>why do Indians compare everything to USA? That does seem to be a case for many NRIs. But in this particularcase, I think the US is the only successful model where states havemore autonomy. I am not sure whether other democracies have stateswith so much power. > There are many other functioning democratic pluralistic countries in the> > world where the citizens are not complaining about federal-state> > relationship. If these countries have been happy with their system, then they maynot see the US model as a step forward. That, I think is the generalfeeling in the UK. In India, even though the system was designed pretty well, it seemsthere have been times where politicians have circumvented the idealsof Center-State relations. There is not enough to share well for allthe states - thats the reason that today we have 28 states (we startedwith 14). With statehood come power, money and centeral funds.And then there is this incessant whining from many states (andpeople) of how they haven't got what they wanted. To me, autonomy means, at the onset, several things, independence forstates to govern themselves to a much larger degree (while at the sametime belonging to India) and then the responsibility that comes withsuch new found independence. Then if things go wrong, they can't gobawling back to Delli.Autonomy should also instil pride and that umph to develop the state. --Ram
On 5/6/05, Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Good research done by author Kapuria. > > But a question arose in my mind - why do Indians compare everything to USA?> There are many other functioning democratic pluralistic countries in the> world where the citizens are not complaining about federal-state> relationship. Isn't there anything to learn from them?> > Did the proponents in Kashmir have only these nine points or were there> more? If these nine are the only ones, I'd say the thought process is> shallow. Many of these are only symbolic. The real guts of autonomy like> revenue generation and sharing are not even discussed well, other than> saying, " Regulate all administrative and financial affairs without Central> interference". I think the subject of revenue is as important, if not more,> than political and administrative power sharing.> > What fundamental rights were implied in, "Authority to draw up fundamental> rights." ? Does it include rights of the! state as in referendum to secede> from India, or is it about rights of individuals within the state?> > Did anything come out of the Kashmir proposal? Or was it summariy rejected?> Anyone knows?> > Dilip> > Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Here is an interesting article outlining the benefits of autonomy. Iam not> sure I agree with everything the author says, but its a start(instead of> going around in circles).What are netters view on the subject?> --Ram> > http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000926&channel=civic%20center#The> Autonomy is for IndiaAnil Kapuria October 12, 2000 In post-dynastic> democracy, greater autonomy for states is the onlyway to create a> sustainable growth and stronger India.> Recently, The Economist wrote "While [Indian] GDP has grown by anaverage of> 6% annually in the past ten years, this translates into anincrease in income> per person of just over 4% after allowing for theincrease in population."> The best example of India's! ability to dobetter are provided by those few> parts of the country that are growingmuch faster than the national rate.> Some of these states are largerthan many countries: Gujrat, the fastest> growing state, has around 50Mpeople; Tamilnadu has 65M, and Maharashtra 85M.> Clearly, severalIndian Tigers are buried in the sea of Indian population.> Many of suchstates even have non-tiger like increasing fiscal deficits and> strongdependence on subsidies. By contrast, Bihar and U.P. are among> thelaggards because of their collapsing infrastructure and poorgovernance.> Bihar has the honor of declining per person GDP sinceearly 1990s. Due to> increasing fiscal deficits and strong dependenceon subsidies, even the best> run states are unable to!> build theinfrastructure needed for sustainable growth.> Interestingly, the central government in India is free to determineits own> deficit; whereas strict limits are placed on the amount ofmoney Indian> states can borrow directly from the m! oney markets. Thishas helped maintain> some fiscal discipline on states but has givenfreer reign to the center.> Indian economic reforms so far have takenthe form of lower tax rates, but> without any reduction in bloatedbureaucracy or pork barrel subsidies.> Tamilnadu provides free power tofarmers, so does the Punjab, along with> water for irrigation, whiletheir state electricity boards pile up losses and> are unable to timelypay suppliers. The inter-state commerce in India is> mired in archaicexcise and tax structure, which slow down the movement of> raw materialand finished goods, thus further burden the feeble> infrastructure.> The software and diamond exports, which do not rely on movement ofheavy> goods, are the only two major industries to achieve respectablelevels of> exports. Still these industries alone can neither generatesufficient jobs> nor export earnings to fill the shortfall in foreigndirect investment (FDI).> Creation of jobs is essential to reduce 33%dilutio! n of growth in GDP (from> 6% to 4% - see above) due topopulation factor. The surprise is that some> Indian states haveachieved so much with so little. They could be an example> for thelaggards if competition among the states can be created, provided> thegrowths in leading states could be sustained without making thembankrupt.> The centralized governance and British modeled parliamentary systemadd> further overheads; and distort and delay the decision-making. Thebeginning> of economic reforms proves this point so well, because tostart the reform> process, India heavily relied on ordinances ratherthan on democratic vote in> the parliament.> The faster growing states send lesser number of parliamentarians tothe Lok> Sabha than the laggard states, and may not tolerate in thefuture the> parliamentary veto the laggards enjoy over their destiny.Both the> distribution of power and collected revenue must beequitable. Currently> neither is fair nor equitable, and correction isover due! . The present system> worked when Nehru, his daughter IndiraGandhi, and his grandson Rajiv Gandhi> had absolute power both atcenter and in the majority, if not all of the> states.> The distracters and uninformed emotionally believe that more autonomyto> states would weaken the center and hence weaken India. This is awrong> hypothesis; there is no merit in this argument. It merely lacksvision and> courage to take bold initiatives. In this light let usanalyze the recently> passed Kashmir's autonomy proposal. Kashmiriautonomy proposal demands:> 1. exclusive right over all subjects, excluding, defense, foreignaffairs and> communications;> 2. Chief minister to be called Prime-Minister;> 3. Governor to be called Sadr-e-Riyasat (President);> 4. Own flag;> 5. Own Constitution and the right to amend it;> 6. Authority to draw up fundamental rights;> 7. Regulate all administrative and financial affairs without> Centralinterference;> 8. Beyond the jurisdiction of Article 365 on impositi! on of President rule;> 9. Beyond the jurisdiction of Central Election Commission.> The exclusive right over subjects in the U.S. is known asstates-rights. The> exclusion list, in addition to the above, alsoincludes, inter-state> commerce, inter-state law and order, federaltreasury (collection and> distribution of federal taxes and revenue)and enforcement of federal laws.> These additions to the federalresponsibility are essential for a functioning> country.> The proposal for titles for political posts in-lieu of chief ministerand> governor is not real, but thrown in the wish list. The U.S. statesalso have> their own flag, but as long as the allegiance is to thenation under one flag> is acknowledged and accepted. Each state can andshould have its own state> flag.> Likewise each state in the U.S. has its own constitution and the rightto> amend it, as long as allegiance and ultimate authority of> nation'sconstitution is acknowledged and accepted. As a result no state on> itsown! , can vote itself out of the union. Each state in the U.S. has itsown> constitution and fundamental rights that are given to its citizen.That is> why there is no death penalty in certain states (likeWisconsin) for state> crimes, even though for the Federal crime thereis a death penalty. Oklahoma> City bombing case, one of the accused wasonly given prison sentence in the> Federal trial, while he awaits trailin the state court where he may yet> receive the death penalty. Thestate-court of California almost acquitted the> police officers of thebrutality, while the federal court trial for civil> rights violationsresulted in guilty verdict in the infamous Rodney King> case.> The states in the U.S. have their independent supreme court, whosedecisions> in certain areas cannot be challenged in the U.S. SupremeCourt also. The two> supreme courts cannot interfere; the state lawrelated matters are> adjudicated in the state supreme court, whilefederal matter can go to the> federal Supre! me Court. Microsoft'santi-trust case relates to inter-state> commerce, and therefore is afederal matter and hence was tried in the U.S.> court and is nowdestined to be decided by the federal Supreme Court.> Each state's legislature has authority to draw fundamental rights aslong as> neither the enacted fundamental rights nor the stateconstitution violate the> U.S. constitution. Similarly, each state hascomplete authority over its> judiciary to adjudicate and enforce itsconstitution and fundamental rights.> As a result California law andlegal procedure is different from say in the> state of New York. Thusthere is no death penalty in the state of Wisconsin,> but there is onein California. In many instances person has two legal> recourses tochoose from, a state court and a federal court. The choice is> entirelythat of an individual.> Each state can regulate its administrative and financial affairswithout> interference from Washington DC. Currently, California isrunning a surplu! s> at the state level, while the state of Mississippiis not. The separation is> maintained even at the revenue collectionlevel, the federal and state> separately collect revenues. Many stateshave no income and or sales taxes> while others have.> Even within the government, there is a separation. The legislature(lower> house of representative) is responsible for the budget, thePresident (at the> federal level, and likewise the Governor at thestate level) can only> exercise its veto to approve or disapprove thebudget, but cannot propose an> independent budget, only house of therepresentative can do it.> The separation among executive powers, legislature and judiciary isalso well> defined. Unlike in India, where the Prime Minister aspolitical expediency> had recommended a fall of state government; inthe U.S. the President cannot> remove the elected state government.During national emergency, the Federal> Government can takeover theadministration for a limited period, after whic! h> it must seek theapproval of the legislative branch. In national emergency> thePresident certainly has extra-ordinary powers, but impeachment by> theSenate is a strong check and balance over President's emergencypowers.> Such checks and balances keep the executive branch ï thePresident and> Governors honest to their oath.> The independence of judiciary and treasury is maintained. ThePresident and> the Governor respectively appoint the Supreme Courtjustices at the federal> and state level; but they have no power toremove justices. The justices> cannot be retired. They enjoy lifetimeappointment and can only leave the> office at their free will. The sameis true for the head of Federal Reserve> Board. Thus the executive canneither blackmail nor threaten the removal and> use legislative oreconomic action to gain a favor.> The plurality in Indian society demands a fundamental rethinking ofthe> system of governance. This system cannot be a carry over from> thedynastic-period of! Indian democracy. Greater education and> greatereconomic freedom are resulting into greater wealth generation> andshall transform the society at greater pace too. The changes that> havetaken place in the last ten-years are far greater than the changesthat> took place in previous forty years. Indian society is nowdemanding superior> economic infrastructure, and soon it will demandefficient political> infrastructure too. Autonomy within India is apowerful way to achieve the> aspiration of future Indians.> India, like the U.S., is more than a nation-state. It is a system,where> diversity must coexist and must feel proud to be part of India.In the U.S.,> for example, Silicon Valley is just as much part as theDeep South state of> Mississippi. These two would be as contrasting asBihar and Maharashtra, yet> belong to the same system, the UnitedStates of America. India has yet to> reach there. Its citizens mustfeel part and proud of it. Indian troops do> not need to suppress itscit! izens, or storm places of worships. This system> must show everyIndian a reason to belong and dream.> Indian system will be its own biggest enemy if it must rely onsuppression of> any of its citizens, and storming of anyone's place ofworship. Indian> democracy must showcase to the world the democracy isnot just for the rich.> President Clinton said in Pakistan thatimperfect democracy is better than no> democracy. This axiom is true,because it gives continuity to change and> above all hope forimprovement to people. A completely independent ï rather> than noelection commission ï is crucial to ensure all segments of the> societyenjoy fruits of democracy. The chief of the election commission> shouldbe a lifetime appointment, and can be removed through> impeachment.Otherwise no one should be able to touch the chief> electioncommissioner.> The next evolution of Indian democracy is greater autonomy. Footnote: Anil> Kapuria is a Silicon Valley based high-technologyentreprenuer a! nd an angel> investor> > On 5/5/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:> C'da> > *** If nothing is the matter with> the SYSTEM, how will autonomy help> > Assam, even after it gets autonomy?> >> The present system where the Center and States share revenues and>> responsibilities and where the Center distributes and allocates> resources> may work very well in a developed country.> In a country like India, where> resources are scarce and every state> is fighting for a share of the pie,> and autonomy would really put the> onus on the states, and there is little> or no 'Robinhood plan'.> So, it might help a resource filled state like> Assam to be autonomous> and become responsible for its own revenues and> development. Of> course, the Center would play a big role in largescale> projects and> other areas where the states require central help and> guidance.> > >It will be the same system in which no one could be held>> accountable, it will be >the same system that is opaque, it will be> the> sa! me system that s!> elects and >elects the people to run the> machinery of government.> > If> thats the case, then there is no system on this earth that will> give that> Assam you seek. Be it an independent Assam, an autonomous> one, or an Assam> in the present state.> > Changing the system to accommodate autonomy is only> one way. The other> ways that Barua,DD, & KJD and I have been shouting> hoarse is that> 'people; must change along with other changes. Ultimately it> depends> entirely on the populace. If their attitude, responses, reactions>> don't change, then no amount of infusing of funds, goodwill or> whatever is> going to help.> > I guess, what you are saying is we should just throw in> the towel and> call it quits, and let Assam meander where destiny will take> it?> > --Ram> > > On 5/5/05, Chan Mahanta wrote:> > Ram:> >> > Thanks for> your response.> >> > I can't get into details now, but just one quick> questions ( more to> > follow later):> >> >> > > >(not the syst! em, bu!> t the practice). The> > >system is fine, but many of the leaders in the> Center and in Assam> > >have not done what it takes to develop India> allround> >> > *** If nothing is the matter with the SYSTEM, how will> autonomy help> > Assam, even after it gets autonomy? It will be the same> system in> > which no one could be held accountable, it will be the same> system> > that is opaque, it will be the same system that selects and> elects> > the people to run the machinery of government.> >> > And since the> people are bad, will autonomy all of a sudden make them> > good, so Assam> will begin to thrive?> >> > Something is seriously amiss in the reasoning> here Ram :-). Can you explain?> >> > c-da> >> > PS: You do make a couple> good points though. Will 'splain later.> >> >> > At 9:38 AM -0500 5/5/05,> Ram Sarangapani wrote:> > >C'da,> > >> > >> I remember things slightly> differently however. Ram, Dilip, yourself all> > >> chimed in in favor of> autonomy when we were d! iscussing Mamoni Gos!> wami's> > >> efforts to bring the Center to a dialog with the ULFA. I was> curious about> > >> why you all were ready to settle for autonomy, while> defending the Indian> > >> governmental system with claims that nothing is> the matter with it. It was> > >> self-contradictory.> > >> > >Lets try this> one more time. I don't believe any of us said that> > >'nothing' is wrong> with GOI (not the system, but the practice). The> > >system is fine, but> many of the leaders in the Center and in Assam> > >have not done what it> takes to develop India allround Right now there> > >is a lot of lop-sided> developement and so there are lots of things> > >that are not what we want> for a state like Assam. In many ways Assam's> > >problems are unique. Over> and above that, there is that general> > >feeling of being left out of all> the good things (right or wrong), and> > >then there that general apathy.> >> >> > >Why Autonony?> > >> > >With more autonomy, the Assames! e become the> masters of their o!> wn fate.> > >No more blaming Dilli for our misfortunes or crediting dilli> for our> > >strides.> > >The State can become more focussed on placing the> onus on GOA as> > >opposed to GO. The State can benefit from fortunes in> tea, timber, and> > >oil. The Center needs to only control certain things> like border> > >control, immigration and military.> > >> > >Thus the State> becomes mostly responsible for its own development, but> > >at the same time> not worry about external agggression from say B'desh.> > >The Center can> help in bringing international business to the state.> > >Education can be> streamlined.> > >> > >Autonomy is a far better solution than that proposed> by ULFA and> > >others. A number of States are already inclined to go for> autonomy.> > >Even the Center is willing to discuss autonomy for states (not> just> > >Assam).You want independence, then you have to fight that alone,> and> > >no state in India is going to support ! it.> > >> > >As for> independence, when has ULfa!> or you or anyone else given us> > >something concrete. No one has given any> gurantees, except to say they> > >want it. Thats more like an unruly child's> must haves.> > >> > >Imagine an independent Assam, depleted of its resources> (while> > >fighting for this independence), and becoming an easy pick for a>> > >country like B'desh to occupy overtly or covertly. What then, are you> >> >then going to fight for independence from B'desh?> > >> > >If you wnat to> be practical - independence is just a pie in the sky, a> > >near> impossibility. The next best thing is for more autonomy for> > >states.> Assam should join with other States for this.> > >Autonomy for states should> be viewed as a change in the system of> > >governance so as to reach all the> states. It has its pitfalls, but> > >those have to worked out. Autonomy> should not be viewed as DEMAND, but> > >rather as a progression for a more> vibrant India.> > >> > >>I rem! ember quizzing you all about what you folks> would> > >> do wi!> th autonomy that you cannot do with the system in place as is> > >> > >One> would have to be blind not to realize that there are things that> > >Assam> (or the NE) needs for development & growth. The current system> > >seems to> work well for states like Maharastra or other states where> > >their> representatives holler for more. In the case of Assam, our poor> > >reps to> the Center, get their pay checks, and then> > >'ghoror lora ghoroloi ahile'> - thats it. They nor the good people of> > >Assam that sent them have done> their bit, -- Kay Sara, Sara...> > >> > >So that is one good reason why> autonomy would be a panacea for Assam.> > >> > >More later if I have any> ideas left :-)> > >> > >--Ram> >> >>> _______________________________________________> Assam mailing list> [email protected]> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam> > Mailing list FAQ:> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.ht! ml> To unsubscribe or change options:> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam> _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
