Democratic & Administrative Reforms

03-08-2005, 11:23 PM

Vijay

I dont understand why being loyal to constituents is bad in general.. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' />

03-09-2005, 12:51 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Mar 8 2005, 11:23 PM) Vijay

I dont understand why being loyal to constituents is bad in general.. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /> 
Don't get me wrong. It is not wrong to be loyal to the constituents. But we may have a CM/PM every month in a parliamentary system. That's why PM/CM position has to be independent of MLA/MP which in essence is Presidential form of democracy. In fact, having primaries and electing MLA/MP loyal to his constituents but not just his party will immensely promote the cause of democracy. PM/CM who is independently elected will carry more credibility with legislators/people. If he becomes unpopular with nepotism or corruption, his own party legislators will not support his bills.

03-09-2005, 12:57 AM

Presidential form of democracy, one in US where President appoints cabinet from anywhere, mostly is based on lobby. In case of India this will create worse mess. Lalu, his 9 kids and extended family will be all over cabinet. How we are going to solve this problem?

03-09-2005, 01:22 AM

Vijay,

I think changing from parliamentary system to presidential is a big step and lots of things have to be thought about before we can transform our system to that. I mentioned primaries as they are relatively easy to do and is one little step towards improving the feedback mechanism from janta to the neta. We have to come up with small implementable steps rather then a huge overhaul in order to remain pragmatic.

I do agree that a presidential system improves the feedback mechanism b/w janta and neta but it just seems like a BIG change with no chance of happening. Some innovative ideas like the anti-defection laws, curbs on number of ministries in states have to be thought of. And I think primaries is that small step towards making netas and parties more accountable to janta.

03-09-2005, 01:32 AM

This link posted as a matter of record <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Partial direct democracy

03-09-2005, 01:44 AM

QUOTE(s.k.mody @ Mar 8 2005, 01:02 PM) This link posted as a matter of record <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Partial direct democracy 
Muchos Gracias.. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

03-09-2005, 02:12 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Mar 9 2005, 12:57 AM) Presidential form of democracy, one in US where President appoints cabinet from anywhere, mostly is based on lobby. In case of India this will create worse mess. Lalu, his 9 kids and extended family will be all over cabinet. How we are going to solve this problem? 
Simple.

Anti-Nepotism law. The president in the US can't nominate any of his relatives to any post. We badly need that even in the current system.

03-09-2005, 02:22 AM

QUOTEAnti-Nepotism law. The president in the US can't nominate any of his relatives to any post. We badly need that even in the current system.
Powell's son was FCC Head. (both left same time)
Cheney's daughter is now state department's Middle East representative.(She will represent Rice in middle east issues).
There is a whole list of Nepotism in current administration.

Hillary Clinton was also President Appointee.
.

03-09-2005, 02:23 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Mar 9 2005, 01:22 AM) Vijay,

I think changing from parliamentary system to presidential is a big step and lots of things have to be thought about before we can transform our system to that. I mentioned primaries as they are relatively easy to do and is one little step towards improving the feedback mechanism from janta to the neta. We have to come up with small implementable steps rather then a huge overhaul in order to remain pragmatic.

I do agree that a presidential system improves the feedback mechanism b/w janta and neta but it just seems like a BIG change with no chance of happening. Some innovative ideas like the anti-defection laws, curbs on number of ministries in states have to be thought of. And I think primaries is that small step towards making netas and parties more accountable to janta. 
Primaries are good.

Anti-defection law as we have seen is practically circumvented whenever MAFIA kings like LALU and SONIA want it.

The thing I like about Presidential form is it seperates legislature from executive. The PM/CM is not elected by MLAs/MPs. The MLA/MP can't be minsters. So this clean seperation maintians the checks and balances of the system. Each want to check on the powers of the other and at the same time they have to work together to get what they want.

I know it is a big change. We have to start debating. It is a slow process but look at the state of Bihar. People are relieved that President's rule has been imposed instead of people's rule. Things are so bad.

K.R. Narayanan in his interview on rediff.co claims that the Presidential from leads to dictatorship. He is a COngress lacky with immense hatred for Hindus. He is a Sonia chmacha and he is no intellectual but he is a ex-president. So his opinion will be published in front pages.

Here are his excerpts:

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/07inter1.htm

QUOTEIndia has been following the parliamentary form of government all these years. Do you think the presidential form of government would have been better for India?

The presidential form of government can never be suitable for a country like India. I would say the presidential form would lead the country to a dictatorship. It could be the dictatorship of a person or of the army. It is not possible for a vast country like India to be governed by a President.

The parliamentary system has a mechanism for peaceful expression of people's resentments or criticism through the Opposition. It is parliamentary intervention that gives the country its stability. However, timely interventions and debates in Parliament should not be allowed to lead to explosive situations.

Criticism and disagreement are well accepted in the parliamentary rule. It is because of this noble mechanism that parliamentary democracy is thriving in India. The very basis of the stability of India is parliamentary democracy.

03-09-2005, 02:30 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Mar 9 2005, 02:22 AM) <div class='quotetop'>QUOTEAnti-Nepotism law. The president in the US can't nominate any of his relatives to any post. We badly need that even in the current system.
Powell's son was FAA Head. (both left same time)
Cheney's daughter is now state department's Middle East representative.(She will represent Rice in middle east issues).
There is a whole list of Nepotism in current administration.

Hillary Clinton was also President Appointee.
. </div>
Bush can't appoint his own sons/daugthers/wives to any position.
Colin Powell did not appoint his sons as FAA head.
Hillary was not a secretary. She was chairperson of a committee which studied health care policy. She could not be a decision maker.

I am sure politician's penchant for abuse of office. I am well aware of that. We have to continuously reform the constituion to stop blatant abuse of the office.

03-09-2005, 02:48 AM

Mudy

I want to bring this point. Bhajan Lal felt he deserved to become CM. But SOnia made another chamcha as CM. In order to shut him up, the MAFIA QUEEN made a deal. Keep quiet and you will be rewarded. The deal is one of his sons has to be appointed as minsiter by PM in the central cabinet and another one should be apponited as minister by Hudda, Haryana CM. Both of them touch MAFIA B$$$$'s feet and do it because they are appointed by her. Imagine if PM and Hudda were elected directly by people. They would have told her F*** OFF You ITALIAN B1. It is my Govt. and I will select whom I want.

I am sure there will be some ulta-pulta as UltaPultaAlliance demonstrated. You scratch my back and I will scratch yours kind of deals. But the fraud will be reduced.

03-09-2005, 02:52 AM

Bhajan Lal is quiet coz of some CD is in circulation which expose Bhajan Lal. Don't know the content but he is quiet now.
I am surprised none of Sonia's CD is out which expose her shady dealing.

03-09-2005, 02:56 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Mar 9 2005, 02:52 AM) Bhajan Lal is quiet coz of some CD is in circulation which expose Bhajan Lal. Don't know the content but he is quiet now.
I am surprised none of Sonia's CD is out which expose her shady dealing. 
I hope some one is working on the ITALIAN MAFIA QUeen's secrets CD. I hope not every one is sold to power like LALU, SECULAR pretending PRESS, and COMMIES. I hope it comes sooner than later.

03-15-2005, 03:13 AM

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=66392

QUOTECall this a democracy? Donât!
India is not democratic even though it has the largest democratic elections
K. SUBRAHMANYAMÂ

Although recent developments in Goa and Jharkhand have caused much outrage and the politics in Bihar and leadership elections in Haryana have reduced the exercise of democracy to a farce, there is no introspection in our media and academia as to why democracy in a country that boasts of being its largest practitioner has been reduced to this sorry state.

The practice of democracy involves the following steps. Selection of candidates by various parties to contest the elections, free and fair polls, the election of a leader of the legislature party if it commands a majority by itself or a coalition of parties elected to the assembly, followed by the formation of the government. A country can call itself a democracy only if at every stage of this chain of events democracy is practised. In India, thanks to the Election Commission (EC), only the polling and declaration of results of polling are free, fair and democratic. Every other step set down here is largely undemocratic in practice. That is the reason why it has become difficult to have stable governments in many states.

Let us go over the various processes, one by one. The first step is the selection of the candidate to contest the elections. In all mature democracies where legislators are elected on the basis of territorial constituencies, parties will select candidates on the basis of their having nursed their constituencies. Nursing constituencies is a long-term process and it is only through this does the candidate acquire a representative, character vis-a-vis his/her constituency. In India this does not happen in a majority of cases. The central party headquarters decides at the last moment which of its nominees will contest elections from which constituency. This is the very negation of the principles of representative democracy and leads to the phenomenon of rebel candidates in cases where a constituency has been nursed by a candidate and his claims to represent it are ignored by the party. The number of rebel candidates of a particular party is an index of the authoritarianism prevalent within it. In the majority of cases, candidates do not necessarily have roots in their constituencies. Because the elections are contested on a first past the post basis, the party label, caste, communal factors and the ability to mobilise muscle and money power play significant roles in getting candidates the 30 to 35 per cent of votes they need in order to win. This process leads to a situation where elected members have little or no stake in their constituencies.

Having got its members elected to the assembly, parties do not permit freedom to their elected members to elect in turn their leader. The legislature parties meet and pass unanimous resolutions requesting the party fuehrers to nominate their leaders. Since the legislators do not elect their own leaders they have no sense of responsibility for electing leaders nor any loyalty to the leaders sent down by the High Command. The moment a legislature party leader is nominated by the High Command, various plots begin to have him toppled and replaced through palace intrigue. Democracy has no role in this system.

This was not the original Congress party culture. In 1946, Gandhi and Nehru had to accept the Madras Congress legislature partyâs decision to reject their preferred candidate, Rajaji. T. Prakasam was elected as their leader. During the Nehruvian era, there were no observers to monitor state legislative parties electing their leaders. This practice of party fuehrers being requested to nominate legislative party leaders is an Indira Gandhi innovation. Communists always practiced such âdemocratic centralismâ. Other political parties had no difficulty in accepting this undemocratic practice. When democracy is not practised in the selection of the candidate for election, nor in the election of the legislative party leaders, it is no surprise that legislators have no respect for democratic norms.

Political parties in a legislature are expected to regulate their conduct with due respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our political parties have respect for neither. Therefore the legislature becomes anarchic. Legislators are not bound by the rules of procedure and Speakers are continuously defied. The ruling party resorts to unfair use of state power and the Opposition parties to agitational politics in the legislative chambers and in the streets. Not infrequently the Government and the Opposition does arrive at compromises based on their respective calculations of party interests, but very rarely because of their respect for the rule of law. In our entire âdemocratic processâ there is only one regulatory authority â the EC â which enforces free and fair elections. All the other processes are meant to be self-regulatory and our political parties have demonstrated their incapacity for self-regulation by reducing the chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to abject helplessness. If political parties would abide by the provisions of the Constitution, there would have been no need for the Jharkhand issue to go to the Supreme Court. If at all India is still considered a democracy, the credit should go to the EC and the Supreme Court and not to our legislatures or political parties.

The culture of our major political parties is authoritarian and not democratic. That is demonstrated in the scant availability of inner party democracy in the majority of our political parties and their behaviour in the legislatures. One would believe their democratic credentials only when the leaderships would impose discipline and respect for the rule of law on their legislators within the legislatures and permit the parties at the state level to elect their own leaders and form their own coalitions. If elected legislators are kept in custody pending confidence votes in legislatures, there is no need to be surprised about the kidnappings of children and doctors in Bihar and elsewhere. It is far more important to discipline our political parties to respect the rule of law than to allow them to make opportunistic deals in the name of democracy, which will lead neither to stable democracy nor to good and effective governance.

Meanwhile let there be no illusions about India being the largest democracy and our political parties being democratic. We only have the largest democratic elections enforced by an EC which, thank God, is not elected!

05-11-2005, 01:39 AM

http://www.newindpress.com/column/News.asp...ate=&Sub=&Cat=&

QUOTEHeed Narimanâs advice
Monday May 9 2005 08:22 IST

S Gurumurthy

The Indian judicial system is an extension of the colonial regimeâ. This is how Fali S. Nariman, a highly respected jurist, characterised our judicial model at a national conference of lawmen held in Delhi recently. He did not stop at this. He went ahead and called for âintrospection to find out what was wrong with itâ. Profound words indeed. But coming as they did from a veteran lawman they are more profound. But how did the colonial regime extend into free India? It is too big a subject to be captured in a few hundred words.

As far back as 1928, Mahatma Gandhi experienced trends of colonial extension into free India. Pandit Nehru angrily told a stubborn Mahatma Gandhi then that âWestern civilisation was bound to overtake Indiaâ. He also protested that âGandhiji was deliberately trivialising the achievements of the Westâ. This attitude contained the seeds to legitimise colonialism in free India.

Soon the West became the benchmark to shape our thoughts, institutions and polity. Our Constitution, largely a remake of the colonial Government of India Act of 1935, extended the colonial statecraft to free India. When free India discussed its governance model, the decisive voices in the Constituent Assembly ridiculed even the suggestion to have a look at ancient Indiaâs village panchayat system. They dismissed villages as just âa sink of localism, den of narrow-mindedness and communalismâ. They justified âdiscardingâ the âvillageâ as the basic constitutional unit and âadoptingâ the âindividualâ in its place exclusively, thus denying even an inch of constitutional space for the village or community.

Later, as constitutional rule evolved, it also disturbed the communities and villages, even families, under the guise of individual rights, womanâs rights, childrenâs rights, elderâs rights and other sectional rights. It exclusively emphasised oneâs rights, completely discarding oneâs duties. The ancient Indian polity, in contrast, emphasised the integration of the individual with the family, village, community and neighbourhood society and finally the state. It was founded on their mutual obligations or duties, which holds good even today.

More than the law and the state, it is the family and community that train, discipline, and oversee an individual more closely, and with greater moral authority. It is no rhetoric, a reality. Much of India is un-policed or under-policed by the state. For some seven lakh villages there are just 12,400 police stations! Yet, there is more peace in un-policed villages, thanks to duty-defined norms of life in practice than in over-policed towns. Thus, the family and the community have withstood the continuous mutiny promoted through individual and sectional rights.

Under the present formal judicial system, the truth has to be rescued and recovered by each party from the other. This turns courts into battlefields, lawyers into mercenaries, and parties into adversaries. This model is adversarial jurisprudence. But the ancient Indian system is based on conciliation or the panchayat spirit. Adversarial jurisprudence works well for formal, impersonalised societies and corporate litigations. It is only partly, not fully fit for informal, personalised societies like the Indian.

Ancient Indian justice is even today delivered from temples and community gatherings. Witnesses dare not tell lies in such sacred places. In contrast, in courts organised by law the very witnesses are not as truthful, being not as reverent to courts as they are to temples. Often, they are acceptably tutored even to tell lies in court. That is why even today traditional forms of justice work. The community panchayats and religious interventions solve more cases than do the courts. For example, religious leaders like Shri Hegde, the highly respected trustee of Dharmasthala Temple in Karnataka, resolve thousands of disputes, including some high profile corporate disputes which courts are unable to. If these disputes too land in courts, the already overstretched Indian judiciary would collapse. Yet, because it looks down upon ancient modes of justice, the colonial legal system cannot recognise it, so not to integrate itself with it. So, instead of improving the village panchayats, courts have called upon the government even to outlaw them!

Can the traditional notions of justice be harmonised with the impersonalised, adversarial justice at all? Perhaps yes. Look at what this possible variation to the civil code can do. An individual approaching law courts would be asked to swear on oath that, before moving the court, he has exhausted the traditional modes of justice known to his neighbourhood or was prevented to do so. If this is proved prima facie false, he may be disqualified to approach the court. This would enable pre-litigation intervention by the traditional peacemaking mechanism and filter most of the litigation. But, as it stands, the law drives a remote villager to go to an urban lawyer - disregarding all local disciplines â to lodge a case in court against his own brothers or neighbours and turn them into his enemies forever.

Adversarial jurisprudence is unfamiliar to the ordinary Indian. But the ancient Indian modes of justice are familiar to them. Therefore, it should be regarded as a civilisational asset. Fortunately, it still holds good even today despite all efforts to undermine it. It should be revalidated, not squandered away. Why then not make adversarial jurisprudence as the residual option instead of the first? This needs to be explored. There is disconnect today between the normative traditional discipline on which society functions and the norms on which the delivery of formal justice is organised. This is what Nariman has drawn our attention to. Will those concerned with delivery of justice heed his advice?

05-12-2005, 03:12 AM

Seems to be a good site
http://www.indiatogether.com/govt/elections/ncer/

05-12-2005, 03:54 AM

QUOTESeems to be a good site
http://www.indiatogether.com/govt/elections/ncer/
Sure
COLUMNISTS
Dilip D'Souza - who invited USA to invade India
Ammu Joseph - Hindus are outsiders, Muslims and Christians are Bhumiputra
P Sainath

Editor - Less said is better.

Its known pinkoo site used for soft and hard brainwash. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> Roy, Chatterji, Mathews pet playground etc

From this site
QUOTELegal identification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Selection criteria for scheduled castes

1. Cannot be served by clean Brahmans
2. Cannot be served by the barbers, water-carriers, tailors, etc. who serve the caste Hindus
3. Pollutes a high-caste Hindu by contact or by proximity
4. Is one from whose hands a caste Hindu cannot take water
5. Is debarred from using public amenities such as roads, ferries, wells, or schools
6. Will not be treated as an equal by high-caste men of the same educational qualification in ordinary social intercourse
7. Is depressed on account of the occupation followed and, but for that, occupation would be subject to no social disability

Selection criteria for scheduled tribes

1. Tribal origin
2. Primitive ways of life and habitation in remote and less accessible areas
3. General backwardness in all respects

05-12-2005, 03:58 AM

Akhila Raman used to write for indiatogether... speaking of which, where did she go? Karachi for her honeymoon? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' />

05-16-2005, 08:04 PM

http://www.outlookindia.com/bullseye.asp
QUOTEExperts can look into the future. They predict that within decades India will become a world power. Perhaps. A layman can only look at the present. What does he see?

Parliament serves no visible purpose. Judges and legal luminaries themselves allege that the judiciary is corrupt. The administration does not move. The police are complicit in crime. And nothing can stop the spreading rot because those who rule through government and opposition are themselves enmeshed in crime and corruption. The major institutions of the system have collapsed. A parallel invisible government rules the nation. And a frivolous media is either this invisible government's instrument or its manipulated dupe.

So, how will India become a world power? Does any expert believe that economic progress can be insulated from misgovernance, crime and corruption? Do these not affect the GDP? Or social and individual well-being?

India can, therefore, become a future world power only if the present working of the system is reformed radically. Is there a single party, group or faction in India's political firmament radiating the remotest hope of being able to bring about such reform?

Last fortnight, Laloo Yadav hogged the limelight. Last week, it was George Fernandes. Next week, Arun Shourie may come under scrutiny. Charges and counter-charges are flying thick and fast. But all these are mere peccadilloes in the overall context of crime and cover-ups that have overtaken the system. Crimes are committed, go unpunished, are forgotten. And the world moves on to the next titillating scandal. This columnist has witnessed political corruption from the days of Krishna Menon's Jeep scandal. The odd tree and bush of then have become a dense jungle. So, forget the trees. Sit back in sadness and contemplate the wood.

<b>People hope the system will be cleansed. The many exposures and cases involving political leaders provide such hope. It's a futile hope. The exposures are not evidence of political reform. They signify the climax of bitter gang wars among thieves fallen out. Doubtless, one day the thieves who rule us will destroy each other. But can such mutual destruction substitute for radical reform? Or will somehow, somewhere, a genuine reform process really begin that consigns present politicians to history's dustbin? </b>

Much of the world abroad has a vested interest in a stable India. It sees a billion consumers. The world could help. But the lead must come from Indians themselvesâyoung Indians. Are they listening?

ramana · (This post was last modified: 05-17-2005, 12:12 AM by ramana.)

The Indian Constitution was formed by the Constituent Assembly in 1946 and was adopted on Jan 26, 1950. The basic structure is Westminister type of government.

Principal features of Indian Constitution

Since then the Constitution was amended many times to keep up with the times. Now that we are in the 21 century it is high time to study what changes are needed to bring about growth in the values preserved in the Preamble.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?