A Mockery (Heading the State and Department in Indian Parliamentary System)

I know what everybody is thinking about the title, how weird or how unclear this title is??? Well this is something which most of us thinking about time and time again. One should look at this article as a discussion between normal people or denizens (fearful saying "Aam Aadmi", since it got a bad name and has been disgraced by some individual lately).

• What should be the criteria of heading the state?
• What makes any one qualified to head a state?
• Is our current system competent enough in terms of getting the right person as head of the state?
• Can there be any rule of thumb to decide the probable best (likelihood of success) person or most competent person to do the job?

We can go on and on about these question. One of the things , I would like to make it clear that I am neither a social scientist nor do I posses a knowledge of any social science, since I happen to be an engineer. But these question always comes to mind of anyone and everyone thinking about the state of affair of our country. I am very embroiled in every way, it has been intriguing, plausible & scornful. Whatever may be the case, it is very tough for me to comprehend the whole process and the incompetence's of our so called leader.

When Indira Gandhi got killed, I was very small and could not understand the concept of somebody heading the country and why somebody would do something like this to anyone!!! But when the same thing happened to Rajiv Gandhi, I had little sense and was sad since I liked the way he spoke and how he looked and wondered why somebody would do such a disdainful act, I was so sad with the demise that any music played around would irritate me but the criteria was very simple to like him, but the question is  "was those criteria of good looking and speaking nicely etc.. good enough ?".In my current state of mind and all the intellect I poses , I disagree with my decisions or taste back then but at the same time happy to have understanding of "disdainful act".

I kind of started looking at the politics little closely when V P Singh came to power with the promise of removing the corruption, the only and only thing which came to his speech was Bofors and only Bofors deal. I also remember the anti reservation movement and self immolation of some individual who believed in talent more than anything else. The promise was surely not kept and was far more incapable government. Then came the Chandrasekhar, and the country faced the bankruptcy. Then came Naramashima Rao, and India embraced the Globalization/Liberalization to get out of the bankruptcy but with fear of getting crushed by foreign companies and taking over to our country, lots of us related the scenario to the East Indian Company, thankfully that has not happened so far either because it turns out that we are smarter than what we think or their objective(FDI) has changed, anyway so far nothing of that sort has happened. Narashimha Rao who was very knowledgeable person and gentlemen (if we look back couple of decades before and after him) , is responsible for liberalization which none of us talk or not many of us are aware about. Then came A B Vajpayee, did shape up the infrastructure of the country, such as Golden Quadrilater. The list of all the Prime Ministers are very big, what is so common about them with some exception, that is what I am trying to focus on. Most of them were undeserving candidate in terms of heading the state.

India has a democracy and therefore the people elect the representative and representative governs the country as peoples person. Electing people and electing people to run the country are two different things, it is sometime known (who would be heading the country in case of majority)beforehand that is becuase of nature of the system which is very probabilistic in nature and also not a compulsion to any registered party to divulge the name of the would be PM in case of majority established/achieved, which is contrary to lots of democracies in the world. The same thing is done for all the state department such as Railway, finance , defence, where the people have no clue who would be heading the department after election.  Well one may argue, how one would know which party will be part of government or how the coalition would work out, that is so true. The question is , if no body knows about the whole future coalition politics then it is also unclever or irrationale to say the elected people chose someone to head the country, for that matter any department. Also, it is very important to understand, how this impact the end result and raises the very fundamental question which is ,"should election be the only criteria to run the country ?"








 

What makes us corrupt?

My believe is, people are same. It is just a matter of, how prosperous you and society are??? If you are wealthy, you steal differently and what you steal becomes a question of choice. 

One thing I always heard in media from some notable people time and time again in USA, he went unpunished.. And it should not be the case. That is the reason , some of the homicides/corruption/sex offenders etc case goes for decades in USA and if caught, pay the price... Even though the cost may be quite exponential compare to some of the action !!! The bottom line is accountability. 

Education plays a very big role in corruption, but it alone does not mean anything. It varies with proportion of people being educated .i.e. 20% education may have different result then 50% or 70% or 100%. There is a correlation between % of educated people to the intensity of corruption. 

Also it is very important to understand that how does religion plays a role in corruption. Our belief/faith along with the our ability to think and education makes a huge difference. Just a religious belief or dogma without pragmatism could be dangerous and this pragmatism comes from our education. 

If there was an index of corruption, one could study the relationship between '% of educated people', religiousness and various attributes such a income, economy. If the strong relationship found, could help in creating a good society. 

One of the very less said thing is, how do we perceive our self both individually as well as society ??? A sense of pride in once ability from the perspective of , 'who we are?', 'what we stand for, from the perspective of culture and heritage.i.e. our history?' These  factors may seem very trivial but are very important in curbing corruption!!! 

Understanding these factors help in designing our system from scratch (most of cases it is referred as constitution) and retrofitting things to make things better ( by having proper amendment in the constitution). Therefore one can't conclude, one solution fit all.

🏃🏃🏃🏃

Corruption only problem!!!

The whole thought process is a risk to our nation..!!! People are getting fooled..!! The whole idea is about confusing people from the existing framework and trying to portray their idea of governance based on wishful thinking and ideology (without a backbone..), one has to differentiate between existing framework and a framework he is suggesting and its impact in long run!!!

One just don't know what the goal is, it could be supporting Congress and so called third front by dividing the vote of Modi.i.e. Weakening the base of Modi or bringing a system of its own or working or helping forces against India. Lately the whole event/episode raises a question mark on his intentions. The question is , do we have only problem of corruption ? or are their any-other as well?? If the problem of corruption is the only problem, then why China succeeds in various front ??

 Not to get confuse, I am no way supporting corruption. Everybody knows the corruption is happening and is not good, but no body is thinking about the underlying reason , why so much corruption? Whenever we discuss about India (as Indian), we always talk about corruption. Many people has many views. But I have noticed , most of us think it has to do with individual more than anything.  I have seen somebody concluding that it is in our blood. By saying this, one is concluding that the person who is responsible for certain thing, are greedy in nature. If that is the case , why most of people who takes the responsibility, act in same way as of predecessors. If somebody say , the education is a problem, in that case the educated people should not be corrupt, but if one observe it is very evident that in most of cases the educated people are the one who are corrupt. People coming from very highest level of education and aptitude are corrupt , take the case of IAS/IPS/MBAs etc. 

Corruption is surely bad , but can this be the only problem, but China is developing in all front despite.

So corruption is bad but this can just not be a problem to development , it surely hinders the development process. If one says corruption is a problem and somebody will come to the power and in few days the corruption will vanish would be very novice statement, and it sound very rhetoric more than anything else !!!!