Among the other points Mitra makes, not all of which I agree with, are: a) while corruption has been turned into a way of life by the unholy alliance of businessman, bureaucrat and politician, it is the businessman who must bear the largest blame; that what I will label parliamentary corruption, i.e., buying MPs votes to maintain ones majority, is in the same league with corrupting reformed Naxalites into ratting on their comrades; with some of the excesses of judicial activism, and the use of money by the Centre to exert political influence in sensitive areas of the country. All of these fit Mitra's primal definition of corruption and yet are as different from each other as fish from fowl. His definition of corruption thus is too inclusive. It loses some usefulness even as it allows him to tell a good tale.