Strategic leadership for the future of India

[brihaspati]

Parties are created to push for agenda that have not yet been realized. So, the new party needs a general agenda and target goals. This is the basis on which a subset of the entire population feels the need to form a vanguard. An explicit list of legal reforms is most welcome as agenda, but do you think it will be sufficient to draw in a substantial support base if you cannot outline simpler "dreams" as objectives to attain? Those "roti-kapra-mokan" issues - whose clamourerers may not have the patience to understand the nitty-gritty of legal reforms? Don't misunderstand me, I am just exploring from my experience of politics on the ground. I wish you success sincerely.

The major issues that can crop up

(1) Membership filtering : who or what controls the filtering of membership? backgrounds, etc? For existing political parties could be sending people to you to infiltrate your party, especially since you are saying all posts are going to be democratically elected.

(2) Inner party democracy where the top most leadership can be elected, seems to give rise to factionalism. This also affects recruitment of members, for aspiring leaders can get new members into the party simply to increase their own support in getting posts or winning posts within the party. RG(Junior) can afford to speak of "democracy in party" because his position at the top is beyond competition. CPI(M) manages this by ensuring "guided democracy" - essentially leadership elevation by selection from top with a rubber stamp conference "democracy", and a tight filtering of party membership. I am not aware of the BJP functioning, but as far as I know it closely follows the CPI(M) model, where RSS plays the role of the CC and PB to a certain extent on leadership choice.

RM, what do you think about these issues in your party?

[harbans]

^^ Good points indeed. Factionalism can rise due to internal democratization. But it really does'nt effect the agenda. It makes it more effective. Same with people drawing people into memberships who will vote for them will increase the scope of the party. Ultimately they will decide the implementer. There can be right to recall within the party itself. Internal reforms ultimately IMHO will reform parties and strengthen their functionaing while maturing their aims and goals they intend to achieve during their terms in power. Importantly it will provide electorates a better vision and menu for casting their votes.

[Arjun]

So I will be brief and take no more question, unless you create a separate thread on this. In RRP, each members has points

I don't think there is a requirement to create a new thread for this. The title is 'Strategic leadership for the future of India'. I think that internal democratization of party leaderships according to the constitutions they lay out is important towards greater democratization and effective governance. Example i start a party that's constitution includes elimination of reservation, i must initiate a democratic setup within to elect a leader at the party helm best suited to accomplish that task. People from the party who feel for that cause, elect a leader who can push the case for that issue nationally. I turly wish parties first democratized their internal functioning first for better rationalization of goals and effectiveness in implementation of same when in power.

Harbans, you bring up an interesting point.

But another way of looking at this is that there needs to be a political equivalent of 'sweat equity'. What kind of ecosystem can be built to reward and motivate the teams that (a) take the trouble of coming out with innovative suggestions and agenda for political or administrative reform & (b) those who have taken the trouble of putting in their personal sweat and effort into campaigning and seeding their thoughts within the populace through a party?

I think internal democracy is necessary and required for parties that have reached a certain size - but for startup parties (maybe defined in terms of timeframe or in terms of size) there can be some amount of leeway. The voting ability will need to be proportional to the contribution to the party and maybe also encourage those who come in early. In any case, there is nothing stopping anyone from taking all of the same concepts and starting a competing party led by a different team.

[harbans]

I think internal democracy is necessary and required for parties that have reached a certain size - but for startup parties (maybe defined in terms of timeframe or in terms of size) there can be some amount of leeway.

In any case, there is nothing stopping anyone from taking all of the same concepts and starting a competing party led by a different team.

Precisely. After all iterations we make on this, we do ultimately realize that internal democratization will be a better option. We all knew for example what Mc Cain, Obama would do once they'd be in Office. Many of the issues were much clearer to the electorate. There's a reward system that each party can foster for contributions. They should lay that down in their constitutions. Many people help not for rewards but they passionately feel for some issues. I might help a candidate thats passionate about making Kailash and Mansarover as disputed territory than Ayodhya without reward. Most causes are helped because people believe in them, than expectation of some trophy.

Frankly i don't believe there's any magic wand with magic solutions that can just magically reform India. It's step by step hard work effectively raising GDP, incomes, infrastructure. The best way is freeing up as fast as we can Govt control from business. The Govt should simply work on creating equal opportunity, fair business practises, be policing environmental guidelines are followed etc.

Even if we don't ultimately democratize internal party functioning, yet maintain a 10% growth for a decade and more, we'll achieve a lot of development goals apart from eradicating poverty.

[Rahul Mehta]

Parties are created to push for agenda that have not yet been realized. So, the new party needs a general agenda and target goals. This is the basis on which a subset of the entire population feels the need to form a vanguard. An explicit list of legal reforms is most welcome as agenda, but do you think it will be sufficient to draw in a substantial support base if you cannot outline simpler "dreams" as objectives to attain? Those "roti-kapra-mokan" issues - whose clamourerers may not have the patience to understand the nitty-gritty of legal reforms? Don't misunderstand me, I am just exploring from my experience of politics on the ground. I wish you success sincerely.

The major issues that can crop up

(1) Membership filtering : who or what controls the filtering of membership? backgrounds, etc? For existing political parties could be sending people to you to infiltrate your party, especially since you are saying all posts are going to be democratically elected.

(2) Inner party democracy where the top most leadership can be elected, seems to give rise to factionalism. This also affects recruitment of members, for aspiring leaders can get new members into the party simply to increase their own support in getting posts or winning posts within the party. RG(Junior) can afford to speak of "democracy in party" because his position at the top is beyond competition. CPI(M) manages this by ensuring "guided democracy" - essentially leadership elevation by selection from top with a rubber stamp conference "democracy", and a tight filtering of party membership. I am not aware of the BJP functioning, but as far as I know it closely follows the CPI(M) model, where RSS plays the role of the CC and PB to a certain extent on leadership choice.

RM, what do you think about these issues in your party?

My second proposed law deals with RKM (Roti-Kapada-Makan) issue. It will reduce poverty within 3-4 months.

My strategy is based on my belief that giving publicity to the laws I am proposing is sufficient to create a frenzy in commons that would motivate the citizens to FORCE the leaders to pass the First Law I have proposed. I have named that law as MTMT law after the great Tamil saying "Makkal Theerpu Mahesan Therpu". And once MTMT law is signed, there is no looking back.

Now two important things for RRP is to grow and save itself from hijack from anti-common elements. If you become too closed, you cant grow. And if you become too open, hijack becomes possible. Here is the way out I think will work :

1. The membership is open -- no filtering. Members will be free to speak against RRP goals, PPR decisions policies etc. They can even campaign against RRP candidate if they want. They can even contest against RRP candidate. A member can never be expelled.

2. Everyone's vote inside Party does not have same weight. The Points depend on money and time you spend to publicize the laws RRP wants. eg if you spend Rs 100,000 in giving newspaper AD, you get 100,000 Points. If you contest election, you get Points equal to deposit amount plus 100 times the votes you get. If you purchase party pamphlets of Rs X, you get X points. If you rent a hoarding costing Rs X, you get X points. If you attend rally, you get 100 Points per hour from the member who is organizing the rally, and so forth. I am also preparing a list of questions, and members can appear in exams. They get Points equal to the score they get in exams. Each time, RRP gets mention in newspapers etc, the members who managed that show get Points for that equal to ad rate of that newspaper. Newspaper ADs are all drafted by President or approved by him.

3. Points are transferable.

4. Now every official is elected by simple majority and replaceable by explicit majority any day. And vote of each member will have weight of Points he has. Voting is OPEN. Voting method is Range Voting (pls see wikipedia for Range Voting). It is over internet, and via Proxy or in person if person does not want to use Proxy.

5. MP, MLA tix will be given by majority vote. And here too, weight of vote is equal is to Points they have. The member who contests from RRP gets 100 Points for votes he get. And any member is free to contest as independent and he too will get 50 Points for votes he gets. This will ensure that candidate makes promises to transfer his Points to worker members who are capable of getting votes, and such promises will be registered and executed.

Essentially, Point is currency inside RRP and nespaper advertisements, rallies, elections are way to get Points.

I have about 9,00,000 Points so far based on expenses I have made, votes I got etc. Two close friends of mine who like the laws I propose but want to keep their names secret (one is IAS) have about 100,000 Points each for the advertisements they contributed. Since they are not official members, they have no option but to handover the Points to any registered member, which in their case is myself. One member has about 2000 Points for rallies and meetings he attended, otherwise he is too poor to pay a dime. So if you want Points, either you give time (head count needed for publicity) or money for newspaper ad.

The money goes for newspaper ad, pamphlets, hoardings and NOTHING else. No one gets chai-paani or anything form this money. The Party will never ever have fixed assets. RRP will never give tax deduction certificates for contributions members make. Tax deductions weaken Military, Police and Courts.

-----

Now what if someone wants to hijak my Party? Be my guest. If anyone pays Rs 15,00,000, I will spend that in newspaper ad next day. Now he if wants to become President of my Party next month, he is welcome. Next day, I will quit, and will ask all my colleagues to quit and we will start another Party. In the new Party, we all will have same Points, except the hijacker who will have zero Points. So he lost Rs 15,00,000, got nothing in return except a brand name which will be worthless when people quit. And we have an identical structure, same as previous one, with a slightly different name. But Rs 15,00,000 of ad will bring publicity to laws, and that publicity will go with me and members.

So if anyone tries to hijack this Party by money, he will lose money, and I will gain publicity. Hence, no one will try to hijack this Party.

[harbans]

My second proposed law deals with RKM (Roti-Kapada-Makan) issue. It will reduce poverty within 3-4 months.

And how do you reduce poverty in 3-4 months?

A magical solution none has thought of?

[Rahul Mehta]

My second proposed law deals with RKM (Roti-Kapada-Makan) issue. It will reduce poverty within 3-4 months.

And how do you reduce poverty in 3-4 months?

A magical solution none has thought of?

Two laws

1. Pls see Post#1 on http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=280

2. http://rahulmehta.com/mrcm_demand_03.htm

How do we get these laws passed? For first law, we need mass movement - elections alone wont help. For second law, we need only first law. Once first law is passed, laws 2-70 I have proposed will get enacted in 1-2 months.

Added later:

This magic solution is something I re-discovered in late 1990s and early 2000. It was discovered long back by many. Athavaved says "Aham Rashtrim Vasunam Sangami" i.e. I the Nation own all the Natural Resources i.e. land, water, mineral mines etc. IOW, rents from these elements of earth should go to all. And then later, in 1790s, Thomas Paine proposed same solution as I did in his article "Agrarian Justice". My proposal confines to collecting rents from GoI plots and distributing amongst commons. Whereas Thomas Paine had demanded that rent from all plots, Govt as well as private, should be collected and distributed amongst citizens !! Now before you call him Marxists, pls note that Marx's writings came in 1830s and hence Paine cant be a Marxist. So this "magic wand to reduce poverty" was known since 4000 BC and was also discussed in US in 1790s. The intellectuals erased it from public memory, and rustics like myself, want to bring it back in form of legislations.

[Sanku]

Was asking Rahul Mehta about his "party" the solution to Hindutva on the board Shiv?

[Rahul Mehta]

Was asking Rahul Mehta about his "party" the solution to Hindutva on the board Shiv?

Well, that is for Shiv to answer. But a big part of my party agenda "incidentally, accidentally and not intentionally" overlaps with Hinduvaadi agenda. My agenda is 100% Nationalistic and pro-poor, and Hinduvaad does not motivate a zilch. I give no importance to UCC (I support contractual marriage code where in polygamy. polyandry will be legal within human limits), and do not give a damn about "Hindu Rashtra" etc. But the MRCM law I have proposed gives mineral royalties and land rent DIRECTLY to citizens, and that will reduce poverty and thus it will reduce conversions. Hence RRP agenda does solve a problem that is very very dear to Hinduvaadies -- conversions.

In addition, RRP is hard core Militaristic. We propose 1% wealth tax and 35% inheritance tax to be used solely for Military. Such agenda would appeal all Nationalists, and also appeals Hinduvaadies, as they now see that Military is must to deal with Pakistan, Saud, Christianists etc, RAW , IB, CBI and Police is not enough.

So Hinduvaad and RRP do overalp, though theories we follow have nothing in common.

[Sanku]

Rahul Mehta jee; irrespective of your efforts etc. Your actual policies etc are IMVHO (and as I said before) completely "out there". They are self contradictory and not practical. Neither is the way you seek to implement them. As such overlap with so called Rahstravaad does not really mean anything either. Even the lefties and righties overlap.

Even with your slightly better understanding of the situation now that you have actually spent some time on the ground -- there is way too much you still dont understand.

My question to Shiv is from a very different perspective altogether.

[brihaspati]

The hope of political "rise" and "spectacular political career" for "youth" is being projected by the pro-Congress media, probablya s part of a general propaganda campaign aimed at establishing Rahul-Priyanka at the helm. The most common faces that I can see being represented, with sometimes not so subtle hints of "role models" - are that of Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindhia. How many of middle class or upper middle class youth (the group apparently who can hope for such rise acording to one Delhi based channel) realize the heritage and economic background of above mentioned "youth" paragons?
Is the Congress really taking into account the possible backlash when such enormous expectations being raised cannot be satisfied out of the tactical necessities of retaining political control in the hands of tightly knit family and courtier network?

[Pranav]

Sanku, can you please email me at pranav.brf at gmail. Thanks.

[svinayak]

The hope of political "rise" and "spectacular political career" for "youth" is being projected by the pro-Congress media, probablya s part of a general propaganda campaign aimed at establishing Rahul-Priyanka at the helm. The most common faces that I can see being represented, with sometimes not so subtle hints of "role models" - are that of Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindhia. How many of middle class or upper middle class youth (the group apparently who can hope for such rise acording to one Delhi based channel) realize the heritage and economic background of above mentioned "youth" paragons?
Is the Congress really taking into account the possible backlash when such enormous expectations being raised cannot be satisfied out of the tactical necessities of retaining political control in the hands of tightly knit family and courtier network?

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... st&p=97738

This is not dynastic politics it is feudalism in democracy.Congress party's feudal lords will not give tickets to people who are not loyal to feudal lords-- similarly the DMK and other parties. You cannot survive in the party if you antagonize these heads who prop up feudalism.This has nothing to do with democracy.Representative democracy requires feudalism .Two countries which have used that were all feudal-- India and UK.This is not prevalent in other democracies. Again not conducting referendums in democracies is a characteristic of Feudalism . Feudalism breeds illiteracy and is not transparent .The corruption in the system is because of feudalism

[ramana]

FYI X-Post.....

Hilarious stuff from the War Nerd (Exiled Online) about the history of the British in Sri Lanka, "Prabhy", and Western liberal hypocrisy

http://exiledonline.com/when-pigs-fly-a ... sri-lanka/
- For all those who've never Brecher on the British - he hates them and history jingos on here should love this article.

Keshav, thanks for that link. Very nice read!! I new how sick the Brits were but did not know that facts about SL.

I encourage all to read it. One quote from that article

British administrators were trained to do a kind of rough, quick sociological sketch of the natives, get a sense of the fault lines and then figure out how to exploit them. The Brits saw fast that the Kandyans were a sluggish bunch of people divided into rigid castes in the classic subcontinent pattern. That made it easy: the Brits made two big castes their official pets and shunned the others, setting up a violent hate between different parts of Sinhalese society. That guaranteed that if the diehard Sinhalese/Kandyan nationalists ever revolted, the teacher’s-pet castes would have a good selfish reason to help massacre them.

And to this day, they don’t catch even a little bit of Hell for it. Everybody thinks the Brits are all cute and harmless. You’re all a bunch of suckers for those suave accents, you suckers! The truth is that compared to the Brits, the Nazis you’re always yammering about were a gang of eighth-grade stoners who ran around spraypainting swastikas on school property. The Nazis lasted one decade; the Brits quietly ran their extermination programs for three hundred years, and to this day they wouldn’t even think of feeling guilty about it. Wouldn’t cross their minds.

[Keshav]

Ramana -
Not to talk down, but that X-Post should probably go in the "Distorted History" thread, not the "Future India" thread.

[ramana]

You are welcome to do the honors. The reason why I posted here is that some of Indian leaders think the Brits did Indians a great favor by ruling them.

[Rahul Mehta]

This is not dynastic politics it is feudalism in democracy.Congress party's feudal lords will not give tickets to people who are not loyal to feudal lords-- similarly the DMK and other parties. You cannot survive in the party if you antagonize these heads who prop up feudalism.This has nothing to do with democracy.Representative democracy requires feudalism .Two countries which have used that were all feudal-- India and UK.This is not prevalent in other democracies. Again not conducting referendums in democracies is a characteristic of Feudalism . Feudalism breeds illiteracy and is not transparent .The corruption in the system is because of feudalism

The US saved itself from Feudalism in polity, because there is widespread use of referendum at State level in law making as well recall. Juries. India is worse than UK, because in UK legislatures and executives are feudal, but lower courts come under Juries and so they are democratic. Whereas in India, even the lower courts are also 100% feudal.

"Inheritance tax for Military" is another powerful tool to cut feudalism. US had 20% to 70% inheritance tax (which is now 45%) which reduce dynastic rule in business. But in US, the inheritance tax laws were drafted by Senators in such a way that top 200 families did not have to pay any tax. So feudalism in banking and top business in US is there, but not at rank and file. In India, we should design Inheritance Tax laws that spares none and money goes towards Military. This will not only cut feudalism in businesses, but when lakhs and lakhs, or rather crores of youth get Military training, that will improve the behavior of local feudal lords like landlords.

It is interesting that many people who oppose dynastic rule aka feudalism in Congress have been utmost supporters of dynastic rule aka feudalism in courts (eg BJP MPs). These people are the most vocal opponent of feudalism in Congress. And they are also staunch supporters of laws that promotes feudalism in politics and courts. eg they have always opposed recall, referendum type laws, shamelessly supported interviews in judiciary which promotes feudalism in judges, and supported judge system (a system where judge gives verdict and not Juries). In the judge system, dynastic-ism and feudalism increases as the judges like all humans have strong tendencies to promote the financial interests of their relative lawyers by giving judgments that favor them. All in all, there can be two reasons why persons oppose feudalism --

1. It is undemocratic
2. They are promoting families I dislike, instead we should promote some other families !!

We must differentiate between (1) and (2). Every MP, leader, journalist etc who speaks against feudalism in Congress is not because he supports democracy -- it may be the case that he wants Congress families to be replaced by some other families. eg in past, when one king used to fight against another, it was not to create democracy, but to expand his own kingdom. So we should not take every leader, journalist etc who curses "feudalism in Congress" as supporter of democracy. The litmus test would be - is he against feudalism in all arenas such as Executive, courts or only against feudalism in Congress? If it is latter, he is just one king fighting against another king for expanding his own kingdom, and nothing more.

-------

Sanku :

1. Rahul Mehta jee; irrespective of your efforts etc. Your actual policies etc are IMVHO (and as I said before) completely "out there". They are self contradictory and not [/b]practical[/b]. Neither is the way you seek to implement them. As such overlap with so called Rahstravaad does not really mean anything either. Even the lefties and righties overlap.

2. Even with your slightly better understanding of the situation now that you have actually spent some time on the ground -- there is way too much you still dont understand.

1. It would be best if we ban ambiguous words like "out there", practical etc. The word practical is most abused word --- more abused than secularism. eg my lawyer friends say "not giving bribes to judges is impractical idea". My CA friends say "not giving bribes to income tax babus is impractical" idea. Is that the meaning you have? IOW, when you insist on "practical" solution, are you suggesting that solutions must meet the appetite of judges, IAS, IPS, Ministers etc less they will all oppose the solutions? Another meaning of word "impractical" is logistic issues. Are you saying that procedures I proposed cant be implemented with the fees mentioned in the clauses? Whatever you mean, it would be good if you avoid use of ambiguous words.

2. And lets not start "my ***** is large than yours" or "my understanding is broader than yours" competitions. That does not help anyone in India. I have put the DRAFTS of the administrative procedures I propose to fix India with comma, semi-colon and full stops. You are welcome to point out logistic infeasibility issues and more than welcome to propose administrative drafts you think are better. In fact, many of the drafts I made came from people who did latter. But debating over abstract issues like "understanding" does not help anyone in India. We need to fix police, courts, Military, reduce poverty, imprison corrupt, imprison naxals, imprison criminals etc and we need ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFTS there, "understanding" is neither needed nor help.

[RajeshA]

From Kalki Bath Purani, new Cabinet Thread

Why would Tharoor be given such important portfolios inspite of being a first timer in politics?

He was Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations. First timer in politics or not, that qualifies him as a foreign minister.

Shashi Tharoor is going to be a Minister of State, no cabinet berth for him.

[putnanja]

From Kalki Bath Purani, new Cabinet Thread

Shashi Tharoor is going to be a Minister of State, no cabinet berth for him.

I had said as much in that thread. There was no way he could have been a cabinet minister, and if he had been made one, it wouldn't have been for any important portfolio. Maybe he will be the MoS for external affairs. Salman Kurshid too is in running for it, as is E Ahmed the previous MoS.

[RajeshA]

Council of Ministers in Indian Cabinet, 28th May, 2009

Code: Select all

UNION MINISTERS
---------------
Pranab Mukherjee:         Finance
P. Chidambaram:           Home Affairs
A K Antony:               Defence
S M Krishna:              External Affairs
Sharad Pawar:             Agriculture, 
                          Food & Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution
Mamata Banerjee:          Railways
Ghulam Nabi Azad:         Health & Family Welfare
Kapil Sibal:              Human Resource Development
Veerappa Moily:           Law & Justice
Ambika Soni:              Information & Broadcasting
Anand Sharma:             Commerce & Industry
S Jaipal Reddy:           Urban Development
Murli Deora:              Petroleum & Natural Gas
Kumari Selja:             Housing, Urban & Poverty Alleviation
                          Tourism
Sushil Kumar Shinde:      Power
Vilasrao Deshmukh:        Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises.
Kamal Nath:               Surface Transport & Highways
Virbhadra Singh:          Steel
A Raja:                   IT & Communication:
Dayanidhi Maran:          Textiles
Meira Kumar:              Water Resources
C P Joshi:                Rural Development & Panchayati Raj
M S Gill:                 Youth Affairs & Sports
M Azhagiri:               Chemical & Fertilisers
Mallikarjun Kharge:       Labour & Employment
Farooq Abdullah:          New & Renewable Energy.
Subodh Kant Sahay:        Food Processing Industries
G K Vasan:                Shipping
Pawan Kumar Bansal:       Parliamentary Affairs
Vyalar Ravi:              Overseas Indian Affairs
B K Handique:             Mines
                          Development of North-Eastern Region
Mukul Wasnik :            Social Justice & Empowerment
Kantilal Bhuria :         Tribal Affairs

MINISTERS OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE)
---------------------------------------
Praful Patel:             Civil Aviation
Prithviraj Chavan:        Science & Technology
                          Earth Sciences
                          MoS in the PMO 
                          Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
                          Parliamentary Affairs.
Sriprakash Jaiswal:       Coal
                          Statistics & Programme Implementation
Salman Khursheed:         Corporate Affairs
                          Minority Affairs
Dinsha J Patel:           Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Krishna Tirath:           Women and Child Development
Jairam Ramesh:            Environment and Forests

MINISTERS OF STATE
------------------
Namo Narain Meena:        Finance
S.S. Palanimanickam:      Finance
Ajay Maken:               Home Affairs
Mullappally Ramachandran: Home Affairs
M M. Pallam Raju:         Defence
Shashi Tharoor:           External Affairs
Preneet Kaur:             External Affairs
Sultan Ahmed:             Tourism
Mukul Roy:                Shipping
D Napoleon:               Social Justice & Empowerment
Dr. S Jagathrakshakan:    Information & Broadcasting
Mohan Jatua:              Information & Broadcasting
S Gandhiselvan:           Health & Family Welfare
Dinesh Trivedi:           Health & Family Welfare
Tusharbhai Chaudhary:     Tribal Affairs
Sachin Pilot:             IT & Communications
Gurudas Kamath:           IT & Communications
Arun Yadav:               Youth Affairs & Sports
Pratik Patil:             Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises
R P N Singh:              Road Transport & Highways
Mahadev S. Khandela:      Road Transport & Highways
Vincent Pala:             Water Resources
Pradeep Jain:             Rural Development
Agatha Sangma:            Rural Development
Sisir Adhikari:           Rural Development
Jitin Prasada:            Petroleum & Natural Gas
Srikant Jena:             Chemicals & Fertilizers
V. Narayansamy: Planning, Parliamentary Affairs
Jyotiraditya Scindia:     Commerce & Industry
D. Purandeswari:          Human Resource Development
E. Ahamed:                Railways
K H Muniyappa:            Railways
Panabaka Lakshmi:         Textiles
Saugata Ray:              Urban Development
A Sai Prathap:            Steel
Harish Rawat:             Labour & Employment
K V Thomas:               Agriculture
                          Consumer Affairs
                          Food & Public Distribution
Bharatsinh Solanki:       Power

[ShyamSP]

AP gave highest number of seats but there is only one from AP in Union Minstry/MoS-independent charge.

[RajeshA]

There is often a tendency to spread out the portfolios equitably amongst the various communities and states in India. This is good, but it is not always possible.

In the end when they become Central Ministers, they become Ministers for all of India, and not just their states.

[ShyamSP]

There is often a tendency to spread out the portfolios equitably amongst the various communities and states in India. This is good, but it is not always possible.

In the end when they become Central Ministers, they become Ministers for all of India, and not just their states.

It is indication of unelectable people becoming ministers. Whether they are all for India or not, ultimately they should be responsible for people who voted for them. Minister responsibility to people is gone. Same way for PM also - no accountability to people of even one LS constituency.

[RajeshA]

It is indication of unelectable people becoming ministers. Whether they are all for India or not, ultimately they should be responsible for people who voted for them. Minister responsibility to people is gone. Same way for PM also - no accountability to people of even one LS constituency.

MPs are responsible for every field in their constituencies. Ministers have a responsibility for a certain functional domain over a much larger area, in this case, the whole country. One need not confuse MP responsibilities with that of Ministers.

[ShyamSP]

It is indication of unelectable people becoming ministers. Whether they are all for India or not, ultimately they should be responsible for people who voted for them. Minister responsibility to people is gone. Same way for PM also - no accountability to people of even one LS constituency.

MPs are responsible for every field in their constituencies. Ministers have a responsibility for a certain functional domain over a much larger area, in this case, the whole country. One need not confuse MP responsibilities with that of Ministers.

I'm aware of that. You didn't get my point. One can sit in Rajyasabha and field goons directly into people and win and become minister. The more unelectable people in ministry means country is moving away from democracy. Responsibility to voters is only check in the system and that is going away.

Direct elections and checks and balances are most important factors of a strong democracy and government.

[Muppalla]

We should also move towards US Senate style for RS members. Even a very longtime ago, Senators in US were not directly elected by the people. They amended their constitution to give more power to people. It may be a good idea to make RS members elected directly by the people.

[pgbhat]

^
IOW no RS only LS.
I guess whole point of RS I guess is to have a few statesmen above partisan politics. Whether it has turned out that way is very much debatable.

That would also mean gerrymandering of electoral districts on a larger scale.

[Muppalla]

This is a strategic leadership thread and hence asking a little sensitive question to the gurus here:

Currently there are substantial number of persons who are occupying the ministerial postions in the Union Cabinet whose spouses are either naturalized or of foreigners. For example new commerce minister Anand Sharma with South African wife. Montek Singh Ahluwalia's wife US citizen (white lady and not one of Indian origin). The whole set up is substantially globalized.

Classified information of India is discussed in Cabinet meetings ( I guess Ministers of State etc. are not part of the cabinet meetings). I also think there will be a lot of classified and secret information that the babus and the ministers will have access.

Is this kind of setup a good example "Strategic leadership" for future of India. Are there any reasons it is okay for India because it is better that way onlee?

It all depends on how ethical these folks are and how India centric these families are. It is not to say that these folks are dangerous as compared to Sharad pawar types who are alleged to have more connectivity to India's underworld.

Is it not the fundamental rule of national security/strategy of countries from times immemorial to restrict foreigners into ruling ring?

Are there any restrictive laws related to this issue in other countries?

(PS:No offense or insults intended on the patriotism of those BR members who are having spouses/fiancees of other countries)

Let us not discuss Sonia Gandhi again as it will be very boring and repetitive.

[ramana]

If its not like this then the others will have to operate messy spies etc, etc. This way there is spice and fatsos can be James Bund with ease.

[munna]

Montek Singh Ahluwalia's wife US citizen (white lady and not one of Indian origin)

Kya karte ho Muppallaji she is a pakki sardarni! She might be naturalized American but certainly not a white lady. Isher Judge Ahluwalia is not white by any chance (shudh Punjabi name). But yes I do have a grouse against leaders with kids or spouses being foreign citizens but certainly not with naturalized Indian wives/spuses as they are constitutionally as Indian as you or me.

[Muppalla]

Sorry munna ji. My bad but go by the message rather than my error in "Judge" ment. It may be a good idea to collect the names of all the folks at the top in this admin who has foreign spouses or bahus/daamats.

http://www.ifpri.org/2020conference/pro ... uwalia.asp

[RajeshA]

If I may say so, not every foreign wife/spouse is a CIA, Mossad, KGB, ISI or M6 Asset. That is paranoia!

Love just happens!

These people got their wives before Allah Tallah had taken care of their success at this level.

I have another theory/flame bait:

Simply because some guy is married to a foreign spouse, he will be extra honest, decent, conscientious, patriotic and hard-working person, in order to make a good impression of his roots, of India, on his wife. An Indian would always see the difference between him and his foreign wife based on nationality. The difference will always keep him rooted to the idea of India. He will struggle every day with the questions of his roots & identity. He will always ask whether he is worthy of his roots, or whether he is somehow forsaking them, in the process strengthening those very roots. There will always be a mirror for him.

So I have a request of other BRFites. Let us not bring the private lives of other Indians, with foreign wives or not, in the discussion here. It just demeans this forum.

[John Snow]

"Scott Ritter's Wife is a Russian said Dr. Tim"

{On Scott Ritters verdict that Iraq had no WMDs,}
Only now we have wisdom of
"Scott Ritter is a prophet of sorts, and if we had listened to him and respected his intellect, knowledge and honesty, we could have avoided the war in Iraq and its cost in lives and dollars. "}

****
Added later

Exactly my thoughts Rajesh ji.

SG is more loyal than Amchi Mumbai manush Pawar or our own Dawood Bhai. no

[brihaspati]

Muppalla Garu,
How many times have you discussed your "first love" (who is not your spouse) with your spouse? If the "first love" is the "vulnerable heart" of the nation, how many nationalists will discuss it with their spouses. It is enough to ensure that proper nationalists go to the top. All of us have cherished secrets we don't discuss with our spouses as long as such revelation can mean "serious damage".

[Muppalla]

If I may say so, not every foreign wife/spouse is a CIA, Mossad, KGB, ISI or M6 Asset. That is paranoia!

Love just happens!

These people got their wives before Allah Tallah had taken care of their success at this level.

Agreed. Let them live happily and if they have money live lavishly and do whatever. Even in business agreements there are conflict of interest clauses. For example in my company they will not give a job if my wife has a company with the same trade.

I have another theory/flame bait:
Simply because some guy is married to a foreign spouse, he will be extra honest, decent, conscientious, patriotic and hard-working person, in order to make a good impression of his roots, of India, on his wife. An Indian would always see the difference between him and his foreign wife based on nationality. The difference will always keep him rooted to the idea of India. He will struggle every day with the questions of his roots & identity. He will always ask whether he is worthy of his roots, or whether he is somehow forsaking them, in the process strengthening those very roots. There will always be a mirror for him.

No disagreement here. There are a thousand ways a person can help to do service to the nation of your roots. Why in the supreme power corridor where defense and sensitive things are handled? is it not emotional " conflict of interest "?

So I have a request of other BRFites. Let us not bring the private lives of other Indians, with foreign wives or not, in the discussion here. It just demeans this forum.

For the company that I work in US even to process a security clearence for a naturalized-citizen they check to see if the parents are non-citizens and they do not process the clearance for those jobs where it is mandatory to have clearance. Technically a naturalized citizen is eligible for Secret/top secret clearences but the companies that get these assignments are more careful to even process the clearances if half of your familiy is abroad. The rules of engagement for the folks who are cleared is any contact with foreigners ( means parents etc. included) to report to Government.

What is so demeaning or insulting here? It is about policy and where is the question of private lives here? There is nothing personal or insulting. That is how the most of the countries operate and India does not seem to belong to these mainstream countries but a real slumdog version is my opinion.

[ShyamSP]

If I may say so, not every foreign wife/spouse is a CIA, Mossad, KGB, ISI or M6 Asset. That is paranoia!

Love just happens!

These people got their wives before Allah Tallah had taken care of their success at this level.

I have another theory/flame bait:

Simply because some guy is married to a foreign spouse, he will be extra honest, decent, conscientious, patriotic and hard-working person, in order to make a good impression of his roots, of India, on his wife. An Indian would always see the difference between him and his foreign wife based on nationality. The difference will always keep him rooted to the idea of India. He will struggle every day with the questions of his roots & identity. He will always ask whether he is worthy of his roots, or whether he is somehow forsaking them, in the process strengthening those very roots. There will always be a mirror for him.

So I have a request of other BRFites. Let us not bring the private lives of other Indians, with foreign wives or not, in the discussion here. It just demeans this forum.

They are the leaders and public figures of the country and not any other Indians. They are obviously targets of other countries to penetrate into their life to collect intelligence or influence public policy. Healthy skepticism about their life is important.

What stops MMS passing sensitive info to his daughter. If you have trust on MMS you say that would not happen. If you don't have trust on him you could say that he passes the info.

I'd say it is in the realm of possibility. The only way to prevent is to have stronger laws and policies and good checks and balances within the system.

[samuel]

What a wonderful twist on "strategic leadership."
Can the spouses be used to spy on foreign governments?

Unfortunately, I think this question is too "state dependent," i.e. on the person and relationship in question.

For example, if one had a prenuptial agreement saying, "if you break pati-patni confidentiality, then no money or kids for you," I can see how that would be more effective than, "dear, I tell you, these f*cking babus; i am trying so hard to change the system and..."
to which the wife says, "oh love, relax a little, you work too hard." This leads to "ummm..." and a quick follow up in a soft voice, "how's that project you were talking about going." "Just fine, the russians are quite good."

Before you know it, blackwill is swinging the corridors with some goodwill

Imagine what life would be like otherwise.
"How was work, honey?"
"Fine. Just Fine."
"How was your day"
"Great"
"Great"
No secrets leaked, no life had.

I digress...

[John Snow]

Spouse isn't the rouse its the Honey {trap} Spinster

Samuel ji when you state "state" you mean state of the mind , or estate like country or state of the relationship or the state of position, please clarify pronto.
TIA

[samuel]

Your mind is working well! I dare not say and create controversy!

S

[ramana]

OK. Back to track.

Thanks, ramana