After seeing all these arguments and counter arguements abt the Cong, BJP and Left, I have a strong feeling that we need to do away with the party system in India. I feel our electoral policy must ban all parties so that only independents should stand in elections. This is what the party system has done to so called 'democratic' India. 1. More than 95% voters vote on party lines. So never mind if he has a criminal bkgnd, if he is in the winnable party ticket in that constituency, he is bound to win. This has been the bane of our political culture over the last few decades. 2. Polarization of votes along casteist , communal lines depending upon the party's stance. 3. Issuing of whips by the respective parties, like we are seeing now, on an important issue like the N-deal just to save or bring down the Govt. The whip is essentilly a anti-democratic tool of the political parties which swear by democracy for the common man. When there is no freedom of expressing individual opinions within a party, then what demorcracy...?? 4. Witch hunting after coming to power depending upon which side of the fence you are. 5. Unstable govts. 6. Party system has encouraged dictatorship, violence and supression of truth bcos too much power corrupts. Indira & emergency,Karunanidhi, Jayalalitha & their hooligan party followers who burn buses,and kill innocent people are all examples of political violence in the name of party.
RE:RE:RE:Stop party system in India.....
by menda vijaya on Jul 13, 2008 12:52 PM Permalink
You are right.But dear friend, we have been like this for 5000 years!! How can we change. Several changes occured on this soil, geographically, politally and economically. But the Indian has not changed and will never, ever. But your ideas are good. Hope someone would take notice of them.
RE:Stop party system in India.....
by trikarn on Jul 13, 2008 02:13 PM Permalink
nothing great about this! remember that we as a nation have never been one politically for the last 5000 odd years! we were under 500 odd kingdoms till the mughals came and made some unity! the brits spoilt the party and made us what we are today!i mean one nation concept. atavism does not die out that easily!
RE:Stop party system in India.....
by Ashish Kumar on Jul 13, 2008 04:52 PM Permalink
U shd read Indian history again. U seem to forget long periods when India lived under a single flag.
RE:Stop party system in India.....
by Binu Devassia on Jul 13, 2008 01:42 PM Permalink
Your ideas are good; but think of the other side. There is no dispute on the issue that our Indian democratic politics has been spoiled by our political parties. But if we change the electoral policy to independents, there won't be any stable government as those mps or mlas would jump around various people to form government for their own likes or dislikes. What we India need is a radical change in the present process and mindset of people. our so called institutions like presidency, supreme court, election commission and police need to be independent in some extent (atleast 80 or 90%) and government should not have power to appoint the head of these sections. Let our president be elected by people directly through less expensive method of casting votes. All other institutions like courts, police, and election commission should be appointed by President only and by that system we need to make sure efficient personalities are seated on power. Our election commission should have much power and the people on the seat should be able to use the power. Any parties that uses religion, caste, etc as election issues should be banned. In order to minimize the number of political parties and the partisan mentality of parties, there should be a strong law that only those parties can contest in elections who have base in atleast 1/3 of total states. And last but not least the candidates should be well educated that their minimum qualification should be Masters Degree from premier Institut
Instead of reading long essays,it will be very helpful,if an excel format table is prepared listing specifically on: 1.What will happen if India does not go in for the Deal? 2.What will happen if India goes in for the Deal?
RE:Nuclear Deal
by NV K on Jul 13, 2008 12:26 PM Permalink
After all what politics is all about is in keeping a layman in confusion always rather than convincing him. If the public getting a clear picture of the whole situation the game plan of the politicians will fail. I don't thing they will come out with the implications so easily as Mr. Mani suggests, though that indeed a nice way to arrive at a solution to the issue..
RE:Nuclear Deal
by N V MANI on Jul 13, 2008 12:56 PM Permalink
"If the public get a clear picture of the whole situation,the game plan of the politicians will fail" as observed by NVK, clarifies that fundamental issues (of Inflation and Price rise)are diverted, by making relatively unimportant issues unnecessarily complicated for political gains.
For a simple fault in your bicycle, we run to a mechanic.
For a pack of samosas, we run to halwais.
For filing simple saral application, we run to a CA.
There are specialists for everything.
You and me are not specialists in Strategic alliances in Global Sphere.
I am sure your company's Managing Director does not give a copy of draft to you and others or put on the company's notice board, when "he is busy negotiating a deal" with a Joint Venture partner.
That's a simple commercial deal affecting only the company.
Here we are talking about strategic alliances encompassing the whole World and its Geo-politics.
That's why best brains of our country negotiated the deal.
And they got you the best deal.
Recognise the goodness in the deal.
When NDA was negotiating the deal which was far inferior and was willing to sign CTBT, did they offer you the draft?
Did they discuss in the Parliament while they were negotiating?
Did they debate on the street?
Did they ask you to validate their own draft?
Think.
Just don't fall victim to hollow words.
Use your own intellect. Use your own thinking power.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by Satya Varshney on Jul 13, 2008 12:20 PM Permalink
The nation should congratulate the negotiator for this achievement. The only mistake or the self goal on the part of congress government has been to hide it unnecessarily when there was nothing to hide in it.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by prabhat mohanty on Jul 13, 2008 12:57 PM Permalink
- Aah! We finished 7 Volumes of Ramayan.
And who is Sita?
....
Well! Let me give you a strategic analysis of the act. [ My own version ]
Congress knew the Left would quit just before the election to protect its constituency.
Congress was also sure that the document was very good.
So they did not mind the Left and others raising the pitch to a level of no-return.
The whole country would think as if there is something very fishy about this document.
And the anti-climax would be to "reveal" the document when the opposition goes ballastic about it.
So far so long, Congress has played it well.
See, how the whole everybody is crestfallen!
BJP is waiting for a loose ball, so that they can take a catch ! [ Official statement]
RE:RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by vyas cm on Jul 13, 2008 01:03 PM Permalink
I agree with you. I wish our friendly neighbourhood "Rediff Commie" Sahadevan KK, were reading all this. He has been silent after the breakup of the alliance announcement.
RE:RE:RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by trikarn on Jul 13, 2008 02:16 PM Permalink
HE IS WITH ABDUL NASEER MADANI PLANNING A NEW ALLIANCE FOR NEXT ELECTIONS!
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by trikarn on Jul 13, 2008 01:01 PM Permalink
yes mohanty, also why shud anyone go for a bad deal, as they also have to live in this country!
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by Atul Kulshrestha on Jul 13, 2008 12:48 PM Permalink
Mr. mohanty if NDA also did not disclose the contents of the deal how are you so sure that the deal was much inferior to the present deal. secondly please note there was no hyde act at that point of time. As you said about MD not putting up the content on notice board, i guess contents of the deal will have to be discussed with share holders (all parties in parliament in this case) & definetly with board of directors (CPM & left in this case, as they were crutches of this govt.) Now please relook at your analogy. Though i am no supporter of left (180 degree opp in fact) i will say they are right in saying they were decieved if we call them anti national, chienese backers & so on & so forth shouldn't UPA have thought of it when they asked for support & shouldn't we all who are talking big 2day on this forum, opposed cong & company for such a tie up with left. I for one do not believe a word of the people like Anil kakodkar etc. for two reasons 1) He is a government employee he will speak what govt tells him to speak else he wont be allowed to speak. 2) He is supposed to be a scientist not an expert on international treaty. I have read the text of 123 agreement myself & would like to have an open debate with anyone from govt on the issue of binding by the Hyde act & the issue of nuclear fuel cycle. Also i have a firm belief that nuclear is not the solution we have better & GREENER solutions available why govt is not willing to explore them, simply because there are no kickbacks
RE:RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by prabhat mohanty on Jul 13, 2008 01:02 PM Permalink
- Read Talbot.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by All Right on Jul 14, 2008 06:48 AM Permalink
:) Talbot -- As if he would say I was giving the best deal away in 2004, but NOW USA is giving a raw deal to India, so please sign it...
Watch Left's interviews
Don't listen to Brajesh Mishra -- listen to Narayanan AFTER 5 years... he might be singing a totally different tune by then...
Read analysis by professionals -- go to the US sites where the fears about India getting a "good N-deal" are being allayed with the true picture of how India's Thorium reserves and future reactors will actually start falling under the IAEA safeguards and hence this deal is actually clipping India's wings..
I'm sure you'd have done all that and THEN posted your comments, Mohanty...
What? You didn't do any of the above?... .pity.. :-)
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by vyas cm on Jul 13, 2008 12:57 PM Permalink
Very aptly put.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by sojan paul on Jul 13, 2008 12:37 PM Permalink
Fully agree with your points. Our problem is that of "too much democracy". Most of the Indians are discussing the most strategic documents today. This should not be the common man's problem. Let the Govt. take care the welfare and development of the nation. The govt. has the mandate for 5 years. No govt can satisfy 100% of its population, similerly no govt can seek permission from the general public to take decision.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by Aruna Sambrani on Jul 13, 2008 02:26 PM Permalink
Excellent and crisp; to the point> Congrats to the commentator.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by menda vijaya on Jul 13, 2008 12:53 PM Permalink
Does the university give you question paper before the exam ?
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by Satya Varshney on Jul 13, 2008 01:24 PM Permalink
your analogy is poor.The IAEA draft is no question paper.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by Cracknut on Jul 13, 2008 12:34 PM Permalink
the govt did not ask the normal people cos as we all know most of our country is still illiterate...also among the literate ppl,very few ppl know properly abt the nuclear arrangements...
wat the govt has done is right...they have included the AEC chairman..the person who heads the nuclear programs of our country...
or do u think u know more than him ???
n the reason y they cudnt declare the agreement earlier has been explained..
international agreements have a set of protocols to be followed...its not india where u can bribe someone n get out anything...
y even the 1st text of da agreement had most probably been bribed off n produced online...
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by joby george on Jul 13, 2008 04:30 PM Permalink
Because they dont want to be in power for the next 1 year.
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by trikarn on Jul 13, 2008 02:15 PM Permalink
the company managinf director need not put on the board! why? bcas u can always leave his company! but the nation? can u leave that easily?
RE:Why did UPA not disclose IAEA document for public discussion while the negotiation was on?
by prabhat mohanty on Jul 13, 2008 02:20 PM Permalink
- You don't leave the company because the MD did not show you the agreement document while he was busy "in negotiation"
I cant understand if something goes wrong who will pay for the amount spent on the nuclear setup. They cant solve Pakistan embarassing and killing innocent people in the name of Jihad and these people talk about complaining. They'l just end up in compalining and that they have doing for a long long time. No Guts common people believe in yourselves and look for alternative and natural way of generating. Go for Wind mills and Solar Energy instead going behind US for every other day. US is making sure that we are dependent on them always and they'l control us more and more and manipulate the whole world for their advantage. US is very intelligent in strategic moves and we fall into the trap from where we cant get up.
Congress in the name of Improvement would make India fall into crocodile park.
No one can help on this since Congress is in control and they are playing with the lives of the people for which later even they themselves would repent on we would be in no position to get out of it.
Congress please dont be so much hardlined you are playing with lots of lives and the money spent should be paid by us not by your individual act you are not paying from your pocket mind that.
Please dont goahead with the deal atleast i request you dont be blind folded toward US would help us no way. They want to survive and live by playing around people lives that they have been doing in Iraq.
Act like a True Indian and Follow Gandhis foot step of Swadeshi Movement.
RE:Gandhi would have committed Suicide
by Cracknut on Jul 13, 2008 12:43 PM Permalink
u ppl are only literate on paper...dunno where ur brains are...
it the deal only with the us???
for ur kind information its a deal between india n the NSG countries...
india is not compelled to get their nuclear stuffs from us...theres russia,our long time friend who cudnt help us in these regards cos of the npt pact... now us is helpin india in gettin an exception to this..
wats the problem in this i dont understand...
also wind,solar n hydro power projects are unreliable...
in AP,the hydro power project are at a loss cos of continuin inadequate rainfall...
do u want to set up these unreliable sources n then suddenly sit in darkness when such unseen calamities arise ???
grow up n think liberally...
its good tat the govt didnt include the common man in these nuclear discussions.. else i can see wat wud have happened then...already with the left tryin to put breaks on them
RE:Gandhi would have committed Suicide
by senthil on Jul 13, 2008 05:17 PM Permalink
Do you mean you can still encourage companies from US can invest money on Indian Soil but the Indian government can't do in US soil? When will the goverments are going hand in hand like IT companies ? My concern is why do think this is step towards to US instead International Society If Gandhi is here in Indian Soil do you think he won't have changed from Hare Ram Hare Ram to 123 123 ? Cheers Pugazh
RE:Gandhi would have committed Suicide
by west on Jul 13, 2008 09:54 PM Permalink
I pity those who call Gandhi as an intellectual and visionary leader. He's nothing more than a common man and the main motivation for Gandhi to stand up against British is not his nationalism but the insults he got in South Africa and he wants to take revenge against goras some how. He couldn't take revenge against them in SA so he returned to India and he got wide support to take a sweet revenge.
RE:Gandhi would have committed Suicide
by senthil on Jul 13, 2008 05:17 PM Permalink
Do you mean you can still encourage companies from US can invest money on Indian Soil but the Indian government can't do in US soil? When will the goverments are going hand in hand like IT companies ? My concern is why do think this is step towards to US instead International Society If Gandhi is here in Indian Soil do you think he won't have changed from Hare Ram Hare Ram to 123 123 ? Cheers Pugazh
RE:Gandhi would have committed Suicide
by All Right on Jul 13, 2008 12:08 PM Permalink
Please let me know what specific clause is the cause of your paranoia that you want Gandhi to suicide?
Have you read 123 and IAEA draft ext? If no, please read and then come with your analysis.
You advise to communicate yoiur paranoia to a shrink than circulate this in this forum
RE:Gandhi would have committed Suicide
by All Right on Jul 14, 2008 06:52 AM Permalink
My CLONE:
Article 23(d), 26(d), 11(b), 11(c), 11(d), 11(e), 11(f), of the IAEA safeguards, and Article XII A-7, XII C., and Article XIX of the Statute of IAEA organisation.
RE:Gandhi would have committed Suicide
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 08:35 AM Permalink
Article 23(d), 26(d), 11(b,c,d,e,f) refer to materials that are part of the agreement to be safeguarded and to which India is a signatory.
The Left and the BSP have said that the deal is anti-muslim. I would have appreciated their stand if they had stated that it is anti-Indian even though I do not agree with that view. Why should we not consider both the Left and BSP communal, speaking the language of Jinnah?
All are busy with discussing N-Deal & its advantages & dis-advantages. Is it going to solve all our problems like living cost increase, petrol price hike, corruption, crime, food shortage, water problem, poverty, education and other social economical imbalances? It is only to divert attention from other important issues & Govt failure to address the real issues. N-Deal is also important but we need to read the agreement 100 times before inking the deal with USA.
RE:Where are those other issues related to common man
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 11:58 AM Permalink
Major issue today is Inflation. Most of this is caused by fast & over expansion of Indian economy and belief among everybody that it will continue on the same path. Second major cause is the price of crude.
On the first count, interest rates have been raised, making people rethink about buying things on credit. That will lead to decline in demand leading to decline in Industrial output. Industrial growth in the last Quartyer was the lowest in 6 years. This will lead to overcapacity and reduction in prices as companies compete with each other for the same market. Case in point Mobile Phones and Airline Industry.
This forum is on nuclear deal so that is the discussion here.
RE:Where are those other issues related to common man
by All Right on Jul 13, 2008 12:03 PM Permalink
This is a puerile observation. The nuclear deal is the responsibility of only one section of the administration. The GoI is a vast ocean. When the RBI raises interest rate then some other section of the govt is taking steps to control inflation.
You just parrot puerile disinformation by the BJP.
RE:Where are those other issues related to common man
by All Right on Jul 14, 2008 06:53 AM Permalink
:) My CLONE:
You are ASSUMING that the rest of the ocean is working.... prove it.. Prove to me what the head of the rest of the ocean is busy doing apart from fearing Bush at the moment?... :-)
You are good at assuming, so I daresay you will return with an imaginary answer to my questions as well.. :-)
There is one major concern about the IAEA agreement. I would like people to comment who have answer to this.
Clause 10 states "Nothing in this Agreement shall affect other rights and obligations of India under international law."
India is not signatory to NPT and CTBT and thus has no rights in the International Arena. What India is doing is considered "illegal". Would India be subjected to stop this illegal activity since it has no rights...or asked to meet its obligations under International Laws.
RE:CLAUSE 10 in IAEA Agreement
by All Right on Jul 13, 2008 11:34 AM Permalink
Since we have not signed the NPT or CTBT, then the clause is in our advantage. We can make bombs and explode it as we have not pledged not to do this.
RE:CLAUSE 10 in IAEA Agreement
by delson roche on Jul 13, 2008 11:54 AM Permalink
When they say "international Laws " it does not include only CTBT and NPT , india is signatory to scores of other laws .. it encomapsses all of them. Basically he says all such laws have a overriding effect over IAEA aggrement.so in a hireachy of laws IAEA allies last.
RE:CLAUSE 10 in IAEA Agreement
by All Right on Jul 13, 2008 12:06 PM Permalink
How can all int laws over-ride IAEA safeguard agreement? Only those lawas that directly related to safeguard like CTBT or NPT or similar laws.
RE:CLAUSE 10 in IAEA Agreement
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 12:14 PM Permalink
I am not following you. Are you saying that IAEA agreement will override NPT & CTBT.
RE:RE:CLAUSE 10 in IAEA Agreement
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 12:01 PM Permalink
NPT and CTBT are part of them and since IAEA agreement does not mention them, how can it override them.
If it is know fact that commies are anti-nationals and now are bringing communal angle to the deal by making it look anti-muslim,Then can you tell us why your patrriotic congrees beded them for 41/2 years,what is thw garuntee congree wont sleep with them again after general elections if need be?Sonia by thanking them has already hinted this and even the commie have hinted of joining hands with congres again if need be? So what would be the stand of people like you who vote congrees thinking them to be nationalist and hate commie counting them as china agent.
RE:@all right
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 11:27 AM Permalink
Left were good for the governance of India. They made UPA think on issues, debated them in coordination committee meetings. They became a good Checks & Balance System when there is none in the Parliamentary system.
What was wrong is that they started blackmailing and 59 people started dictating 226. They forgot it is not China, It is a democracy.
RE:@all right
by r patil on Jul 13, 2008 11:32 AM Permalink
They have black mailed UPA on many issues not just the n-deal,like labour reform,retail industry plus thhe chinas claim on arunachal. I again ask you when Sonia thanks them for their support(read blackmailing)what is the garuntee congree would not take their help again and get black mailed again on important internal as well as foriegn relations.Any answer.
RE:@all right
by All Right on Jul 13, 2008 11:38 AM Permalink
Who said the Left was bad for India? They provided the UPA the additional bargainability while negotiating with the US. The latter knew that if they had to get an agreement, they had to concede more.
This is where the NDA failed. All constituents, particularly BJP were prepared to play second fiddle to the US. So the ended up with a deal worse than the UPA.
Omar Adbullah Minister of State of External Affairs of the then NDA government went to record on last night's Big Fight (NDTV.
1. The NDA Govt was negotiating a similar treaty 2. The terms of which were perceptibly worse 3. Though the terms were perceptibly worse, the NDA was prepared to sign.
Further Talbot, US Ambassador at the time of the NDA tenure, in a book revealed that the NDA government had secret negotiations with the US to sign NPT, CTBT, viz. internationally agreeing to permanently give up our rights to test a nuclear bomb.
If Talbot's book is not be tobelieved, then the official recordings of Vajpayee (1999) and Jaswant Singh (2000) speeches to the Gen Assembly of the UN. They promised that India would unilaterally and permanently gave up its right to test.
So who is anti-Hindu, anti-India? Who is opposing an agreement that is termed anti-Muslim and appeasing Mullahs. It is clear that BJP-NDA was always anti-national and that is why they find common ground with a Chinese centered Left/
RE:@all right
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 11:39 AM Permalink
Is it possible that speed of the reforms may have been too fast. Labour reforms would have been good but in a poor nation it was not urgent at this time. Reforms in the retail industry may have gotten all the big houses to eliminate small neighborhood merchants.
This is the checks and balanvces I am talking about. UPA may have decided that those reforms can be postponed in context of other pressing issues. Nuclear they waited for them to come on board but when they did not they went on their own.
Left was never part of the government. They wanted to have fun without obligations. Difference between a spouse and live-in.
RE:@all right
by All Right on Jul 13, 2008 11:54 AM Permalink
Yes that was the bad part. But still the UPA managed the economy to post 9% growth rate for 4 years. That is a big achievement.
The double agricultural growth rate (where Left-UPA policies coincided). A near 4% growth rate is first time since 1980s.
If we did not have MMS and PC at this critical juncture when there is global economic turmoil, we would have been in much more serious problem
RE:@all right
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 12:06 PM Permalink
I agree. There policies of Non-aligned movement, self sufficiency in basic needs before indulging in luxaries, and vison of Rajiv to start opening the economy in 80's before PVN have put India where it is today.
If the same deal is in BJP rule, they were sighned the deal blindly and who ever opposing the deal , BJP will portrait them anti indian. Now the cant digest the UPA's handled the case in perfectly right...BJP is realy anti indian party
RE:BJP knows the deal is better handled by UPA
by r patil on Jul 13, 2008 11:25 AM Permalink
Dear Indian since commies are also against the deal that makes them anti-national too,then why congrees takes supports from know anti-nationals like commie and muslim league?
RE:BJP knows the deal is better handled by UPA
by All Right on Jul 13, 2008 11:42 AM Permalink
That is to the credit of the Congress. They take support from supposedly anti-nationals and still ensure a deal which is pro-national.
The BJP had allies that together were supposedly pro-national but they were prepared to sign a deal that was anti-national.
Today the BJP stands alighed with Jehadi Mullahs, Chinese Commies to oppose the deal
