If a Whip is Issued and the Member acts against it, Which if is Proved, The Member will be stripped off his Membership of the House by the Speaker.
But, WHY At all should a Vote be allowed to be Cast by the Member When the WHIP is given So much importance by the Constitution ?
Instead the Constitution should Say that ONLY the Whip has the Right to Vote as per the Decision of his party And His Vote in the House Equals all the Votes of All his Party Members.
The People who elect a Member Vote Seeing the Party manifesto or Listening to the Promises of the Party Leaders. Why Should a Member be allowed to Sell his Membership of the House, In International Markets - including on Issues related to the Sovereignity, Economics and Security of India ???
Any Member Who wants go against the Party Line should be given only one Option of Resigning from his Membership before the Voting Ends.
This Kind of Law/Amendment Will End the GREAT INDIAN BAZAAR of Democracy.
RE:Riduculous Constitution! - - - Supports Sell Outs
by Sachin Purohit on Jul 23, 2008 09:30 PM Permalink
Although I sympathize with the sentiment with which you have written this (I also wanted the government to fall), I disagree with the suggestion. The vote is always an individual choice. A party can not have a say for the vote. The particular individual is supposed to act on his own conscience. So why do we have a party whip? Its a mechanism devised by the collective wisdom of our lawmakers to curb horse-trading. In the absence of whip, there is a tendency for horse-trading. Our MPs unfortunately misuse the most important tool given to them by the people who elected them, by trading it for money, ministry and all other spoils.
In other words, whip says that look - you got elected on our party's ideology. You can't defy our ideology and still continue to be our member. You are free to cast your vote any which way or infact not cast your vote at all. But there is a consequence to your act - relinquish the seat you got in Lok Sabha, fighting on our party's ticket. Dare to go back to the people as an Independant or on other party's ticket. If the people are convinced that you voted, keeping their interest in mind, they will reelect you else they will kick you at the right place.
RE:RE:Riduculous Constitution! - - - Supports Sell Outs
by Kanwaljit Sodhi on Jul 23, 2008 09:41 PM Permalink
I agree with you, the whip should be abolished as per the current situations, the law makers should vote for or against policies not the party egos and woes.
RE:Riduculous Constitution! - - - Supports Sell Outs
by Sachin Purohit on Jul 23, 2008 11:23 PM Permalink
Kanwaljit..you are agreeing to something that I have not said. My comment, correctly read, does not advocate abolishion of whip. It simply says that whip is relevant. Its for the individual to weigh his options. Whether s/he wants to defy the whip and pay the price for his/her defiance. I am simply justifying the constitutional provision for the whip. So when you are saying that whip should be abolished, you are disagreeing with me.
RE:Riduculous Constitution! - - - Supports Sell Outs
by Indian on Jul 23, 2008 08:49 PM Permalink
Good suggestion on its face. But if you think really about, our MPs will create a party for each one so that they can sell themselves.
RE:Riduculous Constitution! - - - Supports Sell Outs
by Kanwaljit Sodhi on Jul 23, 2008 09:40 PM Permalink
So you intend to say that keep on electing again and again till one party has the majority, If you look at manifesto of BJP is it against Nuclerar deal or in favour of Islamic nations as dubbed by the commies/BSP combine, also if there are three blocks equally distributed how do you feel that this may help, this would mean around 2 elections in a year, you may probably want it as you are in a foriegn country and paying taxes there but for ppllike me who pay 30% of hard earned salary as tax is that just for us. Thanks KS
RE:RE:Riduculous Constitution! - - - Supports Sell Outs
by Sachin Purohit on Jul 23, 2008 11:33 PM Permalink
Kanwaljit, the nuclear deal was in no one's manifesto. This government did not get mandate for/against the nuclear deal. Neither the BJP's manifesto, nor UPA's manifesto mentioned anything that resembled nuclear deal.
RE:Riduculous Constitution! - - - Supports Sell Outs
by jagar singh on Jul 24, 2008 01:34 PM Permalink
that ignores the individual completely.if only party votes are counted,each party will have only one representative.what about contribution of intellectuals,social workers,lawyers and other civil society representatives.?
that the best thing to have happened previously to India after independence(reforms) had to be similarly pushed through wheeling dealing in Parliament(1991)
Thanks Mr. Prasad Look at the 'wonderful' performance by the BJP and the LEFT. This trust vote was really meant for the discussion of the most vicious subject THE N-DEAL These parties took it as a chance to make political mileage out of it. How many sentences (rather words) were uttered by these people about the N-deal? Did they mention anything critical about the subject. Could they not read the many debates in several forums? They had several points to state which could 'lock' the congress. They should have narrow down the debate to N-deal. They wanted to prove their political superiority. But the intelligent opponent managed them in the way the congress drew the line!!. I doubt very much 'they are for the N-deal”. Then what for all these noise? Tell the people.
The West Bengal was a well developed state some 30 years back. By the mis-rule the state is brought down to the level which forced them to preach 'capitalism'. Budha is a capitalist wearing a communist gown. People are aware of it. Budha wants to bring the past glory of Bengal by adopting capitalist methods. Then why did they make this state to the present condition from the 1970s condition? They may not accept this.
Advani's speech was very saddening. He claimed that the deal will be renegotiated. Is it possible? Within the next few months MMS will commit billions of rupees worth of contracts. No government can disown such commitments. Do not fool the people.
RE:Trust vote
by V H on Jul 23, 2008 07:41 PM Permalink
Dude.. don't forget BJP is opposition party and Congress is ruling party. India is ruled by congress for most of past 60 years. Why would you blame BJP that came into existance in 1980?
RE:RE:Trust vote
by Sukumar Samajpati on Jul 23, 2008 08:47 PM Permalink
BJP and RSS were there in history, forgot the symbol of Nazis.. Genocide... what else.
RE:Trust vote
by Satheesh on Jul 23, 2008 07:45 PM Permalink
BJP existed even before... just under a different name. They changed name so that they can hide what a mess they were before
RE:Trust vote
by S Shrikanth on Jul 23, 2008 09:16 PM Permalink
The problem is BJP never opposed the Nuclear agreement(not deal). Avtually they started it. But they have some objections thats why they opposed Congress. They put up their point as well. They are the main opposition party, so they are bound to vote agaist. If they vote for congress, then better merge with it.
BJP Also know that there are only two fronts who will rule the country - BJP Led or Congress Led. So, if the deal is signed it would benefit them too as it was their initiative.
The third frond is meaningless and only seasonal. The parties within it would run to one of the parties - BJP or Congress.
Parliament saw unruly scene during the trust vote due to malpractices done by Congress. They wanted to win the trust vote at any cost. Suspicions were raised about horse trading when the PM excusively met Mukesh Ambani before the trust vote.
It is a pleasant surprise!Where were you all these days? Or only I could not notice you in these columns.You are right in most of the points. Nothing better can be expected in this country. (please don't label me as a pessimist) AS LONG AS 1.The countrymen and a large party like to be the slaves of one family, that of Nehru. 2.A party can rule for a considerably long time based on this inheritance and without having any leaders of substance in present times 3.Party leaders not having any principle, ethics or consistant values like Mayawati, Mulayam,Amar singh,Lalu,Karuna Nidhi, Jaylalitha, Devegowda,Sharad Pawar, Thakres, etc can become the CMs, PMs and king makers 4.Politicians break or make communalism and casteism to their political advantage and these folks used as vote banks do not mind or understand the exploitation 5.So called intellectuals criticise dirty politics but do not want to clean it by participating 6.The media has no values other than TRPs 7. Real (proven and unproven)criminals are elected as MLAs, MPs 8. I stop
RE:KRISHNA's verdict
by Gopal on Jul 23, 2008 07:42 PM Permalink
It is time to amend the constitution limiting the period a person can be in the parliament say 20 years total. No person should be in the chair of Minister for more than 10 years. For political parties- The President and General Secretary should not hold the chair for more than 10 years. I doubt any political party will agree to this suggestion.
Dear writer, Well honestly, we might be culturally too strong compared to west. The basic civic sense is what we lack. I am in USA and I see only Indians who trespass rules and make a mockery of Indians as a unit. Same goes with the behavior of our politicians. Barring few all ae goondas, NGO says we are not pro poor. Well u see the quality of MPs without qualifications. SInce there is no right education they behave like herds. We give seats to Sc and STs, they take ages to complete graduation, they get arried adn stay with wives in the hostels thats how pitiful are the reservations. India will go to dogs with things don't reverse. India is the only counttry where talented people are not given the right to study. So the west is developing using some of our talent. No one has the true national interest. All parties are alike and I truly wish we need a honest dictator to bring discipline.
RE:Good article to certain extent
by Indian on Jul 23, 2008 08:56 PM Permalink
I think you have distorted notion of what is civic sense. In US, they keep the roads clean but they pollute the atmosphere without any care for it. USA is a country with layer thicks of peroxide on their face. They are cosmetic in their approach. Deep inside you will see it is too ugly and bellicose.
Let us get this straight..the nuclear agreement is good for the country. It is sad that the left and the right were opposing it just for the sake of opposition. I am happy that UPA won the confidence vote..the brides well..it was in a good cause.
Politicians always act with an eye to the election, specially if its only months away. This is not specific to India. The writer seems to be good in coining american phrases and citing Obama. However, does he know that Obama, Hillary and the many others have serious financial disclosure problems? Is he aware that Obama has long association with shady characters who have the potential to influence him if he is elected? We need to look at the positive sides. That many MPs across the isle voted to support the Deal is good and a sign of maturity.
