From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:22:15 GMT

In article <92252.110355THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> <THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>In article <Bu2B53.3C4@cs.psu.edu>, narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T
>Narayana) says:
>
>>In article <92248.095811THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> <THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>[... some stuff deleted...]
>I wrote:
>>>1. Governor of a state should be elected by people of the state, not
>>>    appointed by centre.
>ktn:
>>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.
>

>First, would you please note that a sentence can be ended by punctuation
>marks other than the exclamation point(!).
>a) what cushions the link between the centre and the state in USA or
>   Canada?
>b) So there is no real power held by the (elected or otherwise) Prime
>   Minister at Delhi?
>c) Is "cushions the link" your phrase, or does Indian Constitution use
>   the cushioning as justification for having a Governor appointed by
>   the Centre?
>
The appointing authority of the governor rests with the president of India
who acts, and must always act, according to the advice of the cabinet
at the central government. Thus a governor becomes an appointee of
the central government. The notion of a cushion for the link between
the center and the states arises in the very institution of the
office of the governor.  A governor is an instrument of the 
constitution.
>I wrote:
>>>2. Centre should not have the power to dismiss a lawfully elected
>>>    state government.
>ktn:
>>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)
>

>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?
>
>[... some stuff deleted...]
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. 
It is written on the faces of CPM, TDP, and the DMK that they are a bunch
of goondas. But more importantly a political party is institutionally
if is policies and practices violate the constitutional rights of
law abiding citizens. That by conducting bundhs, gheroas and other
intimidating acts of terrorism, these parties have classified themselves
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.

>I wrote:
>>>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).
>ktn:
>>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.
>

>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".
>
>[...some more deleted...]
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.
>ktn:
>>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!
>
>Let me get this straight. All of you at IISc held an entire subclass
>of Homo sapiens in contempt based on their place of origin? Are you
>sure you did not attend an Institute of Bigotry?
>

Frankly, I you can come to me and say "Look! I have this guy from this
place you mentioned, and he is not a Maal" I will certainly revise
my opinions. Till that time they linger.
Frankly IISc is one cosmopolitan place where you study a lot and politic
very little. It is not like IITK where they train many of these
terroristic naxalites of the PSGA.

>>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.
>
>Thank you for clarifying your class interest. Now are you going to
>restrict yourself to hurling epithets at these despicable creatures
>on usenet only, or are you going to pick up the gun yourself?
>
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!
>I wrote:
>>>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.
>ktn:
>>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
>
>Perhaps you should *read* the constitution. Dismissing a state govt
>at will (by centre) is not contrary to the Indian Constitution.
>That is why a state govt can not challenge its dismissal in the
>Supreme Court.
>
All actions of the union govt are within the scope of the law!
You get your facts right. It deals with those actions that deal
with the dismissal of state govts. The fact is none of these 
goonda chiefministers chose to go to the court of law. They
knew that they were constitutionally and legally dismissed.
>[...deleted...]
>
>T.H.Sanyal.