There is relationship between lobbying and corruption. Lobbying seems to be a much more effective instrument for political influence than corruption, even in poorer, less developed countries as India. In fact lobbying is just a special form of corruption focused on legislative bodies or some other rule-making agency.
K P Singh himself said “Hungry for business, I started to lobby the government and made alliances. It has taken me 30 years. During Rajiv Gandhi’s time things started to look up. Under him things started to change on the policy front, and owned four or five acres of land.
Difference between Lobbying and Corruption
Lobbying does not always take the form of bribes or even of campaign contributions. Here we see that there is no proof of direct giving bribe to Rajiv Gandhi or to Robert Vadra but K P Singh got for DLF every benefit which he would not get by giving direct cash bribe.
In many cases, lobbyists have expertise that politicians don’t have and can influence politicians by strategically sharing this expertise with them. As we see K P Singh is not a politician, still for benefit of DLF he influence the giants of the government of Haryana and Delhi as well as the Central Government especially at the time of Rajiv Gandhi's premiership. This could not be done by any political big gun.
In other cases, lobbyists can influence politicians or to provide voters with damaging information about them or their policies or by providing endorsements or by threatening to withdrawing support which is being done by Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mayawati, Pawar and Karunanidhi. Thus UPA is cheating people and alliance parties are cheating to UPA and ultimately both are cheating the people.
Who so ever be able to compare the choice of lobbying with monetary payments or bribing to the choice of strategic provision of information to politicians, may be also able to know the truth behind the relationship between DLF and Robert Vadra.
The fact that lobbying is mainly aimed at policy-making institutions rather than the bureaucracy brings up a second difference since legislatures both set the policies that
Lobbyists care about and the rules that make it either easier or more difficult to bribe. Thus, lobbying can be both an activity that makes bribing irrelevant if it succeeds in influencing policy and an activity that makes bribing easier if it succeeds in undermining law enforcement. In other words, lobbying can be a substitute for, or a complement to, corruption.
Results of various research show that, in addition to the factors highlighted in the literature, there is substantial evidence that lobbying and corruption are substitutes. That is, lobbying is an important alternative instrument of influence to corruption in transition countries. Our analysis also suggests that political institutions have a significant effect on lobbying. In particular, we find that lobbying is more likely to occur in parliamentary systems and in systems that enjoy high levels of political stability.
Since independence Gandhi dynasty ruled more than 45 years to leave the less than one decade for the opposition. This is the reason rise of K P Singh reaching in the line of Ambanis richest in the world.
Rajiv Gandhi’s dream is shaped by his son-in-law Vadra
Hear here the sound of silence
Read the book: Silent Assassins, Jan 11, 1966
Comment may be sent at: email@example.com