So, what exactly do you mean by "radical reform"? And I will understand if you >don't really want to give us your definition :-)
*** My definition of 'radical' would be traditional meaning of the English word, which is to do with fundamentals.
By radical reforms I do not mean superficial reforms or window dressing. Nor do I mean isolated instances of reforms, as might be involved in Manmohan Singh's call for administrative reforms, as if the administrative services are the REAL problems. It drives me take a highly unusual stance--of coming to the defence of the administrative services :-). But that is not where the real trouble lies. It is in the electoral processes. Of selecting candidates, of election funding, of
a Central HIGH COMMAND dictating solutions on local issues, of the concept of campaigning on symbols and not on issues--so on and so forth. Once the political reforms take place, administrative reforms also must take place, just like the judicial reforms. And ALL must be done at fundamental levels to make a REAL difference.
Can it happen overnight? No. But a trend must become visible, defined goals must be set with timetables.
That is how I envision RADICAL reforms.
Details? I am NOT competent to discuss details. Maybe on isolated issues with which I may be familiar. But the details have to be looked into people who are in the KNOW of things, thru an informed public debate in which no holds must be placed. It will involve the mass media, but an independent one. Doordarshan's version won't suffice. So on and so forth.
At 2:16 PM +0000 4/9/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
C'da,
That was pretty good. The topic is interesting and I would like to see the views of other netters on the subject. I will hold off till then.
Just one question though.
>> >When you say 'radical reforms', what exactly are you proposing? What about thinking in terms of 'progressive reforms'.
>*** This is a fake argument, because anyone can assign anything to:
RADICAL REFORM or PROGRESSIVE REFORM.
>To assign such concepts as a Pol-pot like regime, or Mao-like autocracy, or Stalinist dictatorship to a declared intent of reforms based on the best democratic processes of the world is not only >disingenuous but also is an attempt to prevent reforms.
You are absolutely correct that anyone can assign anything to Radical or Progressive reform.
So, what exactly do you mean by "radical reform"? And I will understand if you don't really want to give us your definition :-)
--Ram
>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Ram Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] >Subject: RE: [Assam] from the sentinel >Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:58:44 -0500 > >>I think this is where some might disagree with you. Yes, the system >>needs >'reforms' and yes it needs some new thinking. But to term >>them as totally >dysfunctional is going a bit much. > > >*** Whether a system is functional but may need a bit of fine >tuning, or dysfunctional requiring a thorough overhaul could be and >should be judged from RESULTS and not with choice of words of >characterization. > > >>And even if you did, what are the alternatives, other than making >>the present >democratic setup stronger? Do you see any other way? > > >*** Of course I do--and have explained time and again how. But MY >views need not be gospel. Let us hear other views on HOW they ought >to be reformed. But to turn tail and claim nothing is the matter >with Indian governance, is patently unpersuasive. > > >>I don't think anyone has charged you with that. > >*** You are being very kind :-). But I will let Netters make their >own conclusions from what they have seen or read. > > > > > >>But it does become of concern when people straight away want >>'independence' because they see corruption, dysfunctional setups >>etc around. > > >*** A demand and a wish for "Independence" or "Sovereignty" has more >dimensions than need for governmental reforms. Even if India gets an >epiphany tomorrow and re-tools its governance overnight including >the very best practices of democracy that could be found the world >over, a wish and demand for Assamese self determination may not >evaporate concurrently. My own guess is that it won't. > > >However, IF a trend could be set, visibly and perceptibly, that >positive >changes are possible within the Union and that the Union is WILLING >and CAPABLE of addressing the reasons, the causes, that gave rise >to the sense of alienation and the demand for self-determination; >then in time, it is conceivable that such demands for secession will >slowly recede to the point of >arriving at a win-win solution to the NE insurgencies. > >That is why I have been such a die-hard proponent of radical >reforms. > >Obviously it is not such a 'gosot-goru-utha' ( outlandish) >suggestion, as could be surmised from the declared support for >AUTONOMY from my many esteemed opponents in Assam Net. > >But there is this lingering attachment to living in denial, as >expressed by the fact that many of those who would support autonomy, >would refuse to say WHAT they think is the PROBLEM, which autonomy >might help resolve. Either to these supporters of 'autonomy', it is >merely a decorative, element, an ornament, an adornment -- a >pacifier to a troublesome child -- or it is a TOOL to help achieve >certain goals, meet certain ends, and help ease the demand for >secession. > >WHICH is it? If it is the latter, why can't they admit it? > >Oh, sure it would validate the fact that there indeed ARE good >reasons why the demand for independence arose. But to deny that >those exist--as is demonstrated by this flight from the 'WHY >autonomy ?' question, would not help change anything. It would not >make them go away. > > > > > >> >When you say 'radical reforms', what exactly are you proposing? >>What about thinking in terms of 'progressive reforms'. > > >*** This is a fake argument, because anyone can assign anything to: > > RADICAL REFORM > or > PROGRESSIVE REFORM. > >To assign such concepts as a Pol-pot like regime, or Mao-like >autocracy, or Stalinist dictatorship to a declared intent of reforms >based on the best democratic processes of the world is not only >disingenuous but also is an attempt to prevent reforms. > > >WHY? Simply because a call for reforms would also validate the >notion that there indeed are good reasons why the rise for seditious >tendencies and movements have arisen in the NE. > >But to deny that would lead to nowhere. > > >>In the end, India is based on a democratic setup. > > >*** So what? Not ALL democracies are equal. Just because a country >can hold elections does not guarantee that it would produce good >governance. Has India produced good governance? > >The packaging is not enough, even though that has been a hallmark of >Indian democracy, where the make believe is willingly accepted as >the real thing >even by large segments of its intelligentsia. That is the tragedy of >it all. > > >>Nobody gets away for ever. The solution lies in strengthening the >>common man. > > >*** Heh-heh :-). Good joke, that. > >And how exactly is the common man being empowered by Indian >democracy, by Indian governance? > > >Perhaps by calls to replace the GO's by NGO's :-)? > > >Let's get real my friends ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >At 4:13 AM +0000 4/9/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: >>C'da, >> >> >It means that the means of democratic societies for holding >>people accountable do not work. It >is an example of a >>dysfunctional govt. >> >>I think this is where some might disagree with you. Yes, the system >>needs 'reforms' and yes it needs some new thinking. But to term >>them as totally dysfunctional is going a bit much. And even if you >>did, what are the alternatives, other than making the present >>democratic setup stronger? Do you see any other way? >> >> >Am I proposing something subversive, as I get charged for when, >>I present such ideas? >> >>I don't think anyone has charged you with that. But it does become >>of concern when people straight away want 'independence' because >>they see corruption, dysfunctional setups etc around. >> >>The way I see it, that line of thinking does not solve the current >>problems, but in fact creates new ones. When you say 'radical >>reforms', what exactly are you proposing? What about thinking in >>terms of 'progressive reforms'. >> >>Now, we don't want to hang erring ministers/MLAs at dawn, do we >>(not that some of them don't deserve it)? :-) >> >>In the end, India is based on a democratic setup. Nobody gets away >>for ever. The solution lies in strengthening the common man. >> >>--Ram >> >>.net> >> >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: [Assam] from the sentinel >> >Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:13:23 -0500 >> > >> >Dear Netters: >> > >> >The following from tonight's Sentinel. >> > >> >Do people wonder what this means? It means that the means of >> >democratic >> >societies for holding people accountable do not work. It is an >> >example of a dysfunctional govt. Something that direly needs >> >reforming, or so one might think. What do our friends think? Am >>I >> >proposing something subversive, as I get charged for when, I >>present >> >such ideas? >> > >> >cm >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >36,000 cases pending against State Govt >> > >> > >> >By a Staff Reporter >> > GUWAHATI, April 8: About 36,000 cases of the State Government >>are >> >pending in both the Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court. >> >Disclosing this on the floor of the House today, Assam Law >>Minister >> >Dinesh Prasad Goala, in reply to a query from Independent MLA >> >Pabindra Deka, said that the Government had already appointed >> >contact officers in the various departments concerned for the >> >speedy disposal of these cases. >> > >> >Goala said that as many as 35,780 cases are pending at the High >> >Court while a total of 146 cases are waiting to be settled at >>the >> >Supreme Court. The Government has incurred an expenditure of Rs >> >42.38 lakh on lawyers' expenses, the minister said, adding that >>an >> >amount of Rs 69.90 lakh has been incurred on litigation at the >> >Supreme Court. >> > >> >On the other hand, Minister of State for Home Rockybul Hussain >> >informed the House that data relating to the pending cases >>against >> >ministers and MLAs was still in the process of being collected. >>In >> >reply to another question from Deka, Hussain said that though >>the >> >Government had earlier decided to withdraw 39 pending cases >>against >> >ministers and MLAs, the decision had since been revoked. >> >_______________________________________________ >> >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
