Indian Politics

that's a joke and you should know why

the BJP is like the Repulican Party in the US, trying to get as much as possible in to their friends in corporate.
Their alternative is Congress which is lot worse. The 'friends in corporate' drive the economy, so there is nothing wrong in policies which make it favourable for them to do business. The nation has ultimately progressed since 90s because of policies tending towards making ease of business simpler. Those who prefer earlier mediocrity should vote for such parties which will promise everything 'free.' Of course the common man won't care who ultimately pays for that 'free' and those who do pay will stop taking additional burden of running economy at some stage.
Also, the tax exempt limit, 4.44L or not in actual, is already quite good for common man.

To me, simple measure is, how many people take out more money as benefits than they put in, in form of taxes. If this proportion is in huge majority then the economy will go downwards sooner rather than later.
 
Their alternative is Congress which is lot worse. The 'friends in corporate' drive the economy, so there is nothing wrong in policies which make it favourable for them to do business. The nation has ultimately progressed since 90s because of policies tending towards making ease of business simpler. Those who prefer earlier mediocrity should vote for such parties which will promise everything 'free.' Of course the common man won't care who ultimately pays for that 'free' and those who do pay will stop taking additional burden of running economy at some stage.
Also, the tax exempt limit, 4.44L or not in actual, is already quite good for common man.

To me, simple measure is, how many people take out more money as benefits than they put in, in form of taxes. If this proportion is in huge majority then the economy will go downwards sooner rather than later.
The 4.4 L assumes a 2 L in housing-loan interest. i don't know your definition of common man, but you are not going to find a lot of common men affording such a big loan. to talk in terms of 4.4L as exemption is lying as only the right-wingers know to.

Also the friends in corporate don't drive the economy, they suck on it. There should have been measures to make it easier to start new businesses not continue to pander to the corporates. No one promises anything free and everyone pays the price for the state of the economy - there is no differentiation to say that the rich pay for the 'free' and even if it was the case that they do pay, they can't afford to stop because their vehicles for profit will disappear otherwise, and there will be someone to fill the gap, as long as business really becomes easier to do
 
..and that 4.44L is not all joke. The breakdown here:
http://profit.ndtv.com/budget/budget-how-can-you-save-rs-4-44-lakh-in-taxes-per-year-743171

The 1.5L investment, if done smartly can earn you good profit. One of my 80C investment gave me 23% return, compounded annually on top of tax saved on that amount. The 2L on interest on House property loan can be useful too. Only one which I won't consider worth is 80CCD one.
If we consider the initial exempted amount of 2.5L on which there is no tax, that is lot of money which is tax exempt.
 
Didn't you say in election thread that you are an atheist ?
Not much different is it? Just different choice of words. In this context I used them because though I myself am not, due to family/relatives being religious and some general knowledge means I could guess & answer what he might be referring. Also, what is your point anyway?
 
Not much different is it? Just different choice of words. In this context I used them because though I myself am not, due to family/relatives being religious and some general knowledge means I could answer what he might be referring. Also, what is your point anyway?
:lol: Ok. Was just curious as you seemed to contradict yourself.

And nah there's big difference in word Atheist and saying 'not very religious'
Anyway I'm not going to debate this further as I don't want to derail the thread.
 
The 4.4 L assumes a 2 L in housing-loan interest. i don't know your definition of common man, but you are not going to find a lot of common men affording such a big loan. to talk in terms of 4.4L as exemption is lying as only the right-wingers know to.

Also the friends in corporate don't drive the economy, they suck on it. There should have been measures to make it easier to start new businesses not continue to pander to the corporates. No one promises anything free and everyone pays the price for the state of the economy - there is no differentiation to say that the rich pay for the 'free' and even if it was the case that they do pay, they can't afford to stop because their vehicles for profit will disappear otherwise, and there will be someone to fill the gap, as long as business really becomes easier to do
If they suck on it, all those who sit doing nothing but moaning should do something worthwhile.The real motive of what you are saying is pretty clear. Let tax them more because they can't afford to let go 'vehicle of profit.' Who created that vehicle of profit? You or me? Or they themselves?
The way real estate prices are going, many people require big loan. For the group whom you are referring who might never have loan as big to have that much in interest, well then they won't be paying any tax because of HRA+1.5L investment + 2.5 initial exempt money.

Many of you guys seem to be well under western influence of categorizing everything as right wing-left wing without understanding what is right.

And ease of business is definitely getting better. Unless you prefer to be blind towards it. I said already, if you prefer everyone being mediocre than having environment where everyone has to 'earn' what they get and it being conducive for everyone to strive for better, there are such parties whom you can vote. The effects of both policies are pretty clear on nation's economy.
 
Last edited:
:lol: Ok. Was just curious as you seemed to contradict yourself.

And nah there's big difference in word Atheist and saying 'not very religious'
Anyway I'm not going to debate this further as I don't want to derail the thread.
OK, I will send my posts for proof read to you from now onwards. Also, there is no big difference. Come back when you see me stating importance of religion or god to prove that I am contradicting than being pedantic for sake of it.
 
Also, to be clear, I in no way think that all big corporates are some nice bunch of people who do everything ethically. The government-corporate nexus exists but it is classic result of 'mixed economy.' Make corporates feel that they have enough freedom as in free market but practically keep scope for government intervention so corporates in some way have to pay to get their way. In a true free economy, anybody trying to succeed through unfair means won't have the scope for that. Unfortunately, though I believe in free market economy, the jump from current state to that can't happen overnight, especially with our population size and such big & diverse economic strata. The best government can do is to make sure the corporates and investors don't see country as unfavorable destination in short term or long term. With investment, will come job opportunities, which will give chance to those who want to 'earn' a better living. A economic policy pandering to the masses does nothing but stagnate everyone. That is the reason the India pre 90s and post 90s is so different. Those who are still very poor can only be uplifted through job opportunities not charity.
 
India’s western state of Maharashtra, home of the country’s financial capital Mumbai, has introduced a draconian beef ban, which would allow for up to five years imprisonment for sale or possession of the meat.

The comprehensive beef ban, backed by the state’s new Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party administration, is one of the toughest attempts yet to prevent beef-eating in India, where many members of the Hindu majority, especially those of the upper castes, revere cows as sacred.

Many Indian states have laws that ban or regulate the slaughter of cows, though not all states that ban cow slaughter also ban the sale of beef products, in effect allowing the meat to be consumed if it is brought in from other states.

However, Maharashtra’s law not only bans the slaughter of cows and sale of beef, but the possession of the meat, which is now to be formally considered as contraband. It also imposes the toughest punishment — of up to five years in prison — for violations.

The law, passed two decades ago by Maharashtra’s state legislature, was only given the necessary assent of India’s president, Pranab Mukherjee, on Monday.

Hindu nationalist groups, vocal advocates of the ban, rejoiced at the new restrictions, with Devendra Fadnavis, Maharashtra’s chief minister, tweeting: “Our dream on the ban of cow slaughter becomes a reality now.”

But critics said the restrictions would prevent members of India’s Muslim and Christian minorities — and other groups that have no such taboo around eating beef, including some low-caste Hindus — from accessing an important and affordable source of protein.

“It’s discriminatory,” said Samar Halarnkar, a senior journalist, prominent food writer and author of The Married Man’s Guide to Creative Cookery. “It’s a basic freedom that I should be allowed to eat what I want as long as I don’t force it on anyone else’s plate.”

Mr Halarnkar said beef had been typically cheaper than other meats such as chicken or mutton, and that the ban might put all meat out of reach of the poor. “It’s an important source of protein for those who do eat it, but now meat itself might become unaffordable,” he said.

Narendra Modi, prime minister, has bemoaned what he calls India’s “pink revolution” of rising meat exports, and expressed hopes of bringing a national ban on cow slaughter.

India’s consumption of bovine meat — including both beef and buffalo — has fallen over the past decade, as rightwing Hindu groups have campaigned to discourage lower-caste Hindus from eating it. But exports are surging, and are now estimated at about $5bn a year.

Historians say the preoccupation with stopping beef consumption is relatively modern, with many ancient Sanskrit texts documenting that beef-eating was common among Hindus.

The beef ban, which has provoked a social media storm, comes as a new Princeton University study has put the spotlight on entrenched malnutrition in India, where about 42 per cent of women are underweight when they begin their pregnancies, fuelling high rates of infant mortality and malnutrition among surviving children.
 
That last paragraph in the report makes no sense. It's in no way connected to the beef ban. Sounds like some editor wanted to add it to fit the story in a certain newspaper slot.
 
Not surprising at all. This kind of things was expected once Bjp came into power as they are infested with bunch of right wing loons from RSS.
 
Does anyone have any idea which state leads the way in Beef exports? Surely the Maha govt cant afford to lose these taxes..

Not surprising at all. This kind of things was expected once Bjp came into power as they are infested with bunch of right wing loons from RSS.
The above article does say the law was passed by the state legislature 2 decades ago but was ratified by the president today.. So maybe we need to blame the Shiv Sena or the Congress for this one,depending on who was in power back then..
 
That last paragraph in the report makes no sense. It's in no way connected to the beef ban. Sounds like some editor wanted to add it to fit the story in a certain newspaper slot.

It does. Beef being cheap is easily accessible to a lot of poor people as a source for meat.
 
Does anyone have any idea which state leads the way in Beef exports? Surely the Maha govt cant afford to lose these taxes..
That for me is the one of the key things to consider here. $5bn/yr in exports is a lot of money, and I guess these exporters will just move to a favorable state instead.

The above article does say the law was passed by the state legislature 2 decades ago but was ratified by the president today.. So maybe we need to blame the Shiv Sena or the Congress for this one,depending on who was in power back then..
Nah the current government would have to push for the prez to sign it. Wouldn't surprise me if congress wrote it up in the first place though.

That last paragraph in the report makes no sense. It's in no way connected to the beef ban. Sounds like some editor wanted to add it to fit the story in a certain newspaper slot.
Exactly :lol: Sure there's a lot of malnutrition but that's a bizarre link to draw up. The article was probably falling short of a few words from the limit.
 
Not sure about beef being cheap. Every place I've looked at the menu or had a beef dish, it was always as expensive as or more than mutton.
He's talking about butcher prices i guess. Beef costs roughly half of what chicken does out here.
 
He's talking about butcher prices i guess. Beef costs roughly half of what chicken does out here.
Alright. Still a bit of a stretch to say that it's connected to malnutrition? Surely someone who's malnourished is that way because of a lack of food of any kind? Beef has nothing to do with malnutrition. If there was a link, then we'd have seen low malnutrition all these years that it was available?

I call BS, FT or no FT.
 
Alright. Still a bit of a stretch to say that it's connected to malnutrition? Surely someone who's malnourished is that way because of a lack of food of any kind? Beef has nothing to do with malnutrition. If there was a link, then we'd have seen low malnutrition all these years that it was available?

I call BS, FT or no FT.

Beef is indeed cheaper than chicken and obviously mutton. Also, it doesn't say that beef being available means no malnutrition, it is only probably hinting at the fact that the poor will find it even more difficult to get a rich source of protein in their diet. Anyway, I'm just pointing out the reason why the last paragraph may be relevant, whether its BS or not is up for debate.
 
Is beef really cheaper than chicken? It's costlier than chicken in Hyderabad..

Won't matter though if it is cheaper than chicken or not,as most people wouldn't eat beef anyway because of religious reasons.. An egg a day will do so much for the malnourishment of kids in our country.. It is included in the mid day meal scheme,but as usual due to corruption most school kids don't get them..
 
Not sure about beef being cheap. Every place I've looked at the menu or had a beef dish, it was always as expensive as or more than mutton.

You'll get around half a dozen kebabs for Rs.50 ;)
 
The Modi speech on NREGA was the most insensitive thing I have ever seen. It would be suicidal coming from any other leader but he is made of teflon. Gadde khodne ke liye. The contempt was breathtaking. It's been shared all over my fb with "modi rox" comments. I can't get my head around it.

Asserting that MNREGA will continue with "honour and dignity", he said he "will keep beating the drums that you formulated for the poor (the scheme) to force them to continue to dig holes in the ground even after 60 years of independence. You have done good thing by leaving your footprints which people should know."

The scheme has saved people from suicide, raised rural wages tremendously. I'm speechless.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...hts-of-pm-modi-s-speech/article1-1321277.aspx


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075089
Although MGNREGA reduced starvation, it did not provide the desired benefits because of lower than standard wages and delayed payments.
It reduced infant starvation ffs. Ane over the past year funding had been cut to record lows.
This should be a bread-and-cake Marie Antoinette moment.
 
If they suck on it, all those who sit doing nothing but moaning should do something worthwhile.The real motive of what you are saying is pretty clear. Let tax them more because they can't afford to let go 'vehicle of profit.' Who created that vehicle of profit? You or me? Or they themselves?

The way real estate prices are going, many people require big loan. For the group whom you are referring who might never have loan as big to have that much in interest, well then they won't be paying any tax because of HRA+1.5L investment + 2.5 initial exempt money.

Many of you guys seem to be well under western influence of categorizing everything as right wing-left wing without understanding what is right.

And ease of business is definitely getting better. Unless you prefer to be blind towards it. I said already, if you prefer everyone being mediocre than having environment where everyone has to 'earn' what they get and it being conducive for everyone to strive for better, there are such parties whom you can vote. The effects of both policies are pretty clear on nation's economy.

In most cases, the vehicles of profit have been creatred on the basis of corruption, while they couldn't have had the profit without the workers or the markets to see it in. So to just see the source of capital as the sole source of value creation is wrong.

So if a person with a family of 4 earns 7 lpa, you mean to say he will have enough to save 1.5L, as well as 50K in 80CCD and HRA. So I maintain the initial statement remains a flawed one because costs have changed tremendously as well as lifestyles. And no I am not advocating people shouldn't pay tax but rather to say that 4.4L is exempt is a cruel joke on most people.

That is not the case even though labeling is quite easy in this case. Also the effects of the policies of either parties are not at all clear because the Indian economy doesn't exist in a vacuum of its own.

I definitely think the BJP tries to do the right things by the classical text-book of economics, but at the same time has to make allowances for its paymasters. And business is becoming easier to do because of the compulsions that dictate that growth is going to be driven by the number of new business, and that was changing for some time now, but this government has done nothing to accelerate that or encourage it.

I know you want to see things in black and white to the favour of the BJP but you are intelligent enough to know that growth is not linear and that we where are today only because of the decisions taken in the past. While it is easy to say that things would have been different if a different set of people ruled us, but we can never know that and ultimately as long as we remain a democracy people will chose what they want even if it is not the best for them
 
In most cases, the vehicles of profit have been creatred on the basis of corruption, while they couldn't have had the profit without the workers or the markets to see it in. So to just see the source of capital as the sole source of value creation is wrong.

So if a person with a family of 4 earns 7 lpa, you mean to say he will have enough to save 1.5L, as well as 50K in 80CCD and HRA. So I maintain the initial statement remains a flawed one because costs have changed tremendously as well as lifestyles. And no I am not advocating people shouldn't pay tax but rather to say that 4.4L is exempt is a cruel joke on most people.

That is not the case even though labeling is quite easy in this case. Also the effects of the policies of either parties are not at all clear because the Indian economy doesn't exist in a vacuum of its own.

I definitely think the BJP tries to do the right things by the classical text-book of economics, but at the same time has to make allowances for its paymasters. And business is becoming easier to do because of the compulsions that dictate that growth is going to be driven by the number of new business, and that was changing for some time now, but this government has done nothing to accelerate that or encourage it.

I know you want to see things in black and white to the favour of the BJP but you are intelligent enough to know that growth is not linear and that we where are today only because of the decisions taken in the past. While it is easy to say that things would have been different if a different set of people ruled us, but we can never know that and ultimately as long as we remain a democracy people will chose what they want even if it is not the best for them

First, I guess you wanted to highlight tax related bit but highlighted that right-left wing bit?

Ya that person with 7lpa with a family of 4, assuming he is only earner won't be able to put 1.5L in savings if he lives in metro but at least he can put 1L? including PF which will be deducted anyway? He will still stay in 10% tax range as well. Max tax he will be paying will be up to 30k I think. See, in the end it all comes down to who we classify common man and the fact that it is 'up to' 4.4L. People can say that it is like those discounts which say up to 50% off or something but in reality it is less but if we think of a family together earning 10-12L or so per year, it is still in middle class and can use these tax savings benefit better. My point was, if a person or family is earning total 6-7L per annum, they anyway don't have huge tax liability so though they won't be able to put 4.4L in savings schemes, their tax liability hasn't got worse.

I think government is, at this stage, wanting people to develop savings habit and invest intelligently. Also, they need to make everyone happy and at this stage are stressing on this 'made in India' bit and on infrastructure to create job opportunities. I mean, the only bit harming common man is increase in service tax rate but otherwise the tax slabs which were decided last budget are good imo.

I read an article which ouutlined positives-negatives summary of budget and seemed good summary to me. Need to search it. Overall this service tax bit was categorized negative unsurprisingly but to me, government has really tough job in managing fiscal deficit and at the same time make every stakeholder happy. At this stage, I am more interested in more jobs being created in country. I am believer in capitalism in its true sense and think that only way poor can be uplifted is making jobs available for them and to have jobs available for them, those who create jobs should have a conducive environment and incentive to do so.
 
I read an article which ouutlined positives-negatives summary of budget and seemed good summary to me. Need to search it. Overall this service tax bit was categorized negative unsurprisingly but to me, government has really tough job in managing fiscal deficit and at the same time make every stakeholder happy. At this stage, I am more interested in more jobs being created in country. I am believer in capitalism in its true sense and think that only way poor can be uplifted is making jobs available for them and to have jobs available for them, those who create jobs should have a conducive environment and incentive to do so.
Ultimately most service taxes across a general range will be deemed unfair because of the way it is framed and we learn our economics - service tax is blind to the income of the purchaser of the service, and in increase indirect taxes a greater proportion of the 'poor' man's income is lost.

While it is important to create jobs, we still have to fix a lot of our social infrastructure. I strongly believe we should have a strong home market for the businesses we want to create, otherwise we will continue to be laggards.

I know the circumstances are different but this article is an interesting read in terms of increasing taxes on the rich and cutting the deficit. Quite short shouldn't take a minute

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html?ir=India
 
Ultimately most service taxes across a general range will be deemed unfair because of the way it is framed and we learn our economics - service tax is blind to the income of the purchaser of the service, and in increase indirect taxes a greater proportion of the 'poor' man's income is lost.

While it is important to create jobs, we still have to fix a lot of our social infrastructure. I strongly believe we should have a strong home market for the businesses we want to create, otherwise we will continue to be laggards.

I know the circumstances are different but this article is an interesting read in terms of increasing taxes on the rich and cutting the deficit. Quite short shouldn't take a minute

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html?ir=India

The article doesn't state how these jobs increased? If they increased in private sector, did he give incentives to businesses where their overall business increased and after increased tax, net they still gained? Otherwise I don't think taxing rich more and increasing minimum wages can be sustainable. Unless the said government has some underhand agreement with the business or the business is of such nature that for it to move out of that state or region, the cost is higher than additional taxes. In principle though, it is still wrong. I will be interested to know what businesses gained from it and how. If they are losing but are somehow stuck there, this is wrong. Taxing more to those who can 'afford' is wrong in principle too. Who decides 'afford' limit? Also, wealth is not a common pool of money which appears magically. Businesses take risk and invest and start new business and they expect rewards matching those risks. The people who work for them get paid for their contribution. A semi-skilled person or a labourer or other employees don't bring in the money into the business or they are not who actually run the business as they are led to believe under socialist principles. The business is created by owners and they run it. So, if they earn more, it is deserved. Saying someone is rich so they can afford to pay more taxes is assuming that the money they got was through some lottery or luck hence it shouldn't matter to them if some of it is taken out.

This will invariably bring discussion to the corruption in businesses but I have always believed that a business can do corruption if government holds power in approvals or decision making. For me, government interference is the actual cause of corruptions involving businesses.
 
The article doesn't state how these jobs increased? If they increased in private sector, did he give incentives to businesses where their overall business increased and after increased tax, net they still gained? Otherwise I don't think taxing rich more and increasing minimum wages can be sustainable. Unless the said government has some underhand agreement with the business or the business is of such nature that for it to move out of that state or region, the cost is higher than additional taxes. In principle though, it is still wrong. I will be interested to know what businesses gained from it and how. If they are losing but are somehow stuck there, this is wrong. Taxing more to those who can 'afford' is wrong in principle too. Who decides 'afford' limit? Also, wealth is not a common pool of money which appears magically. Businesses take risk and invest and start new business and they expect rewards matching those risks. The people who work for them get paid for their contribution. A semi-skilled person or a labourer or other employees don't bring in the money into the business or they are not who actually run the business as they are led to believe under socialist principles. The business is created by owners and they run it. So, if they earn more, it is deserved. Saying someone is rich so they can afford to pay more taxes is assuming that the money they got was through some lottery or luck hence it shouldn't matter to them if some of it is taken out.

This will invariably bring discussion to the corruption in businesses but I have always believed that a business can do corruption if government holds power in approvals or decision making. For me, government interference is the actual cause of corruptions involving businesses.

In the Indian context, corruption is even worse in the private sector than in the public. It is more the private enterprises which can afford to subvert justice through interference in the arbitrator decision-making (the government in most cases)
Your blaming the government, is like those who copy/plagiarize, blaming the system of assignments/exams for their cheating

The business is created by the owners but they can't run it without employees. It is about creating a strong market-place as well putting in place a strong social infrastructure which will lead to healthier sustainable companies rather than the inherent inequity-causing of ideological capitalism
 
In the Indian context, corruption is even worse in the private sector than in the public. It is more the private enterprises which can afford to subvert justice through interference in the arbitrator decision-making (the government in most cases)
Your blaming the government, is like those who copy/plagiarize, blaming the system of assignments/exams for their cheating

The business is created by the owners but they can't run it without employees. It is about creating a strong market-place as well putting in place a strong social infrastructure which will lead to healthier sustainable companies rather than the inherent inequity-causing of ideological capitalism

The employees get paid for their contribution. Working in an organization and creating that business are two totally different things. If company goes bust the owner risks all. Employee merely moves on to other. So the inequity is justified purely on basis of efforts, investment and risk involved.
 
The employees get paid for their contribution. Working in an organization and creating that business are two totally different things. If company goes bust the owner risks all. Employee merely moves on to other. So the inequity is justified purely on basis of efforts, investment and risk involved.
it goes back to the same question of classification. how much is the risk actually worth, especially when it is something on the lines of winning government contracts or manufacturing raw materials. Also while you seem to be insisting on the importance of starting a business isn't being able to continue the business even more important. So how you distribute the benefit equitably is important, of which 20th and especially 21st century capitalism have done a poor job of.

Seeing that you have skipped the discussion on corruption, should I take it that you are in agreement
 
it goes back to the same question of classification. how much is the risk actually worth, especially when it is something on the lines of winning government contracts or manufacturing raw materials. Also while you seem to be insisting on the importance of starting a business isn't being able to continue the business even more important. So how you distribute the benefit equitably is important, of which 20th and especially 21st century capitalism have done a poor job of.

Seeing that you have skipped the discussion on corruption, should I take it that you are in agreement

No, the analogy you gave was completely wrong and hence I didn't bother. If we consider your analogy, Law & order is to be the examiner/invilgilator not Government in theory. What actually happens is invigilator in your analogy being government 'allowing' the cheating for some and then gaining something by allowing certain students to cheat and being strict on others or even framing some others as cheating who aren't. If the system is such that there is no scope for cheating, then students cheating/copying will be far less. On top of that, if we are to make sure those who do are punished, that is law & order's job, not government. Law & order should be totally independent of government.
 
No, the analogy you gave was completely wrong and hence I didn't bother. If we consider your analogy, Law & order is to be the examiner/invilgilator not Government in theory. What actually happens is invigilator in your analogy being government 'allowing' the cheating for some and then gaining something by allowing certain students to cheat and being strict on others or even framing some others as cheating who aren't. If the system is such that there is no scope for cheating, then students cheating/copying will be far less. On top of that, if we are to make sure those who do are punished, that is law & order's job, not government. Law & order should be totally independent of government.

So it is still a miscarriage of the rules of the rules rather than the rules themselves being wrong. It is that the people in the system being wrong rather than the system being wrong, and that will be the case most of the time. If someone in the government creates a loophole for the purpose of helping someone, I wouldn't blame the whole system as it is.

If lets say that we should have law & order independent of government, what would you call it? is it not going into the territory of the Lokpal which is again creating a extra layer for the sake of it.

I guess our perspectives are quite different, and we would continue to disagree but lets see where this goes
 
So it is still a miscarriage of the rules of the rules rather than the rules themselves being wrong. It is that the people in the system being wrong rather than the system being wrong, and that will be the case most of the time. If someone in the government creates a loophole for the purpose of helping someone, I wouldn't blame the whole system as it is.

If lets say that we should have law & order independent of government, what would you call it? is it not going into the territory of the Lokpal which is again creating a extra layer for the sake of it.

I guess our perspectives are quite different, and we would continue to disagree but lets see where this goes

The law & order is already there. I only want it to be independent of government intervention. So, the rules of granting property for start of business or allocating some resources, the government intervention shouldn't be there. They can at max be custodian of a site in country till someone bids for it. Any natural resource doesn't reap rewards until it is acted upon or converted to usable form with help of technology. How to make sure that there aren't illegal means used in granting these resources, should be documented in law pertaining to that field. Don't think lokpal is needed for that. Some reforms of already existing laws.
 
The law & order is already there. I only want it to be independent of government intervention. So, the rules of granting property for start of business or allocating some resources, the government intervention shouldn't be there. They can at max be custodian of a site in country till someone bids for it. Any natural resource doesn't reap rewards until it is acted upon or converted to usable form with help of technology. How to make sure that there aren't illegal means used in granting these resources, should be documented in law pertaining to that field. Don't think lokpal is needed for that. Some reforms of already existing laws.
So who frames the rules? Some reform is needed sure, but if we can't trust those elected to do it (and I don't not this one nor the last one or the one before that maybe going all the way back to say 1965) we are in a quandary and your statement of what you would like kind of shows that you have a problem too.
 
So who frames the rules? Some reform is needed sure, but if we can't trust those elected to do it (and I don't not this one nor the last one or the one before that maybe going all the way back to say 1965) we are in a quandary and your statement of what you would like kind of shows that you have a problem too.

Why can't judge or law experts frame the rules? Or, if needed, create new laws? Those who are elected are not law experts. So why have them framing rules? The basis for everything is individual right and it being protected. Everything follows from that.
 
Why can't judge or law experts frame the rules? Or, if needed, create new laws? Those who are elected are not law experts. So why have them framing rules? The basis for everything is individual right and it being protected. Everything follows from that.
who are they accountable to? what is prevent them from misusing the power vested in them?
 
who are they accountable to? what is prevent them from misusing the power vested in them?

The independent lawmakers are called for to create laws and protecting it in case of misuse through court cases. Currently too, the laws which come in place, come through law experts but with government having final say and through government. As I said, an independent law expert or an committee doing so is much more likely to do better job than government who first decide on law and then think how to implement it. Accountability? Logic and reason and the law being open to be challenged or updated if there are flaws. It is not like some arbitrarily chosen person will be given total power to create whatever rule he likes based on his whims. All this requires or expects everyone to use logic and reasoning at every step and understanding individual rights. So, the lawmaker will be challenged to explain the laws.