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

Admin + Fairness

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Social Conditions

  Minimum Wage
  Rules regarding Safety of Personnel at work to be made clear
  Introduction of Social Security Net
  Introduction of identity card
  Removal of Age discrimination at work
  Creating conditions so that reservations will no longer be necessary

On 06 Oct SS wrote :
..............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 
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 
a Republic? One person one vote? Yes or No? ..........

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 
principles or an arbitrary republic. .........................

This point originally raised by Ash is of  very serious import and 
should be considered in more detail, particularly as no satisfactory 
solution has emerged.

I do not wish to sound frivolous by stating that Only dead men do not 
change their view but if whatever was decided in 1947 is good enough for 
ever and ever then  what we are doing here  loses all relevance !

But more to the point, let us imagine a scenario in which a High Growth 
Rate state Corners a bigger share of Votes ( isn't  that  what it's all 
about ? ). It is then able to vote for more and more policies favourable 
to its own purpose to the detriment of the more responsible state that 
has taken more steps to control its population.  A larger population may 
not necessarily be the cause of "backwardness " of  any  community or 
nation but nevertheless Consumes more resources thus depriving the Low 
Growth-Rate states of its share of the Total income.  This of course, 
flies in the face of "fair" state of affairs as it is "denied" the 
return it deserves.

But even more importantly, it most certainly would give birth to a 
feeling of "resentment" in the hearts of the LGR state because the LGR 
would be so to say, subsidizing the existence of the HGR states. The 
Tension generated would soon reach a stage that demands its Management  
for mitigated it will not be. So the LGR states are soon going to be 
clamouring that they will  "sweat" no more to support their indolent 
countrymen who achieve high growth in nothing except population. I 
think, the stage is not too far from when  a cry will arise for a 
Federalist type of Govt. with each state responsible for its own growth 
out of a national buget allocation of revenue in proportion to its 
contribution to it,  with the powers of "Lower House" concentrated NOT 
in the hands of  "M Ps" but in the hands of Representatives of MPs, let 
us say, State-Governors. In this state of affairs, ONE governor will 
represent the total number of MPs of any state, whether they be ten or a 

The principle of suffrage or representation is not denied here : people 
elect MPs, MPs
elect their Spokesman or Representative or Governor, call him what you 
will, who will be responsible for "pleading"  the cause of the concerned 
state for a share of the Total resources. The individual state will be 
expected to run its affairs within this budget. They would have the 
power to raise money outside the State or Internationally within the 
framework of the Central Authority.

This will have the added benefit of "forcing" every State to undertake 
meaningful programme for population-management.

Why don't we stick our neck out and suggest a change in Constitution to 
bring about a shift to Federeal Govt. system ?

If resolutions taken in 1947 are so sacrosanct, what philosophical basis 
do we have to seek  to bring about a change from a Karma-yoga based 
moral system ( do your duty, leave the result to God ) to one which 
Emphasizes at every step the Returns due to the performing individual ?

By the way, "it is this one person, one vote" system, coupled with 
eligibility  of all except lunatics, for standing for elected office, 
that saddles us with a "funny" Goverments every time.Today we have among 
our ministers one who used to actively promote bomb-sabotage of 
railway-tracks detailing in his speeches the reason behind as being to 
"shut" the power plants  that depended on coal-movement to keep running 
: another cared so little for ideological integrity that he resigned 
from his party  Vice-presedency to fight a court case, defending 
miscreants in murder case.

I am open to suggestions & variations of above policy in order to arrive 
at a reasonable solution but just to take umbrage behind "holy cows" is 
a cop out, an attempt to abdicate responsibility to think because the 
problem is a tricky one.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,


PS : The above signed occasionally sends tracts such as these for 
publication, so RESERVES COPYRIGHTS to the article.

Regret not having heard any final decision from IPI regarding Copyright, 
a topic that was very recently the subject of discussion between SS and 
Mr. Ajay.

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