A Palatial Building to house the President of India is an unwanted, never reviewed Legacy.

The President is First amongst Equals in a Democracy. Why should he / she live in a Palatial Building, when the common man's condition has not improved much in the last 50 years, that I am aware.

Who pays for the upkeep / extravagance ? The Public. What benefit - keeping up with the Jones

 

[ I recollected just about a fortnight back that in 1968 or so, Indira Gandhi illegally abolished the Privy Purse, though it was guaranteed by the Government, to save 14 or 19  Crores of Public Money !  Shri Nari Palkiwala won the case and a constitutional amendment was brought to justify / abolish the Privy Purse ]

The British ruled India. And they had a Palatial House as a matter of status / royal legacy or whatever. Should we need to continue that blindly ?

The Government of India routinely feeds the public with some deliberate / thoughtless / unwanted distortions and or suppression of facts. As of February 2010, they confess that Fiscal deficit is increasing and needs to be pruned.

Partial Disinvestment is one of the options that they now use, to get some cash. After NTPC issue that concluded, NMDC is in the queue.

Why not add Rashtrapathi Bhavan to the list ?

 

For hairloss control, Dandruff Remedy and hair gain:    Site map 1   Hair Consultation   Supply   Contact

Haircare:  Tips for the Top...RUfooled...Social Subjects...spicy shots   Others: Major links are at the top of each page   .

Errors and Omissions exempted.  If there be any unwanted oversights, mistake in content or suggestions for improvements, please e mail us

Main / original content:  2001: Last minor modifications: June 12, 2010:     Personal website of R. Ranganathan M.Sc., [ MBA - IIMA]