Is Privitisation, the only solution?

A). INTRODUCTION: 

Continous onslaught on public sector enterprises terming them to be sick and giving them away to private players by the current NDA regime, is nothing but making things worse further. The current NDA gov, by all it's strength, have only made the things worse. The previous UPA government, had left the nation with few unsolved, minor and reversible issues, which the current NDA have made them worse, complex and irreversible, not only in economy but other aspects of governance like defense, social welfare, industry and foreign relations. In that list, do we really need to privatise the public sector enterprises calling them as a burden?! Is it justifiable, professional and scientifically tempered enough or just another mess up theory to complex the issue further before handing over the nation to the next government. 

B). EXPLANATION:

I). In India, from 1991 LPG Policy, privatisation have been taking roots from top to bottom till privatizing municipal finance (local bodies) too. This trickling down effect have proven that, people have took interest in privatisation. But, the reason from a common public, finding privatisation better, is from the 'service end' alone, i.e. privatizing is fine if the service is delivered good to us. But, infact, a broader and long term analysis is needed before supporting privatizing. 

II). If a single or few employee of a public sector bank, reluctant to serve people or lethargic in work, make it justifiable to privatise it entirely, on the premise that only then, services will be the best? Are these public sector bank employees the ones who sacrificed their last lives during COVID rendering their services to be termed 'essential' but their lives not so? Does a single employee's misbehavior or reluctance makes the whole sector deemed unfit? It only depicts the narrow mind of people. Governments make use of this narrow mind and collective thought of people, to privatise a sick public sector enterprise (in some case wantedly made sick), rather than treating their sickness. 

III). Public sector enterprises of our nation, are called as 'temples of our nation' by Jawaharlal Nehru. Not because it can provide services on daily basis, but a stronghold we can trust, that it's presence and strategic advantage is always made use by the government in all tough times. That's why probably he might have termed them so. Because, it is only when the tough times comes, we can see the public sector enterprise shine. Ex. During this COVID19 pandemic, the presence of public sector enterprises all around the nation, capable of delivering and obeying to emergency order from union government, proved to be a 'strategic advantage' to serve the people, especially at tough times. Imagine, those who support full privatisation, if such enterprises were not present at this dire time, do the 'so-called saviors of economy' able to coordinate, obey and implement government schemes and relief to people in an efficient way? What is the guarantee they will involve in social relief measures apart from their CSR (which even many does not adhere too)? What is the moral obligation of people to keep feeding these private players, when they doesn't have even a single point of moral or law to protect, preserve and promote the interests of the nation socially? Such so-called temples are the ones which act as a guardian of our nation's economy. 

IV). That doesn't mean, public sector enterprise are becoming more of a burden to the nation, unprofitable and low quality servicing to public. It is accepted that there are some enterprises that provide low quality services, run unprofitable and thereby becomes a burden tot he government. But, is it not the responsibility of the government to treat such sick enterprises rather than giving them off to some private player? Do we give our parents off to some caretakers for money if they feel burden? If we do so, do we recognise we being immoral and unfaithful? Reforming the sick enterprises and making them cured is the duty of the government. When the enterprise runs well, funds government, the government takes pride means, then at tough times, government should also stand with it. 

V). In India, there are 2 types of such public sector enterprises. One will be 'obsolete' in technology, men and machinery, impossible to save them, and irretrievably dying. Such can be closed and assets sold and labors amicably dealt with. Second type are sick, but retrievable, needs proper financial reforms, fresh personnel and more control over management with government being a backup. Then, they can be revived and slowly government can let them function free after sometime, when they are ready to fly alone. "Calculated disinvestment coupled with micro level management reforms increasing firm value in medium run" is needed rather than simply giving away them as a gift or takeaway prize to some private players, who doesn't have an understanding of the rationale behind creation such public enterprises and impact of their absence. 

VI). Does the absence of public sector enterprises have an impact on society?  Definitely yes!! A big yes! Because, it's simple, when it was framed it was kept in mind to be like a 'storehouse of energy' for the wellbeing of society and if such is dismantled no wonder the opposite will occur. To point out, the first societal impact is the 'social unrest' to burst out, when the labors are against it. No labor is ready to privatise the concern they are working in, if the government forcibly does so, labors tends to rise against the government, where all labors are solidly backed by proper politically affiliated organisations. So, is it possible for a government to risk their vote bank as well as creating a social unrest in the society by privatising a firm in which the labors are against it? Even if such labor issues, tackled by suppressive measures, no one will be ready to join in a company which is already in a tug with the existing labors. Not only in salary aspect, but in all terms of working conditions and environment, no fresh intake of labor is possible, if the current existing permanent set of affiliated labors are against such measures. Third and very important impact in the society, is the 'reservation' factor. In a public sector enterprise, their is a mandate to provide reservation eventhough the government wants it or not. But, when privatised, their is no reservation for the weaker sections of the society. This in particular is an agenda been pushed by the current government more vehemently to dismantle the reservation setup among the public sector enterprises.  Apart from these three, few minor situational impacts are also prone to occur due to proposed privatisation of public sector enterprises.  

VII). This narrow mentality of the current government have also affected the 'foreign investments' also. An investor invests in a place, only when he finds 'social & political stability' and law and order found. If the government itself keeps on breaching many Bilateral Investment Treaties(BIT) like Vodafone and Cairne energy due to its preferable ideology in between, FDI & FPIs are more prone to decline further. All this comes, when the government mixes its political ideology and agenda into economic, trade, commerce and industrial measures. Such regressive mentality would further damage the economy as a whole. 

C). CONCLUSION: 

So, is privatisation completely harmful? No. Privatisation must be done in a 'calculated' and in a way that private does not dominate the government decisions in any way even in a minor one. Because, such private interference in the government decisions have proven to be worse and a failure by many nations in the history. A private firm cannot run a nation entirely. A business minded organisation cannot act as a social welfare government. Never, can a private firm able to run a government, so efficient and empathetic than elected representatives and administration law mandated in our constitution alone. Nothing is bigger than that, to overshadow the nation guided towards a 'welfare state'. Out of 500 companies in the 'Fortune 500' list 124 are from China and the interesting fact is, 91/124 companies are public sector enterprises alone. To treat a sick public sector enterprise and make them bloom greater heights is the perfect solution. Private players are welcome in places where we need PPP(Public Private Partnership) sort of methods. India's current strategy to 'create a big business' and give the nation control to it, is also intangible, because, we don't have such huge 'number of big businesses' except very very fewest only. Just 2-3 big businesses cannot run the nation. What such big corporates can do, is to try to invest in 'sinking private companies' alone, rather than over-ambitiously trying to takeover government sectors, which are already in a bad shape, where these corporates does not have the resources to run them. What is best left to big corporates of our nation is to invest in both brownfield and greeenfield companies as well as save the sinking private companies alone, apart from some PPPs and agreements mutually cooperated with government., that much of involvement alone is enough. Only then we can be able to revive both private sectors as well as public sectors and have a perfect combination to fuel the economy. 

  

"HISTORY OF UNITED KINGDOM"

I. INTRODUCTION: 

* England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales: 

- The term United Kingdom refers to the collective body of nations made up of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The four cut a wide swath of territory across the eastern face of Europe, in spite of being geographically apart from the rest of the continent by virtue of separation by the North and Irish Seas, the Strait of Dover, and the English Channel. 

- The four countries, over time, have experienced transformations in coastline, climate, and vegetation, as well as changing values, culture, and governments. Changes in the educational systems of the four nations of the United Kingdom have been dramatic, but at no time have changes been more extensive than the 1990s and first years of the twenty-first century following attempts to dissolve the House of Lords in England and accomplishment of devolution in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland.

II. HISTORY OF UNITED KINGDOM: 

1. ROMAN OCCUPATION: 

- Roman Occupation: The early inhabitants of Britain were pre-literate hunters, eventually cut off from the rest of Europe by the submerging of land under the waters of what became known as the English Channel. Extensive research by archaeologists in the twenty-first century has started to cast some light on early peoples of this area.

- Protected by fierce inhabitants and a rugged climate, England was considered a prize for conquest and began to undergo attacks from Rome. Well known to any beginning student of Latin are the campaigns by Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 B.C. immortalized by his own writings; his early biographers paint a portrait of a much crueler conqueror than the self-image he presents.

- Rome's attack on tribal leaders in Wales in the first century have become well known to twentieth-century players of fantasy games, because of the valiant, though doomed, fight of the Iceni warriors under Queen Boudicca, referred to by one Hollywood screenwriter as "a female Braveheart." Her story is dramatic. After being whipped and subject to vile indignities, including the rapes of her daughters, Boudicca massacred the residents of towns pledging allegiance to Rome until a counteroffensive wiped out her armies, and she committed suicide by taking poison. In spite of such furious fighting and heavy cost in lives, the Romans defeated the Welsh clans, failing to subjugate them. Little by little, however, their culture began reflecting the influence of Celtic Catholic missionaries among the Welsh people.

- Likewise, the Roman forces relentlessly invaded Scotland, repelled the clans known as the Picts, and declared the country under its rule. For all practical purposes, Scotland's rugged geography, particularly in the Highlands and its numerous adjacent islands, left the Romans hardly in control of the defiant clans and their allied clans from Ireland, the Celts. Nonetheless, Rome did have some influence on the Scottish people during five centuries of occupation, in part because of the preaching of Christian missionaries.

2. POST-ROMAN INVASIONS: 

- In the fourth century, Roman Emperor Constant I gave his namesake son, Constantine II, the conquered lands of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, but he gave the remainder of the empire to another son, Constans I. The unhappy Constantine II waged war on his brother but was cut down and killed during a battle in Italy. In the fifth century, the Romans pulled out of the lands they had fought so hard to win, driven out themselves after years of assault by fierce warriors they dismissed as barbarian hordes. In addition to the clans, invasions to the vulnerable east and south of England came from Denmark and northern Germany from warlike peoples known as the Angles, the Jutes, and the Saxons. The latter, collectively called the Anglo-Saxons about the sixteenth century, later used the term themselves as they grew settled and became farmers or town dwellers. Eventually, the term "Anglo-Saxon" embraced all in Britain.

- The Roman and British peoples of Wales also faced the invaders, but some pockets of the culture remained where they avoided enslavement. In general, culture and civilization declined until the seventh century when the Church of Rome sent missionaries to England and established monasteries dedicated to the preservation of learning and the transmission of culture and religion in written works. The immediate effect was to make the United Kingdom countries more open to trade and to developing the trappings of civilization already in place in other countries of Europe. Monasteries in the sixth and seventh centuries spread over Ireland and Scotland as well as England, though the politics of the time were chaotic, as kingdoms wielded power and waged conflict in these countries.

- By the tenth and eleventh centuries, parish churches were a reality in the Anglo-Saxon country of England, as they were elsewhere in Europe. However, instability in England and Ireland continued because of attacks by seas and rivers by marauding Vikings. Attacks by Danish warriors had begun in the eighth and ninth centuries, resulting in the destruction of monasteries and their manuscripts. The scholar-king Alfred the Great, king of Wessexin England, defeated the Danes in London in 886 and at Edington in 878. Had he been defeated, the Danes would have controlled England's main kingdoms in the ninth century. In addition to his heroics as a leader and contributions to the development of English law, Alfred was known for his championing of Old English literature and the translation of Latin classical writings into English.

- Alfred's contributions to learning made him a heroic figure of that era. In other areas, pandemonium was the rule. Ireland and Scotland were infiltrated by Norse warriors, who also sacked some monasteries in a quest for the abundant loot within. Alfred was the first ruler in a succession of rulers of Wessex who gained power for themselves, even as they drove out the powerful Scandinavians. The defeated Danes were assimilated and adopted Christianity. Rather than peace reigning, the kingdoms of Wessex and the West Saxons vied for power; Scotland was also invaded. In the end, Eadred emerged as the one supreme ruler of England. His successor, Eadgar, was crowned king, and his reign (957-975) brought stability to the country and an alliance with England's large, widespread Danish population.

- Ireland and Scotland experienced upheaval at the hands of invaders and men that vied for supreme rule. Battles for power were common between the ninth and twelfth centuries. The politics of Wales between the ninth and twelfth century were marked by almost constant intrigue, assassinations, battles, truces, and treaties.

3. DANISH & NORMAN RULE: 

- The persistent Danes continued to pour into England in their quest to subjugate England. At last, Denmark's King Swein prevailed early in the eleventh century, driving England's Aethelred the Unready into exile in Normandy. King Swein died, but his successor-son Cnut finished the fight against England, reigning as king of England from 1016 to 1035, as well as the kingdom of Demark from 1019 until his death. Like Alfred the Great, Cnut was a champion of the preservation of learning in the monasteries. His children were less wise and squabbled for power.

- The English regained control of the kingdom of Wessex between 1042 and 1066 under King Edward the Confessor, a son of Aethelred. Edward's death brought conflict between two men, William, the Duke of Normandy, and Harold, who claimed that the dead king had promised them the throne. Harold was given the crown and was occupied with an invasion by the Norwegians in the north. Although Harold's army prevailed, they were weakened and fell to a crushing attack in the south of England led by William, and Harold fell in battle. On Christmas Day, William the Conqueror was proclaimed King of England, and though he kept alive the English laws and customs, the French language and other customs led to immense cultural changes during this Norman occupation.

- The Middle Ages: The history of England from 1066 through the end of the fifteenth century is usually told through the accomplishments and failures of whatever monarch ruled at a particular time. Throughout this period, England experienced unity and prosperity to a greater degree than did Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. A system known as feudalism that was rampant in other parts of Europe became the norm in England as lords of manors extracted work and rents from their serfs, and knights served their lords, the supreme king, and the Church, marching on Crusades to try to wrest the Holy Lands from the Muslims.

- Royal power was, for a time, at its height during the reign of King Henry II (1154-1189), who elevated the power of royal courts of law and put down attempts of feudal barons who challenged his unlimited powers.

- Perhaps Britain's best-known constitutional document directly linked to feudalism was the Magna Carta of 1215. Signed by King John, known for his political inveigling and battles with the Pope, this "Great Charter," signed as a sign of appeasement by the embattled monarch, offered protections to the feudal lords that not even royalty could usurp, but it also guaranteed certain rights and privileges for the Church and even some rights for royal subjects.

- Throughout the Middle Ages, an uneasy relationship existed between English kings and barons. The various Crusades continued until 1291, and wars against France and other kingdoms were commonplace, costly, and counterproductive—seemingly designed to satisfy the vanity or rulers or their desire for the acquisition of lands. The long reign of Henry III (son of King John) from 1216 to 1272 was marked by the waste of human lives in war and by great expenditures to satisfy Henry's lust for lands in France and Sicily. His successor, King Henry IV, achieved the throne by force and established the Lancaster dynasty, but during his reign (1399-1413), he constantly needed to dispatch the royal troops to put down rebellions by the Scots and Welsh. Far more popular (and later immortalized by playwright William Shakespeare), King Henry V also engaged in great wars during his reign from 1413 to 1422, but he mainly kept the allegiance of his people because of his personal magnetism and the number of his great, yet costly, victories against the French.

- Like Alfred the Saxon, King Henry VI was a proponent of literature and learning, a patron of artists, and the founder of Eton College in 1440. However, he was a king unfit for governing, ruling at a time (1422-1461 and 1470-1471) of great unrest in England. He was murdered by Edward. Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII, contributed significantly to the support of universities, according to scholar Michael Van Cleave Alexander.

- A later ruler, Henry VIII, who reigned from 1509 to 1547, was a ruthless husband notorious for putting two of his six wives (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard) to death. However, learning and great universities flourished under him. Henry VIII tried, unsuccessfully, to end fighting with Scotland by uniting the two nations. Warring with Scotland continued under his reign, but one of his successes was to bring Wales into the kingdom in 1536, although Wales retained its culture and the Welsh language. Scotland's destiny changed from that of a separate kingdom to part of the United Kingdom under King James I of England, whose other title was Scotland's James VI as the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who was forced to abdicate and later executed.

4. THE VICTORIAN ERA: 

- Queen Victoria ascended the throne at a time of unrest and unhappiness with royalty, particularly during the reign of the dissolute King William IV who ruled from 1830 to 1837. Nonetheless, during his era was the start of important changes in England, including recognition for the strengthening of human rights. The Factory Act was passed in 1833, which eliminated, on paper if not in fact, the practice of child labor. In addition, slavery was abolished in the United Kingdom and its possessions by another historically important act. Although William IV gave some words of support to such reforms, he was befuddled by them and distressed by a growing clamor for political and social change in the United Kingdom.

- Strong nationalistic feelings and greater national unity occurred during the reign of William IV's niece, Victoria, who ascended the throne in 1837 and ruled as queen of the United Kingdom until 1901. Influenced greatly by her husband, Prince Albert, whom she wed in 1840, Queen Victoria set a town for moral reform and a toning down of the more scandalous conduct of the nobles that had been commonplace before her reign. In education, her reign produced strong attempts to introduce literacy to all of the United Kingdom because of an 1870 act of Parliament establishing compulsory elementary education.

5. MODERN ERA: 

- From Victoria's death in 1901 through the twenty-first century, the United Kingdom has seen periods of calm and prosperity as well as unstable times caused by two world wars, strong nationalism on the part of English colonies, and the assimilation, particularly in England, of immigrants with diverse backgrounds.

- A national system of education was adopted for England and Wales in 1902. By 1944, the system had developed strong local governing bodies for the schools, and yet there was a central administration as well. In 1922, Northern Ireland received a separate Parliament, while the Parliament in London governed England, Scotland and Wales.

- As of 1998, the United Kingdom's population tallies at 58.8 million. The largest nation, England, has a population of 49.1 million. Scotland's population is 5.1 million. Wales has a population of 2.9 million, and Northern Ireland's population is 1.7 million people.

- Scotland does not control the universities, but it does govern primary and secondary education. In 2001, the term "United" in United Kingdom is nearly a misnomer; all four UK countries have separate educational systems. Northern Ireland and Wales Assemblies, as well as the Scottish Parliament, are empowered to keep existing laws regarding education and governance, or they can repeal or amend existing legislation.

- As this volume goes to press, the climate in the United Kingdom can be characterized as one of uncertainty, but also one of great nationalistic excitement and an opportunity for positive changes that reflect each individual nation's needs. Illiteracy rates in Wales are high and troubling. English schools need to solve the challenges of a diverse population with many immigrants. While Scotland remains stable with its own educational curriculum and a stable higher education system, Northern Ireland continues to adjust as it carries on with an uneasy political alliance with Ireland. The needs of England's urban, heavily populated island contrast sharply with those of less-populated, mixed urban and rural cultures of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

- Traditionally, in England the Labor Party has advocated regulation, reform, or abolishment of elite schools in spite of their historical traditions. The Conservative Party favors the status quo and protection of these institutions. Without question, the most significant proposals for reform after 1900 have occurred between 1992 and 1991 as English reformers have attempted to alter the makeup of the House of Lords to reflect the changing democratic society in England. Loud cries for the abolition of the House of Lords arose from numerous critics in 1974 with the election of the Labor Party that considered the House of Lords to be an anachronism and a remnant of an earlier England. The Conservative Party reacted with attacks on the Labor Party. In 1999, the government moved ahead to make major changes in the composition of the House of Lords, and most observers of social conditions in England anticipated additional party bickering and legislation regarding the ongoing House of Lords controversy in the twenty-first century.

6. SUMMARY: 

* c. 925 – The Kingdom of England. Established by the unification of Anglo-Saxon tribes across modern day England.

* 1536 – Kingdom of England and Wales. A bill enacted by King Henry VIII which effectively made England and Wales the same country, governed by the same laws.

* 1707 – Kingdom of Great Britain. The Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) joined with the Kingdom of Scotland to form The Kingdom of Great Britain.

* 1801 – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland joins the union, and once again the name changes.

* 1922 – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland (Eire, or ‘Southern Ireland’) withdraws from the union, leaving just the northern counties of Ireland. This is the UK that remains to this day.

* The UK – a sovereign state that includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain – an island situated off the north west coast of Europe.

British Isles – a collection of over 6,000 islands, of which Great Britain is the largest.

England – a country within the UK.

 

Why should Civil service aspirants aim for SPSCs rather than UPSC?

 * When I started to prepare for UPSC, I dreamt of becoming an 'IFS officer'. I'm hugely interested in foreign policy and diplomacy. When I started and finished to learn about India's history and polity, as everyone would do, I was also motivated as a national executive.

* But, when I started to compare, how far the constitution is been practicing in present day, where few key aspects of it, been used or manipulated to favor certain states and betray certain states, I realised that, being a state executive is the grassroot of Indian administration and there is a huge auditing needed in this 'fiscal percolation' between union & states to avoid reverse percolation. 

* Our makers of constitution have intended to create such All India Services, for "administrative unity" in an union of 'diverse & pluralistic society'. When there is an infringement in "pluralism" of our nation, then why should we need IAS officers? Intentionally downplaying the role of IAS, is an act of centralisation in administration. If the trend persists, IAS will become faded away with direct control from center in administration via governor. 

* An IAS, recruited by UPSC, appointed by President of India, assumes an attitude of serving an individual entity(India), but infact it is not. IAS officers are recruited by UPSC for 'convenience in on-boarding alone', but work & get paid from State governments, making that IAS officer bound to obey the administrative head of the state(CM) and not the directions of center. 

That is why when Chief Secretary Bandyopadhyay of WB, obeyed path of his administrative leader(CM) eventhough he is an IAS, that's how one must be. 

* All executive actions are taken in the name of President. When recruited by UPSC, signed by President of India & deputed to work in a state, an IAS is bound to work aligned with the interests of that particular state's administrative head(CM) alone. Signed by President of India for an IAS or Governor of State for a SPSC both are bound to serve only the state, not center. 

* Does all the IAS adhere to this? Does not IAS officers become loyal to center? Is this the way, constitutionally it was meant to be?

* In due course, this kind of practise, of loyalty towards center would gradually erode the dignity of an All India Service(IAS). India as a whole, will develop, only when civil service aspirants, serve their own SPSCs, which is the grassroot of executive actions, and reduce administrative beurocracy. 

* So, 'without each and every states individually developing in social, economic & unique cultural aspect, India cannot develop'. "Without states, there is no union. Infact, to be tangible, there is no union at all, but only a beautiful unity of states, among various diversity". Let us not forget, the strength of our nation, is "Unity in diversity" which is nothing but, "Union among diversified states". 

"AN ATTACK ON FEDERALISM IN INDIA- A SOLUTION"

"AN ATTACK ON FEDERALISM IN INDIA - A SOLUTION"

                                                        "Only when each and every state's unique culture, identity is kept, coordinated and develop in a multi-parallel track, the nation, India, i.e Bharat, as an union of states would develop"

- Myself (☺)

                      In the past decade, to be precise from 2014-15, the fundamental of federalism is been on attack systematically & gradually in India, by the union gov towards the states. This may not be the first time, federalism is been attacked, the previous governments in union have also teased, bruised and hurt the federal nature, but the current regime have opted for a systematic & gradual erosion of federalism completely out of the nation both in letter and spirit in all possible ways. 

• The current NDA which came to power, rising slogans like 'One nation One tax One market One ration One etc' have boldly waged a war against the foundation of federalism. 

- Knowing that, One nation - is not at all possible in a completely diversified nation in a democracy; One tax - is a failed implementation; One ration - is not possible with abundant states not ready to share resources with lagging states, how come still the minions of this nation, believe in One nation theory?! 

• In terms of Fiscal federalism; the outright onslaught on the states is evident. GST which was built on the premise of 'trust' between the union gov and state, have failed on it's promises of GST dues, compensation and even extension requests on the term, and finally convinces the state to trust on centre, which have failed on it's promises. 

- But, when we have to look deeper, the number of states which support BJP(17/31) are greater than the number of states against BJP(14/31), and the fact is those who support BJP are the gainers who receive a huge portion of the compensation pool, contributing the least to it. Whereas, states like MH, TN & KA which contributes to the pool more, are given a very less only. Therefore, there is a need to restore 'fiscal justice to states'

- The idea of 'fiscal permeability' in India, where richer states feed the poorer states is acceptable, but the core question of how far the poorer states utilize the shared resources efficiently is a greater question and a clear audit of such 'differential resources' must be made by the one who contribute more. 

- So, an 'economical or fiscal grouping of contributing states' like MH, TN, KA and others must be made, and audit the resources 'shared' by them to states like Bihar, UP, Rajasthan and others. This would ensure accountability of the resources used effectively and not into waste. 

• In terms of Trade federalism; the union gov have cleverly sided with the 'merchant community' of the nation, favored them in all possible ways. For example: Protecting the 'big Indian business' from global competition by not entering the 'Regional comprehensive economic partnership' as well as from the 'rise of small business' which could be a threat to the big Indian businesses are also deliberately crushed by the 'demonetisation' and 'GST', which is evidently seen now. 

- So, the agenda of BJP towards a 'merchant community ruled polity' is slowly been enacted systematically. 

- What does the partiality in trade and commerce have to do with favoring political agendas?! Yes, the deeper idea, to 'cripple the regional parties' permanently making them 'permanently disabled' is the deeper idea here. By restricting local trade and hitting the small businesses, the regional parties which are been funded by small business and regional businesses are hindered, so the regional parties are lagging in funds, and cannot compete with the mammoth expense BJP does in every elections. 

- Thereby, by crippling the 'sources of regional parties', the BJP is cleverly making them "impotent to resist" the union gov. So, the regional parties must become aware of such tactics to safeguard their sources of incomes as well as the industrial (small and large) base of their state. 

• In terms of administration & legislature; the union gov have continuously used it's institutions to threaten and interfere with the administrative as well as legislative procedures of the state. 

- The trumpcard which the BJP uses is the 'Governor of State' who deliberately interfere with the day to day administration and affairs of the state, either to takeover the machinery, or to divert them from ruling the state well. The evidence examples of West Bengal where the union gov keeps on meddling with the state, and in case of Puducherry where the union gov have tookover the machinery and lots of others states like Maharashtra (they tried to and failed), Lakshwadeep islands, entirely their aim is to control both the administrative and legislative procedures to hinder the functioning of the state, all with he help of State Governors. 

- So, the State have to be most aware and careful of the Governors appointed to them, without trusting them blindly and have a huge watchful guardian, that none of the micro-agendas of BJP pushed into administration and legislation. 

• In terms of Health & Education; it is a known pathetic situation to see the union gov unilaterally taking control of the subjects of the states. This can be bearable, according to the situation, like done before during emergency and other times also, where union gov takes certain subjects into its hands, because states cannot do them well and they accept it and surrender. Whereas now, when the states are performing well, where is the need to takeover Health and education from states. 

- Coming to Health & Education, Tamilnadu is the best example. Why should the state like Tamilnadu, which already has a top notch higher education and an inclusive primary education have to listen to or surrender it's subject of education tot he centre? Why should the state of Tamilnadu, which have the best medical infrastructure and facilities both in terms of scale and implementing faculties depend on union gov to instruct them or on any other needs? Why should the state of Tamilnadu, which has achieved self sufficient status in foodgrains and have a perfect and best network of PDS system, depend or have to listen to the union gov which has no business to interfere with it? 

- The reason entirely lies in the clever agenda of BJP of introducing 'Central schemes' in the subjects of the state. Why should the union gov introduce a scheme in which Tamilnadu is already doing well? Not only in Tamilnadu, the entire Nationwide central schemes by the BJP are focused not on 'result based' but entirely for the purpose of 'interfering with the state subjects' alone. Imagine, Tamilnadu which have already been a role model for many states in Sanitation and hygiene, given a record in the website of union ministry that Tamilnadu have achieved open defecation free(ODF) status, now only, as per the union gov, whereas Tamilnadu been awarded ODF by various previous governments and organizations. It is not that the central wants a fruitful result, but to either 'steal the goodname' which someone already laid efforts to, or 'interfere in their subjects' like they are not putting efforts in that. It is entirely the act of keeping your name, for someone's child ,thereby increasing your publicity. 

- The States must resolve as a united way, not to accept any Central schemes pushed, in the subjects of the state. However or whatever it maybe, the state's subject must be taken care of through welfare programs of the state alone, leaving no space for the centre to keep its hand on state's subject. 

• In terms of Socio-Cultural fundamentals; every state is unique and has it's own beautiful culture and living, from what they consume, what they study, how they grow their children up, what they do to everything which comes under 'Right to life and liberty' given in the constitution. And, Ultimately the notion of 'One nation' is simply a cry to create orgasms for the hindutuva minions on one side, and looting the resources via the merchant community on the other side, making the richer states accountable & bear the burden of the 'deliberately made' poorer states and finally taking the role of 'victim' or 'martyr' of hindus to consolidate further troops of innocent minions.

- "Unity in diversity"(Pluralism) is been forgotten slowly by many of us. Slowly the words like Secularism, Federalism, Fraternity, Socialistic are ready to be attacked next. What can we do for it? What can we do to stop such goons from entering the state's 'socio-cultural' aspect also? 

- First, the revival of 'Regional identity' or 'Regionalism' and it's beautiful diversity. Second, the revival of fundamental values like Secularism, Socialism, Democracy, Equality & Justice  enshrined in the constitution. Third, to resist the idea, that hindutuva is the orgin of such regionalism. Because, their final strategy if they 'fail to conquer' is they 'smear'. They have started smearing the flavor of hindutuva to be the orgin of such regional tendencies and tastes in Bengal, Assam, and TN. It is like this, pushing you not to eat beef saying huge reasons and traditional logics and finally, when they clearly know they cannot push, they smear a thought that beef eating good and was infact advocated by hindutuva only. This is because, they do not have a standard or welfare ideology, their ultimate motive is land, money, power & women, for which they cook up stories and epics and term them to be the religion and push them to be the tradition and what them to be followed, only because finally it benefits the merchants, high castes and their footlicking politicians alone.

"ISRAEL PALESTINE CONFLICT - A SOLUTION"

                                   "ISRAEL PALESTINE CONFLICT - A SOLUTION"

Israel have been in war with Palestine for nearly 11 days. Both of them firing rockets each other leading death and destruction.

                              Some may argue, based on ethnicity, that Israel is right on its part, whereas some may chose to go by the norms of the current world order to emphasise on humanity and resolve, based on compromise. Some may put forward a 'two nation theory' and very few for a 'single nation theory' too.. I can say, even if you think for a 'three nation theory', none of the single or two nation theory will be possible of feasible not only now, ever. 

• Because of Britain, in 1948, UN have divided Palestine between the Jews & Arabs in 55% & 45% respectively. So, dividing Palestine, in such a nearly inequal proportions, agreed by both, by itself shows there is a preference or natural right bestowed upon the Jews, because of their orgin. For Jews, their race & nation both are the same, whereas for Palestinians, they are Arab race, settled in Jewish land, at the time when Jews were spread out. So clearly, it is a tug between the 'native' & 'settled'

• After which, a 'scattered race', out of thirst for a permanent settlement, precisely established & recognised the 'State of Israel', which the Palestinians have failed to do at that time because of lack of resources. But instead of pushing for a statehood, Palestine did the worst mistake 

• Palestine went for an Arab coalition with Arab nations, and jointly invaded into Israel. But, Israel not only defended, chased back them, destroyed 600 palestinian villages & expelled 80% of palestinians (Arabs). I specifically mention Palestinians as Arabs because, once a territorial issue, was made an issue between races, by Palestine only at first

• During the 'Six day war' in 1967, Israel captured territories not only from Palestine, but also went upto Egypt's mount Sinai as well as till Syrian's Golan Heights

• After 1973's 'Yom Kippur war', the Arab states of Palestinians coalition started to realise that Israel will never back up, and it is a tough war & they almost accepted their failure with Israel, that they cannot win Israel at any time in history or future, as promised by God Almighty in the scriptures common to the 'Abrahamic Monotheism'. But, the tricky part is, eventhough the coalition Arab nations washed their hands off supporting Palestine, because they realised they can't win Israel, yet, a part of Palestinians (Hamas) doesn't realise that, till now, and resort to counter-violence against Israel always

• Hamas must understand that Israel will not giveup on holding to the land which they've held for years and Israel must understand that total surrender, annihilation, expelling or subjugation by Israel as it did before, is not at all possible now, with Hamas there to defend Palestine strongly. Therefore we can assume that, Israel can rightly, officially or diplomatically claim for their leftover territories of Palestine but not resort to violence, similarly, Hamas must not forget the racial claim of Jews, and at best save the consolidated palestine without violence.

• The aim of Israel must be to ask for what they rightfully claim, with proper substance diplomatically & that of Hamas must be a 'stop-loss strategy', 'consolidation of unclaimed Palestinian territories', and immediately 'get recognised' by nations and organizations.

• If Palestinians, does not agree with this, they must understand one thing. The core disputed area, Jerusalem, which houses the 'Al Aqsa' mosque, which Hamas is strong not to give to Israel, but Hamas should understand that Al Aqsa mentioned in Quran, which they claim to be theirs is actually "Solomon's Temple" which is given in Bible/Tora (Christian/Jewish) scriptures. And, Palestinians must also remember that, Quran itself says, to refer to 'the previous scriptures given before Quran'(Bible/Tora)., which clearly says that it is 'Solomon's Temple'. So, it is best that Palestinians follow these; 

- give up 'Al Aqsa' because it's not 'Al Aqsa' rather 'Solomon's Temple'; 

- consolidate the territories which are rightfully yours within Israel;

- recognise them once again as a state and join global organisations which recognise you; 

A SHORT PRESENTATION;