[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Admn + Fairness:

a) One more person wants to go to the Alps! Ash has volunteered to
summarize the debates, too, along with Antony and Ritu.

b) Shahul Hameed has informed from Shanghai that I mis-spelled his name as
Ahmed. Terribly sorry. I am almost half-asleep as I send in many of the
mails. Please excuse this old soul. 

More importantly, Shahul is going to write to us on the India-China FDI
issue later today. Thanks!

c) K.S. Sastry has rejoined us. He was the founder Chairman of the
National Housing Bank. I have massive expectations from him since he was
the king of public sector budgeting in India. I also leave it to him to
get to us ALL the retired bureaucrats of India. What are these terribly
intelligent folks doing, wasting their time? They should be up and awake,
debating the key message, and taking this message to the people.

d)  I would like to discuss a fair society in some more detail before
moving to delimitation.

We have defined it, so far as:

"I work toward a society where able bodied persons work in legally and
socially acceptable occupations for their self-interest and are rewarded
for their contributions in proportion to the quality, and effort expended,
the measure of which is the mutually determined demand for that labor
through bidding of services in open competition. That society is called a
"Fair" society since it is equitable in terms of reward being fully and
mutually determined. Those that are not able, by virtue of their physical
or mental limitations, nevertheless are equally deserving of the merits of
the efforts in comparable proportion to that which they might reasonably
obtain if their limitations were removed."

Take a look at a very few alternative ones I picked up here and there:

Rawls: "All social values - liberty and opportunity, income and wealth,
and the bases of self-respect - are to be distributed equally unless
distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone's advantage."
(1971:62), cited in Caporaso, Levine, 1992.

Caporaso, Levine (1992: 197): "Justice-centered theories of political
economy judge market instititutions against the demands of personhood.
But, these demands vary for differing conceptions."

Amartya Sen and Williams, 1982: "Rights-based considerations can be
inconsitent even with Pareto optimality - perhaps the mildest
utility-based condition."

I am in a dilemma. We are trying to work out an internally consistent
document. So we must be very clear about the fundamentals. The definition
we have used is a cross between Pareto Optimality and Rawls. The Rawlsian
part was introduced by you, Ash. In fact, it is a vital part. But it is
impossible to operationalize. It is more or less a sanction for a welfare
state and can be easily distorted.

Well: I hope that while we think more we will arrive at a better

In the meanwhile, I have this to say about delimitation. The issue at
stake is NOT population or fairness. It is the principle of suffrage. If
you and I decide to associate with the Rule: You get one vote I get one,
then it matters little if you reproduce like an elephant and I reproduce
like a bunny. All our progeny get one vote each.

So: if at all you wish to debate this issue further you will have to first
prove that the Rule of our democracy has to be changed arbitrarily
sometime after we decided in 1947 to award adult suffrage. I don't care
for the 1971 agreement or whatever. What did we decide while forming into
a Republic? One person one vote? Yes or No? 

Fairness is to RULES of the game and not to any one side of the party. I
am convinced that I made a mistake when I suggested that we should simply
split each constituency into two. That would NOT be fair. Each person must
have EQUAL representation in the Parliament, which means that the
delimitation MUST be based on population size. Anything else would be
unfair, and need us to re-define what we are: a Republic of principles or
an arbitrary republic.

Let me assure you that people in BIMARU states did not reproduce more
rapidly out of the great urge to get more seats in the Parliament. These
are the poorest states of India and they had more babies for causes which
we have already explored. I assure you that our suffering in India will
NOT become lesser if we freeze the seats the way they are. My
recommendation: let the basic Rule of association be obeyed and let each
person get one vote and an EQUAL representation.


Whew! this one had me thinking for a while, but I feel better now that I
know the answer! I am waiting to be persuaded against this view by Ash or
anyone else.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/