The parliamentary form of democracy is NOT working for us. Our consitution and our governance is a relection of the British system. It works in Britain because it is a small country. India is 10 times bigger and 20 times more populous.
We need a presidential form of democracy like in the US. It is working well given the size of the country.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by TJ on Oct 06, 2007 06:50 PM Permalink
You have a point! The root problem is Nehru. He opposed 2 party system because he was scared of opposition getting stronger and today we are bearing the fruits of his decision.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Prem Mohan on Oct 06, 2007 06:56 PM Permalink
Can you explain how Nehru opposed the two-party system? We cannot blame every problem on Nehru.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by TJ on Oct 06, 2007 07:00 PM Permalink
Ofcourse, we have to blame Nehru for every problem we are facing today. He divided the country for becoming PM - that too for becoming first PM. Today we are facing the problem with Pakistan. He was one who was making the rules and regulations for India - as per his desires. Inspite Ambedkar mentioning about the problems with multi party system Nehru insisted on that.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Mahesh on Oct 06, 2007 07:05 PM Permalink
I mean Nehru was an atheist (that started Hindu hatred) and socialist (destroyed economy), nepotism (brought in family rule).
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Prem Mohan on Oct 06, 2007 07:14 PM Permalink
On these points I can agree, but I don't think he had the power or means to reject two-party rule. There is no evidence to support the view that he could have done so.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by TJ on Oct 06, 2007 07:17 PM Permalink
Then who came up with the multi-party rule? Did it evolve on its own? Somebody has done it and who is it? It is Nehru as he was putting is finger in every rules and regulations getting formed.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Mahesh on Oct 06, 2007 07:02 PM Permalink
Yes, you can. Nehru is the root cause of many ills this country is facing. Atheism, Socialism, Nepotism etc. Each of this had profound impact on India if you look deeply.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Mickael M on Oct 06, 2007 07:20 PM Permalink
Dear Mahesh if you say for all root cause because of Nehru means then you have to agree for the deviding policy releigious problems were came in our nation only because of BJP, RSS, VHP. you agree?
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Mahesh on Oct 06, 2007 07:38 PM Permalink
I'll tell you why that is not the case. The day Shah Bano case was overturned by a constitutional amendment, the modern day communal politics started. The day minorities reject politicians that follow minority appeasement for votes, communal politics will disappear.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Gopal Krishna on Oct 06, 2007 07:11 PM Permalink
they inevitable are dominated by northies and push northie culture and language on the rest of the country. try speaking in kannada in bangalore, the most likely response is "hindi mein bolo"...my foot!
RE:RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Moo Glee on Oct 06, 2007 07:23 PM Permalink
Just by communicating with someone in hindi, if your identity goes off, you need to mature more. Again going by history languages because, the languages donot progress with science, donot generate interest by literature or movies, etc. It will be a good research to check why english beat french, language.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Kumar Kalyan on Oct 06, 2007 07:17 PM Permalink
Hey Gopal Krishna. It's National language, you should accept it. Not only you, Hole Indian has to accept it.
RE:RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Moo Glee on Oct 06, 2007 07:24 PM Permalink
Chill Gopal! You seem to have too much hatred with some incident with a hindi-speaking one that blowed you off :)
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by Gopal Krishna on Oct 06, 2007 07:23 PM Permalink
What nonsense are you talking man? India has 22 national languages. Hindi and English are official languages of the centre. The Hole Indian can bend over and accept to be sh*gged by Hindi, but I never!
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by imran patel on Oct 06, 2007 06:59 PM Permalink
You may not agree with Bush (Neither do I), but remember, a majority of the American People supported this war (Over 70%).
Americans are opposing it now, not because they oppose the war, but because they do not like losing a war.
These are NOT Anti-war protests. They just do not want to lose. If you are ant-war, you must oppose the war before it starts.
RE:FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE...
by purna on Oct 06, 2007 07:02 PM Permalink
Another altrenative is to have a two stage elections - The top two winners of the first round will face a second election like 'finals'. Splitting of votes in the first round will be compensated by consolidation and better concensus will evolve. Minor parties and independents cannot form pressure groups.
