The Technocratic Government of India

 

So what exactly is a technocrat anyway?

Destined to save our economy and our country, we Indians have been graced with the appearance of a technocratic government since last seven years, where economist Dr. Manmohan Singh (PhD) has been the prime minister. As the hero of our day – the UPA technocratic government - is largely unknown to many of our people, we summon a brief dialogue on technocratic government

Q: What's a technocratic government?

A: To answer this question we first need to be clear about how governments are formed in parliamentary systems. First - in a parliamentary system, the government must be approved by the parliament. Often this will require the agreement of more than one political party, resulting in a coalition of parties to support the government. As part of this "coalition agreement", the heads of ministries (or what are ‘Ministers’) are allocated to the different parties, who place representatives from their parties as the heads of their respective ministries. Moreover, the parties agree on a "Prime Minister" to head the government, usually but not always from the largest party in the coalition. Most of the time, the identity of this "Prime Minister" - conditional on election results - is known during the election campaign.

Q: Ok, so what's really a technocratic government?

A: Technically, a technocratic government is one in which the ministers are not career politicians; in fact, in some cases they may not even be elected members of parliament at all. They are instead supposed to be "experts" in the fields of their respective ministries. So the classic example is that the Finance Minister would be someone with an academic background in economics who had worked for years at the IMF, but has not previously run for elective office or been heavily involved in election campaigns.

Q: Is it required for the Prime Minister also to be a "technocrat"?

A: Not necessarily. You could have a prime minister from a major party who heads a technocratic government (i.e., most of the ministers meet the definition laid out above), or you could have a technocratic prime minister as well. In the current UPA government, the Prime Minister is both a technocrat and an economist. [To be clear: there is nothing in the definition of a technocratic government that requires it be led by an economist!]

Q: Why did the UPA appoint a technocratic Prime Minister, two times in a row?

A: The practical reason is often because a government has lost the support of the people who elect them to parliament, but also for various other reasons (including legal, pragmatic or political). If the parties in the parliament can't agree to form a normal government, then sometimes they can all agree to support a technocratic government. Just to make things even more complicated, it is possible to have a ‘partisan caretaker prime minister’ (which is basically what is going on in India right now), which then would not be known as a technocratic government, but instead is often called a "lame duck government".

Q: So why would elected politicians ever turn over power to unelected technocrats? Doesn't that go against the facts of everything we think we know about politicians: that they are above all else interested in holding elected office for self gain?

A: This brings us to the crux of the matter in terms of current developments. What seems to be going on is that a "received wisdom" is developing that only technocratic governments can carry out the "painful reforms necessary" to save our country. The theory here is that no major party is going to want to pay the costs of instituting painful policies alone. If this is the case, then one way around this predicament is to appoint a technocratic government that is not "of" any party but is supported by all the parties. In this way, blame can essentially be shared, and government can do the right thing, whatever that may be.

Q: Does it work?

A: Does anyone know?. First, politicians are not particularly good at "sharing blame", which will make the temptation for any of a number of major parties to undercut the technocratic government for political gains. Second, even if mainstream parties get behind a technocratic government, that doesn't mean fringe parties will as well. Indeed, a technocratic government supported by all of the mainstream parties seems a perfect recipe for the rise of non-mainstream parties.

Q: OK, but even with those caveats, technocratic government still sounds pretty good! Why doesn't everyone have one?

A: Well, there is this one small problem, which is that in a democracy; people are supposed to elect their rulers. Since, by definition, a technocratic government does not get elected for office, it is hard to call a country with a technocratic government, a democracy. Instead, we have a system where the people only get to vote for people that they send into Parliament; who then get to decide on who the real leaders of the government will be.

Q: Will technocratic governments save India?

A: The UPA made it possible for certain policies to be implemented in the short-term. But India’s longer-term problems are going to need to be solved (or not solved) by India’s elected officials. Democracy is about accountability. While UPA has made it possible to duck accountability, long-term policies are going to have been enacted - or at the very least maintained - by elected officials. The UPA technocratic government has failed miserably on most accounts and will never be an effective Government ‘of the people, for the people, by the people’.

Congress Party's pathetic attempt towards Censorship... Again

 

Times of India reports that Union Minister Kapil Sibal has been in talks with Internet social media companies to put in place a monitoring mechanism. On Monday (05 Dec), the telecom & IT minister met executives from the Indian units of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook to discuss the issue.

The executives were shown content which could allegedly hurt religious sensibilities and obscene images of Indian political leaders.

But the reality seems that Kapil Sibal is more concerned about the negative image of his master(s) Sonia Gandhi & Rahul Gandhi.

The New York Times reported that about six weeks ago Sibal called legal representatives from the top internet service providers and Facebook into his office and showed them a Facebook page that maligned Congress president Sonia Gandhi. "This is unacceptable," he said, reported an executive.

How dare Sibal say that critisism of Sonia Gandhi is unacceptable? Is she above the law or does the Minister think that the law of freedom of expression in India is a slave to the whims & fancies of the Congress party?

Sibal wants the above companies to appoint people to screen content before it is uploaded, with staffers looking for objectionable content and deleting it before it is posted. THIS IS CENSORSHIP.

Assuming that Minister Sibal is acting on the instructions of his bosses to curtail our freedom of expression, let us respond by a scathing critisism against him & his party all over the internet.

The net cannot be controlled by politicians who want to censor the right to free speech just for their self-survival; and it is time this point was made clear to them in the most direct fashion.

We do not need another Gandhi

 The Confusing Anna Hazare

The anti- corruption crusader Anna Hazare is preparing for battle again with his demand of the tabling of his (the Civil society’s) version of the “Jan Lok Pal Bill”. However; news reports about his plan of action are confusing at the best.

The news reports on Tuesday (Oct 4th) state as follows: “Anna Hazare on Tuesday put Congress on notice on the Lokpal issue, saying he will campaign against it in election-bound states if the Centre fails to get his version of the anti-corruption bill passed in Parliament's Winter Session. To begin with, Hazare said, he will appeal to voters in Hisar Lok Sabha constituency in Haryana where bypolls are scheduled on October 13 not to vote for the Congress candidate as the party was "deliberately" not bringing the Jan Lokpal bill.

"If the Jan Lokpal Bill is not passed in the Winter Session, then I will name the Congress and ask people not to vote for it in the Assembly polls scheduled in five states next year," he said addressing a press conference in his native village, 50 km from Pune.”

This report in itself states Hazare’s focus to take the anti- corruption fight to the Government, since it is the Congress (I) that leads the UPA coalition in the center. Which is good & fine and it will attract the support of the educated middle class that is sick & tired of the prevailing corruption.

However; IBN Live reports on the same day that: “Social crusader Anna Hazare on Tuesday came out in support of arrested Gujarat police officer Sanjeev Bhatt who has accused Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of complicity in the 2002 communal riots. What Narendra Modi has done is wrong. It is not good for democracy in the country.”

So, Anna Hazare has opened a second battle front against the BJP. That is now raising some questions in the mind of the public:

a) Since when did the Hazare agenda change from being against Corruption to being against politicians?

b) Is the agenda for support of the Civil society’s version of the Lok pal bill now turned into a political agenda of Anna Hazare where he has started to criticize on Government & political actions across all parties?

c) If Hazare is against the Congress and also against the BJP; who exactly is he supporting on the political front, since he and his team have denied any political aspirations?

d) When there are elections, people will vote and someone will win the majority in elections. What happen’s post elections? If Hazare does not like the new party, will he agitate against that party who has won the election? Will this not be considered that Hazare is actually against the people just because they do not agree with him?

e) And if Hazare is against the Congress and also against the BJP; then who exactly does he expect to be occupying the seats in the Legislative assemblies in the States?

We have had one such person before in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who wreaked havoc in the democratic process of the then Indian National Congress with his selfish “i, me & mine” attitude. We do not need another Gandhi to create a new havoc.

How can India reduce Corruption?

Bharatvarsh (India), as we all know; is a land of diverse cultures, ethnic languages and multi- religious social groups all trying to find space in a over populated mass of land that has been divided once before by the British (1947).

Regardless of the diversity of our Nation's population, almost all residents of India are victims of food inflation, lack of required income for human standards of living and a corrupt Government at all levels; from village administrators to the Central Government bureaucrats & ministers.

Everybody agrees that corruption needs to be removed or at least reduced drastically for our Nation to survive. Here are some ideas that may be considered, not by those in power: but by those whose lives are constantly threatened by corrupt people in power.

1. All members to Rajya Sabha, must be elected by the People by direct voting.
 

2. All Governers of State(s) and Lt. Governers must be elected by the People by direct voting.

3. The President, Prime Minister & Deputy Prime Minister of India must be elected by the People by direct voting, No longer should we allow the political parties to dictate to the People as to who will be the Prime Minister or President. Let it be the choice of the People. The same applies for Lok Ayukta at State level and Jana Lok Pal at national level. All have to be elected directly by the People.
 

4. Immediate dissolution of the IAS & IPS. The entire concept of the IAS & IPS is a remnant of the British Raj policies where the natives (us Indians) needed to be governed by a "higher class" of rulers (initially the British and now the pseudo Brits). Every State in India has its own cadre of Administrators & Police officials who are more capable than the IAS or IPS.
 

5. Segregation of Police departments at the levels of town / village, district, state and national police. Each town / village & district police department will be independent of each other and independent of the state police dept in terms of administration and duties but will report directly to the Governor of the State. The state police will report to the Chief Minister of the state. Even the Courts can have their own police department that reports to the Chief Justice of India. All police departments will be answerable to the President of India, independently.
 

6. The Central Police organizations will be answerable to the President of India directly. They can also be made answerable publicly to the full session of the Parliament of India.
 

7. Draconian punishment for Capital offenses. Capital offenses should include per-meditated murder, kidnapping, rape / gang-rape, misuse of Government office, misuse of Political office, and any other crime that benefits the person or their family at the cost of the Nation's treasury. Punishment should include confiscation of all assets of the guilty (including ancestral property & property in name of spouse, children and siblings), naked flogging in public and hanging to death in public.
 

8. Enforcement of law& order and public discipline. The law must be applied equally to all residents of India, regardless of their status in Government or position in the bureaucracy or other administrative positions. Family members of people in power have a tendency to misuse Government (i.e: People's resources). In such matters the person in power should also be prosecuted along-with his family member to the full extent of draconian law.
 

9. Today criminality is on the rise due to the 'economics of crime' that favor the criminals. This 'economics of crime' must be made extremely expensive for the criminal by use of draconian punishments (both financial & physical). Only this will put an almost instant brake on the criminal and lawless activities in India. Financial punishment should start with fines that are minimum at 11,000 and increase in multiples of 10 for every additional offense. Physical punishments should include flogging and daily physical work on the roads of India during the term of the punishment. The prisoners to be isolated from family & friends at all times during the full duration of prison sentence being served.
 

10. Every resident of India (regardless of whether Indian citizen or not) must be brought into a electronic / bio-metric database. Every law enforcement & judicial department must have easy access to each Indian resident(s): I.D photo, finger prints, iris scan (eye print), blood group and DNA profile. When criminals know that they can be traced and caught, their enthusiasm to commit crime reduces drastically.

These are only some of the suggestions that I can think off to start the process of a disciplined society with drastically reduced crime and lowest corruption index. When those in power are answerable to the People and also to the Laws of India; I am confident that crime and corruption will reduce drastically.

जय हिन्दुस्तान

The Mohandas Gandhi that Congress Party does NOT want you to know.

 

Over the years since Independence from British rule; the Congress party in it's various forms has always projected Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (aka the 'Mahatma") as a paragon of virtue, a Saint of heavenly virtues and maybe 'God' himself.

But the reality of M.K. Gandhi was very different. He had his flaws and his negative character, as can be seen from the facts of history that the Congress Party has tried to suppress over the last 60 years.

1. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in 1869 in a rich, stately and princely three-storied home in Porbandar, grandson of the chief administrator of the small Princely State in coastal Gujarat. He was not a poor man with no clothes or adequate food.

2. At a time when literacy in British India was barely 8%, Gandhi enjoyed the rare option of studying in Britain and spent the years 1888-1893 in London.

3. It is especially notable that at the age of 45, Gandhi saw in the British empire a "spiritual foundation" - a sentiment many in the Indian Freedom Movement would have found astounding, even nauseating. As early as 1884, the most advanced Indian intellectuals were already quite clear that British rule in India was built on a foundation of economic pillage and plunder - and was devoid of any high social or moral purpose.

4. Although Gandhi was critical of specific aspects of colonial rule, in 1914, his general outlook towards the British was more of the loyal subject than that of the most advanced of India's national leaders. Particularly onerous was his support of the British during World War I.

5. Gandhi's ideas on non-violence did not then extend to the British Imperial War and Gandhi put in big efforts to mobilize Indians on behalf of the British war effort (World War I). To return to London in wartime: Gandhi quickly raised his ambulance corps among the Indians in England. As before, he had offered his volunteers for ANY KIND of military duty, but the authorities preferred medical workers.

6. For Gandhi to demand of the poor, downtrodden, and bitterly exploited Indian masses to first demonstrate their unmistakable commitment to non-violence before their struggle could receive with Gandhi's approval (just a few years after he had apologetically defended an imperial war) was simply unconscionable. Clearly, Gandhi had one standard for the Indian masses, and quite another for the nation's colonial overlords.

7. Gandhi often engaged in tactical and ideological hypocrisy to suit his political needs. Although Gandhi's defenders may disagree, not only were Gandhi's ideas on non-violence applied very selectively, they were hardly the most appropriate for India's situation. At no time was the British military presence in India so overwhelming that it could not have been challenged by widespread resistance from the Indian masses.

8. The Chauri Chaura incident of 1921 exposed a crucial flaw in Gandhi's character. Gandhi's Chauri Chaura turnaround was indicative of his deep fear and distrust of the Indian masses - and that Gandhi feared the spontaneous energy of the poor and the downtrodden more than the injustice of British rule.

9. In much of Motilal Nehru's correspondence with his son Jawaharlal, (and with others in the Congress), there are expressions of frustration with Gandhi's tendency towards moderation and compromise with the British authorities and his reluctance to broaden and accelerate the civil disobedience movement. There are also references in Motilal Nehru's letters to how large contributions from the Birlas were enabling certain political cliques (led by Madan Mohan Malviya - a close confidante of Gandhi) to "capture" the Congress party. That Gandhi was close to the Birlas is widely acknowledged.

10. Motilal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose both complained of Gandhi's tendency to ignore party resolutions when they went against his wishes, and to work with cliques rather than consult and cooperate with all party members. In a letter dated March 28, 1939, from Manbhum, Bihar - Bose complained bitterly to Nehru of Gandhi's quiet campaign of non-cooperation with him after Bose had just won the position of President of the Indian National Congress, defeating Gandhi's chosen nominee, Dr Pattabhi.

11. Gandhi, along with Nehru formed a tactical block against Bose, and prevented him from functioning effectively as leader of India's preeminent national organization. Eventually, this led to Bose having to quit the Congress, and organize outside it's tedious confines.

12. On more than one occasion, Gandhi would begin with statements such as "God has warned me", or "...God has spoken as such to me.....". Coming from any ordinary person, such claims would normally be viewed with great suspicion and skepticism because they can only be accepted on faith, never independently verified. In fact, any ordinary person who claimed as often to have a 'hotline' to 'God' might even be seen as a lunatic, as someone prone to hallucinations, but Gandhi seemed to be an exception from humanity on this aspect.

13. In all other theories of democratic liberation, ethical and moral codes emanated from one essential principle - which is the fundamental right of enslaved people to be free from alien exploitation. But in Gandhi's moral framework, the need of the Indian masses to liberate themselves from a brutally unjust colonial occupation did not come first, it was subject to his kind of one-sided conditionality.

For instance, in the context of Bhagat Singh's hanging, even as Gandhi condemned the British government, he observed: "The government certainly had the right to hang these men." Whether Gandhi was confusing the term "right" with the term authority or might, or he actually granted the colonial government the "right" to execute Indian freedom fighters is hard to tell. But in general, it appears that Gandhi had not worked out in his mind the true essence of natural human rights, and desirable human duties in a civilized society.

14. While there will always be admirers of Gandhi, detailed study of his historical records reveals him to be a seriously flawed leader, popular more due to the particular conditions and circumstances of British ruled India; rather than an "enlightened visionary" that the Congress party likes to portray to the world.

*************