Showing posts with label Political Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Science. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 September 2022
Caste in Christianity
Sunday, 22 August 2021
TALIBAN ISSUE - 01: U.S & Talibans
* Eventhough, the U.S came to discipline the Talibans, what actually it had been doing either knowingly or unknowingly, was that it was the reason for the Taliban being upper hand now.
* U.S have invested huge funds towards education and health in Afghanistan, and have earned a loyal set of considerable population of people, admiring and wanting to live an american life, and be true to U.S.
* But, such huge funds, have also been mishandled and grafted to various high level groups both within U.S and Taliban. Not to mention more have been stuffed by Afghan government also.
* What question lies now, is that, the global notion, that many democratic nations doesn't actually recognise Talibans, have now started to change. Countries are lining up to recognise Taliban regime at present to claim a share of their support towards it.
* The 'Eurasian axis' of Russia, China & Taliban starting to imprint their domination have already been visible, and countries like Iran waiting for their bookings. But, does the people of Afghan wants it?
* Many of us, confuse between, the state and the government. Governments are dynamic but state is static/permanent. What actually the people of Afghan (state of Afghan) wants is what matters here, rather than what all the countries are trying to set up.
* A clash or misunderstanding between two sets of trio love story between U.S.-Taliban-Afghan and Afghan-Taliban-Russia seems to be evidently exposed. Previously when Afghan being under UK, Russia and US, the entire people seems to be 'encourage the invader' attitude, whereas now, the people wants an independent or somewhat free from huge power clashes.
* The people of Afghan (State) and the government of Afghan (government) have never been in terms or in sink from the beginning. Similarly, the Talibans have never recognised the government of Afghan which have been in legitimate rule. So, the immicible state of People-Taliban-Government also plays a vital role.
* If, people have to be given importance to chose their government, then definitely the clash must be within Taliban & the government alone, rather than seeking aid of nations like Russia or U.S. Because on the whole, the involvement of these hegemonic powers have infact, tattered the morale of Afghan people.
* U.S for instance, have been funding Afghan government as well as preventing Talibans, which on one hand proved to be effective, seeing the rise in literacy levels, women education and access to medicine, growing more than 45% before 20 years back. But, on the other side, the recognition laid on Taliban is definitely a leak in the tank.
* U.S always prefer to respect the Taliban mindset not to recognise the Afghan government and have always held direct talks between U.S-Taliban neglecting Afghan government. U.S would have thought that gradually she could bring in Afghan by voicing for it on her behalf, but ultimately failed, by 'consistently undermining' the Afghan government.
* All these boiled up to the moment, which gave the detonator in the hands of U.S to unleash the Talibans. In this aspect, both Trump & Biden administration have failed. First, Trump administration forced Ashraf Ghani government to release 5000 Talibans, knowing they were not ready to come to a peace deal at all. Secondly, Biden administration have 'pulled the rug under the Afghans' sensing that it has tremendous impact on U.S both financially and politically. It is like sending someone into the tiger's cage having the control in our hands, and suddenly letting it off, sensing that if he died we would be responsible.
* Knowingly or unknowingly, it was the U.S which is the reason to continuously spoon-feed Afghan government, at the same time giving time for the Talibans to 'get recognised', and giving their prisoners also back to them, and expecting a peace by stopping to feed them. The people of Afghan are the end receiver of this failure. Yet, a considerable section of people of Afghan are strong to be loyal to U.S and dream to living the american life someday or other, which infact is happening now, thanks to U.S atleast accepting the people as refugees as of now.
Friday, 16 July 2021
United Kingdom, is it still United? - BREXIT & its implications
1. INTRODUCTION:
* It is the abbreviation of “British Exit” from the European Union (EU).
Brexit mirrors the term Grexit — a term which was coined and used by two Citigroup’s economists in February 2012 to refer to the possible exit of Greece from the EU.
* So, what is European Union?
- Post the Second World War, two countries Germany and France came together and decided that they wanted to establish trade relations as it would prevent their countries waging war against each other in the future. The result was the 6 members (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands) signed a deal covering resources like coal and steel.
In 1957 a treaty was signed in Rome (Europe)-European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market
This has expanded and now has 28 member states.
- It is an economic and political partnership comprising of 28 member nations. Politically, a law passed in the European Parliament is applicable and binding on all Member nations directly. Economically, the EU is the single market allowing the free movement of goods and people. EU has its own currency, the Euro, which is being used by 28 member countries. The capital of the EU is located in Brussels, Belgium.
- There are four key institutions in the EU
European Commission- based at Brussels (Belgium), it consists of 28 commissioners (1 each from the member states, it administers the money spent and also formulates new laws
European Parliament– based at Brussels (Belgium), there are 751 members in the parliament, their function is to discuss and vote all the laws that have been proposed by EC
Council of European Union– based at Brussels (Belgium), It is where the government of each member country will have their say and hold discussions as to in what political direction should the European Union be moving. Usually, the deals are signed at the end of the discussions
European Court of Justice- based at Luxembourg. The function is to make sure that all the member states abide by the rules and regulations; will also come into picture if there are any frictions between the above three institutions.
Therefore, basically the EU is an union where there us no restrictions to entry of human resources and trade. So, definitely the one who is powerful and capable is more prone to be exploited by those who are not that much relatively capable or efficient. EU seems to be a common platform rendering equitable justice in trade and human resource leveraging the more capable to feed the relatively less or weaker ones.
Also, the 'political' control the EU has over Britain is disturbing and definitely not agreeable by the citizens of Britain who are well aware of the sovereignty and might of her.
2. EXPLANATION:
* Referendum: There were growing calls from many MPs of the Conservative Party and the UK Independence Party (UKIP), for a new referendum. (In 1975, Britain had voted to stay in the EU in a referendum).
A referendum was held on June 23, 2016, to decide whether Britain should exit or remain in the European Union.
Eligible voters: All British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are resident in the UK, along with UK nationals living abroad who have been on the electoral register in the UK in the past 15 years.
51.9% of voters favoured exit of Britain from the EU. It is the first time since the EU was founded in 1957 that a member country is leaving.
* REASONS FOR BREXIT:
i). Migration
Migration of people from both within and outside EU, especially from the West Asia (Syria and ISIS Issue) and East European nations = Fear of losing jobs, social welfare benefits among the Britons.
Repeated requests of Germany to share the migrants across Europe and asking the UK to accept a number of them have been disliked by the Britons.
ii). Contributions to EU Budget
UK is one of the ten countries which contribute more to the EU Budget.
According to some studies, the UK’s contribution is not proportionate to the benefits it gets back.
iii). Failure of EU
The European Economic Community (EEC) had 6 members, 4 languages and 177 million population when it was founded. But now the EU has 28 members, 24 languages and 505 million population.
Thus the EU failed on several fronts in creating one community and one identity while solving the differences among its members, including Britain.
People feel that jobs, living standards were better offered during the early days of nation-states than now. (Click here to learn about the European states system through mind map).
iv). Sovereignty issue
Some of the Britons feel that they are being controlled by the diktats of Brussels bureaucracy rather than making their own decisions.
Although the British Government influences some form in selecting the members to the European Commission, the members are neither under the influence nor accountable to the British Parliament and some of the policy decisions such as competition policy, agriculture, copyright, and patent law go against the interests of Britain (these laws override the domestic laws)
They view the institutions of EU as undemocratic and do not want bureaucrats in Brussels to decide what laws the UK should follow.
v). Germany’s domination
With the coming of Angela Merkel, Germany has started playing an influential and leading role in both global and regional affairs.
It has indirectly made Britain feel marginalized both within the EU and the region.
Considering their imperial past, Britons are in no way ready to tolerate an EU dominated by a German leadership.
vi). Economic model
Some Britons are not happy with the way EU central bank responded to the 2008 financial crisis which resulted in an economic recession. (Note: Recession means a widespread decline in the GDP, employment and trade lasting from six months to a year).
They were not satisfied with the economic model that is in place for three decades and its failure to serve the interests of various sections of the Britons.
Some of the regulations such as –limits on the power of vacuum cleaners, non-recycling of tea bags, etc have often been seen as a burden on some of the conservatives in Britain. As per Michel Gove, these regulations have cost Britain to the tune of £3 billion per year.
Particularly, the youth are concerned about career opportunities and the affordable homes that were never built by the State.
It is estimated that unemployment across Eurozone is more than 10 percent.
According to some studies, the UK’s economy is losing 600 million euros every week because of the burdensome regulations of the EU.
vii). Euro currency failure:
Euro is the common currency for the EU, Britain still uses the pound as its currency. Now if the euro had to be successful then it would have required greater fiscal and monetary integration and this cannot be achieved unless all the member states have the same currency. The problem with the euro as a common currency has also been exposed wherein on one side countries such as Greece and Spain are suffering from high debt, high unemployment, whereas other countries such as Germany are enjoying higher growth. Now in this situation, the ECB (European Central Bank) is in a dilemma whether to go for fiscal stimulus or prudence.
* REASONS AGAINST BREXIT:
i). Image of UK
For the critics of Brexit including former PM David Cameron, the referendum was an utter insult to the entire country as it has reflected the great divide between Britain and EU.
They also claim that the UK’s image would get damaged by leaving the EU.
ii). Immigrants
Majority of the immigrants are young and hence would boost economic growth and will help pay for the public services.
iii). Trade
Trade gets a major boost for Britain if it stays with the EU. It is because selling products to other EU nations becomes easier with EU membership.
Foreign companies may not be willing to invest in the UK if it is not part of the EU. Moreover, they may also move their bases out of the UK as it will not be a part of the single market since it would face problems with different EU regulations.
iv). Security
According to Brexit critics, leaving the EU may affect the ability to fight cross-border crime and terrorism. They believe that Britain would be more secure as part of the EU.
3. CONSEQUENCES:
I). On UK:
- As per International Monetary Fund (IMF), a vote to exit the European Union in the referendum could leave Britain’s economy more than 5 per cent smaller by 2019 than if it stays in the 28-nation club.
- Brexit could cause the country’s economy to be between 3.8 and 7.5 per cent smaller by 2030.
- The pound expected to fall by around 20 per cent. This would mean that exports to the UK will suffer and imports from the UK will gain. Export companies operating in the UK will gain, while import companies will lose.
- More foreign tourists will visit Britain in the coming days as the currency value has fallen.
- More foreign students may prefer Britain for higher education as the fees may seem cheaper.
- EU citizens in Britain and Brits living in other EU nations would have to update their immigration statuses.
- Companies operating in both the UK and the EU would have to verify that they’re compliant with two sets of laws.
- US President Obama has warned that it could take 10 years for Britain to negotiate a new trade deal with the US.
- The referendum results (52:48) is very close. This means a major division of opinion in Britain which has social implications too. While the less educated and the old seems to favour the ‘leave EU’ campaign, the young and the employed are more in favour of Britain staying in the EU.
- Brexit could encourage England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland to appeal for quitting the United Kingdom.
- The weakening of pound: The value of pound weakened to a 30 year low after the Brexit referendum. It will negatively impact the country’s imports and exports.
- Trade agreements: the UK has to separately enter into trade agreements with the rest of the world.
- The breakup of the United Kingdom: Scotland (part of UK) had voted in favour of EU during the referendum campaign. Thus Brexit would boost the demand for independence of Scotland from the United Kingdom.
- The Irish question:Ireland is an island to the west of Britain and has 2 major regions – North and South, with different demographic features. “Protestant majority Northern Ireland” (a UK territory) and “Catholic majority Irish Republic” (an independent country in the south), have had serious ethnic tensions within and between them. Numerous agreements and EU’s integrated markets system have thus far been a considerable influence in resolving these tense and violent trends. Since UK plans to leave EU, the Irish question has come to haunt all concerned governments since there is a fear that a new era of violence might start.
II). On EU:
- Britain is an important country in the EU. Without Britain, the EU may lose much of its influence as a global power bloc. It may result in a resurgence of the nation-states that once ruled Europe. Because, with Brexit, right-wing political groups in Italy, France, Sweden, Belgium, Poland, Germany, Spain, and Hungary have started demanding the exit of their own nations from the EU. (click here to learn about the European states system through mind map)
III). On World:
- Remittance from the UK to countries outside in terms of Pound will fetch lesser returns compared to the past.
- Export dominated countries may be affected, whether exporting to the UK or not. If the UK is the major trading partner, the effect will be more.
- The United States will bear the major brunt of a Brexit being the UK’s biggest trading partner.
- A direct impact on Asian economies from Brexit is unlikely in the long term because as a percentage of GDP, exports to the UK is less than 2% for most economies.
- But businesses in some major Asian economies – like India and Japan- will be hit.
- Companies which have set up operations in the UK to gain access to EU markets will be affected.
- BREXIT would likely allow any US Dollar strength to play out. This may cause other currencies to decline in value.
iv).On India:
India is one of the top investors in the UK.
There are about 800 Indian-owned companies in the country employing roughly 110,000 people. (Eg: Jaguar Land Rover is owned by the Tata group)
Many of these firms made investments with the wider European market in mind.
Together, the UK and Europe account for over-a-quarter of the country’s IT exports, worth around $30bn.
The UK is the third-largest source of foreign direct investment in India and India’s largest G20 investor.
India is the third-largest source of FDI to the UK in terms of numbers of projects. India invests more in the UK than in the rest of Europe combined, emerging as the UK’s third-largest FDI investor.
The key sectors attracting Indian investment include healthcare, agritech, food, and drink.
In November 2015, Prime Minister Modi has said, ”As far as India is concerned, if there is an entry point for us to the EU, that is the UK.”
But, the UK is only India’s 12th largest trade partner, well behind other European countries such as Germany and Switzerland.
Interestingly, the UK is also among just seven in 25 top countries with which India enjoys a trade surplus.
- Trade: India-UK trade will get a boost. The stringent regulations of the EU which were the biggest obstacle can be done away with. For example, the EU had banned Alphonso mangoes from India after it reportedly found fruit flies in the consignments. The weakening of pounds will also be advantageous for Indian imports. It will also benefit tourists and Indian students studying in the UK.
- Indian Businesses in the UK: may find it hard to access the single market of EU since their products may become uncompetitive if they are asked to pay import duties upon entering the EU. Thus Indian businesses will not be able to utilize the UK as the gateway to the European Union. Indian IT firms which have considerable exposure to the European markets, particularly the UK, will be affected since there is a risk of a decrease in growth levels in the EU and UK.
- Tourism: Due to the weakening of pound, there will be a decrease in tourists flow into India from Britain.
- Immigration: After Brexit, it is expected that there will be more restrictions on immigration in the United Kingdom thus affecting Indian immigrants.
- FDI: Brexit will affect the flow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in India. It will result in financial instability and a legal regime overhaul in the long-term.
- Indian students in the UK: will get benefitted since the number of applicants from EU nations to the universities in the UK is likely to decrease after Brexit. Also, the weakening of pound may lower down the total cost of education for Indian students. Furthermore, there may be a decrease in international student fee since the low fee structure for EU students may be withdrawn. It has to be noted that, the EU students were availing fee concessions which are being cross-subsidized by a higher international student feeI-
- India’s Forex (currently a record 363 billion dollars) may diminish, particular if the currency is stored in Euros or Pound (this comes around 20% of total forex).
- Brexit will have a negative impact on the $108 billion Indian IT sector in the short term.
- Many Indian companies are listed on the London Stock Exchange and many have European headquarters in London. Brexit will take away this advantage.
- Due to fall in the value of Pound sterling, Indian exports to the UK will suffer. Cheaper rupee will make Indian exports, including IT and ITeS, competitive. Indian import companies operating in the UK may also report a loss. Also, note that India is exporting more than what it is importing from Britain.
Therefore, for India, there are both set of positive and negative impacts, but the overall weigh is that, it is positive for India on long term, since it's simple, that if Britain is out from EU, the chances of trade, economy and foreign studies (which favors us) will be prioritized to Indians still more, eventhough we can tackle certain negatives in a good relationship with Britain
4. What will happen to Northern Ireland?
- Brexit would involve North Ireland’s departure from the EU as it is part of the UK.
- In the absence of another arrangement, checks would be required along the 499-km Irish Border as different trade rules would apply to north and south of Ireland after Brexit.
- This creates a security risk because a physical border infrastructure would be considered as a potential target for militants.
- To avoid this, an effective insurance policy called the Backstop was originally agreed by the UK and the EU in the withdrawal agreement.
- However, this was opposed by Northern Ireland’s lawmakers as it risked breaking up of the UK.
- Ultimately, the Backstop was replaced by Northern Ireland Protocol in order to avoid trade border emerging on the island of Ireland.
- The protocol was formed as part of last year’s withdrawal agreement.
- It prevents hardening of borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
- According to this protocol, Northern Ireland (NI) will remain in the EU single market for goods.
- Northern Ireland will also apply EU customs rules at its ports, even though the region is still part of the UK customs territory.
- The protocol will also see Northern Ireland follow certain EU rules on state aid and VAT on goods.
- It also mandates checking and controlling of goods arriving from Great Britain from January 1.
- However, goods going into the Republic of Ireland and the wider EU will face no new checks or controls.
- This arrangement would still have applied even if the wider trade deal failed to be implemented.
- There were concerns regarding Northern Ireland becoming a tariff-dodgers’ backdoor into the EU’s customs union.
- It was addressed by allowing deeming of several goods as “at risk” and hitting them with EU tariffs as they entered from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
- The tariff could be rebated if these goods were shown to be consumed in Northern Ireland.
- The overall UK-EU trade deal eliminates tariffs on all goods traded, minimising the number of transactions being deemed as at risk.
Tuesday, 29 June 2021
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.
Thursday, 3 June 2021
"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.
Tuesday, 1 June 2021
"ISRAEL PALESTINE CONFLICT - A SOLUTION"
"ISRAEL PALESTINE CONFLICT - A SOLUTION"
• 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;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)