Re: Small, Intelligent Government

[Kush Khatri <free_voice@yahoo.com>]

Well said Sanjeev!  The government of India is "big" because it is in
places where it does not belong.  At the beginning of this debate we
had full consensus on this point.  The government ought to do what it
is supposed to be doing not running banks and airlines and insurance
companies.

Second, the colonial structure of government must change.   The
central government controlling and meddling into everything has made
situation bad to worse.  We must professionalize and technologize
governments at the state and local level.   States must be given their
own revenue base.  They must split that with the local jurisdictions. 
 The quality of life can never be improved unless local and district
governments are invested into.   There is nothing there to study about
the "Panchayat system."  Panchayat to me is a joke-- it indicates a
complete absence of modern governance at the village level.  A
shameful condition which in unnecessary.  For some reason it has been
assumed in India that "villages" can govern themselves without formal
structures and resources (which is what Panchayat is--informal,
structureless, lacking knowhow and resources).  The result is neglect,
neglect, neglect.  Why did not the district governments take upon
themselves to develop the infrastructures in their villages?  Why was
it always assumed that "villagers" are sub-humans who can live in
sub-human conditions, such as without electricity, water, sewage
systems etc.?   With the increase in the population these villages
have now become a mess.   The only way this can be corrected is
through state and district governments taking responsibility.

Coming back to the main point: looking from the professional and
technological aspect, the government in India is small, very small. 
Example, could anyone tell be how many professionals does the central
government has?  Let us confine to just three categories:
accountants/auditors(charted), computer specialists, and engineers?  
The point is that the "government" in India should decrease (pull out
from areas where it does not belong) and then increase (state, local
and even central by vigrously pursuing technologization and
professionalization).   In short, "small" and "intelligent" are
relative terms, and unless we have a reference point they are actually
meaningless.

Kush Khatri, DC

Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Rozario wrote:
> 
> > If I may make a small contribution to help clear the air. In
response to
> > Charu's question, yes you are right , the Singapore government is
small
> > only in absolute terms. It is ridiculous to suggest a public
service the
> > size of Singapore's to govern India with (having said that, I
qualify by
> > saying that it may be possible in the distant future as technology
> > advances). 
> > 
> > 
> > Ari, a small, intelligent government is achieved by 
> > 
> > 1. Minimizing the role of the government in various sectors to
that which
> > is essential.
> > 2. Not getting involved in a role that increases inefficiency and
> > bureacracy.
> 
> John, I am sure you can get data on Singapore/ India's government
relative
> to its population. E.g., govt. spending, number of employees as a
> percent of population, as a percent of output, etc. That will help
sort
> out matters better.
> 
> Thanks for your post, anyway.
> 
> Sanjeev
> 
> 

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