Yes. Election Commission has registered Jago Party on 28th January 2008. The letter of the Election Commission can be seen on this web site on the following link:

http://picasaweb.google.co.in/jagoparty/Photoes#5195676185052009266

The emblem of Jago Party can be seen on the left top corner of the web site www.jago.in. The flag of Jago Party consists of this emblem in the center against white background.

As per rules, election symbols are fixed for a party by the Election Commission only after winning some minimum number of seats in Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha. This rule is highly discriminatory against small parties. Jago Party is fighting against this discrimination.

The main objectives of the party are:
To remove reservation based on caste, religion, etc practiced by the government and supported by all existing political parties.

To provide mandatory job-oriented education in English medium through private schools; complete financial aid to poor students.

To ensure court judgments in 3 months; death penalty for major crimes like murder, terrorism, rape, kidnapping, corruption etc.

To end corrupt and inefficient method of giving subsidy through government schemes. In its place, direct transfer of cash amounting to Rs 800 p.m. to all voters.

Limiting the function of the government to bare minimum like defense, law & order, currency, foreign relations, environment and scientific research. Privatizing all other activities currently undertaken by the government. Thus, railways, electricity, roads, ports, mines, water supply, garbage disposal, schools, universities etc will all be privatized so that people get efficient services at cheaper rates. Only privatization can end corrupt and inefficient government organizations. 
 

Jago Party has launched a massive campaign to make people aware of its policies: by word of mouth; discussion at home, neighborhood, office and social gatherings; e-mail; social networking sites; advertisements in magazines & TV etc.

Eminent personalities are being contacted personally by Jago Party office bearers. We are also organizing press conferences, lectures, seminars and rallies across the country.

Just fill up your name, e-mail, state and city in the given space online on the party's web site: www.jago.in and submit. You immediately become a Primary Member of the party.

You can still do a lot. You can spread awareness about Jago Party among the people around you as follows:

There is a sample letter which introduces people to Jago Party at the web site www.jago.in under the head What you can do. Just copy-paste this letter and forward this letter by e-mail to as many friends as possible. Follow up with a talk on phone.

Discuss about the policies and programs of Jago Party with all the people you interact with personally in your work place, home, neighborhood and at social gatherings. Give them a print-out of Jago Party manifesto.

Introduce Jago Party to your fellow passengers while traveling by bus, train or plane.

Give a lecture on the policies and programs of Jago Party in select gatherings such as in clubs, chambers of commerce, colleges, management institutes etc, if you can manage.

Motivate more and more people around you to give financial contribution to Jago Party.

Members of Jago Party may take up local issues with local authorities in the spirit of social service. In case, they want assistance of the party in taking up the matter at higher level, they may write to [email protected]. The party will assist them and publish success stories on its web site. 

However, if there are local issues which have national ramifications, the party will take it up and pursue it to its logical end at national level.
 

There are millions of jobs available worldwide for properly educated / trained people. Some such latest avenues for employment are software, call centers, transportation, construction, nursing, paramedics, hospitality etc. Our education system produces un-educated degree holders. Therefore, syllabus should be totally changed as per job requirement. More private colleges (offering job oriented courses) should be opened.

Government schools should be converted into private schools and teaching should be in English medium. Education will be mandatory with total ban on child labor.

We can facilitate opening of more educational institutions and industries by removing corruption and red-tapism. Labor laws should be relaxed & tax on foreign companies should be equal to that of Indian companies. More roads, airports, ports can be constructed on BOO [Build, Operate and Own] basis. So no capital will be required & there would be little scope for corruption.

More industries mean more tax & more employment.

All government schools will be privatized, because private schools are generally much more efficient in teaching than government schools.
All the students would be free to get admitted in any private school. Government would directly disburse all expenses on tuition fees, books etc for students. This would help students choose the best private school and in turn get best possible education. Private schools will also compete with each other to attract maximum students, which in turn would enhance their teaching standard.

Action on this line has already been initiated through Delhi Voucher Project by Centre for Civil Society, Delhi [ www.schoolchoice.in] where students are given encashable school vouchers with an option to study in any school of their choice with very encouraging results.

Several countries such as U.K., U.S.A, Sweden etc have successfully implemented schemes for grant of finacial aid for study in private schools.

For higher education, students would be given soft loans, which would be repayable only after they start earning. A lot of scholarships would also be available to poor & meritorious students. There are also several companies which are ready to pay for the training & education, provided students commit to certain qualification and jobs.

There would be only one syllabus for all schools and only one all India level school board. Only one board examination at class 12 level will be conducted.

The education system would be changed in such a way that it not only enables a student to be skilled for a job, but also promotes the joy of learning, scientific thinking and experimentation, rather than just memorizing the given information and passing examinations. It should enable students to become aware of the major cultures of the world, problems of the society and life and solve those problems in innovative & scientific ways.

Teaching in English medium would help a student have competency in speaking and writing English, which is a must for a good job today. English medium instruction is not equivalent to teaching English culture. But students would be free to choose one of the vernacular languages also as their medium.

In fact, apart from English, every student would also be taught one local language, with full vigor so that students are equally competent in that language also. This would help them connect with Indian culture and people in a more intimate way.
 

Indian Constitution had originally provided for caste/tribe based reservation in political representation in elected bodies as well as in government-aided educational institutions and public employment for 10 years only.

India has its 15% of seats in the Parliament, State Assemblies, Local Municipal Bodies and Village level institutions reserved for Scheduled Castes. Similarly 7.5% are reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
Similarly, in central government funded higher educational institutions and jobs, 15% seats / posts are reserved for SCs and 7.5% for STs (total 22.5%). This reservation percentage has been raised to 49.5%, by including an additional 27% reservation for OBCs (Other Backward Castes). In a few states like Tamil Nadu, the total percentage of reservation is 69%. Andhra Pradesh has also reserved 4% seats for Muslims in addition to the reserved seats of SC, ST and OBC (within 50% lilmit). The percentage of reservation actually given to SC/ST/OBC by various states depends on the actual percentage of population of these categories in those states.

On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the law that provides for 27% reservation for Other Backward Castes (OBCs) in educational institutions supported by the Central government, while ruling that the "creamy layer" among the OBCs should be excluded from the quota.

It is true that for thousands of years, in Hindu society, there were social restrictions on taking up profession of other castes, inter-caste marriages & dining. In this hierarchical, caste-dominated society, Sudras were at the bottom. The caste system wrongly justified discriminations and obstructed social & economic mobility from bottom upwards.
Thus, in modern India, the caste system itself should have been eliminated by:
Demolishing the philosophical and cultural foundations of caste-based values through education;
Offering free, compulsory and vocation-oriented educational support and all possible assistance to the poor and deprived, irrespective of caste, to get education and training for jobs; and
Banning all caste-based activities such as political instigating and campaigning in the name of caste; keeping caste-indicating surnames; advertising for same-caste marriages, etc.
These measures would have eliminated the caste-based discriminatory feelings for ever. However, Indian politicians opted the easy way of getting votes by dividing the society on caste lines. They created the myth that lower castes would get justice only if they are given reservation in government jobs, admission in government educational institutions and seats in elected bodies even if they do not qualify on merit. Some politicians intended introducing reservation even in private jobs and institutions!

But a society cannot progress if there is no fair competition and respect for merit. This is the mistake Hindu caste system had committed. Repeating the same mistake in reverse direction cannot rectify the wrong. But instead of enabling someone to acquire necessary merit by providing them all necessary assistance, these divisive politicians have diluted the merit-based criterion itself for jobs, admission in higher educational institutions etc to get cheap popularity and votes. This dangerous policy has demoralized the meritorious. It has also made the beneficiaries feel inferior and worthless in their own self-esteem.

Secondly, reservation can give benefits to only a very tiny group of the intended communities. There are 20 million posts in central & state governments. 50% of this  i.e., 10 million is reserved for SC, ST and OBC. The total population of these three communities in India is about 600 million. Thus, only 1.6% persons from these communities can get reservation. Even this 1.6% would mostly belong to the rich and educated among the reserved communities. What about the remaining 98.4%? Pro-reservation politicians can have nothing to offer for them.

Similarly, 22% reservation in Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas for SC and ST candidates is highly undemocratic. Initially,  such reservation was intended to be only for 10 years under Indian Constitution. But our short-sighted politicians keep on extending this provision every 10 years and nobody opposes it. Jago Party is in favor of abolishing all these reservations.

Jago Party is therefore strongly against any reservation. However, we are strongly for giving all possible assistance to anybody, irrespective of caste, for acquiring necessary merit. This way, the merit and progress of the society would not be compromised and there would also be correction of past mistakes committed by caste system.

The combined population of reserved categories (SC, ST & OBC) in all India is around 60%. So even if all 60% goes against us, it would be divided among all the existing political parties like Congress, BJP, BSP, SP etc, while we will get 40% solid votes of people from unreserved categories, which is more than enough for coming to power. The Congress had got just 15% votes in 2004 Lok Sabha election and it came to power.
Secondly, educated people belonging to even reserved categories are coming forward to support us because they have understood that reservation actually benefits only 2% of their population because of limited govt jobs. Even these benefits mostly go to relatively educated and rich sections among these reserved communities.

Jago Party is committed to give free English medium education in private schools to all poor students irrespective of their caste or religion. All these educated poor students will get jobs -- so why should they worry about reservation when all of them can get jobs?
Jago Party is explaining this fact to SC/ST/OBC people. Once they understand it, even they would oppose reservation and come with us. So, a political party like us is in a very advantageous position compared to all other political parties which are fighting among themselves for the votes of a mere 2% beneficiaries of reservation.

We are in favor of a POTA-like law for the following reasons:

It empowered police /judiciary to give death or life imprisonment to terrorists, their abettors or possessors of arms. It also provided for seizure of the assets of terrorists. It enabled police to intercept suspected communication by terrorists and made such intercepted communication as admissible evidence. It also empowered the police to detain suspects up to 180 days under custody. It made confessions made by terrorists as admissible evidence. It provided for keeping the details of witnesses confidential.

All these provisions sent a strong signal to potential terrorists that India would strongly fight terrorism. 
In fact, Jago Party is in favor of making POTA even stronger by including in it features like in camera trial like court martial, disposal of such cases within 3 months, only one appeal and mandatory death sentence to terrorists or their supporters.

Such laws must have safeguards against being misused. Even POTA had the following safeguards:
1. Only SP level officer could investigate and seize the assets of terrorists; that also after taking prior written approval from DGP;
2. A Joint Secretary level officer had also to be informed by SP within 48 hours in such cases, who could confirm or revoke such order;
3. The aggrieved person was to be given an opportunity to make representation against the order of SP;
4.   The aggrieved person could appeal in a Special Court;
5. In case of confessions, the accused had to be produced before the Magistrate within 48 hours;
6. In case of complaint against police torture, the Magistrate could refer to the medical officer for investigations;
7. Only an SP level officer could intercept communication after taking prior written approval from a designated higher authority. A Review Committee was to confirm such interceptions; etc., etc.
We cannot avoid making such laws only on the ground that they may be misused. Do we stop boarding a train or flight because there may be an accident? Do we stop shopping because there may be a bomb blast in the market? 

A party in power has to ensure that safeguards do work and there is minimum possible misuse.

Present laws in India are fully in favor of criminals. If criminals kill policemen or innocent citizens, nothing happens. But if police kill a notorious criminal, all media, human right groups land on the scene. 

Courts take 15-20 years to decide. 99% criminals are never punished, thanks to our pro-criminals laws. More power to police and better training / equipments to police can make India a much safer place.

At present, police has to present the accused in court within 24 hours. It also cannot even interrogate strongly. Police has to follow hundreds of rules, where as criminals need not follow any rule. Some days back in Nagpur, a criminal got bail in 18 different rape cases. Police could not do anything. Then women of that area killed that criminal in court premises itself. Bail should be made difficult for habitual criminals.

Yes, a few policemen are corrupt, but any one can be corrupt if anti- corruption mechanism is not strong. Making police powerless is no solution to corruption. Even an Income-Tax, Labor, Excise, Anti-Pollution officer can punish. Then, why not a Police Officer? It is foolish to expect results without giving police enough power.

At present, a total of about 3 crore cases are pending in all courts across the country. Out of this, about 40,000 cases are pending in Supreme Court, 30 lakh in High Courts and 2.60 crore in lower courts.
This huge pendency can be cleared by:
1. Improving the poor judge-population ratio in India. The ratio of judges per million population in India is 12, while it is 51 in the UK, 58 in Australia, 75 in Canada, and 107 in the US. The present ratio in India needs to be raised to at least 50 per million population through setting up more courts & running courts in 2 or 3 shifts;
2. Scrapping 2 months vacation time for courts;
3. Filling up all vacancies of judges;
4. Making adjournments very difficult and expensive for the party which seeks it;
5. By making video recordings of statements of witnesses/parties admissible evidence;
6. Developing specialized judges for specialized courts;
7. Developing mediation/pre-court settlement mechanisms;
8. Shifting the standard of proof from Beyond Reasonable Doubt system to Preponderance Of Probabilities system;
9. Making judges accountable for delay in processing a case beyond a reasonable time-limit;
10. Computerization of all records and processes;
11. Allowing only one appeal.

In fact, Law Commissions and other committees (like Malimath Committee) have been giving most of these recommendations for the last several years, but the governments have not taken any action.

In addition to these legal measures, there is one more way to reduce the pendency: by scrapping several outdated laws which have generated a lot of avoidable litigation. At present, there are over 30,000 pieces of legislation at the central and state levels. Most of the laws legislated in India during the past 60 years are based on socialistic principles. Take for example, land ceiling acts, land acquisition acts or tenancy acts. Our obsession with socialism aimed at forcible reduction of inequality of property and income and treating the rich as exploiters was the motivating factor for such unpractical and unfair laws. Naturally, this sort of laws led to a huge number of litigation cases by the aggrieved parties against the state.

Now, since Jago Party is for free market economy, all such laws, according to us, were unnecessary and unproductive. So, if we come to power, we would review such cases and try to settle these cases out of court by sympathetically considering the grievances of aggrieved parties in the light of our economic philosophy. Thus, in one stroke, we can wind up a huge number of such pending cases. There are several such unpractical laws, which need to be dismantled and the civil cases generated due to them need to be reviewed.

Dismantling of these outdated socialistic laws would also drastically reduce the number of cases filed against the state in future, thus easing the pressure on the legal system.

According to Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2006, 77 percent of the Indian respondents described their judicial system as corrupt. About 36 percent of people paid bribes to Judiciary.

Corruption among judges can be checked by taking following steps:
1. Judicial selection process should be through an independent judicial appointments body.
2. Judicial appointments should be merit-based, with clear and well-publicized selection criteria; candidates should be required to demonstrate a record of competence and integrity.
3. Judicial transfers should be based on objective criteria to protect independent and impartial judges.
4. Allegations against judges should be rigorously investigated by an independent body.
5. The removal process of a judge should be easy, transparent and fair, with strict and exacting standards; if there is a finding of corruption, a judge should be liable to prosecution.
6. Quality of judgments should be reviewed by an independent legal audit committee consisting of senior legal experts taking up some cases at random. In case, a clear violation of principle of justice is noticed during these reviews, action should be taken against the concerned judge after following the due process.
7. If on consideration of the appeal, it is noticed by the appellate court that there is a clear violation of principle of justice, then also, action should be taken against the concerned judge who passed the order appealed against.
8. The salary, pension and other perks of judges should be commensurate with the market norms and performance of the judge.
9. Discretions in matter of accelerating or delaying a case or in awarding punishments should be reduced to the minimum. All legal procedures and punishments must be standardized and fixed by law.
10. Several civil cases arise due to very complicated laws (e.g., Income Tax Act), making them amenable to different interpretations. In such cases, judgments can be easily bent towards a particular side. This gives scope for parties to allure judges towards their side. Hence, laws should be made as simple as possible.
11. Several of our laws are remnants of socialistic era, where they imposed unpractical restrictions on enterprising and efficient businesses. This gives rise to litigation. Since a businessman does not want to waste his time in running to courts, he finds it more expedient to bribe and buy the judgment in his favor. Unless such unnecessarily restrictive laws are dismantled, incentive to bribe and temptation to corruption would continue.

As on date, 92 countries have abolished capital punishment; 10 have abolished it for all offences except under special circumstances; 32 have retained it, but not used for the last 10 years, while 64 have actively retained it. Thus, legally speaking, 92 have abolished and 106 have retained it. Most of the European, Asia-Pacific and Latin American countries have abolished it. Among the major countries which have retained death penalty are: USA, Japan, Singapore, China, India and most of the Islamic countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. 

Various poll surveys conducted in 2006/07 shows that 62% to 70% Americans,  81% Japanese, 71% Mexicans, and 81% Indians favor death penalty for people convicted of murder, specially terrorists.

Jago Party supports death penalty in all cases of proved charges of murder, terrorism, rape, kidnapping and dacoity due to following reasons:
1. If a person has no hesitation in killing his fellow humans to satisfy his personal interests or prejudices, it shows that his survival is dangerous for the security of the society. So, he must be removed from the society for ever.
2. Various studies in US have clearly established a link between death penalty and its deterrent effects on homicides. One such study shows that for every execution, on average 18 innocent lives are saved.
3. It has been found that about 60% criminals, after release from jails in US, recommitted similar crimes. This proves that limited imprisonment does not necessarily have adequate deterrent effect. On the contrary, criminals return to society with more ruthlessness and equipped with cleverer methods by learning the tricks from other inmates.
4. Those who advocate life imprisonment for murderers/terrorists etc do not take into consideration the high financial burden of supporting a criminal by the society for his whole life.
5. Keeping in jail terrorists and hardened criminals for a long time is dangerous, because their outside gang men may attempt to kidnap VIPs / hijack planes etc and try to bargain for the release of their gangmen in jails. Release of Masood Azhar after hijacking Indian Airlines plane to Kandhar in the year 2000 is an example of this.
6. Those who talk about human rights for a few criminals should also think about human rights of millions of innocent people who want to live without fear and terror.

It is because rape is more severe than murder. Through rape, a girl/woman is murdered emotionally and mentally & has then to live through the agony of life after rape which is very demeaning, traumatic & brutal. In fact, there cannot be anything more cruel than this for a woman. Besides, 99% of the rape incidents go un-reported as victims never speak out due to severe social stigma attached.

Criminals know this point well & hence commit rape without any fear. Ask any woman, she will vouch for it. Once death penalty is imposed on rapists, it will deter potential rapists to keep away from committing such a heinous crime.

Some people argue that if death penalty is given to a rapist, he would try to kill his victim to destroy the evidence. So, in order to save the life of the victim, rapist should not be given death penalty.

This argument is not correct.

Let us compare effectiveness of the two punishments for rape: the present punishment for rape as per section 376 of Indian Penal Code is minimum 7 years and maximum 10 years. In some rare cases, it may also extend to life imprisonment. Jago Party has proposed to give death penalty in all rape cases.

In case of present punishment system, the rapist would still try to avoid the punishment and may try to kill his victim in order to destroy the evidence. There are 2 possibilities here: if he succeeds in destroying the evidence, he will get no punishment. If he fails to destroy the evidence and he is caught, he would get punishment for both rape + murder, which may be 10 years for rape + life imprisonment for murder as per Section 302 of Indian Penal Code [as per Supreme Court order, death sentence should be given for murder only in rarest of rare cases]. Thus practically the total punishment would be life imprisonment for a rapist whose charge of rape & murder is proved.

In case of death punishment for rape as proposed by Jago, he would again try to avoid the punishment and may try to kill his victim in order to destroy the evidence. There are again 2 possibilities here: if he succeeds in destroying the evidence, he will get no punishment. If he fails to destroy the evidence and he is caught, he would get punishment for both rape + murder, which would be death [as per Jago policy] + death [as per Jago policy] respectively = death.

So, if we compare the deterrent effect of first and second systems of punishments, the second system of punishment is still more effective, because in the first system of punishment, he may still get away with only life imprisonment even after murder. Under the second system, he would think hundred times before raping and/or murdering, because if caught, he would definitely get death sentence.

Let us compare the incidence of rape cases in different countries. Following is the number of annual rape cases per 10 lakh population for some of the countries:

South Africa --- 1195
Australia ------ 777
Canada ------- 733
USA ----------- 301
UK ------------- 142
France -------- 139
India ----------- 14
Saudi Arabia -- 3

Saudi Arabia has the least number of rape cases in the world because it promptly gives death penalty for rape. None of the other countries mentioned above have provisions of death penalty for rape. India may have much more rape cases than mentioned above, as most of the cases are not reported.

According to the 2010 report of Transparency International, a global corruption survey organization, India ranks at 87 out of 178 countries on Corruption Perception Index and 74% Indians feel that corruption has increased. Everybody is aware of the famous statement of the then Prime Minister, late Shri Rajiv Gandhi when he admitted that 85% of public fund does not reach the people it is intended for. 

Corruption in government is of two types:
1. Gratification -- Government officials demand or force a person to give bribe to provide a service; and
2. Misappropriation -- Government officials misappropriate public fund supposed to be spent on people, country or the office.

Gratification type of corruption arises only in those organizations which are not dependent on profit or customer satisfaction for their financial sustainability. They rather get easy money through tax, so they do not bother about customers. For example, we do not have to pay bribe to anybody to buy Colgate toothpaste, but we may have to pay bribe to get an electricity connection from a government electricity department. This is because the profit of the producer or retailer of Colgate toothpaste is dependent on customer satisfaction while the employees of electricity department would get their pay & perks on taxpayer's money irrespective of the sale or otherwise of electricity.

Because of this basic fact, Jago Party is in favor of limiting the activities of the government to the minimum and wants to promote maximum privatization. This step would drastically reduce the scope of gratification-type corruption in the government.

Secondly, in order to reduce corruption in even those limited areas of government functions, following action would be taken:

All the front offices interacting with the public would be privatized in respect of all government offices. For example, for lodging FIR, private parties may be franchised; quality of their service benchmarked and closely monitored by a high-level committee of police officials. These parties may be paid in proportion to their quality and quantity of work at mutually agreed rate.
Similar arrangements can be done in respect of registration offices of property transactions, passport offices, land records offices, infrastructural services for courts etc. These measures would improve the quality of service and reduce the corruption in these offices.

All government offices would also be fully computerized so that information related to public is available on-line and public can interact with government online. This would reduce the need to come in physical contact with government babus and possibility of demanding bribes.

Death penalty would be given to those officials who have embezzled huge amount of government money, say above Rs 10 crores.

As to the second type of corruption - misappropriation of public fund -, Jago Party has a unique idea. We want to scrap all the government sponsored projects and welfare schemes and directly transfer cash to the beneficiaries amounting to the current value of subsidy per person. This would, at one stroke, eliminate the huge work force of government babus and middlemen who embezzle most of the fund and the poor would get the benefit directly through his Bank or post office account. This single step would wipe out corruption completely from the entire delivery mechanism of the government.

This figure has been arrived at by dividing the total subsidy given by Central and State governments by the total number of voters.  Subsidy is the money granted by a government to keep down the prices of commodities etc. There are two types of subsidy: Merit and Non-merit. Merit subsidy is for sectors like elementary education, research, forestry, environment, information etc where the benefits are reaped by the society as a whole. Non-merit subsidy is directed towards specific groups of population, such as subsidy on food, fertilizer, petroleum, electricity etc. At present, the bulk of the expenditure is on non-merit subsidy.

The total non-merit subsidy for the Central and State governments taken together amounted to Rs. 102145.24 crore in 1994-95, which is 10.71% of GDP at market prices.

Assuming the same 10% subsidy for current GDP [which touched US $ 1 trillion in 2008], the total expenditure on subsidy comes to $100 billion or Rs 400,000 crores. There are at present about 40 crore voters in India (who actually voted in 2004 Lok Sabha election). So, if we divide the total subsidy amount by total number of actual voters, it comes to Rs 10000 p.a., which comes to Rs 833 per month. This figure has been rounded off to Rs 800 per month.

Jago Party believes that in the matter of granting benefits to the people, government should not make any discrimination on any ground including the ground of income.

Whatever benefits are given to the poor should also be given to the rich. After all, why the rich should be denied this benefit? Simply because they have made efforts, taken risks, worked hard and become rich? And even now, for example, is the government not selling LPG cylinders to the poor as well as rich at the same subsidized rate?

It is not the amount, but the principle of equal treatment, which is dear to us. We know that many rich people pay taxes worth crores of rupees. For them, Rs 800 p.m. is nothing. But let them not accept it.  We, on our part, would not deny them this government Prasad, simply because they are rich. Just as Prasad is given to everybody without any distinction of income, sex, age etc, in the same way, we would offer to give the amount to every voter. It is for him to decide whether he wants to take it or not.

Secondly, if we make rich / poor criterion, then many rich / middle class people may try to prove that they too are poor and try to corner the benefit by bribing officers. Thus help will not reach genuine needy people, who cannot afford to bribe.

Thirdly, if such discrimination is made, the poor will not try to earn more, fearing loss of benefits.

Lastly, giving cash subsidy would encourage people to take the trouble of voting, as this cash subsidy would be payable only to actual voters.

There are 5 conditions for giving this subsidy: (1) one must be above 18, (2) one must have voted in the last election, (3) one should not have more than 2 children (however, this would apply from a future date; not immediately), (4) all children must attend school till class 12, and (5) one should not have been convicted by any court on a criminal charge.

The total annual amount of such cash subsidy to be given by central and all state governments put together would be Rs 400,000 crores at the current (2008) rates.

This amount is already available with the Government and it is being used to subsidize various items such as food, fertilizer, petroleum products etc by the Government. Jago Party is not using any extra resources to give cash subsidy, but only giving existing resources by way of cash, which is much more efficient and almost entirely corruption free.

Besides, since Jago Party would retrench a large number of the government staff created to deliver various subsidized services and so-called welfare programs, there would be substantial reduction in the cost of manpower.

For example, at present there are 20 million central and state government employees in the country (central govt: 4 million; state govts: 16 million). If we retrench 80% of them, it comes to about 16 million. Assuming that there is an average expenditure of Rs 20,000 per employee per month including the component of pension and other perks, the total savings per annum on retrenchment of these employees alone would be about 384,000 crores, which would nearly cover the entire cost of subsidy.

Thirdly, our proposal to reduce tax rates, simplification of business processes, and privatization of government and public sector undertakings would spur growth rate drastically and increase the overall tax collection.

Fourthly, the capital amount obtained on disinvestment of public sector undertakings would be profitably re-invested which would ensure continuous source of income. That would also partly fund subsidy and other essential expenditures.

However, we must add that retrenchment of government employees would be done gradually and arrangements would be made for their complete absorption in private sector where they can get more salaries, have a challenging work and be more productive. As a preparation for this change, government employees would be adequately trained. In addition, they would also be offered attractive retirement options. Hence, they need not worry about their future. We will ensure that they would become a more fruitful, proud and earning member of the society, than becoming a helpless cog in the vast government machinery, which only obstructs growth.

At present, about 30% people in India are unemployed. About 30% live below poverty line, i.e., earn less than Rs 300 p.m.
Unemployment is a condition where there is supply of more labor and less business enterprise. This mismatch in supply occurs either due to too much increase in population or too many restrictions on free enterprise imposed by government or both. In India, both types of mismatches have happened.

First, there is hardly any disincentive for producing more than 2 children. Indian population grows by 1.53 crore every year adding almost as much as the total population of Chile annually.

Secondly, there are too many problems in setting up a new business: lack of business-oriented education & training; anti-business labor laws; obtaining permission from dozens of government departments; paying a plethora of taxes; non-availability of power and other infrastructure; paying bribes to government officials to speed up the file and so on.

Yes, after 1991 economic liberalization, things have improved a little bit, but not as much as required. Unemployment & poverty is the logical result of these two factors.

The 2008 Index of Economic Freedom devised by Heritage Foundation, USA, covers 162 countries across 10 specific freedoms such as trade freedom, business freedom, investment freedom, and property rights. India comes at rank 115 with only 54% of economic freedom.

In September 2005, the International Finance Corporation, a group of World Bank, published the third round of its annual rankings of countries, based on an index of ease of doing business. India finished 116th out of 155 countries surveyed, behind even its South Asian neighbors (Pakistan was 60, Bangladesh 65, Sri Lanka 75, Russia 79 and China 91). The top 5 countries are: New Zealand: 1, Singapore: 2, USA: 3, Canada: 4 and Norway: 5.
These reports & surveys show that Indian entrepreneurs still do not have the kind of freedom required for high growth rate. It is this slow growth rate which is responsible for unemployment and poverty.

No. This is because all government schemes are bound to be inefficient, wasteful and corrupt.

First of all, for funding its schemes, government has to collect fund through taxation, which means snatching away resources from businessmen who would have utilized it more efficiently because they have to earn profit on it.

Then, there is a leakage by way of corruption by tax officials in the revenue collection process itself.

Then, there may be a mismatch between what the resources need to be invested in fruitfully and the schemes approved by the babus of the government.

Then, there is a further leakage of that public fund by way of corruption by officials lording over those schemes.

Besides, there is no professional competence in executing such schemes, because government does not have any incentive to show such competence.

In fact, government collects a huge amount of tax. In the central government budget of 2008-09, total estimated tax revenue has been shown as about Rs 5 lakh crores. If this amount is mostly left to tax payers, they would create much more employment through more productive ventures and investments, which alone can ultimately remove poverty.
Even after 60 years of socialistic and welfare-oriented government intervention, India was still at rank 126 (according to IMF) and 120 (according to World Bank) in 2007 out of 179 countries in per capita GDP (with Purchasing Power Parity).

This clearly proves that our basic economic policies have been totally wrong. Only unleashing the power of private enterprise can create more employment and remove poverty from the country.

A public sector undertaking can earn profit due to its monopoly over the resources (e.g., oil, railways, minerals etc.), but that does not mean that it is efficient in providing excellent customer service. The very structure of PSUs is such that it cannot be as efficient and productive as a private sector. The reason is that private sector is motivated by profit, which can be earned only by retaining the lead in customer satisfaction.

But PSUs are owned by the government which is not in the need of profit. In fact, PSUs were not started as a means to earn profit, but under a false notion that India must be self-sufficient in certain areas, such as steel, oil etc. They were started also because private sector was not having enough capital or skill to start such industries at that time.

But now, the situation has completely changed. Now, tremendously huge capital, enterprise and technology is available within and outside India waiting to be utilized. But we still keep on denying them the opportunity. We still refuse to privatize PSUs, simply because a few of them are earning profit because of monopolistic situations or may be due to a few bright managers here and there. We totally ignore their poor productivity and their indifference to customers' satisfaction. 

Yes, of course! Apart from performing core functions of the state such as security and justice, a government must put in place some regulatory mechanism for private enterprises to ensure a) security of the country & the people, b)prevention of pollution and c) prevention of unethical practices on part of producers with relation to co-producers, employees and customers. The government may also benchmark service standards in every sector and take measures to encourage service providers to match up with those standards.

However, we are not in favor of government itself doing a business, unless it is necessitated in the interest of national security or where no private enterprises is forthcoming even though the service is required in national interest.

There are more than 50 types of taxes in this country. We would bring them down to less than 10. At present, our tax rate is very high: personal income tax up to 30%; corporate tax up to 33% and so on. We would reduce all tax rates to 10% or less. Up to Rs 4 lakh annual income, no income tax would be imposed.

Reduction of number of taxes, reduction in rates and simplification of taxation procedures would leave more capital with the people which would result in more investment, more employment and higher rate of growth of the economy which would bring in more revenue as number of tax payers would increase. Thus, revenue would increase, rather than decrease.

Generation of huge amount of black money in India is due to high tax rates, too many bureaucratic hurdles against private enterprises, siphoning of public money in the name of subsidy to the poor/public works, lack of state funding for election campaigns and weak legal system to detect and punish the corrupt. All these institutional shortcomings in the system result in corruption and generation of black money. 

 
Our emphasis on reduction in taxes and free market economic policies will resolve all these issues automatically. Dismantling of all bureaucratic hurdles and subsidy regimes would unleash private enterprise tremendously. We also support state funding for election campaigns.

We will bring back this black money into the mainstream economy by permitting it to be invested with just 10% taxes. This will give a big boost to the growth of economy eventually yielding more employment, wealth and taxes.

However, if even after this one-time concession, some black money still does not come back into the mainstream economy, appropriate legal measures, raids etc will be conducted to unearth this money and heavy penalty will be imposed for hiding it.

Due to land ceiling acts, small size of land holdings, various restrictions imposed by states on sale of agricultural produce outside state boundaries, poverty & illiteracy of farmers and lack of capital & technological know-how, agriculture in India could not develop as an industry. Our productivity in agriculture is very low compared to developed countries. Farming still continues to remain mostly at the level of subsistence. In subsistence farming, food is produced for survival rather than profit.
Government has been trying to support agriculture: subsidizing fertilizers, giving soft credit to farmers, giving minimum support prices to wheat, making huge investments in research and irrigational facilities etc., but the agriculture still could not become like an industry. Most of the farmers are too poor and illiterate to avail themselves of these facilities. Even if they do, they are unable to make enough profits to return the loan or pay for the inputs. This explains why lakhs of farmers were unable to repay the loan and committed suicide. Chronic shortage of power is another problem. Government schemes are also riddled with corruption and bureaucratic delays.

Only by this method, India can become self-sufficient in food or even become an exporter of food and other cash crops.

We would make very stringent laws to check pollution and hire private agencies to get the laws implemented. They would be authorized to impose heavy amount of fines and collect it. 90% of such amount would be retained by them as profit. This would be a great incentive for them to work vigorously and they, therefore, cannot be bribed away. There would be several such private agencies so that even if one does not work properly, others would.

Manufacturing, sale and smoking of cigarettes will be completely banned, as they cause not only air pollution, but also diseases to smokers and victims of passive smoking. Nobody can smoke without forcing others to inhale smoke. Whether a person is smoking on the road, office, restaurant, train or home – somebody sitting beside the smoker is compelled to inhale smoke and thus become a victim of passive smoking. Smoking takes away people’s right to inhale clean air. Hence, it must be treated as a socially and environmentally harmful activity. All medical reports also prove that smoking is not only injurious to health to smokers but also to passive smokers. Hence, it must be banned.

However, if in fuiture, due to technological innovation, smoking could be done in such a way that no smoke is emitted by smokers and thus no other person is affected adversely, we would have no objection to smoking.

At least 30% forest cover in a country is essential for purification of air and attracting rains. This work cannot be handled by NGOs, as their energy and fund is limited. Jago Party would use the tax money to achieve this desired level of green cover. For this, professional agencies would be hired to do plantation on all public land, wherever possible. Even private non-arable land would be purchased by the government and put to plantation and forestation. Planters would be paid at the rate of per plant survived for more than one year.
Existing forests would also be given to private companies through global tendering process on royalty basis for managing and protecting flora and fauna. They may earn by selling the forest produce, eco-tourism, research facilities etc. A high powered audit party consisting of forest experts would be auditing the wild life every year and in case of any decrease in their number, their license would be cancelled, heavy fine would be imposed and criminal prosecution would be launched against the company.

This issue arose primarily because there is mistrust between Hindus and Muslims on account of historical reasons. Now, the only solution, which appears possible, is to have a dialogue between the two communities and settle it cordially in the spirit of give and take. Accepting the court judgment may also be a solution.

Majority of the people of Kashmir want peace and economic well being. Only a few politicians are instigating people for separation, terrorism and anti-secularism. This must be put down with iron hand. Article 370 must be scrapped and J & K should be made an integral part of India just like any other state. All programs of appeasement for specific groups based on religion must stop. There should be fair and equal treatment to all the people – Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists -- by the government. Excesses against Muslims, if any, by armed forces must also be strictly curbed.

Since Pakistan is also instigating separatism in Kashmir, efforts initiated by India for peace cannot succeed. This fact must be highlighted before the world and appropriate measures must be taken to expose and boycott Pakistan.  

No. Every religion has its own personal laws and it would be undesirable to scrap all those laws and impose a fresh set of laws on all people in personal matters like marriage, divorce etc.

But, we would like to have a modern personal code of conduct based on mutual consent. For example, according to this code of conduct, before marrying, both partners must enter into a written agreement on how they would share finances, bring up the child, under what conditions they may divorce, how the child would be looked after in case of divorce etc. They must register their contract. After that, everything would be decided by the courts according to this contract. In case they do not register, the state would not recognize their marriage and they would be treated as two independent persons, free to do whatever they like between themselves with, of course, mutual consent.

A person would be given freedom of choosing either his religious code or modern code.

Once a person chooses this modern code, his religious code would not apply to him. With gradual shifting to the modern code, a uniform civil code may emerge voluntarily in due course of time.

NRIs (Non-Resident Indians)/OCIs(Overseas Citizens of India) still feel their roots in India. They have gone out, but enriched India financially and intellectually on a large scale. An estimated $27.1 billion was remitted to India in 2006-07, a dramatic increase from $2.1 billion in 1990-91.
 
Besides, NRIs/OCIs are, in a way, informal ambassadors of Indian culture abroad. Why should they be punished for such a good service to the country by denying them voting rights? In any case, their number is so small that they do not constitute any political force in themselves. Our gesture is basically symbolic to recognize their services and to make them feel that they are still Indian.

If two adults want to do something between themselves with mutual consent, government or society has no business to stop them. Let everybody enjoy the way he or she wants, provided they do not harm others. Linking such personal choices with morality is unwarranted. Immorality happens only when a person uses force or deceit against others to fulfill his personal interests.

Some argue that such freedoms would be against Indian culture. But choice of culture -- whether it is Indian or Western or whatever -- should rest with the individuals. Society has no business to impose its ideas and values on others. Let everybody follow his own values  (provided they do not harm others by force or by deceit) -- only that would make people happy.

Non-alignment is a foreign policy, according to which, no state would interfere in the internal affairs of another state; no state would attack another state on any ground whatsoever (except for self-defense), and if there is any dispute between two states, it should be resolved through dialogue.

Non-alignment started as a position of strategic and political neutrality towards the two major power blocks during the Cold War (1949-1989) led by USA and USSR. However, even after disintegration of USSR in 1991 and disappearance of the Cold War, policy of Non-alignment is still being followed by Non-aligned countries.

Non-alignment can work if there are only peaceful ideologies in the world. But there are violent ideologies in the world too, which want to expand by force or deceit. An expanding violent ideology is in principle opposed to Non-alignment because it seeks to bring about change in other countries by force. But Non-alignment cannot check such violent ideologies, because it does not want to use force or military alliances. It cannot give a military support to a fellow Non-aligned country attacked by a violent ideology. But only force can stop an ideology wanting to expand by force. Hence, Non-alignment is incapable of preventing spread of violent ideologies. It thus unwittingly facilitates destruction of the very same values of peace, freedom, reasoning and cooperation it wants to champion.

For example, the erstwhile USSR expanded communism in Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Afghanistan etc by force, but non-aligned countries could not stop it, because they were opposed to making any military alliance with the Western bloc or among themselves to stop violent expansion of communism.

Can Non-alignment overthrow any authoritarian regime of another country?

No, it can’t, because overthrowing an authoritarian regime by force would amount to “interference in the internal affairs of the country” and “making a military alliance” – ideas totally against the spirit of Non-alignment. Non-alignment fails to see that it is the authoritarian regimes which are “interfering in the affairs of its own people”, because they are not elected representatives and hence they have no right to impose their ideas on the people of that country. Hence, overthrowing such regimes would actually amount to stopping the interference in the affairs of the people! But Non-alignment cannot understand this logic!

Take an example. NATO, a military alliance of 26 countries from Europe and America, is fighting Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, a non-aligned country. But, not a single Non-aligned country is fighting against Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorists there, though all of them in principle condemn terrorism. This is not accidental, but due to the very nature of Non-alignment. As Non-alignment is against any military alliance, and wants to resolve every issue peacefully, it could not be fighting anywhere.

All that Non-alignment could do and has been actually doing since its inception is just to express its views on an issue. But a violent ideology cannot be stopped by expressing “grave concern” or by "peaceful means". It has to be countered by force and by united military action and strategy.

Hence, Non-alignment goes against national interests of ensuring security, peace and freedom for each of its member, because it leaves the field open for a violent ideology to operate and harass those who do not agree to its violent agenda.

Non-alignment is thus a worthless ideology and it has been pursuing this worthlessness for the last 50 years without any achievement in stopping any violent ideology or war! Hence it must be discarded completely.