But why was such a patently absurd query raised? Well, it appears that this corporate had put in a fairly straight-forward investment application, but since the ministry is believed to have wished to delay clearance, it was looking for some query it could raise in order to justify not giving a go-ahead.

Now, as part of its application, the corporate had submitted its annual report which listed deposits it had in UBS and CSFB -- receipts from an earlier GDR/ADR issue, allowed to be kept abroad for a certain period of time. Though there is a big difference between deposits and equity holdings, the ministry seized the opportunity, and issued its ``query'' -- if worst came to worst, they could always have said they were genuinely confused!Though visibly upset, the corporate has chosen not to take thematter up for now, nor to write to the Prime Minister to complain about how it is being treated. The reason is obvious: it feels that while it may get this particular clearance through the PM's intervention, there are lots of ways in which the political-bureaucratic class can strike back at it.

This, of course, is the reason why so many corporates choose not to complain, at least in a very visible manner, about delays in getting their projects cleared. After all, how many cases such as Ratan Tata's visible outpourings over his airline and airport projects being scuttled can be cited? This is also why corporate reactions to the report of the committee on obsolete laws have been very muted.

While the committee, which has heavyweights such as H.D. Shourie of Common Cause, has made valuable suggestions such as scrapping 1,300 obsolete laws, some of which go back to the 1840s, this is not nearly good enough. The reason is simple: while these laws are very irritating, they aren't really the crux of the problem.At most, some bribes can be extracted by citing them, but this is something that most of Indian industry as well as its managers have learnt to live with. It certainly isn't desirable that outdated laws should be used to extract bribes, but industry has a lot more to contend with and that's what needs to be tackled urgently.

How many corporates have you heard complaining of the harassment faced because of the Hackney Carriage Act of 1879, the Colonial Prostrates Act of 1892, the Shore Nuisance (Bombay and Khandala) Act of 1853, or the Bengal Indigo Control Act of 1856? Of course, that shouldn't take away from the committee's efforts at cleaning up India's statute book.

The problem lies, as the committee has also pointed out, in the fact that the government has still not passed important statutes such as the Sick Industrial Companies Act, the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, or even the amended Compa-nies Bill. The problem lies in the fact that, at a time when industry needs desperately torestructure, the government does not allow it to do so, by making the entire process of shutting down a unit and offering severance packages to workers so tortuous that it isn't funny. All this, of course, stems from the fact that no government has the political courage to allow industries to shut down if they're loss-making.

Never mind that the nation continues to be bled white by the losses these units make. In the case of some units, The Indian Express reported earlier, such as the public sector Cycle Corporation of India, the wage bill is fourteen times its turnover and its losses are thirty times its turnover.

The problem lies in the fact that, due to vested interests or just plain cowardice on the part of the government, its bureaucrats and ministers are allowed to get away with distorting the law by misinterpreting it to suit certain lobbies. In the twin Tata cases, for example, both the airline and the airport project conformed to existing laws. It's just that, due to certain vestedinterests, the applicability of these laws was being questioned, that various incorrect interpretations were being given to them.

Similarly, in the case of the Sanghi Industries proposal to set up a jetty for its cement plant off the Kutch coast, it was the environment minister who, several months ago, insisted on blocking clearance for the project despite the fact that his bureaucrats were in favour of the clearance and the expert committee headed by Anil Agarwal had also cleared it -- the Sanghi plant was originally scheduled to have come on stream two years ago.

But then what else is one to expect from the political-bureaucratic class which tries its best to ensure that no meaningful change takes place? How else can one explain the fact that when leaders such as Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram were trying their best to get the outdated and draconian FERA replaced by a more modern statute, what has now been suggested -- FEMA and the Money Laundering Bill -- is far more draconian and puts far morearbitrary powers in the hands of those implementing these laws? It is also this class which has, as the committee points out, ensured that despite the lapse of three years, the recommendations of an expert group on the consumer protection act have still not been incorporated.

Interestingly, even the limited recommendations of the committee which, as explained earlier, don't really deal with the crux of the problem, are not to be implemented straightaway. They are to be examined by a committee of secretaries first...