Arundhati Roy hit the headlines few days back for her so called anti-India remarks and calling that Kashmir had never been an integral part of India.the remark as usual generated extreme reactions in media,political parties and political bosses, it ranged from condemnation in very terse terms to the recommendation of charging her with the sedition (none other than but by verappa moily).
the emotional outburst can be understood but constitution of India and its ethos are much above than all these minor incidences, a real and deep democratic system does not react to any brushing incident every now and then, moreover people can express their views at their will, definitely a certain degree of restrain need to be maintained but that does not mean sedition charges on arbitrary basis.there are many prominent people who have reflected there views like that, in the days of Nehru these incidences were very common but none was put into the jail, the real answer is the deepening of democracy even more, which is such a cushion that accommodates every dissenting voice.
the best thing is to make these view irrelevant by working in constructive manner, taking legal action against dissent will be tantamount to reducing the strength of democracy.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
MYANMAR ELECTIONS--------JUNTA AND JANATA
November 7 is likely to be one of the most important events in the history of Myanmar as it is holding election to pave the path for long standing demand for democracy. Under immense international pressure, military ruler in Myanmar agreed to reform the way country was moving politically. The election will be based on the new constitution came in force in 2008, quite predictably, the constitution was reform tactically to suit the need of Junta so in nutshell, and the constitution is likely to be the captive of the military wishes.
Getting into the details clear the picture even more, the rules of the game are set by Junta(military rulers) there are roughly 40 political parties contesting the election but the clearance must come from Junta, The party of legendary Aung San Suu Kyi the NLD (national league for democracy) does not find mention in this list and the reason is that her party has not accepted the new constitution, which is a condition before parties get recognized for contesting the election. Out of all people’s assembly seats 25% has to be nominated by Junta and election will fill rest 75% of the seats, the two important parties that probably clout the election are formed by people who were in uniform in the past, the USDP (union solidarity and development party) headed by Thein sein the prime minister and top general right hand and NUP (national unity party) headed by Tun Yi former deputy commander-in-chief.
The military will remain above the constitution any ways and it is chief of the staff of armed forces who will yield the real power, he will likely to have an absolute veto. Freedom of assembly, speech gathering for the public is as restricted as it was in the past, making difficult for other political parties to propagate themselves. Thus above arrangement practically reduces election and democracy to the extent of superficiality.
Now the question is , is it worth called ‘roadmap for democracy’ and the answer is quite emphatically ‘YES’. At least in place of nothing there is something to choose for, people would have choice to exercise one of the beloved rights in democracies and that is right to vote. As people vote and choose, there emerges democratization of society and psychic that creates movements for more rights, so it’s a great beginning.
What is it meant in international context, very importantly, international pressure will ease helping Myanmar politically and economically, it is almost certain that polity will drift towards India, the world’s largest democracy rather than China which is more beloved to Junta, as the power slips into the hand of people they will find India as more natural partner benefitting immensely to India(primarily through its hydro-carbon and to land locked north east), thus lets hope that the process that begin on 7th of November culminates into mature democratsation of Myanmar.
Friday, October 22, 2010
what Bihar can offer to the rest of India in these polls
Apart from being new growth miracle,construction ,service sector boom and shoots of new positivity in Bihar, that can of course be lesson for the rest of the india. but to my mind, the most powerful change that is underway in Bihar is the change in electoral behavior.in one of his most encouraging and futuristic books 'the future of India' Bimal jalan lamented that it is quite ironic that in country like India where even basic amenities are not fulfilled,voting take place primarily on the peripheral issues like caste and religion that have very low developmental relation. this is indeed the state of the affair in state as well as national and even at local level election.
in middle of all this, the first phase of assembly election in Bihar went quite peacefully, that indeed is a great news specially in the state where elections are conditioned by large scale violence, rampant booth capturing and other problems leading to many rounds of by- polls.
this election is crucially contested on the issue of development, people's choice of parties may be different but the core issue over which parties are seeking mandate is same that is development.what plethora of election reform measures could not achieve was achieved by the nitish government effort to make development a core issue and installing them in people Psyche.if it becomes a national issue then fight and caste based polarization will greatly reduce, that will eventually help to reform the political system as well. development does not discriminate between people neither does the poverty but caste and politics does.
it remains to be seen how much is learnt by other states and political parties from this novel experience.
in middle of all this, the first phase of assembly election in Bihar went quite peacefully, that indeed is a great news specially in the state where elections are conditioned by large scale violence, rampant booth capturing and other problems leading to many rounds of by- polls.
this election is crucially contested on the issue of development, people's choice of parties may be different but the core issue over which parties are seeking mandate is same that is development.what plethora of election reform measures could not achieve was achieved by the nitish government effort to make development a core issue and installing them in people Psyche.if it becomes a national issue then fight and caste based polarization will greatly reduce, that will eventually help to reform the political system as well. development does not discriminate between people neither does the poverty but caste and politics does.
it remains to be seen how much is learnt by other states and political parties from this novel experience.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Governor vs speaker and the political questions
the Karnataka crisis has thrown some serious questions over the current political dispensation, the crisis emerged when 11 of BJP and 5 independent members withdrew the support from Yeduyarappa govt leading to almost fall of the razor thin majority govt, but issue of a sort of warning by the governer to speaker of the house on the eve of the test of strength, not to disqualify any member under anti defection act and allow them to vote but during the test the rebel members were disqualified by speaker which led to reducing the effective strength of the house itself in which BJP managed to win the majority. in between governer hastily recommended the imposition of president rule.
rebel challenged the decision of speaker in the high court, two member bench gave the split verdict one supporting other opposing the speaker decision.now it is refer to third judge.
whatever be the decision of the court but the real questions are much larger than that be decided by the courts,like what is the real power and what is the limitation of discretion of governor,how far it is logical that governor keep working as an agent of central government when the evidence suggests that he\she often end up becoming a political agent of the ruling party at the center,in what circumstances he must refer the case for president rule,is his personal or subjective assessment enough for the case?can he issue directives to the speaker of the house about conducting the business within the house?
can speaker be immune from the advises sent by governor? who has right to decide what should happen with rebel? the question of politicisation of speaker himself since he also belongs to a certain political party, should the anti defection law be applied blatantly leaving no room for political dissension!
there are many answer to these questions that are suggested by the experts like giving practical shape to the reports of the sarkaria commission in latter and spirit to depoliticize the office of governor, following the rule laid down by supreme court in bommai case in the matter of power of governor to dissolve the house like individual may be personally responsible to the governor but govt has to show collective responsibility to the house,supreme court directives that speaker decision can be challenged in courts in the matter of defection etc.
the real issue is that these problems are going to gravitate in near future, because the trend in indian polity suggests so. coalition government at the centre is likely to stay in coming future which means small parties would like to yield more power through influencing the agencies which are supposed to remain neutral from political influences. most likely party at the helm of affair in state and at centre would be different so the tendency of interfernce by the party at centre in the matter of state would be higher.
the above questions posed above need to answered keeping in the mind the future trend in indian polity and vulnerability of indian politics.
rebel challenged the decision of speaker in the high court, two member bench gave the split verdict one supporting other opposing the speaker decision.now it is refer to third judge.
whatever be the decision of the court but the real questions are much larger than that be decided by the courts,like what is the real power and what is the limitation of discretion of governor,how far it is logical that governor keep working as an agent of central government when the evidence suggests that he\she often end up becoming a political agent of the ruling party at the center,in what circumstances he must refer the case for president rule,is his personal or subjective assessment enough for the case?can he issue directives to the speaker of the house about conducting the business within the house?
can speaker be immune from the advises sent by governor? who has right to decide what should happen with rebel? the question of politicisation of speaker himself since he also belongs to a certain political party, should the anti defection law be applied blatantly leaving no room for political dissension!
there are many answer to these questions that are suggested by the experts like giving practical shape to the reports of the sarkaria commission in latter and spirit to depoliticize the office of governor, following the rule laid down by supreme court in bommai case in the matter of power of governor to dissolve the house like individual may be personally responsible to the governor but govt has to show collective responsibility to the house,supreme court directives that speaker decision can be challenged in courts in the matter of defection etc.
the real issue is that these problems are going to gravitate in near future, because the trend in indian polity suggests so. coalition government at the centre is likely to stay in coming future which means small parties would like to yield more power through influencing the agencies which are supposed to remain neutral from political influences. most likely party at the helm of affair in state and at centre would be different so the tendency of interfernce by the party at centre in the matter of state would be higher.
the above questions posed above need to answered keeping in the mind the future trend in indian polity and vulnerability of indian politics.
Governor vs speaker and the political questions
the Karnataka crisis has thrown some serious questions over the current political dispensation, the crisis emerged when 11 of BJP and 5 independent members withdrew the support from Yeduyarappa govt leading to almost fall of the razor thin majority govt, but issue of a sort of warning by the governer to speaker of the house on the eve of the test of strength, not to disqualify any member under anti defection act and allow them to vote but during the test the rebel members were disqualified by speaker which led to reducing the effective strength of the house itself in which BJP managed to win the majority. in between governer hastily recommended the imposition of president rule.
rebel challenged the decision of speaker in the high court, two member bench gave the split verdict one supporting other opposing the speaker decision.now it is refer to third judge.
whatever be the decision of the court but the real questions are much larger than that be decided by the courts,like what is the real power and what is the limitation of discretion of governor,how far it is logical that governor keep working as an agent of central government when the evidence suggests that he\she often end up becoming a political agent of the ruling party at the center,in what circumstances he must refer the case for president rule,is his personal or subjective assessment enough for the case?can he issue directives to the speaker of the house about conducting the business within the house?
can speaker be immune from the advises sent by governor? who has right to decide what should happen with rebel? the question of politicisation of speaker himself since he also belongs to a certain political party, should the anti defection law be applied blatantly leaving no room for political dissension!
there are many answer to these questions that are suggested by the experts like giving practical shape to the reports of the sarkaria commission in latter and spirit to depoliticize the office of governor, following the rule laid down by supreme court in bommai case in the matter of power of governor to dissolve the house like individual may be personally responsible to the governor but govt has to show collective responsibility to the house,supreme court directives that speaker decision can be challenged in courts in the matter of defection etc.
the real issue is that these problems are going to gravitate in near future, because the trend in indian polity suggests so. coalition government at the centre is likely to stay in coming future which means small parties would like to yield more power through influencing the agencies which are supposed to remain neutral from political influences. most likely party at the helm of affair in state and at centre would be different so the tendency of interfernce by the party at centre in the matter of state would be higher.
the above questions posed above need to answered keeping in the mind the future trend in indian polity and vulnerability of indian politics.
rebel challenged the decision of speaker in the high court, two member bench gave the split verdict one supporting other opposing the speaker decision.now it is refer to third judge.
whatever be the decision of the court but the real questions are much larger than that be decided by the courts,like what is the real power and what is the limitation of discretion of governor,how far it is logical that governor keep working as an agent of central government when the evidence suggests that he\she often end up becoming a political agent of the ruling party at the center,in what circumstances he must refer the case for president rule,is his personal or subjective assessment enough for the case?can he issue directives to the speaker of the house about conducting the business within the house?
can speaker be immune from the advises sent by governor? who has right to decide what should happen with rebel? the question of politicisation of speaker himself since he also belongs to a certain political party, should the anti defection law be applied blatantly leaving no room for political dissension!
there are many answer to these questions that are suggested by the experts like giving practical shape to the reports of the sarkaria commission in latter and spirit to depoliticize the office of governor, following the rule laid down by supreme court in bommai case in the matter of power of governor to dissolve the house like individual may be personally responsible to the governor but govt has to show collective responsibility to the house,supreme court directives that speaker decision can be challenged in courts in the matter of defection etc.
the real issue is that these problems are going to gravitate in near future, because the trend in indian polity suggests so. coalition government at the centre is likely to stay in coming future which means small parties would like to yield more power through influencing the agencies which are supposed to remain neutral from political influences. most likely party at the helm of affair in state and at centre would be different so the tendency of interfernce by the party at centre in the matter of state would be higher.
the above questions posed above need to answered keeping in the mind the future trend in indian polity and vulnerability of indian politics.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
saransh on headlines: currency war and solution
saransh on headlines: currency war and solution: "well, after the announcement by brazilian finance minister that currency war has begun, it is almost accepted in the global policy circle th..."
currency war and solution
well, after the announcement by brazilian finance minister that currency war has begun, it is almost accepted in the global policy circle that it has actually begun, not only this but some countries have already started taking pre-emptive actions like hiking of capital inflow tax which also called tobin tax by Thailand, fresh action to control inflow of capital by malysia and some other countries.
as an additional measures contries are also intervening in their currency market to reduce the appreciational pressure from their domestic currencies in wake of huge dollar inflow (perticularily in Asian economies) this is resulting into huge forex built up primarily denominated in low yeilding dollar securities or high bouts of inflation due release of money in domestic economy or most probably both happening simultaneously.
As economies have not yet recovered from the crisis situation these actions can be detrimental for their health, make them even more vulnerable on the event of any fresh trigger.
the action taken by these countries are mainly to protect their currencies from appreciation so that they could not loose in highly competitive export market so that they could protect domestic export sector, income, employment. it means that blame can not be put squarely on them given their priorities for accelerated job and income creation.
so who must be blamed?
first and formost the USA for its imprudence money policy, it is the excessive supply of dollars due to easy monetary policy that has led to the decline in the value of dollar across the board or in other words appreciation of other currencies. US till the date has enjoyed the benefit of minting international currency that probably have never been enjoyed by any one else but as great power comes with great responsibilities , it becomes the responsibility of US to mend its way specially when the present situation has huge potential to damage the global economies.
second the china, which has started this game quite openly, chine exports are under priced due to deliberate under valuation of yuan, now other emerging countries could see that their product in the international market is driven out by china due to cheap yuan they are always tempted to follow the line of china, that may result in competitive devaluation. thus china need to learn that in can not follow such policy indefinitely and certainly not without retaliation from those countries whose products are driven out by china.
third the IMF and its prescription of unregulated capital market, flexible exchange rate for developing contries when rules of games are violated by developed countries and still IMF remain a mute spectator, surely the way IMF is managing the global finance, its relevance is becoming doubtful.
as an additional measures contries are also intervening in their currency market to reduce the appreciational pressure from their domestic currencies in wake of huge dollar inflow (perticularily in Asian economies) this is resulting into huge forex built up primarily denominated in low yeilding dollar securities or high bouts of inflation due release of money in domestic economy or most probably both happening simultaneously.
As economies have not yet recovered from the crisis situation these actions can be detrimental for their health, make them even more vulnerable on the event of any fresh trigger.
the action taken by these countries are mainly to protect their currencies from appreciation so that they could not loose in highly competitive export market so that they could protect domestic export sector, income, employment. it means that blame can not be put squarely on them given their priorities for accelerated job and income creation.
so who must be blamed?
first and formost the USA for its imprudence money policy, it is the excessive supply of dollars due to easy monetary policy that has led to the decline in the value of dollar across the board or in other words appreciation of other currencies. US till the date has enjoyed the benefit of minting international currency that probably have never been enjoyed by any one else but as great power comes with great responsibilities , it becomes the responsibility of US to mend its way specially when the present situation has huge potential to damage the global economies.
second the china, which has started this game quite openly, chine exports are under priced due to deliberate under valuation of yuan, now other emerging countries could see that their product in the international market is driven out by china due to cheap yuan they are always tempted to follow the line of china, that may result in competitive devaluation. thus china need to learn that in can not follow such policy indefinitely and certainly not without retaliation from those countries whose products are driven out by china.
third the IMF and its prescription of unregulated capital market, flexible exchange rate for developing contries when rules of games are violated by developed countries and still IMF remain a mute spectator, surely the way IMF is managing the global finance, its relevance is becoming doubtful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)