When India became independent, the people of India adopted a Constitution, which provided for a federation of States with a unitary form of government at the Centre.
It was the right decision because security and unity of the country were of paramount importance at that point of time.
Since the Congress Party was in the vanguard of the Independence Movement, it became the ruling party both at the Centre and in the States.
Over a period of time the Congress lost its original shine but managed to remain in power by appealing to the vote banks of Muslims and under-privileged sections of Indian society.
This provoked the pro-Hindu middle class to consolidate the Hindu votes under the banner of Bharatiya Jan Sangh (present-day BJP) and challenge the supremacy of the Congress Party.
The end result of the division of votes between the Congress and the BJP was that those States which voted for or aligned themselves with the Congress Party or the BJP flourished while the others were neglected. They were compelled to choose between one and another alliance or suffer the consequences of their inaction. Not only that, they had to compete with these alliances in order to survive in their own States. This state of affairs produced a feeling of frustration, cynicism and disillusionment among the non-Congress and non-BJP States and compelled them to seek an alternative.
The alternative is the creation of a truly federal government at the Centre, which owes its allegiance to the Constitution of India and looks after the interests of all the States, irrespective of their religious or secular credentials.
The time has now come when there should be a Union of States with a truly federal government at the Centre. The government at the Centre should represent the Union of States of India and not one or the other so-called national political parties.
To achieve this objective the Constitution of India may have to be amended, which is not possible at the present moment.
The alternative at present is that in case there is a hung Parliament, the President should convene a meeting of all the elected Members of Parliament and ask them to choose the leader of the House. Members of Parliament should be asked to give their first, second or third preference in case no person is able to secure more than fifty per cent of the votes in the first instance. The Prime Minister thus chosen should form a truly federal, national government and remain in power till the full term of the House. In case there is a vote of No Confidence against the Prime Minister, it should be followed by a Vote of Confidence in the new person who should be elected through the same procedure adopted in the first place. The old Prime Minister should continue to remain in power till a new one is elected in his place.
This is the only way in which we can establish a truly federal, stable and viable government in the country.
So far as controversial issues like Indo-US Nuclear Deal, Kashmir, Sri Lanka crisis, international trade and commerce, climate change, world peace, international financial structure, etc., are concerned, these should be solved after proper discussion and debate both within and outside Parliament.
Let us hope that common sense rather than blind faith in secularism or Hindutva will prevail in the end in the larger interest of the people of India and the whole world.
THE NEED OF THE HOUR IS A TRULY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE CENTRE.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Thursday, November 06, 2008
GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: ITS CAUSE AND CURE
American dollar is the principal cause of the present global financial crisis.
Since dollar also happens to be the preferred currency for world trade, it is the most sought-after commodity in the world – thus enabling America to earn huge profits by way of trade, commerce and investment.
Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia have legal arrangements to invest their surplus profits in American bonds. Developing and even developed countries preferred to park their savings in American dollars as it was considered to be the safest currency in the world.
Thus a huge chunk of money found its way into American coffers like water flowing into the sea.
Americans did not have the need to live within their income. On the other hand, they invested their surplus money in building up a formidable armament industry, space and pharmaceutical research, real estate, automobile and civil aviation enterprises.
With their newly found wealth and invincible military power they dominated the United Nations and its organs, and created institutions like the World Bank and IMF which acted as the banker of the banks of the world.
All this happened because America believed in free market economy and allowed its entrepreneurs to do whatever they liked so long as they brought profits, dividends and capital gains into the American coffers. America became a superpower. They did not have to compete with anybody except themselves. This led them to become reckless, irresponsible and over-ambitious.
American banks lent money to people to buy over-inflated properties at ruinous rates of interest when they had no tangible source of income. When such insolvent homeowners could not pay their monthly instalments, the banks failed. And when banks would not lend money to each other, the whole financial system collapsed like a house of cards.
In the meantime, another event took place. Being saturated with their own markets in the West, America wanted to have access to the resources and markets of the developing countries of the world. This gave rise to concepts like globalization, intellectual property rights, and WTO and pollution control. They attempted to get control of the oil rich countries in the Middle East by promoting democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. Thus the whole world got enmeshed with American interests in one way or the other – leading to a ripple effect. Thus, when American economy collapsed, it had its repercussions in other parts of the world.
What is the cure?
Pumping more money into the financial system and lowering interest rates will only aggravate the situation and maintain the status quo.
The solution may be very simple. We need to have a neutral universal currency. All other currencies should be pegged to this currency so that no single country gets an undue advantage. There should be a universal bank with a board of governors representing some strong currencies of the world such as dollar, pound, euro, yen, Yuan, etc.
The universal bank should fix the rates of exchange of these currencies and these rates should hold good for at least six months or one year at a time. Money should be used only as a medium of exchange and not as a commodity to be sold or speculated upon.
I believe such a step will go a long way in stabilizing world economy.
Since dollar also happens to be the preferred currency for world trade, it is the most sought-after commodity in the world – thus enabling America to earn huge profits by way of trade, commerce and investment.
Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia have legal arrangements to invest their surplus profits in American bonds. Developing and even developed countries preferred to park their savings in American dollars as it was considered to be the safest currency in the world.
Thus a huge chunk of money found its way into American coffers like water flowing into the sea.
Americans did not have the need to live within their income. On the other hand, they invested their surplus money in building up a formidable armament industry, space and pharmaceutical research, real estate, automobile and civil aviation enterprises.
With their newly found wealth and invincible military power they dominated the United Nations and its organs, and created institutions like the World Bank and IMF which acted as the banker of the banks of the world.
All this happened because America believed in free market economy and allowed its entrepreneurs to do whatever they liked so long as they brought profits, dividends and capital gains into the American coffers. America became a superpower. They did not have to compete with anybody except themselves. This led them to become reckless, irresponsible and over-ambitious.
American banks lent money to people to buy over-inflated properties at ruinous rates of interest when they had no tangible source of income. When such insolvent homeowners could not pay their monthly instalments, the banks failed. And when banks would not lend money to each other, the whole financial system collapsed like a house of cards.
In the meantime, another event took place. Being saturated with their own markets in the West, America wanted to have access to the resources and markets of the developing countries of the world. This gave rise to concepts like globalization, intellectual property rights, and WTO and pollution control. They attempted to get control of the oil rich countries in the Middle East by promoting democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. Thus the whole world got enmeshed with American interests in one way or the other – leading to a ripple effect. Thus, when American economy collapsed, it had its repercussions in other parts of the world.
What is the cure?
Pumping more money into the financial system and lowering interest rates will only aggravate the situation and maintain the status quo.
The solution may be very simple. We need to have a neutral universal currency. All other currencies should be pegged to this currency so that no single country gets an undue advantage. There should be a universal bank with a board of governors representing some strong currencies of the world such as dollar, pound, euro, yen, Yuan, etc.
The universal bank should fix the rates of exchange of these currencies and these rates should hold good for at least six months or one year at a time. Money should be used only as a medium of exchange and not as a commodity to be sold or speculated upon.
I believe such a step will go a long way in stabilizing world economy.
Monday, October 06, 2008
INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL – KYA KHOYA, KYA PAYA?
Now that the Indo-US Nuclear Deal has been concluded, it is high time that we examine what we have gained and what we have lost.
So far as the plus side is concerned, we shall be able to access nuclear reactors, fuel and technology from NSG countries. It had been denied to us for the last 34 years. We shall now be able to enhance our supply of nuclear energy in the years to come.
We can also have the good feeling of being considered a nuclear power next only to USA, Russia, France, UK and China.
So far as the minus side is concerned, we have given up our age-old policy of non-alignment and allied ourselves with USA. This means that we are now part of the Cold War between US and EU on one side and China and Russia on the other.
Since we have not signed the NPT but have agreed not to conduct nuclear tests for fear of losing our right to engage in nuclear commerce with NSG countries, we shall not be able to influence rest of the world with our nuclear power. In other words, we have reduced ourselves to the status of an Impotent Nuclear Power.
The United Nations is an imperfect organization. It is governed by the United Nations Security Council, which consists of the Five Nuclear Powers who have the right to veto any resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly. The United Nations needs to be reformed or better still to be replaced by a more democratic and effective World Order. By subjecting ourselves to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is part of the United Nations, we have lost our moral right and capacity to reform the world organization or to replace it with a New World Order.
The cost of producing a unit of electricity through nuclear technology is more than the cost of producing electricity through traditional sources. If the rich countries of the world are sincere about alleviating poverty in developing countries of the world, it is logical that they should bear the burden of purchasing electricity at a higher cost rather than passing it on to the poorer countries. It will also help in reducing pollution in the most industrialized countries of the world.
Till now India and China were regarded as contenders for regional supremacy in the Asia-Pacific Region. With the signing of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal India has entered into strategic alliance with USA. Now the countries of Asia-Pacific Region will have to choose between China and USA for leadership. Most of the Muslim dominated countries of this region will find it difficult to side with USA on account of its war against terrorism. They would have loved to accept the leadership of India but would now go under Chinese influence. By aligning with USA India has lost the moral right to lead the countries of this region and denied them the chance of a third alternative.
The outcome of the Indo-US Deal can be compared with a glass being half-full or half-empty. Those countries or people who stand to gain through trade in nuclear reactors, raw material and technology will say that the glass is half-full and those who are unable to profit from this deal will say the glass is half-empty.
Only the future will tell whether the glass is half-full or almost empty.
So far as the plus side is concerned, we shall be able to access nuclear reactors, fuel and technology from NSG countries. It had been denied to us for the last 34 years. We shall now be able to enhance our supply of nuclear energy in the years to come.
We can also have the good feeling of being considered a nuclear power next only to USA, Russia, France, UK and China.
So far as the minus side is concerned, we have given up our age-old policy of non-alignment and allied ourselves with USA. This means that we are now part of the Cold War between US and EU on one side and China and Russia on the other.
Since we have not signed the NPT but have agreed not to conduct nuclear tests for fear of losing our right to engage in nuclear commerce with NSG countries, we shall not be able to influence rest of the world with our nuclear power. In other words, we have reduced ourselves to the status of an Impotent Nuclear Power.
The United Nations is an imperfect organization. It is governed by the United Nations Security Council, which consists of the Five Nuclear Powers who have the right to veto any resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly. The United Nations needs to be reformed or better still to be replaced by a more democratic and effective World Order. By subjecting ourselves to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is part of the United Nations, we have lost our moral right and capacity to reform the world organization or to replace it with a New World Order.
The cost of producing a unit of electricity through nuclear technology is more than the cost of producing electricity through traditional sources. If the rich countries of the world are sincere about alleviating poverty in developing countries of the world, it is logical that they should bear the burden of purchasing electricity at a higher cost rather than passing it on to the poorer countries. It will also help in reducing pollution in the most industrialized countries of the world.
Till now India and China were regarded as contenders for regional supremacy in the Asia-Pacific Region. With the signing of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal India has entered into strategic alliance with USA. Now the countries of Asia-Pacific Region will have to choose between China and USA for leadership. Most of the Muslim dominated countries of this region will find it difficult to side with USA on account of its war against terrorism. They would have loved to accept the leadership of India but would now go under Chinese influence. By aligning with USA India has lost the moral right to lead the countries of this region and denied them the chance of a third alternative.
The outcome of the Indo-US Deal can be compared with a glass being half-full or half-empty. Those countries or people who stand to gain through trade in nuclear reactors, raw material and technology will say that the glass is half-full and those who are unable to profit from this deal will say the glass is half-empty.
Only the future will tell whether the glass is half-full or almost empty.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Weapons of Mass Destruction
“Imagine Leonid Brezhnev on the reviewing stand at Lenin’s Tomb, surrounded by underlings, watching the May Day parade. The Soviet Union’s full military might is there on display. First come battalions of elite troops, impressive soldiers, all six foot two, marching in absolute lockstep. Right behind them are phalanxes of state-of-the-art artillery and tanks. Then come the nuclear missiles – it’s an awesome show of strength. But after the missiles comes a straggle of six or seven civilians, unkempt, shabbily dressed, utterly out of place. An aide rushes up to Brezhnev and begs forgiveness. “Comrade Secretary, my apologies, I do not know who these people are or how they’ve come into our parade.
“Do not be concerned, Comrade,” replies Brezhnev. “I am responsible for them. They are our economists, and you have no idea how much damage they can do.””
American President Ronald Reagan told this story to Alan Greenspan, former head of Federal Reserve Board.
American Army did not defeat the Soviet Union. It collapsed under the weight of its own unsustainable economy. Russian economists should have known that a closed-door centralized economy could be stretched to a certain point and not beyond that.
The same is true about free-market economy. Free-market economy can function within certain parameters. If it is stretched beyond those parameters, it is bound to collapse.
For example, free-market economy is incompatible with democracy. It is the fastest way of creating wealth but it cannot ensure equitable distribution of that wealth by itself. If it is regulated, it won’t be a free-market economy. If unregulated, it is bound to result in a wide gap between the haves and have-nots. In a democracy if the number of have-nots is more than that of haves, they will vote against the government and the result will be either instability or continuous law-and-order problem.
Another drawback of free-market economy is that it cannot function in a global environment at once. One of the basic ingredients of free-market economy is the relationship between supply and demand. In a globalized world you can move capital from one place to another within a short time with the help of internet and tele-communication devices but you cannot move labour easily. Skilled labour needs training and that takes time and money. Then there is the question of integration of people belonging to different social, cultural, lingual, religious and ethnic societies. It is an almost impossible job.
Then there is the question of resources. You do not have oil in all parts of the world. The same applies to agricultural and mineral resources. If those countries, which have these resources, do not have the necessary technology to exploit them or if they demand an unacceptable price for them, nothing happens. Either there should be a world government to ensure equitable distribution of these resources at reasonable prices or it will result in armed conflicts between nations.
The truth is that there is no single economic ideology suitable for all the people of the world at all times; nor is there any possibility of a world government in the near future. Therefore, what we require is a secular economic approach, depending upon the needs of a particular section of society, taking into consideration the social, economic and geographical condition of that part of society at any period of time.
Let us hope that our economists will not prove to be modern Weapons of Mass Destruction but Desirable Tools of Construction
“Do not be concerned, Comrade,” replies Brezhnev. “I am responsible for them. They are our economists, and you have no idea how much damage they can do.””
American President Ronald Reagan told this story to Alan Greenspan, former head of Federal Reserve Board.
American Army did not defeat the Soviet Union. It collapsed under the weight of its own unsustainable economy. Russian economists should have known that a closed-door centralized economy could be stretched to a certain point and not beyond that.
The same is true about free-market economy. Free-market economy can function within certain parameters. If it is stretched beyond those parameters, it is bound to collapse.
For example, free-market economy is incompatible with democracy. It is the fastest way of creating wealth but it cannot ensure equitable distribution of that wealth by itself. If it is regulated, it won’t be a free-market economy. If unregulated, it is bound to result in a wide gap between the haves and have-nots. In a democracy if the number of have-nots is more than that of haves, they will vote against the government and the result will be either instability or continuous law-and-order problem.
Another drawback of free-market economy is that it cannot function in a global environment at once. One of the basic ingredients of free-market economy is the relationship between supply and demand. In a globalized world you can move capital from one place to another within a short time with the help of internet and tele-communication devices but you cannot move labour easily. Skilled labour needs training and that takes time and money. Then there is the question of integration of people belonging to different social, cultural, lingual, religious and ethnic societies. It is an almost impossible job.
Then there is the question of resources. You do not have oil in all parts of the world. The same applies to agricultural and mineral resources. If those countries, which have these resources, do not have the necessary technology to exploit them or if they demand an unacceptable price for them, nothing happens. Either there should be a world government to ensure equitable distribution of these resources at reasonable prices or it will result in armed conflicts between nations.
The truth is that there is no single economic ideology suitable for all the people of the world at all times; nor is there any possibility of a world government in the near future. Therefore, what we require is a secular economic approach, depending upon the needs of a particular section of society, taking into consideration the social, economic and geographical condition of that part of society at any period of time.
Let us hope that our economists will not prove to be modern Weapons of Mass Destruction but Desirable Tools of Construction
Monday, March 31, 2008
Indo-US Nuclear Deal - Myth & Reality
A great deal has been said and written about the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal – most of it simply myth. What is the reality?
Myth No.1 is that America will be doing a great favour to India by selling nuclear reactors and raw material.
The truth is that America has entered into an agreement with France, Britain, Russia and China not to transfer nuclear technology to any other country except among them. India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran are the only countries who can use nuclear technology. Obviously, India is the only country to which America would like to sell nuclear technology. America wants to get rid of its surplus supply of nuclear reactors and raw material and make money out of it.
Myth No.2 is that by signing this deal India would be joining the club of five Nuclear Nation States of the World.
The truth is that by doing so India would be signing indirectly the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty without enjoying the power and privileges of the five Nuclear Nation States.
Myth No. 3 is that even after entering into this deal India would be free to manufacture nuclear bomb, if need be.
The truth is that after entering into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Authority, India would be subject to the same sort of inspection and scrutiny to which Iran is being subjected at present.
Myth No. 4 is that electricity produced through nuclear technology will solve our future energy requirements.
The truth is that electricity produced through nuclear technology is costlier than electricity produced through any other means. Even the most developed countries of the world find it uneconomical, what to talk of a poor country like India.
Moreover producing electricity through nuclear technology involves total dependence upon other countries and storage and disposal of hazardous nuclear waste material.
Can we afford it? Can this be our first priority?
Myth No.1 is that America will be doing a great favour to India by selling nuclear reactors and raw material.
The truth is that America has entered into an agreement with France, Britain, Russia and China not to transfer nuclear technology to any other country except among them. India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran are the only countries who can use nuclear technology. Obviously, India is the only country to which America would like to sell nuclear technology. America wants to get rid of its surplus supply of nuclear reactors and raw material and make money out of it.
Myth No.2 is that by signing this deal India would be joining the club of five Nuclear Nation States of the World.
The truth is that by doing so India would be signing indirectly the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty without enjoying the power and privileges of the five Nuclear Nation States.
Myth No. 3 is that even after entering into this deal India would be free to manufacture nuclear bomb, if need be.
The truth is that after entering into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Authority, India would be subject to the same sort of inspection and scrutiny to which Iran is being subjected at present.
Myth No. 4 is that electricity produced through nuclear technology will solve our future energy requirements.
The truth is that electricity produced through nuclear technology is costlier than electricity produced through any other means. Even the most developed countries of the world find it uneconomical, what to talk of a poor country like India.
Moreover producing electricity through nuclear technology involves total dependence upon other countries and storage and disposal of hazardous nuclear waste material.
Can we afford it? Can this be our first priority?
Rising food prices in Singapore - and some potential remedies
Prices of food products have risen in Singapore. The Prime Minister has appealed to people to use frozen food products which are cheaper.
Since Singapore is totally dependent upon imported food articles, this state of affairs is likely to continue in future.
One way to cope with the increased cost of living is to earn more money by increased productivity and use of cutting-edge technology.
Another way is to enter into joint ventures with a friendly country in the production of food products and supply part of that production to Singaporeans at cheaper rates.
India has a huge agricultural sector which has not been exploited to its full potential so far on account of lack of finance and technological expertise.
Singapore can provide finance and technological know-how in the field of food processing, horticulture and floriculture in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir, and at the same time meet the food requirements of its people at an affordable price.
Participation in development and trade is preferable to simple trade.
This will also add to the development of the Asian region.
In course of time this will result in the formation of an Asian Union on the line of European Union, with its own long-term advantages in the not-too-distant future.
Since Singapore is totally dependent upon imported food articles, this state of affairs is likely to continue in future.
One way to cope with the increased cost of living is to earn more money by increased productivity and use of cutting-edge technology.
Another way is to enter into joint ventures with a friendly country in the production of food products and supply part of that production to Singaporeans at cheaper rates.
India has a huge agricultural sector which has not been exploited to its full potential so far on account of lack of finance and technological expertise.
Singapore can provide finance and technological know-how in the field of food processing, horticulture and floriculture in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir, and at the same time meet the food requirements of its people at an affordable price.
Participation in development and trade is preferable to simple trade.
This will also add to the development of the Asian region.
In course of time this will result in the formation of an Asian Union on the line of European Union, with its own long-term advantages in the not-too-distant future.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE
The Congress has nominated Pratibha Patil as its candidate for the post of President of India.
The BJP too has nominated Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as an independent candidate.
Both parties have manipulated to push forward their own candidates in the hope that in the 2009 general elections if they fail to secure absolute majority, the President may invite the party which sponsored him or her in the first instance to form the government. Once the government is formed, other parties would line up to share power and would help the ruling party to secure a Vote of Confidence in Parliament.
The irony is that neither Congress nor BJP command absolute majority in the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It is the regional parties who command absolute majority. Yet both the Congress and BJP are able to push forward the candidature of their own parties by dividing the regional parties.
So far as the Constitution of India is concerned, it does not recognise any political party or combination of parties such as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc. For the purpose of electing the President of India the Constitution recognises only the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies. Who knows after the 2009 general elections there may not be any such bodies as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc.?
India claims to be a federal polity with a strong bias towards a unitary form of government. It is the Centre, which calls the shots. The States are dependent upon the Centre for their share of revenues. The Centre appoints Governors of States and the States can be dismissed simply by an adverse report by the Governor. Under the present dispensation the States are treated as mere vassals of the Centre. Obviously, such a state of affairs is not conducive to the proper development of States and cannot last for long.
It is high time that regional parties put up their own candidate for the post of President of India. If elected, such a person will not act in a partisan manner at the time of 2009 general elections.
Moreover, if this experiment succeeds, it can be repeated at the time of 2009 general elections. This will also restore the balance of power in favour of the States vis-a-vis the Centre.
A Prime Minister who commands the respect of all the regional parties is anytime better than a person who is imposed upon the nation through convergence of fortuitous circumstances.
LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE.
The BJP too has nominated Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as an independent candidate.
Both parties have manipulated to push forward their own candidates in the hope that in the 2009 general elections if they fail to secure absolute majority, the President may invite the party which sponsored him or her in the first instance to form the government. Once the government is formed, other parties would line up to share power and would help the ruling party to secure a Vote of Confidence in Parliament.
The irony is that neither Congress nor BJP command absolute majority in the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It is the regional parties who command absolute majority. Yet both the Congress and BJP are able to push forward the candidature of their own parties by dividing the regional parties.
So far as the Constitution of India is concerned, it does not recognise any political party or combination of parties such as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc. For the purpose of electing the President of India the Constitution recognises only the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies. Who knows after the 2009 general elections there may not be any such bodies as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc.?
India claims to be a federal polity with a strong bias towards a unitary form of government. It is the Centre, which calls the shots. The States are dependent upon the Centre for their share of revenues. The Centre appoints Governors of States and the States can be dismissed simply by an adverse report by the Governor. Under the present dispensation the States are treated as mere vassals of the Centre. Obviously, such a state of affairs is not conducive to the proper development of States and cannot last for long.
It is high time that regional parties put up their own candidate for the post of President of India. If elected, such a person will not act in a partisan manner at the time of 2009 general elections.
Moreover, if this experiment succeeds, it can be repeated at the time of 2009 general elections. This will also restore the balance of power in favour of the States vis-a-vis the Centre.
A Prime Minister who commands the respect of all the regional parties is anytime better than a person who is imposed upon the nation through convergence of fortuitous circumstances.
LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Election of the president of India
In the words of Woodrow Wilson, the President is the representative of no constituency but of the whole people. The President of India, unlike that of the USA, has no executive power; but he represents “the majesty of the people incarnate”. His office symbolizes the unity and integrity of the State. He is above the chances and changes of party politics; and his election is, therefore, of special importance in a country like India with deep political divisions and numerous political parties.
Constitutional morality dictates that merit should be the sole criterion for the election of the Head of State. But the motivations and machinations of political parties suggest that merit has been subordinated by some groups to caste, creed or gender.
If the President has to be chosen by the democratic process, it is difficult to imagine of a more satisfactory method than that embodied in our fundamental law. There are five cardinal rules laid down in our Constitution to regulate the election of the President.
Firstly, the voting at the election is by secret ballot. Since the Head of State is expected to be above party politics, every vote for or against him is expected to be a conscience vote. This is meant to avoid vitiation of the election process by party politics.
Secondly, the election of the President is indirect. Nothing would be gained by having the President elected by “the mass man”. The Electoral College consists of the elected members of both houses of Parliament, and the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the states. The reason why the members of state assemblies have been included in the Electoral College is to prevent the President being elected merely by the vote of the party or coalition of parties which happens to be in power at the Centre.
Thirdly, there has to be uniformity among the states inter se, as far as practicable. This is achieved by ensuring that the rule of one voter, one vote, does not apply. Every elected member of the legislative assembly of a state has as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by the total number of elected members of the assembly. Uniformity in the scale of representation is brought about by the members of the legislative assemblies of thickly populated states having a larger number of votes than the members of the assemblies of less populous states.
Fourthly, the rule is that there should be parity between the states taken together and the Union. This is achieved by the provision that the elected members of the two houses of Parliament would have the same number of votes as the aggregate of the votes of the elected representatives of the state assemblies taken together.
Fifthly, the election of the President has to be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The object of this rule is to afford the minorities a better voice in the selection of the Head of State.
This method is known as “the alternative vote” in a single-member constituency. At the time when the votes are cast, every member of the Electoral College has to indicate which candidate he votes for in the order of preference. If a candidate gets an absolute majority of the votes cast, he would be deemed to have been elected and it would be unnecessary to have a recount. But if no candidate has secured an absolute majority of the votes cast, the subsequent preferences have to be taken into account. This is the effect of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Rules, 1952.
Since the voting is by secret ballot and there is provision for second preference, any attempt by political parties to manipulate the success or failure of a candidate before the election takes place is tantamount to tampering with the election process. The manner in which political parties are behaving at present is a matter of national shame.
Let the democratic process take its own course.
Constitutional morality dictates that merit should be the sole criterion for the election of the Head of State. But the motivations and machinations of political parties suggest that merit has been subordinated by some groups to caste, creed or gender.
If the President has to be chosen by the democratic process, it is difficult to imagine of a more satisfactory method than that embodied in our fundamental law. There are five cardinal rules laid down in our Constitution to regulate the election of the President.
Firstly, the voting at the election is by secret ballot. Since the Head of State is expected to be above party politics, every vote for or against him is expected to be a conscience vote. This is meant to avoid vitiation of the election process by party politics.
Secondly, the election of the President is indirect. Nothing would be gained by having the President elected by “the mass man”. The Electoral College consists of the elected members of both houses of Parliament, and the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the states. The reason why the members of state assemblies have been included in the Electoral College is to prevent the President being elected merely by the vote of the party or coalition of parties which happens to be in power at the Centre.
Thirdly, there has to be uniformity among the states inter se, as far as practicable. This is achieved by ensuring that the rule of one voter, one vote, does not apply. Every elected member of the legislative assembly of a state has as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by the total number of elected members of the assembly. Uniformity in the scale of representation is brought about by the members of the legislative assemblies of thickly populated states having a larger number of votes than the members of the assemblies of less populous states.
Fourthly, the rule is that there should be parity between the states taken together and the Union. This is achieved by the provision that the elected members of the two houses of Parliament would have the same number of votes as the aggregate of the votes of the elected representatives of the state assemblies taken together.
Fifthly, the election of the President has to be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The object of this rule is to afford the minorities a better voice in the selection of the Head of State.
This method is known as “the alternative vote” in a single-member constituency. At the time when the votes are cast, every member of the Electoral College has to indicate which candidate he votes for in the order of preference. If a candidate gets an absolute majority of the votes cast, he would be deemed to have been elected and it would be unnecessary to have a recount. But if no candidate has secured an absolute majority of the votes cast, the subsequent preferences have to be taken into account. This is the effect of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Rules, 1952.
Since the voting is by secret ballot and there is provision for second preference, any attempt by political parties to manipulate the success or failure of a candidate before the election takes place is tantamount to tampering with the election process. The manner in which political parties are behaving at present is a matter of national shame.
Let the democratic process take its own course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
