In my earlier blog I had connected Modi, Raja, the Telecom scam and the Nano car deal to a general confusion between "corporate friendliness" and corruption. All that you have to say is "create jobs" and you can justify any corrupt practice.
After liberalisation politicians have figured out how to make money and gain power while appearing to serve the nation at the same time. That is by saying they support individual businessmen and then yell that they were "business-freindly" when caught.
Being corporate friendly is NOT the same as being MARKET-friendly. Government leaders are expected to maintain a fair market - that is, to be MARKET-friendly. The market has buyers and sellers. Leaders are supposed to look out to BOTH their interests.
Instead what we have is CORPORATE friendliness - which translates to accepting money from corporations and then shilling for them. That was my point in my earlier blog.
Now, within two days of writing it, I found the BEST example of that in an Economic Times link today. Here is the link to the original story:
Pawar turns crusader for India Inc against Centre
As investigating agencies turn the heat on business groups over issues relating to corruption and insider trading, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar cautioned the government against “targeting” corporates without “adequate” reason.
He said recent developments that have triggered corporate disaffection with the government could have adverse implications on the coalition’s stability. More crucially, he went on to suggest that if this persisted, big corporate houses could shift their loyalties to the Opposition. “This will not augur well for the government,” Pawar is learnt to have said.
On Monday afternoon, Pawar raised the issue at a meeting of UPA leaders and warned that there was a “growing feeling” that the government was no longer “corporate-friendly” and had stopped having a “soothing effect” on companies.
The agriculture minister, who is known to be industry-friendly, is learnt to have presented this issue of corporate disaffection as one that affects the sentiments of the share market. Fluctuations in the capital market would affect the average investor, said Pawar, whose own tenure at the helm of consumer affairs over two stints of the UPA has witnessed volatile commodity market fluctuations.
Read that and weep.
So Pawar thinks the government is not corporate-friendly if it investigates wrong doings.
Note how the Economic Times frames this - read the title of the piece again. "Pawar turns crusader for India Inc against Center". Pawar is NOT crusading for India Inc - he is "crusading" for a few rich businessmen.
Secondly, Pawar is right that this may turn some corporations, the party's big donors against the ruling coalition. That is bad for the party - but NOT for the GOVERNMENT. The party is not the government in India. Something like this, although bad for the party, is actually good for government, isn't it?
So, that is what we are dealing with here. Pawar is obviously proud of his "industry-friendly" title, helpfully provided by the Economic Times and other media. What he should be called is "the corrupt agriculture minister". Replace "corrupt" for "Corporate friendly" in the above article and you have an accurate picture.
Politicians now actually have an excuse to claim they are creating jobs or they are corporate friendly - when actually what they are is simple: they are corrupt.