C'da, > * Show us a few examples of when and where elected members of > ANY government, state or central, who have been held > accountable ( other than not being re-elected ) for such > things as criminal offenses such as corruption.
I can certainly dig up certain cases. Recently, some minister (I think Bihar) was arrested on criminal charges. Jayalalita still has a misappropriations case pending against her. Now, whether she gets off the hook depends on her legal representations etc. But the fact is, even a minister is in trouble when they become blatant. Yes, I agree, ministers are the first among the equals, but they too have problems. Another case, Indira Gandhi, was sent to jail (after she lost her election bid) for misusing govt. machinery for election. It does happen, maybe not immediately, or when one is in power, but finally it does. > * Show us a few example of high civil service officials have been held > accountable for inefficiency, dereliction of duty, nepotism,corruption > etc. Here too, I can did up something, and I am sure you are waiting with bated breath :-). But what I am really pointing out is that there are no absloutes here (black or white) - its all in degrees. Many of your posts indicate something of an armageddon taking place in India, and all is lost. But in the same breath, you seem pretty comfortable in the gray area when the question of American secularism comes in (which I agree to BTW). Isn't whats good for the goose, good for the gander? --Ram On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:48:56 -0600, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Similar are blanket statements, that we so often like to use for > >sustaining an otherwise weak position. > > **** Not sooo fast Ram :-)! > > **** But I will stand corrected on my various stands, if you can point us to > examples that disprove them: > > * Show us a few examples of when and where elected members of > ANY government, state or central, who have been held > accountable ( other than not being re-elected ) for such > things as criminal offenses such as corruption. > > I do realize there may not be any because no such people exist. > > * Show us a few example of high civil service officials have been held > accountable for inefficiency, dereliction of duty, nepotism,corruption > etc. > > I do realize there may not be any because no such people exist. > > * Show us a few examples of high defense service officials who have > been held accountable for such offenses as corruption in office. > > I do realize there may not be any because no such people exist. > > **** Now for 'elections as the instrument for holding elected > officials accountable': > > * I would buy this if you can show me how and where a newly > elected government made a difference . Assam, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat > --you name it. > > Not that I write-off elections or their critical role in a democracy. > But elections are useful ONLY for selecting a crew to run the ship of > state for a defined period of time. But if the ship's hull is leaky, > if the sails are torn. if the mast is broken, your ship still does > not go anywhere. > > Catch my drift ? > > c-da > > > At 9:43 AM -0600 3/2/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > >C'da, > > > > *** Huh? To ask if a "country is secular" is the PROBLEM here, isn't it? > > > >In this case, I fully agree with you. > > > >For some type of questions like 'Is the USA secular?' or a question like > >'Is the Indian Democracy (Governance, system, structures, etc) > >completely broken down?' > >it is very easy to take one side or the other. But the fact is there > >are various degrees of efficiencies or of secularism. > > > >Similar are blanket statements, that we so often like to use for > >sustaining an otherwise weak position. > > > >Just my thoughts > >--Ram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:00:19 -0600, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> O'Deka: > >> > >> > >> >DD: I did not ask for the absolute truth. > >> > >> *** Is that why you sough an yes/no answer :-)? > >> > >> > >> > >> >I simply asked whether you believed, as a country USA was secular. > >> > >> *** Huh? To ask if a "country is secular" is the PROBLEM here, isn't it? > >> If > >> you ask if the USA is secular, the answer would be NO, but it will be a > >> very > >> MISLEADING answer, as I explained and as you seem to agree, however > >> grudgingly. > >> > >> > >> The only reason therefore,one might surmise, to ask for that yes or no > >> answer, would be to assert, in a very simple-minded fashion, that the USA > >> is > >> NOT a secular country, which would no doubt please the anti-secularism > >> forces of India and its apologists. After getting the 'no' answer,without > >> qualifications or explanations ( a yes answer would be drawn and quartered > >> with glee of course),they could proclaim with an air of triumph that the > >> 'hypocritical anti-Indians' criticize those who question secularism in > >> India, while their poster-boy of secularism, the USA, itself is NOT > >> secular. > >> > >> > >> Am I being rather harsh with my naked assesment? > >> > >> > >> >Anyway you answered it in your typical "no but" style. > >> > >> *** Would you still have preferred the YES/NO answer ? Do share, in your > >> concise, no-bullshit black and white manner, would you ? > >> > >> > >> > >> >I hope the Wikipedia web site has removed the confusion that existed in > >> some of >the sharpest minds. :-) Don't you agree that it has a wealth > >> of > >> good >information? > >> > >> > >> *** I think it is best to speak for oneself here. I am not the confused > >> one > >> here. Yes, the Wikipedia info was good, but many of us already knew about > >> the > >> most salient points of the issue already, and had no confusion about them, > > > real or self imposed. > >> > >> > >> > >> >DD: There was no fault in the question. My question asked about the > >> country. > >> > >> *** Well, what can I say? As I mentioned earlier, if you insist. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >D: I hope I have clearly expressed my view above. > >> > >> *** You did indeed. That was an accomplishment no doubt, even though it > >> was > >> like pulling teeth. You could have saved an awful lot of bandwidth, had > >> you > >> expressed it to begin with, instead of futilely attempting to trap yours > >> truly with a yes/no answer. > >> > >> Buise Deka, burhar hatot sengeli porise kintu dei apuni. > >> > >> O'm (shanti) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-). > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> At 8:47 PM -0800 3/1/05, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: > >> Since you decided not to accept my offer for you to clarify your question, > >> here is my answer: > >> *** Your question is seriously faulty. If I answer yes, I will be wrong > >> and > >> if I answer no, I will be wrong. You offered me a 'Heads I win , tails you > >> lose' proposition. Even that I might accept, if an answer would would > >> enlighten anyone. But it won't. > >> *** Now here is my response: The people of the USA, by a large > >> percentage, > >> are religious. Thus by definition, they are not secular. Can the USA, the > >> country, be a country without its people? One might think not. Thus if I > >> am > >> forced to answer within your highly simplistic criteria of yes or no, then > >> the answer has to be NO. > >> DD: I did not ask for the absolute truth. I simply asked whether you > >> believed, as a country USA was secular. Anyway you answered it in your > >> typical "no but" style. And you are right or at least I agrre with you. > >> Even > >> though the constitution and its interpretation make USA a secular country, > >> there is a strong force within, that would like to change it. The > >> anti-secularism exists not because the people are religious but because > >> they > >> would like to use christian beliefs to run public institutions as it was > >> in > >> old Europe. > >> As far as "enlightenment" goes, I hope the Wikipedia website has provided > >> ample information to the inquisitive. > >> *** It also underscores your own continued confusions about secularism. I > >> suspected that, and thus offered the 'damned English language' out. But > >> you > >> were too proud to take it. > >> > >> DD: I hope the Wikipedia web site has removed the confusion that existed > >> in > >> some of the sharpest minds. :-) Don't you agree that it has a wealth of > >> good information? > >> > >> > >> *** On the other hand, the governmental system of the USA, thru its > >> constitution, the amendments to it, and its many interpretations by its > >> supreme court, spanning centuries, has clearly established a wall between > >> the 'Church', religion that is, and the State. And it has been enormously > >> beneficial for the USA, the pluralistic state. Even though there are > >> certain > >> exceptions of a symbolic nature, such as the words "In God We Trust" or > >> the > >> swearing in of public officials over the Bible that have found a place in > >> US > >> governance, the USA is about the closest to a secular, non-totalitarian > >> STATE that could be found amongst the major countries of the world. There > >> might be more secular ones amongst West European nations, but I am not > >> conversant with their systems. > >> DD: Hopefully the website has helped you with the information about other > >> countries that you were looking for. I agree with you that US public > >> institutions try to implement secularism in their operation, including the > >> public schools. > >> > >> *** The fault in your question lies in not being able to separate the > >> SECULAR STATE from the non-secular populace. And it is a very critical and > >> essential differentiation to note when we discuss secularism in public > >> life. > >> DD: There was no fault in the question. My question asked about the > >> country. > >> As you analyzed, the state is secular but the people are not uniformly > >> secular > >> > >> NOW that I have paid my dues, can I ask what you think? > >> DD: I hope I have clearly expressed my view above. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ 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
