From: narayana@oracorp.com (K. T. Narayana)
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:55:16 GMT

In article <92253.100659THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> <THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <BuA0L4.Kxu@cs.psu.edu>, narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T
>Narayana) says:
>
>[... lots deleted ...]
>
>I had asked:
>>>What is the guarantee that goondas will not gain control at the centre?
>>>Will we rely on the USA (oops, the UN) to bomb India back to stone ages
>>>in such a case? What is your criteria for deciding that CPM, TDP, DMK
>>>are goondas? Do you think that Sanjay Gandhi was a goonda?
>>>
>K.T.Narayana replies:
>>The probability that goondas gain control of the whole nation is less
>>than the probability  that they control a state. Sovereign democratic
>>states follow the constitutional principles which limit the authority.
>
>So it is only a matter of probability? Given enough time, the improbable
>will happen. What will you do then?
>
There are correcting instruments at the center, that of the division of
powers, that is why many a time central govts are restricted in the
scope of their gooda raj.

>[... deleted ...]
You carefully delete pieces of text!

>KTN:
>>as terroristic. So they are goondas. As for DMK, they are born goondas.
>>One doesn't need any justification to say the same about that cultureless
>>lot.
>
>Are your criteria for deciding who are goondas mentioned in the
>constitution?
>
No! Who are goondas is not mentioned. Who are criminals is mentioned
in the Indian penal code. Goonda is an agrandized word for criminals.

>I had said:
>>>I see. You approve of General Dyer's use of Gurkha troops to fire on
>>>the Punjabis at Jalianwalla Bagh in 1919 to maintain "law and order".
>>>
>KTN:
>>Where an act of maintaining the law and order is performed in liu of
>>professional goals, I do. In the case of Dyes use of force, such use of
>>force was made on unarmed civilians. You should think a little bit
>>more soundly.
>
>Are you saying that GOI's law and order machinery has never killed
>unarmed civilians?
>
I never said that acts commit by any law enforcement agency outside
the scope of law is legal and sanctioned. Acts committed by the
law enforcement agencies according to the law are justified. That is
it. Where matters of terrorism are concerned, such laws do exist
to eliminate the terrorists. The only question is, how much
judicial review of specific acts of law enforcement exists?
Whether the judicial review should be strengthened so that
the citizens (even if they are terrorists) are captured alive,
and killed only in extraordinary circumstances.

>You forgot to add (about IISc) "and cultivate bigoted opinions".
>
This is bull! If you have sympathies to terrorists and you are
an apologist for terrorism, it doesn't imply that people who
speak the truth about the violation of the law are bigots.

>KTN:
>>No! we don't take guns ourselves. We are a law abiding people.
>>We use the law enforcement agencies to destroy these terrorists
>>called naxalites! have you hugged your naxalite today!
>
>Pardon me for suggesting that you should pick up the gun yourself.
>I forgot that your class has money. So you just hire some poor
>people, and arm them to shoot other poor people who disturb your
>night's sleep (and probably are cultureless, to boot).
>
We don't need the money! We need the values, the values of
constitutionalism, that which is absent totally in the bulk
of the goonda ilk. 

>If you actually read the constitution, you would have found a
>paragraph which says that the state ministry functions at the
>PLEASURE of the governor. Thus a governor can dismiss a state
>ministry by withdrawing his/her pleasure. It does not matter whether
>the ministry has the confidence of the legislature when the pleasure
>criterion is invoked. Because the governor is appointed by the
>centre, the centre can indeed dismiss a state govt (constitutionally)
>at will. Because the constitution permits such dismissal, a deposed
>chief minister would have no ground on which to contest centre's
>action in a court of law.
That the state govt acts according to the pleasure of the governor
is the same as the central govt acting at the pleaure of the
president of India. The institution of a governor mirrors closely
that of the governor. The only difference is that the governor is
a titular head of the state rather than the nation. The westminster
model is also based on the same constitutional conventions.
As I said, no act of central or govt or of governor is beyond the
scope of law! The thing is that the goond chiefministers never
went to the court of law, for they knew pretty well that constitutionally
their dismissal was legal.
 
>
>This is my last post on this thread.
>T.H.Sanyal.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian