'privatising' politics: b.pac decreasing political risk to corporate investment ?

There are connections of b.pac founders and members to industry lobby groups like assocham, ficci, fkcci,nasscom or cii. these are industry or business chambers which influence and keep up group pressure on the Union and state govts for favourable policies. one such is associated chambers of commerce and industry (assocham) which has suggested points for the party manifestos :url link here (assocham moots 5-point growth agenda for parties in Karnataka )

and the report below correctly mentions that it is the IT- BT barons who are now funding 14 candidates from all parties with Rs 5 lakh each + campaigning online for them : url link here (IT-BT barons to fund 14 candidates).

Is it possible that the instability and inaction resulting from the 5 year term BJP govt has had an impact where rate of growth of Karnataka state has suffered due to which the it- bt honchos in the disguise of b.pac would like to ensure continued growth of their sectors? adb based in manila has cautioned the private corporate sector in general on the political risks and has therefore moved their project oriented decsion making to predominantly bureaucratic parastatal funding and investment institutions. If adb got a chance they would even have prepared a long term buisness plan for the KUIDFC in Karnataka -but were prevented from doing so at the last minute. Is this exactly the kind of business plan which is now being executed by b.pac through lobbying, and influencing outcomes so that political party manifestos and voting in elections by others need not create any setback for them, their business and business growth?


b.pac and other similar groups would like to decrease political risk arising in the KLA elections 2013, by asking parties to align with their it-bt business agenda, and their Bengaluru agenda viz.,
implementing the report of the Karnataka Information Technology and Communication (ict) Group which is over Rs 2,50,000 crores investment over 15 years just for Bengaluru : url link here ( The $50b Pai-Naidu Plan: too much, too late ). This was presented to the GoK after b.pac had coalesced but before it was formally launched as a trust on feb 3rd 13.
bmrg bill and bbmp legislation (initiated by abide but now backed by broad consensus in it-bt sectors through b.pac)

fact is that the pac's are a US phenomenon which gained strength before the 2010 elections to senate and congress and were supported by the US supreme courts 2010 decision in Citizens United vs Federal election commission.

b.pac has been inspired by them to push the agenda of ppp's (private sector-politician partnership) and it may well end up beginning the process of 'privatisation' of politics in Karnataka and India.

reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Directly elected Mayor for BBMP would conflict with the Constitution and public demands?

The argument against the very concept of a directly elected Mayor for a 5-year term comes from the need to have a representative, democratic, decentralisation based electoral process, with caste reservation and the principles enshrined in the Indian constitution, as well as the need for representation of the historically deprived urban poor.

Abundant safeguards need to be identified and implemented to ensure compliance with these principles in conformity with Part IX-A (74th CAA). The expression of the need for a directly elected mayor conflicts with them.

This could well be the classic conflict which a face off between concepts of globalisation and modernity throw up. In the Indian context the principles of equality and social justice implemented through the form of reservation for backward and historically deprived castes and communities (SC/ST, Women) is itself the expression of modernity. This is because it shows how the nation can move forward and how such a step ahead is consistent with the long standing demands for maintaining social justice and equality.

This is crucial when it comes to elections to municipal and local governments, use of resources and decision making regarding the planning and allocation of resources for fulfillment of basic public needs.

On the other hand the demands of the globalised terrain of for profit corporates and MNC's is to place a city such as Bengaluru in the governance frameworks of New York or London. Their not for profit foundations also join the chorus. In Bengaluru this reactionary force has crystallised into the Bangalore Political action committee (b.pac) a trust, which positions itself as the promoter of a middle class 'vote bank', the young educated globalised urban youth.

b.pac the "infrastructure advocates"

But there is a consensus among members of the b.pac trust to support the creation of infrastructure for the economic growth of city of Bengaluru rather than the human development of its citizens. This would mainly include highly expensive and profitable signal- free corridors, underpasses, toll based expressways, metro rail and stilt flyovers. Many of these would be access controlled due to high tolls or by restricting certain vehicles (like cycles, buses, horse drawn carriages and other non-motorised Transport) but not restricted for cars, SUV's, MUV's and XUV's.


Clearly this approach is distinct from supporting the implementation of projects for basic needs such as water supply, roads, drains and street lights, which are paid for by the property taxes of citizens. In fact by prioritising infrastructure growth as opposed to basic needs the property taxes are being diverted away from essential core functions of local governments such as water supply, streets, roads and roadside drains.

5-year term conflicts with constitutional principles

It is not possible to have adequate rotation, reservation, or representation if the term is five years for one directly elected Mayor. But would this conflict with constitutional principles? Yes - since this may result in the election of a Mayor from the SC/ ST community only after a period of 20-25 years depending on the rotation in reservation. It would be a gross setback to such principles and public demands.


Similarly an argument for the election of a mayor with a Bengaluru vision based on profits for 'stakeholders', commercialisation and corporatisation are also inconsistent with the principles listed above.

This is exactly why the current corporate obsession with 'infrastructure led growth' and growth rate of cities and city economies cannot be the drivers of a city vision consistent with democratic constitutional norms.

In fact the corporate vision for planning and infrastructure growth at local government level calls for a sacrifice of local democracy. These are more consistent with the vision of a city -state or a union territory which end up negating the need for a BBMP municipal council.

The democratisation required to strengthen the functioning of a local municipal council must also be debated and would be the subject of a future blog.....