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.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
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.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
FREE MARKET ECONOMY: BOON OR BANE FOR INDIA?
This is the age of free-market economy. What does it mean? To put it simply, it means free movement of capital, labour, goods and services throughout the world.
So far as India is concerned, it means that Indian professionals and skilled workmen will be able to secure jobs in foreign countries carrying higher salaries. It also means that Indian entrepreneurs will be able to sell their goods and services in foreign countries at higher prices, thus increasing their profit margins. In addition, foreigners will be able to open shops and factories in India, thereby creating greater job opportunities for local people. It will also give fillip to tourist, hospitality, banking and real estate industries. We can also encourage foreign countries to open educational, professional and vocational institutes here to meet the skilled labour requirements in India and in their own countries. Indians will be able to buy foreign branded goods in India itself at cheaper rates. Our people will be able to imbibe the habits and work culture of developed countries of the world and thus improve their style of living. The number of opportunities free market economy opens for us is tremendous. But all this is possible only if we are able to provide political stability in our country and are able to create an environment, which is free-market-economy friendly.
It is true that market economy is the fastest way to create wealth. But it is equally true that market economy, by itself, cannot eradicate poverty. In many cases it widens the gap between the rich and the poor. If this gap remains within manageable limits, as in the case of western democracies, it is fine. But if it widens beyond manageable limits, as in the case of many newly independent developing countries, it is bound to degenerate into social unrest, riots, chaos, and anarchy and in some cases even in violent revolution.
Developing countries need stability. Stability is possible only if the same political party remains in power for a number of terms. If there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor, there is a tendency among voters to oust the party in power, no matter whether the newly elected ruling party is competent or not. The newly elected party starts working on its own agenda and the whole process of development suffers a setback.
In the case of a violent revolution, nothing is certain.
India is a vast country with a huge population, exceeding 1 billion. More than 35 per cent of its population is illiterate and unemployed. A major portion of India’s population lives in rural areas, which lack in basic facilities of life such as shelter, clean drinking water, electricity, transport, public toilets, etc. India has a completely fragmented polity, which is divided on the basis of race, religion, caste, class, region and language. It has a judicial system, which is corrupt, inefficient and slow moving. Its administrative system is burdened with self-serving bureaucrats with rules and procedures which are cumbersome can be interpreted differently and are open to corruption. The political system is equally corrupt, inefficient and power hungry. Most legislators do not know how to govern and regard their election to Parliament, State Assemblies and Municipal Corporations as mere opportunities to make more money.
Under these circumstances, will India be able to take advantage of free-market-global economy and transform itself from a Third World country to a First World one?
My mind says “No”, but my heart says, “Yes” – miracles do happen!
So far as India is concerned, it means that Indian professionals and skilled workmen will be able to secure jobs in foreign countries carrying higher salaries. It also means that Indian entrepreneurs will be able to sell their goods and services in foreign countries at higher prices, thus increasing their profit margins. In addition, foreigners will be able to open shops and factories in India, thereby creating greater job opportunities for local people. It will also give fillip to tourist, hospitality, banking and real estate industries. We can also encourage foreign countries to open educational, professional and vocational institutes here to meet the skilled labour requirements in India and in their own countries. Indians will be able to buy foreign branded goods in India itself at cheaper rates. Our people will be able to imbibe the habits and work culture of developed countries of the world and thus improve their style of living. The number of opportunities free market economy opens for us is tremendous. But all this is possible only if we are able to provide political stability in our country and are able to create an environment, which is free-market-economy friendly.
It is true that market economy is the fastest way to create wealth. But it is equally true that market economy, by itself, cannot eradicate poverty. In many cases it widens the gap between the rich and the poor. If this gap remains within manageable limits, as in the case of western democracies, it is fine. But if it widens beyond manageable limits, as in the case of many newly independent developing countries, it is bound to degenerate into social unrest, riots, chaos, and anarchy and in some cases even in violent revolution.
Developing countries need stability. Stability is possible only if the same political party remains in power for a number of terms. If there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor, there is a tendency among voters to oust the party in power, no matter whether the newly elected ruling party is competent or not. The newly elected party starts working on its own agenda and the whole process of development suffers a setback.
In the case of a violent revolution, nothing is certain.
India is a vast country with a huge population, exceeding 1 billion. More than 35 per cent of its population is illiterate and unemployed. A major portion of India’s population lives in rural areas, which lack in basic facilities of life such as shelter, clean drinking water, electricity, transport, public toilets, etc. India has a completely fragmented polity, which is divided on the basis of race, religion, caste, class, region and language. It has a judicial system, which is corrupt, inefficient and slow moving. Its administrative system is burdened with self-serving bureaucrats with rules and procedures which are cumbersome can be interpreted differently and are open to corruption. The political system is equally corrupt, inefficient and power hungry. Most legislators do not know how to govern and regard their election to Parliament, State Assemblies and Municipal Corporations as mere opportunities to make more money.
Under these circumstances, will India be able to take advantage of free-market-global economy and transform itself from a Third World country to a First World one?
My mind says “No”, but my heart says, “Yes” – miracles do happen!
Friday, November 10, 2006
ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL
What is happening today in Delhi in the name of sealing is nothing short of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is also part of the ugly face of globalization.
The reason why countries compete with each other to hold international games in their country is that it will attract lot of foreign, domestic as well as foreign institutional investment. This, in turn, will help in modernising and cleaning old urban areas. Airports will be modernized; new malls and buildings will come up in areas where none existed. Roads will be widened and new flyovers and underpasses will come up which will smoothen free flow of vehicular traffic. A number of five-star and three-star hotels and guesthouses will come up to accommodate hundreds and thousands of tourists who will participate in the international games. It will also result in the opening of a number of foreign restaurants and eateries to cater to the eating habits of foreign visitors and local residents. A number of companies will open shops in malls to sell branded goods and services. New jobs will be created and there will be great demand for skilled labour and qualified professionals such as architects, engineers, real-estate developers, financiers, money-changers, tour operators, and so on.
On the face of it, all these developments seem very hunky-dory. But in actual practice, it is plenty of evil disguised as good.
Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain higher standards of living. It has benefited countries in seeking new markets for their exports and by bringing in lot of foreign investment. But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their democracies undermined, their cultures eroded.
This is not something new. It has already happened in the late nineties in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and Latin American countries. At that time Singapore did not feel the brunt of it because most of its national savings were invested in American bonds and America was the country which benefited most from this crisis.
We are aghast because this is happening for the first time in India and we do not understand the realities of free-market economy.
What then is the solution?
The solution is very simple. Mahatma Gandhi once said that whenever you want to take a decision, imagine yourself looking at the face of the common man of India and ask yourself whether your decision will benefit such a person or not, and the answer to it will help you in arriving at the right decision.
The reason why countries compete with each other to hold international games in their country is that it will attract lot of foreign, domestic as well as foreign institutional investment. This, in turn, will help in modernising and cleaning old urban areas. Airports will be modernized; new malls and buildings will come up in areas where none existed. Roads will be widened and new flyovers and underpasses will come up which will smoothen free flow of vehicular traffic. A number of five-star and three-star hotels and guesthouses will come up to accommodate hundreds and thousands of tourists who will participate in the international games. It will also result in the opening of a number of foreign restaurants and eateries to cater to the eating habits of foreign visitors and local residents. A number of companies will open shops in malls to sell branded goods and services. New jobs will be created and there will be great demand for skilled labour and qualified professionals such as architects, engineers, real-estate developers, financiers, money-changers, tour operators, and so on.
On the face of it, all these developments seem very hunky-dory. But in actual practice, it is plenty of evil disguised as good.
Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain higher standards of living. It has benefited countries in seeking new markets for their exports and by bringing in lot of foreign investment. But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their democracies undermined, their cultures eroded.
This is not something new. It has already happened in the late nineties in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and Latin American countries. At that time Singapore did not feel the brunt of it because most of its national savings were invested in American bonds and America was the country which benefited most from this crisis.
We are aghast because this is happening for the first time in India and we do not understand the realities of free-market economy.
What then is the solution?
The solution is very simple. Mahatma Gandhi once said that whenever you want to take a decision, imagine yourself looking at the face of the common man of India and ask yourself whether your decision will benefit such a person or not, and the answer to it will help you in arriving at the right decision.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
KEY TO WORLD PEACE
The key to world peace lies in the formation of a World Federal Government.
The World Federal Government should ideally comprise the continents of Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, Australia & New Zealand, and rest of the world.
All members of the WFG should have an equal right to vote.
The Constitution of WFG should have democracy, rule of law, preservation of human rights, equality of opportunity and a secular approach towards social, economic and political ideologies and issues as its basic features.
It should have its own World Federal Army and World Federal Court.
Each continent of the world should have its own World Regional Government comprising Nation States within the continent and a Constitution, Army and Court similar to that of WFG.
In case there is a dispute between one region of the world and another, it should be solved by the WFG. Similarly, if there is a dispute between one Nation State and another within a particular region, it should be solved by the WRG of that particular region alone.
The same pattern should be adopted for States within a Nation State or City States like Singapore.
Special emphasis should be given to Local Self-Government within a State because it is primarily responsible for the welfare of the people at the grass-root level.
There should be strict division of duties and responsibilities among the various units of the WFG.
For example, the WFG should deal with only those issues which are of a global nature, such as world-peace, world environment, world travel, world communications, space research, world health care, world trade, world finance, world broadcasting, poverty alleviation, etc.
The WRG should deal with issues, which are normally dealt with by nation-States with special emphasis on those that relate to language, culture and way of life of the people of that particular region.
Each federating unit will maintain its own police and para military forces, and will be responsible for maintaining peaceful relations among its member States.
The Local Self Government organizations should concern themselves with the basic necessities of life, such as education, housing, job creation, health care, sanitation, water and electricity supply, transport, etc. and the most capable technical and experienced people should be put in charge of such organizations.
At the bottom level, the family should be considered as the basic unit of the WFG and
should be enabled to perform its duties in the most desirable manner.
I believe in this age of advanced technology, internet, television, cell phone, jet planes and bullet trains, we have got the means to lead a peaceful and satisfactory lifestyle, if only we are able to apply our minds in the right direction.
*********
The World Federal Government should ideally comprise the continents of Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, Australia & New Zealand, and rest of the world.
All members of the WFG should have an equal right to vote.
The Constitution of WFG should have democracy, rule of law, preservation of human rights, equality of opportunity and a secular approach towards social, economic and political ideologies and issues as its basic features.
It should have its own World Federal Army and World Federal Court.
Each continent of the world should have its own World Regional Government comprising Nation States within the continent and a Constitution, Army and Court similar to that of WFG.
In case there is a dispute between one region of the world and another, it should be solved by the WFG. Similarly, if there is a dispute between one Nation State and another within a particular region, it should be solved by the WRG of that particular region alone.
The same pattern should be adopted for States within a Nation State or City States like Singapore.
Special emphasis should be given to Local Self-Government within a State because it is primarily responsible for the welfare of the people at the grass-root level.
There should be strict division of duties and responsibilities among the various units of the WFG.
For example, the WFG should deal with only those issues which are of a global nature, such as world-peace, world environment, world travel, world communications, space research, world health care, world trade, world finance, world broadcasting, poverty alleviation, etc.
The WRG should deal with issues, which are normally dealt with by nation-States with special emphasis on those that relate to language, culture and way of life of the people of that particular region.
Each federating unit will maintain its own police and para military forces, and will be responsible for maintaining peaceful relations among its member States.
The Local Self Government organizations should concern themselves with the basic necessities of life, such as education, housing, job creation, health care, sanitation, water and electricity supply, transport, etc. and the most capable technical and experienced people should be put in charge of such organizations.
At the bottom level, the family should be considered as the basic unit of the WFG and
should be enabled to perform its duties in the most desirable manner.
I believe in this age of advanced technology, internet, television, cell phone, jet planes and bullet trains, we have got the means to lead a peaceful and satisfactory lifestyle, if only we are able to apply our minds in the right direction.
*********
Monday, February 20, 2006
Paradox of Our Time
The paradox of our time in history is
That we have taller buildings
But shorter tempers
Wider freeways
But narrow viewpoints
We spend more
But have less
We buy more
But enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families,
More conveniences
But less time
We have more degrees
But less sense
More knowledge
But less judgement
More experts
But less solutions
More medicines
But less wellness.
We have multiplied possessions
But reduced our values
We talk too much,
Love too seldom
And hate too often.
We have learned how to make a living
But not a life
We’ve added years to life,
Not life to years
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back
But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour.
We’ve conquered outer space
But not inner space
We’ve cleaned up the air
But polluted the soul
We’ve split the atom
But not our prejudice
We have higher incomes
But lower morals
We’ve become long on quantity
But short on quality.
These are times of tall men
And short character
Steep profits and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace
But domestic warfare
More leisure but less fun
More kinds of food but less nutrition.
These are the days of two incomes
But more divorces
Of fancier houses
But broken homes.
It is a time when there is much in the show window
And nothing in the stockroom.
That we have taller buildings
But shorter tempers
Wider freeways
But narrow viewpoints
We spend more
But have less
We buy more
But enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families,
More conveniences
But less time
We have more degrees
But less sense
More knowledge
But less judgement
More experts
But less solutions
More medicines
But less wellness.
We have multiplied possessions
But reduced our values
We talk too much,
Love too seldom
And hate too often.
We have learned how to make a living
But not a life
We’ve added years to life,
Not life to years
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back
But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour.
We’ve conquered outer space
But not inner space
We’ve cleaned up the air
But polluted the soul
We’ve split the atom
But not our prejudice
We have higher incomes
But lower morals
We’ve become long on quantity
But short on quality.
These are times of tall men
And short character
Steep profits and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace
But domestic warfare
More leisure but less fun
More kinds of food but less nutrition.
These are the days of two incomes
But more divorces
Of fancier houses
But broken homes.
It is a time when there is much in the show window
And nothing in the stockroom.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
