The Official Indian Politics Thread

[Spark]

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

 

[Cevno]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[silentstriker]

I firmly believe you get the government you deserve. People talk about corrupt politicians but the vast majority of Indians pay bribes on a regular basis to get things done - from a hundred rupees here to a couple crores there, depending on the job. If you yourself participate in the process, regardless of the excuse of 'oh well, nothing would get done if I didn't' you can't expect your government to be any different. You decided to put personal expedience above principle when you gave that bribe. And it's a self perpetuating cycle - as long as people continue to give bribes, there'll be people who demand them in order to get things done. There isn't going to be this uber super special process that will somehow end corruption, unless it's a movement that starts from the people themselves when enough of them personally stop giving bribes. Gandhi was mentioned here today and his quote (though it's been way overplayed) is very insightful when it comes to societal problems like this: "Be the change you want to see in the world." I know that's much easier said than done - and how pervasive the culture of bribes is in India. And I'm not saying it's easily fixed or but really, the issue isn't with the politicians, it's with a broader aspect of Indian civil society. That is much more difficult to change.

Considering the bureaucratic nightmare that exists, I can understand why people give bribes and I'm not so holier than thou to suggest that if I were living in India, that I would never be tempted or never have to give a bribe. But the fact of the matter is that the problem is at the level of the average citizen. As long as people are willing to spend a little extra to get the job done by giving someone an under the table payment, there'll be people who will take that payment. No amount of oversight is really going to change that to an appreciable extent.

 

[Redbacks]

I've seen the documentaries of India prior to liberalisation and I can only assume that the nation would have come to a halt if not for bribes. Looking at all the paper work I was tempted to jump off a bridge. You take this away and it's like the '5 monkeys analogy' (don't sue) to explain groupthink/corporate knowledge.

5 monkeys get put in a room with a ladder to a bunch of bananas. When one goes to get them they all get sprayed with water. Hence from now on, they learn not to go up the ladder. Now you take one out and replace it with a newbie. Still the group won't let it go up the ladder. Continue this process until there is now 5 new monkeys in the room. None have ever been sprayed with water and yet all of them 'know' that you cannot climb the ladder. Fresh ideas is the key to break this cycle as the 'water' has now dissapeared.

Similar thing happened when Russia embraced markets, the population don't understand straight away how a market economy works. Because the 'state sector' was 90% but in reality everyone was using the black market, people didn't understand property rights. Hence mobsters took over many of the state owned industries.

Over time people start to find that corruption isn't economically efficient (other than governments where it is the MO) and conduct trade more like we see.

 

[smalishah84]

I've seen the documentaries of India prior to liberalisation and I can only assume that the nation would have come to a halt if not for bribes. Looking at all the paper work I was tempted to jump off a bridge. You take this away and it's like the '5 monkeys analogy' (don't sue) to explain groupthink/corporate knowledge.

5 monkeys get put in a room with a ladder to a bunch of bananas. When one goes to get them they all get sprayed with water. Hence from now on, they learn not to go up the ladder. Now you take one out and replace it with a newbie. Still the group won't let it go up the ladder. Continue this process until there is now 5 new monkeys in the room. None have ever been sprayed with water and yet all of them 'know' that you cannot climb the ladder. Fresh ideas is the key to break this cycle as the 'water' has now dissapeared.

Similar thing happened when Russia embraced markets, the population don't understand straight away how a market economy works. Because the 'state sector' was 90% but in reality everyone was using the black market, people didn't understand property rights. Hence mobsters took over many of the state owned industries.

Over time people start to find that corruption isn't economically efficient (other than governments where it is the MO) and conduct trade more like we see.

I think SS's analysis is closer to the mark for the sub-continent (India-pak-bang-sl). I don't think that people would realize the benefits of free markets and they would have an epiphany.

 

[Cevno]

I firmly believe you get the government you deserve. People talk about corrupt politicians but the vast majority of Indians pay bribes on a regular basis to get things done - from a hundred rupees here to a couple crores there, depending on the job. If you yourself participate in the process, regardless of the excuse of 'oh well, nothing would get done if I didn't' you can't expect your government to be any different. You decided to put personal expedience above principle when you gave that bribe. And it's a self perpetuating cycle - as long as people continue to give bribes, there'll be people who demand them in order to get things done. There isn't going to be this uber super special process that will somehow end corruption, unless it's a movement that starts from the people themselves when enough of them personally stop giving bribes. Gandhi was mentioned here today and his quote (though it's been way overplayed) is very insightful when it comes to societal problems like this: "Be the change you want to see in the world." I know that's much easier said than done - and how pervasive the culture of bribes is in India. And I'm not saying it's easily fixed or but really, the issue isn't with the politicians, it's with a broader aspect of Indian civil society. That is much more difficult to change.

Considering the bureaucratic nightmare that exists, I can understand why people give bribes and I'm not so holier than thou to suggest that if I were living in India, that I would never be tempted or never have to give a bribe. But the fact of the matter is that the problem is at the level of the average citizen. As long as people are willing to spend a little extra to get the job done by giving someone an under the table payment, there'll be people who will take that payment. No amount of oversight is really going to change that to an appreciable extent.

That is true to some extent, but 3 situations -

You have just had someone burgle you, and the police refuse to register a FIR without a bribe immediately. What you do?

You are in the Bureaucracy and struggling to pay the bills, house installment etc.. and then you see 2 of your colleagues engaging in corruption, getting and getting away with it.what you do?

You are contesting a election for a Member of Parliament seat, your opponent is spending 20 crores putting hoarding everywhere and getting maximum exposure to a largely uninformed huge electorate. He plans to make this money back and more when he gets elected through corruption and you know that if you don't do that, you won't get elected. The pressure to do the same will be huge, won't it?

Corruption is almost like a cycle and just leaving it to the Citizens as a whole waking up one day and deciding we won't engage in corruption is not possible, because as they say power and system corrupts and you have to corrupt first on most occasions to attempt to change the system too.

There will be rotten apples everywhere but what needs to be ensured is that they don't spoil the bunch. Thus, there needs to be a institutionalized system with enough friction between all the parties(and not complicity) to ensure that that at least it is tough for this rotten apple to affect others and also to get away, if not be singled out and eradicated early. There is a will against corruption in almost all the population, but the problem is that there is not such a culture collectively.And, This culture needs to be created through checks in the system in which we live and then the will to fight can kick in(at least in terms of others) and the cycle of corruption dented to some extent with both the punisher being under pressure to punish as well as the bribe givers/takers not being benefiting.

I agree, ideally this change would be bottom up in direction, but that is not possible in the current environment we live in and nigh on impossible in a country as large and diverse as India. So it has to start at the top and then trickle down to the bottom, with many efforts to affect as much change that is possible from the bottom - upwards too.

 

[smalishah84]

great analysis Cevno.

 

[silentstriker]

That is true to some extent, but 3 situations -

You have just had someone burgle you, and the police refuse to register a FIR without a bribe immediately. What you do?

You are in the Bureaucracy and struggling to pay the bills, house installment etc.. and then you see 2 of your colleagues engaging in corruption, getting and getting away with it.what you do?

You are contesting a election for a Member of Parliament seat, your opponent is spending 20 crores putting hoarding everywhere and getting maximum exposure to a largely uninformed huge electorate. He plans to make this money back and more when he gets elected through corruption and you know that if you don't do that, you won't get elected. The pressure to do the same will be huge, won't it?

See my last paragraph of the post you quoted.....

Corruption is almost like a cycle and just leaving it to the Citizens as a whole waking up one day and deciding we won't engage in corruption is not possible, because as they say power and system corrupts and you have to corrupt first on most occasions to attempt to change the system too.

I agree. It's not possible.

I agree, ideally this change would be bottom up in direction, but that is not possible in the current environment we live in and nigh on impossible in a country as large and diverse as India. So it has to start at the top and then trickle down to the bottom, with many efforts to affect as much change that is possible from the bottom - upwards too.

I'm saying that it's impossible for it to work top to bottom. There is no way you will be able to stop people from accepting bribes as long as everybody is giving them. People might be against corruption, but they are really only against corruption when it doesn't involve themselves as individuals getting the benefit. That is simply not sustainable.

As I said, in my post, it's a cycle where a person is willing to pay to get a benefit -> someone is willing to accept that in order to give them that unfair advantage -> now other people feel compel to pay to be 'on the same playing field' -> now the bribes are expected and nothing will be done unless people pay.

It's like in Greece...people want corruption to end and the country to get out of revenue problems and blame the government for it while at the same time, a huge percentage of people avoid taxes by doing business under the table! You can't have it both ways.

 

[Cevno]

Arvind Kejriwal & Shekhar Singh at THiNK 2011 - YouTube

Agree with what Arvind Kejriwal is saying here. Taking all the 2 congress supporters and 1 status quoist on together. WAG!!

 

[Sanz]

I'm saying that it's impossible for it to work top to bottom. There is no way you will be able to stop people from accepting bribes as long as everybody is giving them. People might be against corruption, but they are really only against corruption when it doesn't involve themselves as individuals getting the benefit. That is simply not sustainable.

As I said, in my post, it's a cycle where a person is willing to pay to get a benefit -> someone is willing to accept that in order to give them that unfair advantage -> now other people feel compel to pay to be 'on the same playing field' -> now the bribes are expected and nothing will be done unless people pay.

It's like in Greece...people want corruption to end and the country to get out of revenue problems and blame the government for it while at the same time, a huge percentage of people avoid taxes by doing business under the table! You can't have it both ways.

Pretty much sums up the issue of corruption in India. It is amazing to know how much you can accomplish by just paying as little as few 100 Rs. If I wanted I could have got a passport that would have been valid for 50 years. My Driver's License allowed me to drive cars, trucks, scooters..

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, as they say, it's only a rort if you're not in it.

 

[Cevno]

Lokpal: Cong does U-turn on babus' inclusion - Politics - Politics News - ibnlive

Differences prevail over four key issues of Lokpal bill

And here we go again. The Congress has gone bonkers really and if the Anna Hazare mobilises as much as the last time, it will have to pay a price in the coming 5 state elections.

Meanwhile the logjam in parliament and shying away from a vote on FDI in retail continues -

FDI impasse: PM Manmohan Singh meets allies, Congress dares opposition to bring no-confidence motion - The Times of India

FDI in India: Government mobilising MPs, may opt for parliament vote in retail - The Economic Times