Democratic & Administrative Reforms

[Guest]

<!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Let us put our country in win win situation. To do so, let us identify areas
where changes can be brought in e.g.
1. India's PM or States' CMs should be directly elected.
2. The Governors of the states should be indirectly elected like President of India.
3. The criteria for reservation should be economic status and not caste based.
Please add ur points to this winning list.

[Guest]

http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=39392

very interesting idea.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Caste Panchayats for Development
by:   Raamesh Gowri Raghavan on Nov 18 2005 2:07PM in
With the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme talking of a future Telengana state, economic disparity has now joined language (Andhra, Maharashtra, and Haryana) and cultural differences (Uttaranchal and Jharkhand) as a criterion for creating new states. However the strongest denominator of identity for an average Indian still remains caste, the basis on which he or she marries and votes. Yet, caste will never become a state making factor, since most castes are spread over large areas sharing them with other castes. Elections see the importance of caste-based bodies making or breaking the electoral fortunes of parties and candidates by issuing diktats to their caste folk, like the Jat Panchayat of Rajasthan. Several castes are politically organised and represented by parties such as the Samajwadi Party (Yadavs) and the PMK (Vanniyars).

    Our constitution strongly proscribes casteism, which has been the root of several ills that plague our country. Yet, years of socialism, egalitarianism and affirmative action have done naught to blur caste boundaries or ameliorate discrimination, or even to substantially improve the economic conditions of backward castes and tribes. Perhaps it is time to turn the matter on its head, and attempt an experiment that co-opts caste organisations into development and democracy?

        Indeed it is happening somewhat, albeit unofficially. Several caste-based organisations are in existence today, which run educational and charitable institutions across the country, trying to improve the conditions of their caste folk. The sterling example that comes to mind is of the Parsi Panchayat of Mumbai, a registered body that administers to Parsi communal property such as agiaries and towers of silence and provides housing to poor Parsis. Another well-known example is the elected Shironmani Gurudwara Parbhandak Committee (SGPC) that administers Gurudwaras and acts as a social organisation of the Sikhs. On the other side is the ‘Jat Panchayat’, a tightly-knit body of ‘elders’ whose writ runs across the Jat community, without any recognition by law. Community organizations exist on smaller scales in several cities of the country, either running ‘minority educational institutions’ or as Sangams, Balagas, Sabhas etc. organizing cultural events.
      
        The flip side of many of these ‘panchayats’ is that they are currently undemocratic, often of self-designated ‘elders’ with vested interests to protect. Many such, especially in the north of the country, have chosen to uphold outdated and exploitative ‘traditions’ in the name of caste ‘honour’, rather than foster a modern and rational outlook. This has only increased inter-caste discord. Honour-killings ordered by illegal panchayats have led to several eminent citizens demanding a ban on them.
      
        Instead, legalizing these ‘panchayats’ under a comprehensive new legislation would be a better solution. Such an act must enable caste members to effectively organise themselves under the Registrars of Charities just as any other association. Voluntary membership and democratic election of the executive committees must be the norm. This must be supervised by the State or Central Election Commissions. The charters of these bodies must be published and made widely accessible to all members in the appropriate caste language. The government must recognize these bodies as the trustee of properties such as educational institutions, dharamshalas, orphanages etc owned by the caste, and also ensure that no negative discrimination (but allowing affirmative action within reasonable limits) takes place. Instituting the democratic process within a caste’s membership under the aegis of a ‘panchayat’ would also help in putting an end to feuds, factionalism etc that lead to violence, and also end disparities between rich and poor members of the caste by giving all the same voting power. Such bodies would also enable the weaker and backward castes and tribes to form effective lobbies (on the principle of collective bargaining) while dealing with State and Union governments over issues pertaining to livelihoods and traditions (that are not illegal). This will also enable a gradual phasing out of reservations.
      
        However these bodies must respect other caste bodies and therefore those castes, and even more, the primacy of the state. A panchayat of panchayats can be formed, which would encourage democratic and civilized discourse among castes. Finally we must be able to evolve to a state wherein the present (and illegal) vertical hierarchy among castes is replaced by a horizontal system of equally ranked communities. Though caste bodies may be vested with the right to codify and administer traditional caste conventions, these must not contradict legislated law, or the basic freedoms and rights accorded to all citizens by the Constitution. Such rules cannot be binding on the caste members, except those required for intra-organisational discipline. These panchayats must submit to the jurisdiction of the courts, whose word must be final, and the State or Centre must be given the right to supersede these bodies when necessary, similar to Article 370.
      
        Inter-caste marriages and water sharing cause the most friction among communities, so the suggested caste panchayat legislation must include special provisions for these. Water is a national resource that must be unconditionally available to all citizens irrespective of caste, and only quantitative restrictions per person may be permitted for conservation reasons. Similarly any Indian citizen is free to marry whomever he/she chooses, and the caste panchayat should have no jurisdiction over marriages, except arbitrating over customs. No person marrying outside his/her caste can be expelled or coerced to resign his/her voluntary membership, nor must any person marrying into a caste be coerced into membership or excluded against his/her will. Membership of a caste panchayat must be strictly voluntary, with eligibility criteria being birth or marriage into that caste or tribe. Caste laws cannot apply to a non-member of a panchayat.
      
        Caste panchayats must be encouraged, morally and financially, to promote education, modern healthcare, gender parity, entrepreneurship and rational thought among their members. The states must recognize them as the sole interlocutors on matters pertaining to caste particulars, and also simultaneously crack down on illegal unelected panchayats. Such measures will ultimately lead to democratization of the various castes and tribes of India. Democracy can only be a good thing for inter-caste harmony and all-round development of all of India’s people without compromising on their identity and self-esteem.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Hello Everybody,

Just wondering if the time is right for a presidential form of Government in India and what it will take to implement that. I think it would be a good idea to start a new thread on this topic.

Let us assume that there will be another mid-term poll. That will require at least Rs.500-1000 Crores.

Increasing power play by state governments is weakening the central government.

Increasingly volatile neighbourhood and problems in neighbouring countries and importance of Indian sub-continent in the world's geo-political-economic environment requires a strong central government.

Possibility of failed states (neighbouring countries) scenario which may cause 1971 like refugee situation.

Increasing cases of insurgency in North East, Maoists in Bihar, MP, Chattisgarh, AP and many other states, Kashmir, and other activities at state level are undermining the national sovereignty.

A weakened centre will encourage terrorists to carry out daring Delhi blasts like strikes. Hence there is a need for a strong and assertive national government. A nuclear power appears helpless against a bunch of thugs due to a weak centre.

Even in near future it appears that there is little possibility of a single party forming a goverment even with a simple majority.

There is a need for national debate/referendum on the merits of a presidential form of governmnet in a poor country which cannot afford Rs.1000 crores every now and then on elections.
<i><b>
The key question is whether a national consensus will ever be reached and whether the state level power centres will be willing to give up their kingdoms in the broader national interests.</b></i>

[Guest]

Kalam's dream: The virtual election

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If President APJ Abdul Kalam has his way, rejecting an election candidate with criminal antecedents will only be a click away. 

Picture this: Minutes after a candidate files his nomination papers, his legal records from the courts, credit history from the banks and civic consciousness and behaviour as a citizen from the police records will arrive at the returning officer's computer terminal through a network grid connecting various agencies of the government. 

Under Dr Kalam's vision for e-governance, artificial intelligence software will even rate how successful the candidate will be as a politician!

"An election officer sitting in a remote part of the country decides on the spot and the election process starts," says Dr Kalam who presented a typical election scenario possible in the future during a talk on 'Connectivity for Empowering the Nation' organised by Indian Express newspaper on Tuesday. 

The President's dream does not end here. Trudging a long path to the polling booth is also not necessary, he says.

Voters can exercise their franchise sitting in their homes through virtual polling booths. 

To realise Dr Kalam's dream, a national citizen identification database has to be created first, something which political parties are against for fear of communal profiling and misuse. 

Another is creating a grid where district administration, universities, employers, income tax department, land record authorities, banks, police and courts are wired to give out real-time information. 

"There will be no bias in this election process," says Dr Kalam
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'> <!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Let us put our country in win win situation. To do so, let us identify areas
where changes can be brought in e.g.
1. India's PM or States' CMs should be directly elected.
2. The Governors of the states should be indirectly elected like President of India.
3. The criteria for reservation should be economic status and not caste based.
Please add ur points to this winning list. </span></span>

[Guest]

<b>Let some one Like Mr.Murthy come forward and form a national party with top class professionals and/or retired military officers and fight elections. Let them turn around Bharat in 10 years.... Any takers???</b> <!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo-->


<b>Murthy tears into 'inept' politicians
[ Thursday, December 29, 2005 02:19:26 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK & AGENCIES ]
NRI New Year Gift, FREE Calling Card </b>
RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

BANGALORE: It could have been a pure coincidence but even as the Karnataka panchayat election results poured in, IT czar N R Narayana Murthy tore into the political system, calling it inept in handling the vast changes needed to achieve a sustained economic growth and end poverty in the country.

Chairman and chief mentor of Infosys Technologies Ltd Murthy appeared to have picked up the issue left behind in his spat with former prime minister H D Deve Gowda who had said IT companies were not creating enough jobs and giving back to the society and had accused Infy of land-grabbing.

Murthy denied the charges in a long written rebuttal. "Politicians must learn to respect those who create jobs," Murthy said at the valedictory function of the second international alumni meet organised by the National Institute of Technology's Bangalore chapter.

Then, he raised his voice and declared, "There is no point in blaming the IT industry for the city (its woes). It's their responsibility in fact to plan the city better because they have sought power, they have sought seats."


Just as I will be held responsible if Infosys did not do well, the politicians must take responsibility if the city did not do well, state did not do well, country did not do well."

"Our institutions — from Parliament and legislatures to courts and distribution systems — have become pervaded with corruption," Murthy said.

Indians, Murthy said, spent over Rs 21,000 crore in bribes and illegal payouts in 2004 — close to 1% of the country's GDP.

Giving an example, he said India's private radio stations are only allowed to broadcast entertainment, and not news and informational programmes.

"There is absolutely no good reason for this restriction. Only reason is they (politicians) do not want the poor people to know what's happening in the country."

He pointed out that radio is a low-cost media with the highest penetration in India — it reaches 27 of every 100 households in the country.

It is easily accessible to low-income, illiterate people, and can be an important source of knowledge, news and information.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...350489.cms

[Guest]

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Courier'> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> Here is a framework for would be political party.
The platform has been provided so that people can join it:
www.pndal.com
We have to work for what we want otherwise we will have to accept whatever is there.</span></span>

[Guest]

we will have to see whether we have failed the constitution or the constitution has failed us. - that is the question posed by President K.R. Narayanan

[Guest]

To try to stir some debate on this vexed question?

The current political configuration is the result of our constitution....no..it is our people...no...it is poverty/illiteracy....no it our corrupt leaders... Is democracy in its present form of electoral politics of one man/one vote even the right solution for India? Can we jump to a Presidential form of governance, when that form has failed in most countries it was implemented in (except US).

Whether it is the people, who have failed the constitution or the constitution has failed the people is up for debate as stated by no less than some of the original authors of the constitution. I forget the name now but this was in the early 90's. With the largest constitution ever written and 104 amendments to top it in 55 years, we should be geniuses or just getting it wrong.

Some sources for reference:

Constitution of India with amendments
Governance and the Sclerosis that Has Set in - Arun Shourie
Constitutional Crisis and Problems in India - Suchintya Bhattacharya
Constitutional Reforms : Problems, Prospects and Perspectives
Reconstitution of the Constitution of India : Analysis of Constitutional Provisions; Reconstitution; Proposed Constitution of Bharat; National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) : Introduction and Summary of Recommendations - Kanahaiyalal Sharma
Rethinking Democracy - Rajni Kothari
Constitutional History of India - N. Jayapalan

[Guest]

<b>The amendments to the Constitution of India since 1950 has been necessary to face the new challanges and problems faced by the country. So there is nothing wrong on this aspcet. However, whether we should go in for a Presidentail form of Government is a matter which needs a national debate as it means a fundamental change to the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.</b>

[Guest]

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Arial'><!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo--> The question is to straighten the machinery. Right now these Parliamentarians r duplicating as both Execeutives and Lagislators and making the mess of both. If v have an execeutive br kept in check by lagislation, it would be better. Take e.g. Buta Singh's decision to disband Lagislative assembly which he never constituted in 1st place; cabinet goes and approves it and get it approved by Parliament which u, me, he, she, it, they can make out is balatantly wrong.</span></span>

[Guest]

<b>Under the present Indian Constitution, there is complete separation of Power between the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. The overlapping that appears is due to the dishonest manner in which the functionaries are discharging their functions. The same situation can prevail even under the Presidential system of Government.
In the case of imposition of President's Rule, the Central Government has failed to take due care in discharging its duties. The Union Cabinet has simply recommended the action to the President of India on the basis of the report received from the Governor of the State. In this particular case, the Union Cabinet has taken the decision based on political considerations rather than on the basis of ground realities. The same can happen under a Presidential System if the Executive takes decision on narrow political considerations rather than on actual ground position.
If one goes by the examples of recent executive actions in the United States, it is felt that the Indian system has far more safeguards than the U S System. It has recently come to light that subsequent to 9/11 the US President had authorized tapping of phones and e mail links of certain citizens. This action was not in accordance with the law which requires certain other legal procedures. However, no action has been taken as the only action that is possible is to start an impeachment proceeding, which is a very major thing to do and is not fit for such a small so called violation. In India, in a similar tapping allegation, the Govt had no excuse but to make a move and already one person has been taken into custody. What will ultimately happen is not know, but the fact remains that the Indian system if it is made to work properly has sufficient checks and balances.</b>

[Guest]

<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo--> What is Indian in this system? It's a borrowed Westminister Parliamentary democracy system. If you have to borrow, then borrow a better system. We are not talking of idealism; v r talking of what is happening on the ground and on ground, this system has failed.
Had v stuck to our Panchayati Democracy, it would have been far better.
Right now, to clean the mess, u require an action.

[Guest]

One of the reasons of preference for Presidential form of system is to reduce the menace of 100s of political parties extracting their pound of flesh from already impoverished country. At the same time, these state level entities like TN, WB, North east, and others have tendencies to indulge in overt or covert subversive/anti-national activites undermining the integrity of the country.

2/3/4 party system will help reduce the menace of state level subversive tendencies.

It will also bring greater national integration, politcal stability, lesser corruption, faster economic growth, and reduced insurgencies.

Areas of NE will feel part of the mainstream India which will be good for the overall growth of the country.

Your take !

[Guest]

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'><!--emo&:blow--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blow.gif' /><!--endemo--> The easiest way to bring about change is:
v already have an indirectly elected President; so, either v can stay with that and President chooses his PM or v can have directly elected PM. I don't know much about French system but it's something of this type.</span></span>

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Aryawan+Jan 2 2006, 02:09 AM-->QUOTE(Aryawan @ Jan 2 2006, 02:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the reasons of preference for Presidential form of system is to reduce the menace of 100s of political parties extracting their pound of flesh from already impoverished country. At the same time, these state level entities like TN, WB, North east, and others have tendencies to indulge in overt or covert subversive/anti-national activites undermining the integrity of the country.

2/3/4 party system will help reduce the menace of state level subversive tendencies.

It will also bring greater national integration, politcal stability, lesser corruption, faster economic growth, and reduced insurgencies.

Areas of NE will feel part of the mainstream India which will be good for the overall growth of the country.

Your take !
[right][snapback]44161[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


If the intention is to reduce the number of parties, then why do not we opt for a proportionate representaion? Parties without at least 5% support should not be allowed to have MPs and MLAs. <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

In the proportional representation system you have proposed , what will be the mechanics of election. Is it that the entire population will vote for each political party and the one getting the highest number of votes will have the largest number of MPs.The political parties that become the tail enders do not get any seat to the parliament.Or you have some other scheme in mind.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Ravish+Jan 5 2006, 02:14 AM-->QUOTE(Ravish @ Jan 5 2006, 02:14 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the proportional representation system you have proposed , what will be the mechanics of election. Is it that the entire population will vote for each political party and the one getting the highest number of votes will have the largest number of MPs.The political parties that become the tail enders do not get any seat to the parliament.Or you have some other scheme in mind.
[right][snapback]44311[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

People vote for parties. Seats are allocated according to the share of votes they get. Leader of the party with majority support of MPs leads the country. Tail enders who do not have support of anybody outside their cricles will not be represented in parliament.

The prominent example is Muslim League. It is a regional party only. It does not have any all India representation. Due to coalition politics it has one MP in the parliament. And that man is a minister now. Is it not ridiculous?

[Guest]

I completely disagree with the proposed representation solution, purely by majority only. The concept of federalism would be completely lost. Not to mention this will not be progress but regress in democracy as that small party in Manipur will not have a say and will lead to dis illussionment very quickly. My view is the number of parties in parliamnet is not the key issue, in fact it is a benefit. The problem is becuase in our system the executive is derived from the legislature there is a link between parties and governance. If we can get the executive to be formed from outside the legislature (like the Presidential system) then the number of parties in Parliament ceases to be an issue.

<b>
Presidential system of govt and reforms thread merged into one. - Admin</b>

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Shaurya+Jan 7 2006, 02:04 AM-->QUOTE(Shaurya @ Jan 7 2006, 02:04 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I completely disagree with the proposed representation solution, purely by majority only. The concept of federalism would be completely lost. Not to mention this will not be progress but regress in democracy as that small party in Manipur will not have a say and will lead to dis illussionment very quickly. My view is the number of parties in parliamnet is not the key issue, in fact it is a benefit. The problem is becuase in our system the executive is derived from the legislature there is a link between parties and governance. If we can get the executive to be formed from outside the legislature (like the Presidential system) then the number of parties in Parliament ceases to be an issue.

<b>
Presidential system of govt and reforms thread merged into one. - Admin</b>
[right][snapback]44404[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree with this opinion completely. We have the executive that comes out of legislaure and controls legislature, judiciary with appointments, favoritism. Basically we have a vested group (coterie) or a person who weild enormous power who distribute tickets and who have no concept of seperation of powers between legislature and executive or even judiciary. The presidential form pits legislature against the executive and it is good.