The Official Indian Politics Thread

[Cevno]

Who do you support btw Joe, or like to be the PM / in power?

[Burgey]

Guys, you should see what they're saying about India in the Pakistan politics thread!!!

[Fusion]

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

The rest of my post there gave a pretty good idea of that without requiring the question to be raised.

I think it did until you drew a comparison with Sonia Gandhi who has done exactly what you suggested i.e. fought a lok sabha election, was a leader of opposition and probably would have become a PM if not for the grand debate about her birth place and Italian connection.

I disagree with you that the next logical step for him is to enter the traditional politics that is to form a political party and start contesting elections. I don't have a problem if he does so, and do not have a problem if he does not do it either. It is his choice. I am not going to invalidate his movement by the choice he makes. As a citizen of India he has every right to do what he is doing and in fact these are the same methods that helped India gain its independence. Gandhi never contested an election, are we going to call his movements as non-political ?

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Guys, you should see what they're saying about India in the Pakistan politics thread!!!

Originally Posted by Sanz

I think it did until you drew a comparison with Sonia Gandhi who has done exactly what you suggested i.e. fought a lok sabha election, was a leader of opposition and probably would have become a PM if not for the grand debate about her birth place and Italian connection.

I disagree with you that the next logical step for him is to enter the traditional politics that is to form a political party and start contesting elections. I don't have a problem if he does so, and do not have a problem if he does not do it either. It is his choice. I am not going to invalidate his movement by the choice he makes. As a citizen of India he has every right to do what he is doing and in fact these are the same methods that helped India gain its independence. Gandhi never contested an election, are we going to call his movements as non-political ?

So what you are trying to say is that Anna Hazare can have the same effect on Indian politics with or without entering the formal political structure i.e. without contesting elections (either through a party or as an independent)?

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Guys, you should see what they're saying about India in the Pakistan politics thread!!!

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

So what you are trying to say is that Anna Hazare can have the same effect on Indian politics with or without entering the formal political structure i.e. without contesting elections (either through a party or as an independent)?

Obviously entering Politics and winning he can have a greater impact, but his agitation is just based on Corruption and reforms and to have a affect wrt he doesn't need to necessarily enter politics.

He isn't saying do what he says on every issue, but in this issue where it is pretty hard for any party or politician to openly oppose the cause, even if the corrupt elements want the status quo to stay and are trying to undermine discreetly.

Every party every time says we want to fight corruption, but never does much to that respect in terms of institutionalized reforms. Nobody says we want corruption, but what this movement has done is ensured that corruption has become a national issue now and one on which people may vote on too, as it wasn't before.People asking the specifics of the action the parties and government are taking and holding them accountable for it can only be a positive, as it has not been a electoral issue for too long except for exceptions as everyone is seen the same. And every parties basic defence seems to be to say everyone is doing the same too.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Cevno

I am not Anna Hazare or Arvind Kejriwal ftr, and that was my personal view on the whole situation. System won't get changed overnight or it might not at all, but at least we can take steps to improve the situation and one of the steps is setting up a Lokpal, which the parliament is stalling for 44 years as it will act against the interests of those holding power and never has been a vote getter till now or a vote loser to oppose. While some bill's which have vested interests to them get passed in 30 minutes. What is the reasoning for that can you please explain?

Wouldn't it then make sense for Civil Scoiety to enter parliament and rectify that state of affairs? How long do you think Parliament is going to tolerate outsiders dictating their business? It's basic human nature. The more demands Civil Society keeps making from the outside, the lesser their cred is going to get.

As for the view of Arvind Kejriwal, the version you are presenting is the one distorted by the Congress politicians and from the other so called corrupt social justice lobby parties.

All he was asked was is that is Anna Hazare above Parliament, he replied no but according to the constitution, every Citizen is above Parliament.
Then the interviewer asked by that logic is Anna Hazare and you and the rest of your supporters above Parliament, he said yes. All twisted around to present as if he was advocation some other form of governance or challenging the constitution.

Those exact same words were also said by Varun Gandhi, Ajit singh's son and also Mrs.Badal who spoke for Akali Dal, on the floor of parliament. What's the hoohah about?
The Indian constitution says We the people of India give ourselves the constitution and starts of from there....
Democracy doesn't mean you vote once in 5 years and then sit and watch as your MP, does whatever he wants in Parliament without saying anything.

Okay, it's fair enough to take that stance. But there's a limit to it. Sooner or later they're going to be questioned as to the validity of their stated support base if they fail to make use of it in the way the constitution intended it.

I believe Varun Gandhi and another couple of MP's already introduced their bill and Ram Jethmalani said he would too and then it has been officially presented to the standing committee too. But this was after the pressure was put on them after the agitation, not before.
But good luck getting those bills even considered in parliament with the speaker being a appointee of the government and the Party issuing whips on their MP'S and not allowing individual votes. The anti - defection law says a MP defying the whip can be disqualified from the house and removed from the party too, which is how democratic?
We don't even know where individual MP'S stand on what issue. Even Parties half the time cheat on their manifestos.

AFAIK, the anti-defection law cannot be applied to independent MP's, for obvious reasons. There is absolutely no indication that this route was even considered by Civil Society.

As the situation stands, we have the government working on a bill in parliament, and Civil Society demanding, from the outside, the implementation of specific changes literally every single week. Is this a way to get any work done? What they should have done is finalise their version of the bill, introduce it into parliament, and let parliamentary procedure take its course. You can't just keep making demands without authority. There is no reason why the government should give greater consideration to their demands than those of, say, the Shiv Sena.

All they are doing is advocating for reforms and a bill and reforms. Happens all over the world including in US and Britain where lobby groups keep doing the same whether it be concerning environment, guns or anything. If they are beneficial or popular no party or MP etc.... can resist it and if they are not they get muzzled or ignored. How is it anything unconstitutional is beyond me and i think they should keep doing it as in India the power of a negative vote they can cause against a party will be a lot more to threaten them, than if they stand for election and get even about 10% of popular vote with the first past the post system. Even in India look at the new state creation agitations, or the RTI movement, or the Farmers or Transporters who hold rallies or Women's reservation bill movement etc.....even in recent times asking for a bill or a change.

And once the cycle of cleaning up the system picks up speed and becomes more of a issue and thus results in more steps, then the existing MP'S will themselves perform better and also more clean people will enter into politics and even they can if they want. Though, at the end of the day every citizen has a right to galvanize popular support with regards to a cause in a democracy to pressurize parliament/government as long as it is not illegal or divisive, especially in a country like India where there is no referendum.

The basic MO of any legitimate lobby is to act through the MP's they win over to their cause. There's a fine line between agitation and blackmail. I find that for a body that is supposedly as huge as Civil Society, the continual and unabated desire for power without the shackles of responsibility is a good indicator. They're only devaluing their own currency with their frequent threats of fasts.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Sanz

I think it did until you drew a comparison with Sonia Gandhi who has done exactly what you suggested i.e. fought a lok sabha election, was a leader of opposition and probably would have become a PM if not for the grand debate about her birth place and Italian connection.

I disagree with you that the next logical step for him is to enter the traditional politics that is to form a political party and start contesting elections. I don't have a problem if he does so, and do not have a problem if he does not do it either. It is his choice. I am not going to invalidate his movement by the choice he makes. As a citizen of India he has every right to do what he is doing and in fact these are the same methods that helped India gain its independence. Gandhi never contested an election, are we going to call his movements as non-political ?

The Indian National Congress, which Gandhi was associated with was very much a political organization that contested 'elections' in pre-independent India, despite knowing that they were going to kept out of the decision making processes that truly mattered at the time. Gandhi himself kept aloof, and refused any position of power in independent India. If Civil Society wishes to make itself relevant to the degree it claims it is, it's members cannot pretend that they are above proving their representative status. You're going by mere appearances as far as Sonia Gandhi is concerned. If the Civil Society members managed to get their representatives elected, and those representatives followed Sonia Gandhi's lead by wielding authority without assuming responsibility, it would only undermine their own stated objectives. It goes without saying that participation in the parliamentary process goes beyond the actual contesting of elections.

[Cevno]

Btw, the BJP government in Uttarakhand led by B.C Khanduri has passed a Lokayukta act closely based on the Jan Lokpal bill, but the congress government in the centre dithers.

Doing themselves no favors, the idiots.

[G.I.Joe]

I think we can agree that we all endorse the big picture, but differ on the long-term validity of the methods employed.

[Cevno]

Mamata Banerjee threatens to withdraw support to the government on Inflation and Fuel Price rise.

Pretty sure she won't though. Classic Brinkmanship!!

None of the allies want to be associated with the Congress too closely right now and seen to be responsible for the decisions of the government. NCP, TMC and NC among others bashing the government now despite being part of it. Getting Ridiculous now.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

The Indian National Congress, which Gandhi was associated with was very much a political organization that contested 'elections' in pre-independent India, despite knowing that they were going to kept out of the decision making processes that truly mattered at the time. Gandhi himself kept aloof, and refused any position of power in independent India. If Civil Society wishes to make itself relevant to the degree it claims it is, it's members cannot pretend that they are above proving their representative status. You're going by mere appearances as far as Sonia Gandhi is concerned. If the Civil Society members managed to get their representatives elected, and those representatives followed Sonia Gandhi's lead by wielding authority without assuming responsibility, it would only undermine their own stated objectives. It goes without saying that participation in the parliamentary process goes beyond the actual contesting of elections.

Gandhi's most successful and most effective agitations against the Raj, starting from the East Champaran to the Quit India Movement, were all using the same methods that Anna has been using. His political association with INC had nothing to do with his call for all those agitations against the Raj.

As a powerful figure in INC, Gandhi repeatedly ignored the wishes of the members of the majority and put his guys in the INC positions (case in point SC Bose Vs. Pattabhi Sitaramaiya).

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

So what you are trying to say is that Anna Hazare can have the same effect on Indian politics with or without entering the formal political structure i.e. without contesting elections (either through a party or as an independent)?

It probably will not and that's not because there is anything wrong with the movement. It will be because the current situation isn't comparable to 200 years of slavery under the Raj.

[Redbacks]

Inflation is pretty high. What's causing the hike in food prices?