From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:29:26 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <92248.095811THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> <THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.155100.5571@oracorp.com>, narayana@oracorp.com
>(K. T. Narayana) says:
>
>[..previous refs deleted...]
>
>>This is interesting! There is lot of political talk on autonomy,
>>but no body mentions how much autonomy there is already in
>>the fedaral framework.
>
>[... Some examples of supposed state autonomy, deleted...]
>
>>What kind of autonomy that people are talking about that is not delivered
>>in the fedaral constitutional framework!
>
>May be some of the following?
>1. Governor of a state should be elected by people of the state, not
>    appointed by centre.

When the real power is held by the elected chief minister of the
state, where comes the issue of governer being elected as representing
some kind of political autonomy! Or is it just a flimsy excuse! Indeed,
if there is anything that cushions the link between the center and
the states, it is the governer of the state.

>2. Centre should not have the power to dismiss a lawfully elected
>    state government.

What is the guarantee that you will not have goondas running the 
government in such a case, and who exercises a limiting authority
to they hoodlumry (eg. Marxists in WB, TDP in AP, and DMK in TN)

>3. No restriction on power of taxation of a state.

There are no restriction on the power of taxation. The problem is
that states are unwilling to tax agricultural income! Yes! of course
states who tax heavily are bound to loose.

>4. Abolish central paramilitary forces.

Central paramilitary forces exist precisely because states are
incompetent in maintaining the law and order, as happened in 
West Bengal, as is happening with the terrorists in AP, 
and with the terrorists of punjab etc.

>5. Abolish segregated army and/or abolish the practice of posting army
>   units outside their home states (the current practice ensures that
>   the army units deployed to maintain "law-and-order" will feel no
>   emotional attachment to the people they are trying to control, and
>   will use any amount of force without any qualms).

When the purpose of employing the army is to maintain civil order,
that which has not been competently done by the state administration,
the center shall exercise such deployment which it regards as professionally
the best way! This is the way all deployment of army troops anywhere in
the world take place.

>6. Convert concurrent list to state list, reduce items in union list.
>

Having a concurrent list assists in the mobility of people. Even in US
education, health, law and order are in the concurrent list. Indeed
states have benefitted from the concurrent list, more specifically
in terms of acrued revenues.

>>When people talk of autonomy, they actually mean political autonomy
>>alias the breaking of the constitutional link between the center and
>>the states. When stated without proper substance to the argument,
>>autonomy demands are a subtle attempts at breaking the union.
>
>It's interesting that you want to preserve the union, when you don't
>have high regards for all the people within the union. I think I
>remember you making some disparaging remarks about people of Hindi
>speaking provinces. So, what is YOUR (or your class's) interest in
>preserving the union?

I still do make those desparaging remarks about Meerut wale and
Agra wale! Because they were uniform views held by all of us at indian
institute of science at that time. How does that matter!
Yes! I have a class interest, in destroying the terroristic 
naxalites and their croonies who are the murderers, the thugs, the 
hoodlums, the rapists,  and name one epithet I will attach it
to such scoundrels.

>
>[... other examples of state power, deleted...]
>What you say is not the whole story. The union government has the
>power to get rid of a state government at will (and that is quite
>constitutional). Since a popularly elected state government does
>not have a guarantee that it can serve its full term, all other
>power it may have becomes meaningless.
>
Union government does not have the power to get rid of state govts
at will! It does so only according to the constitution. Even the
NT Rama Rao was removed when he lost his legislative majority
and wanted to hang on to his chief ministership. Numbers tell.
Nadendla BHaskara rao with his followers formed a separate
group! NTR never had any majority at that time. What made NB 
break away from NTR is a different story, it doesn't come into
the consitutional role of the central government.
Actullly because we have such a controlling authority, people
at least can hope that there are limits to the power of the
idiots ascending the throne of chiefministership.

>>I have yet to come across one single state that managed its economy
>>better than the center's management of the national economy! Don't
>
>It is almost impossible for a state to do well when the union govt
>policies go against it. The industrial decline of West Bengal is an
>example.

Industrial decline in WB is due the Marxists and their bankrupt 
intellect! It has nothing to do with the center! Communists 
are pathological cases requiring an affectionate psychiatric
help. That is the problem of WB, because you have a bunch of
goondas calling themselves as leaders.

>
>[... deleted ...]
>
>> I think
>>if you ask a common man on the street "who will you trust?"
>>the common man will reply that it is the center.
>
>Ah, the mythical common man! Isn't it nice that you know the result
>of the experiment, even before performing it, so that you can dispense
>with the necessity of experimentation itself?
>

You can go and ask the man on the street! Find it out.

>T.H.Sanyal.