Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:03:55 EDT
From: <THS1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
 <92248.095811THS1@psuvm.psu.edu> <Bu2B53.3C4@cs.psu.edu>


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?

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...]
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...]
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?

>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?

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.

[...deleted...]

T.H.Sanyal.