: while Anna Hazare or Arvind Kejriwal may find loopholes in our current systems of governance, even they cannot design perfect systems. International standards of accounting and auditing can be modified for use in India, and it would be within the mandate of the CAG to use such standards to produce reports based on facts.
— Shishir Sindekar
THE editorial 'Call to account', which is disapproving of CAG Vinod Rai's recent remarks on the "brazenness" of the government's decision making, seemed unfair. When a large number of Indians are "appalled" by this government's apathy about its own wrongdoings, is it improper or indiscreet for Rai, an officer appointed by the Constitution, to express anguish? Wouldn't it be worse for him to remain a silent bystander? How is Rai signalling the "primacy" of Rai if he is drawing attention to a bigger social issue?