No Subject

[Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@cinenet.net>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 16:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kush Khatri <free_voice@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Too much democracy!

> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 21:26:00 +0000 (GMT)
> From: "17.12.97" <rsingh@jp1.vsnl.net.in>
> To: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
> Subject: Re: your mail
> 
> The difference between India and USA drawn by the author below >are
well  taken. But let us ask why ? And the answer seems to be rate >of
literacy  and the size of population. Otherwise, in theory, every
>Indian owns  India. In foreign countries people have expressed that
>India is TOO democratic and that might be the problem that the
>mainland China has solved.
> Ratan.
 
Mr. Ratan Singh's "defensive" response to Sanjeev's excellent
observations is not surprising at all.  That is what we are here to
discuss---the misconceptions that people have about democracy and in 
particular India's democracy.   What bothers me is that while
attributing India's woes on the two factors ( low rate of literacy and
population growth) often mentioned by Indians, the role of government
is not questioined.  What has the political leadership and government
doing to tackle these problems?  We know one thing.  The  higher the
literacy rate lesser is the population growth.  Why have proper
resources not alloted to primary education?  There have always been
resources.  A state like Kerala has proven to the rest of the world
that where there is a political will the literacy problem is not that
intractable.   But typically no accountability is asked of the
government.

Secondly, can Mr. Singh explain in what way is India "too" democratic?
If that is the case then how come the central government has this
control mentality when it comes to economic activity?  How come that
even today after seven years of "liberalization" 70% of business
industries are still under the illegal hands of the central
government.  And how come where there is "too" much democracy you
still do not have a "single" private on air radio or TV station?  I
can raise several questions but it seems to me that you have not read
the archives of this discussion forum on democracy, autonomy, the
powers of the state etc.  Lastly, I would ask in what way has China
solved this "problem" of democracy?  Unless, of course, you think that
political repression is a solution!  By the way, you completely
overlooked Sanjeev's observation that in this local celeberation of
Independence funds were raised privately, that people were contibuting
voluntarily to next year's effort (which means they trust that the
funds contiibuted will be used for that prupose) and that there were
no VIP reserved places.  Let me give you a hint:  when India was a
British colony, the rulers always maintained a distance from the
people and insisted on VIP treatment.  Could it be that the same
colonial "traditions" still prevail?  One of those colonial day
"tradition" is that people should not hold their government
accountable. Is that the reason why you failed to question the role of
India's central and state governments in the mess that India is in
today?
Kush Khatri, DC
> On Fri, 3 Jul 1998 owner-india_policy@cinenet.net wrote:
> 
> > sub: Nationalism (by Sanjeev)
> > 
> > Just returned from an amazing display of fireworks at Santa Monica
> > college, to mark the 222nd anniversary of USA's independence.
> > 
> > Two things particularly struck me as relevant:
> > 
> > a) The effort seemed to be entirely privately funded. No doubt,
the local
> >~
> > b) There was no "partition" of the area into the 2000 partitions
that mark
> > a state or national level function in India: the big bosses sit in
one
> > place, their cronies sit next, and so on, down the pecking order,
and the
> > 'janta' are pushed behind barricades. This was a purely private
and local
> > function, and so this might not be representative of a "state"
function,
> > though. It was a bit funny to see people sprawled all over the
grass, and
> > all over the benches in the stadium, next to the 'dias' and
everywhere
> > else - no "partitions" seemed to exist, I think.
> > 
> >> > 
> > Who owns America? The answer seemed very clear: the People. They
not only
> > enjoyed being the owners of America but did not care to have any
> > "Minister" or any political person come anywhere near the dias; it
was the
> > People all the way through. They actually sang the anthem with such
> > enthusiasm that you would hardly believe that this nation has done
this
> > 222 times earlier. On our 50th anniversary, I almost doubt if any
young
> > man exists in India who knows the entire words of our anthem. 
> > 
> >(message partly deleted for brevity)
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com