Can Anyone explain me the structure of Indian Govt ?

[naveen_reloaded]

I have few doubts. If anyone can explain me the rational behind the structure of the indian govt .1.) How come a totally un relevant person head a department ? (a lawyer being a minister for agricultural department or electricity )2.) The very formation of central government . If My party (hypothetically speaking) wins in a state , should i have to form a alliance with a party with totally varied view inorder to be part of central government ? I totally dont understand the rational behind the formation of central government ? Why cant it simply have a dynamic ruling and opposition benches ? 3.) What role do i play in the actual formation of say a bill in parliament ? when my locally elected is actually in the opposition side of the state assembly .4.) Why should central and state government be separate .. ? for example in lokpal , it is said that Lokayutha , will be left to each state to either implement or not and also form the rules of lokayutha . Then what is the need for central government ?I am simply cant assimilate the whole concept of federal government and state govt and role we play as citizen in election. If any one can take time and explain , it would be good for me and also for other members here.

 

[agantuk]

A proper answer to each of your questions would run into pages, but at a high level, these are some of the responses:

1.) How come a totally un relevant person head a department ? (a lawyer being a minister for agricultural department or electricity )

No one is born for a particular department. Usually the 'best fit' is put into that position, however there is no ruling that states that someone holding a particular portfolio has to be distinguished in that field. For instance, would you only get Army Generals to head the Home Ministry, pilots for aviation, and farmers to head the agriculture ministry? All ministers are aided by their individual teams which consists of people more familar with the state of affairs in that department, and who guide the minister from time to time.

2.) The very formation of central government . If My party (hypothetically speaking) wins in a state , should i have to form a alliance with a party with totally varied view inorder to be part of central government ? I totally dont understand the rational behind the formation of central government ? Why cant it simply have a dynamic ruling and opposition benches ?

Better administration is the main reason. Having one single government for the entire country would create a lot of problems with respect to management. It simply isn't possible for one power source to take care of all issues across. That is why there is distribution of power. That is also the reason there are separate elections for the Central and State governments, with many states displaying a different ratio of seats in each house.

3.) What role do i play in the actual formation of say a bill in parliament ? when my locally elected is actually in the opposition side of the state assembly .

'You' as a citizen are not directly involved with the process. However, your representative (who has been empowered by you, courtesy your vote) is the one who gets to participate in the actual process. Irrespective of whether he is in the opposition or ruling, his vote holds the same value when it comes to taking a call on the number of 'for' and 'against' a particular act / law.

4.) Why should central and state government be separate .. ? for example in lokpal , it is said that Lokayutha , will be left to each state to either implement or not and also form the rules of lokayutha . Then what is the need for central government ?

Again, refer to 2. Better administration is really the main reason it has been done like that. That is the reason there is a Center, then State, Districts, Blocks and so on. If it is one single body, it would be hard to pay attention to every detail.

NOTE: The above is based on how the process is supposed to be, and not whether it is X party or Y party in power.

 

[devx101]

we should have has super federal structure like USA then all the laggard states could not have cried "kendre se paisa nahi mille...and all"

----------

...for TS point no.4

A federal structure is very necessary as it leads to hierarchical dispersion of power like army just that the difference here is power loss per stage is lower and in different strata.
In USA income tax can be collected by state govs which makes sure each state remains self sufficient in raising money. But yes there they can even make penal laws...In india being a little underdeveloped can lead to problems. just think lalu's party in bihar making penal laws for theft etc "ab sabko fasi like that"..:fear2:

 

[naveen_reloaded]

first , thanks for the reply/

A proper answer to each of your questions would run into pages, but at a high level, these are some of the responses:

No one is born for a particular department. Usually the 'best fit' is put into that position, however there is no ruling that states that someone holding a particular portfolio has to be distinguished in that field. For instance, would you only get Army Generals to head the Home Ministry, pilots for aviation, and farmers to head the agriculture ministry? All ministers are aided by their individual teams which consists of people more familar with the state of affairs in that department, and who guide the minister from time to time.



Very true , but will you accept a electrician to be your doctor ?it might be wrong analogy , but the point is , for example in case of MCI , it is headed by doctors who are the topmost or atleast best to represent the MCI . will doctors accept if the MCI is headed by some politician or a lawyer and starts framing laws for medical colleges without having any knowledge (ground level) of the department ?
Hope you get my point , i want to say here.


Better administration is the main reason. Having one single government for the entire country would create a lot of problems with respect to management. It simply isn't possible for one power source to take care of all issues across. That is why there is distribution of power. That is also the reason there are separate elections for the Central and State governments, with many states displaying a different ratio of seats in each house.

true , but why is the lossing party , for eg dmk , is holding ministry in central ? actually those allocated seats should be gone to winning party , in this case admk in tamil nadu. If a party we over threw in state for corruption and using political power etc etc be allowed to hold a seat at central and carry on with framing laws and administrating certain departments ?
If its all about governance , wont the lost party who is still in power at central act against the party which won by neglecting the needs the state wants ?


'You' as a citizen are not directly involved with the process. However, your representative (who has been empowered by you, courtesy your vote) is the one who gets to participate in the actual process. Irrespective of whether he is in the opposition or ruling, his vote holds the same value when it comes to taking a call on the number of 'for' and 'against' a particular act / law.


true . But does he have any say on the framing of central governement laws , for eg UID scheme or food security act or even lokpal bill ?
also if my vote lands to a party which LOST , now i wont have any voice to even be heard at assembly , leave alone the central. then what is the method to be represented ?
Off course there is no mechanism in place as of now to allow participants to be present in assmebly to raise issues pertaining to certain bills or laws . ( IIRC , please correct me if am wrong)


Again, refer to 2. Better administration is really the main reason it has been done like that. That is the reason there is a Center, then State, Districts, Blocks and so on. If it is one single body, it would be hard to pay attention to every detail.

If that is so , then why have central government itself ? if they want to over see over all events , then should the central govt have all the details colelcted through the state governments ? also wouldnt it be nice to have a generalised law , rather than state wise law ? Jsut like present implemetation of lokayutha in certain states ?

----------

we should have has super federal structure like USA then all the laggard states could not have cried "kendre se paisa nahi mille...and all"

I wish you could post that in english.

...for TS point no.4


A federal structure is very necessary as it leads to hierarchical dispersion of power like army just that the difference here is power loss per stage is lower and in different strata.
In USA income tax can be collected by state govs which makes sure each state remains self sufficient in raising money. But yes there they can even make penal laws...In india being a little underdeveloped can lead to problems. just think lalu's party in bihar making penal laws for theft etc "ab sabko fasi like that"..:fear2:

but actual implementation of the powers is left to the individual states at the end . eg : Lokayutha
Since i am jsut following this one bill , i am finding very controversial governance and take by central govt. I am not sure what other bills are framed and what is actually been implemented at state level

 

[agantuk]

Oh man, I hate long discussions


Very true , but will you accept a electrician to be your doctor ?it might be wrong analogy , but the point is , for example in case of MCI , it is headed by doctors who are the topmost or atleast best to represent the MCI . will doctors accept if the MCI is headed by some politician or a lawyer and starts framing laws for medical colleges without having any knowledge (ground level) of the department ?
Hope you get my point , i want to say here.


That's precisely what I said. The minister is guided by a team. It isn't like he looks into matters himself. His team does that. They have all the details. They come out with information he might require, and they advise him on what decision to take. For instance, take Railways. When Lalu was at the helm, do you think he personally visited all offices to get an insight into what was happening? No. He asked his team a few questions, and tried to find a solution. He is after all a (so called) lawyer with a milkman's background.


true , but why is the lossing party , for eg dmk , is holding ministry in central ? actually those allocated seats should be gone to winning party , in this case admk in tamil nadu. If a party we over threw in state for corruption and using political power etc etc be allowed to hold a seat at central and carry on with framing laws and administrating certain departments ?
If its all about governance , wont the lost party who is still in power at central act against the party which won by neglecting the needs the state wants ?


Cases like this generally happen when the Central and State level elections take place at different times. There is also this thing about leadership. For instance, a Gujarat might vote for Narendra Modi when it comes to the State elections, but would most likely opt for Congress in the Lok Sabha polls. Reason being difference in leadership, and difference in representation.

Come to think of it, if you look at the other side of what you said, the party which loses the State level actually can make good use of the fact that it has say at the national level by doing some good for the State, and try to claim brownie points in the next State elections. It works both ways!

true . But does he have any say on the framing of central governement laws , for eg UID scheme or food security act or even lokpal bill ?
also if my vote lands to a party which LOST , now i wont have any voice to even be heard at assembly , leave alone the central. then what is the method to be represented ?


He definitely has a say in all matters relating to the House if he is a member of the House. At the end of the day, it is not a single voice that passes resolutions. There has to be a majority - during voting and not by the number of elected members.

Off course there is no mechanism in place as of now to allow participants to be present in assmebly to raise issues pertaining to certain bills or laws . ( IIRC , please correct me if am wrong)


Didn't get this part. Who are you referring to as 'participants'?


If that is so , then why have central government itself ? if they want to over see over all events , then should the central govt have all the details colelcted through the state governments ? also wouldnt it be nice to have a generalised law , rather than state wise law ? Jsut like present implemetation of lokayutha in certain states ?

This what is distribution of power. It builds a pyramid.

Some amount of flexibility is given to states in administrative decisions. However, judiciary in India is currently still at the Central and not at the State level.

I wish you could post that in english.

He meant 'death punishment' for all.

 

[naveen_reloaded]

Oh man, I hate long discussions




That's precisely what I said. The minister is guided by a team. It isn't like he looks into matters himself. His team does that. They have all the details. They come out with information he might require, and they advise him on what decision to take. For instance, take Railways. When Lalu was at the helm, do you think he personally visited all offices to get an insight into what was happening? No. He asked his team a few questions, and tried to find a solution. He is after all a (so called) lawyer with a milkman's background.


Thats exactly my point. why should we have a dummy in place of a real talented person ? I would like to see state and central govt divided into three parts , where elected representative on one side , the talented and top guys of each dept on another and the opposition. Just like a jury trial , the winning party can have thier say on various issues and ask various dept heads to come with bills / laws and all three , ruling , opp and HOD`s can debate it out. why should a untalented or irrelevant person hold a position where he is little knowledge on it ?

isn't it like taking long route instead of shorter and swifter ones ? Lets take a medical college reform bill (for eg ) , instead of HOD directly submitting the bill and even talk about the pros and cons (i doubt it though) and Oppo and ruling can question it out and a vote can be taken at the end . wont that be good enough ? keeping elected and HOD and opp separate ?

If a minister has to constantly rely on his subordinate for each and everything , why is he there in the first place ? its just like a IAS working under a 12th failed or college drop out local politician.

my idea of implementation may be not accurate or correct , but my basic question is "Why do we need to have a mask ?"



Cases like this generally happen when the Central and State level elections take place at different times. There is also this thing about leadership. For instance, a Gujarat might vote for Narendra Modi when it comes to the State elections, but would most likely opt for Congress in the Lok Sabha polls. Reason being difference in leadership, and difference in representation.

why cant it be simple winners in state = seats at lok and rajya sabha ? and let it be dynamic one , like if tamil nadu has 39 seats in LS , then if admmk wins , automatically all the 39 seats are vacated and admk reps are admitted ? I don't understand this double election thing.


Come to think of it, if you look at the other side of what you said, the party which loses the State level actually can make good use of the fact that it has say at the national level by doing some good for the State, and try to claim brownie points in the next State elections. It works both ways!

true , but if people who over threw a party in the state and elected a new party to represent them , what purpose does a lost party have in the center ?


He definitely has a say in all matters relating to the House if he is a member of the House. At the end of the day, it is not a single voice that passes resolutions. There has to be a majority - during voting and not by the number of elected members.

no here is where i think things get little obscure , lets say a ruling party is formed by coalition with few parties , then even if the elected rep is within a ruling party , he has to agree what all parties have to say. in a strict sense , he doesn't need to , but politically speaking , he has to compromise for the sake of being in power .


Didn't get this part. Who are you referring to as 'participants'?
we people




This what is distribution of power. It builds a pyramid.

Some amount of flexibility is given to states in administrative decisions. However, judiciary in India is currently still at the Central and not at the State level.


yes , but legislative is still not centralized. If central (both houses ) takes enormous time to frame a bill , but at last leaves it to individual states to frame thier own , it doesn't give a uniform framework. why should there be a difference in terms of bills and law framed by central to conflict with state ? if thats so , then doesnt it mean central has not taken all details into account while framing the bill / law ?



He meant 'death punishment' for all.
thanks


Do you think current system is really optimized ?

 

[devx101]

I wish you could post that in english.


it refers to the fact that in India states always complain that Centre is not giving them enough funds/grants/packages etc and that is the reason for their plight.. Centre finances a part of states budget as there usually is a (severe) deficit due to lack of revenue options as well as the very nature of deficit which always remains.
This tactic has been used a lot by Lalu and all other 'Bimarou' states to hide their poor affairs of their state.

 

[rockingtushar]

I have few doubts. If anyone can explain me the rational behind the structure of the indian govt .

1.) How come a totally un relevant person head a department ? (a lawyer being a minister for agricultural department or electricity )

2.) The very formation of central government . If My party (hypothetically speaking) wins in a state , should i have to form a alliance with a party with totally varied view inorder to be part of central government ? I totally dont understand the rational behind the formation of central government ? Why cant it simply have a dynamic ruling and opposition benches ?

3.) What role do i play in the actual formation of say a bill in parliament ? when my locally elected is actually in the opposition side of the state assembly .

4.) Why should central and state government be separate .. ? for example in lokpal , it is said that Lokayutha , will be left to each state to either implement or not and also form the rules of lokayutha . Then what is the need for central government ?



I am simply cant assimilate the whole concept of federal government and state govt and role we play as citizen in election. If any one can take time and explain , it would be good for me and also for other members here.

The people who wrote the constitution had given a lot of thought to the administrative structure of the country. I am trying my best to answer your question....

1) Basically what you need at the top level is a good manager. The technical aspects of the job can be handled by the supervisors of the minister like in the case of Railways the chairman of railway board and his fellow board members. Ideally the minister should have some experience in the field but usually it does not happen because the government doesn't want him taking revenge on his former fellow colleagues after becoming the minister and stuff like that. It depends on the opinion of the PM. A good and accountable minister usually learns on the job. eg. Ideally p chidambaram should be the finance minister but he is also doing a good job as a home minister(atleast better than Shivraj Patil ever did.)

2. Whether your party wins in state elections or not has no effect on the central government. You have to win some seats in central elections to have a say in the parliament.

3. Your role in the process of making laws is limited to electing a representative from your constituency who will then pass laws on your behalf by voting in the parliament.

4. mainly for logistical purposes. Also certain sectors like defence and external affairs are responsibility of the central government cause if we leave defence to the states then it could lead to secessionist tendencies or even worse... civil war. External affairs is handled by central government because no country in the world would want to deal with 28 separate state governments of our country. it would cause a headache to them. Also central government resolves inter-state disputed in many cases.

P.S.- IAS officers are not uneducated people. They have to clear the extremely tough UPSC entrance exam, then an interview. After that they are given special training for 4 years along with a college degree. At the time of becoming an officer they are highly qualified people. What they become later on in their career is a totally different thing.

 

[naveen_reloaded]

first of all thanks for the reply ..

The people who wrote the constitution had given a lot of thought to the administrative structure of the country. I am trying my best to answer your question....

1) Basically what you need at the top level is a good manager. The technical aspects of the job can be handled by the supervisors of the minister like in the case of Railways the chairman of railway board and his fellow board members. Ideally the minister should have some experience in the field but usually it does not happen because the government doesn't want him taking revenge on his former fellow colleagues after becoming the minister and stuff like that. It depends on the opinion of the PM. A good and accountable minister usually learns on the job. eg. Ideally p chidambaram should be the finance minister but he is also doing a good job as a home minister(atleast better than Shivraj Patil ever did.)

well i dont know the rational behind this concept still. Now since there is no educational limit to participate in election and one who is more popular , like actors ( tamil nadu , andhra , atleast ) win more votes , mainly due because illiterate people see them as demigod and to some extent by educated too. to be honest many exercise voting as some funny thing ,rather than truely understanding the importance of it and government is in no mood to educate them , as it will be least thing they want to do .anyway coming to the point , how well an actor (or some one who has least experience in the field ) can eventually manage such high post ?
If so , dont you think CEO like ambani , ratan tata , etc are the most apt people in running this nation ?
If for example there is a conflict in selecting a nuclear reactor , and his sub-ordinates too have a dilemma , does he have the knowledge to take the right decision ?
Its like saying a expirienced manager of a college can take classes for college students .
As i read somewhere , to solve a techincal problem we need experts , not politicians. Also what is the rational or supporting fact that he is fit for that post ? What is management ? it is effectively using limited resources to maximize its utilization . So who has the field experience here ? a politicians or dean of medical college for health department ?
revenge can be took by anyone , infact politicians are the ones who dont know how to effectively use the resource and since they dont understand the issue , how well are they going to deal with it ? why should they simply be a voice in parliamnet and read out somethign thier assistence wrote ? why cant the real person behind be the acutal front runner for that department ? he is experienced and knows indepth in waht he is talking.
and if someone who is untalented can manage a department , what prevents a talented from doing the same ?

(sorry i feel very angry whenever i think of this issue... , since i personally know people who are school drop outs are ruling us... )



2. Whether your party wins in state elections or not has no effect on the central government. You have to win some seats in central elections to have a say in the parliament.

why is it so ? why have two election ? why cant the winning party in the state directly nominate its member to the parliament (LS too) ? what is the rational behind having two election ? ( i am totally confused here ... )


3. Your role in the process of making laws is limited to electing a representative from your constituency who will then pass laws on your behalf by voting in the parliament.

but if he falls in the opposition in the state , how can he represent my bill/law or my saying to the parliament ( please can you elaborate... ?)

4. mainly for logistical purposes. Also certain sectors like defence and external affairs are responsibility of the central government cause if we leave defence to the states then it could lead to secessionist tendencies or even worse... civil war. External affairs is handled by central government because no country in the world would want to deal with 28 separate state governments of our country. it would cause a headache to them. Also central government resolves inter-state disputed in many cases.

no i was asking about the law making..

P.S.- IAS officers are not uneducated people. They have to clear the extremely tough UPSC entrance exam, then an interview. After that they are given special training for 4 years along with a college degree. At the time of becoming an officer they are highly qualified people. What they become later on in their career is a totally different thing.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was pointing that such a talented person like IAS has to work or directed by someone who is untalented and even uneducated in somecases.

 

[rockingtushar]

well i dont know the rational behind this concept still. Now since there is no educational limit to participate in election and one who is more popular , like actors ( tamil nadu , andhra , atleast ) win more votes , mainly due because illiterate people see them as demigod and to some extent by educated too. to be honest many exercise voting as some funny thing ,rather than truely understanding the importance of it and government is in no mood to educate them , as it will be least thing they want to do .anyway coming to the point , how well an actor (or some one who has least experience in the field ) can eventually manage such high post ?
If so , dont you think CEO like ambani , ratan tata , etc are the most apt people in running this nation ?
If for example there is a conflict in selecting a nuclear reactor , and his sub-ordinates too have a dilemma , does he have the knowledge to take the right decision ?
Its like saying a expirienced manager of a college can take classes for college students .
As i read somewhere , to solve a techincal problem we need experts , not politicians. Also what is the rational or supporting fact that he is fit for that post ? What is management ? it is effectively using limited resources to maximize its utilization . So who has the field experience here ? a politicians or dean of medical college for health department ?
revenge can be took by anyone , infact politicians are the ones who dont know how to effectively use the resource and since they dont understand the issue , how well are they going to deal with it ? why should they simply be a voice in parliamnet and read out somethign thier assistence wrote ? why cant the real person behind be the acutal front runner for that department ? he is experienced and knows indepth in waht he is talking.
and if someone who is untalented can manage a department , what prevents a talented from doing the same ?

(sorry i feel very angry whenever i think of this issue... , since i personally know people who are school drop outs are ruling us... )

I too believe that ideally a person who has experience in the particular field should be the minister. Why it doesn't happen is something you have to ask the prime minister of the country or some political expert. Basically there is a lot of internal politics in parties over who gets what. how these conflicts are resolved the general public doesn't know because these talks are usually confidential.

why is it so ? why have two election ? why cant the winning party in the state directly nominate its member to the parliament (LS too) ? what is the rational behind having two election ? ( i am totally confused here ... )

If the people get a chance to directly elect their representatives in the lok sabha i don't see how our elected representatives making the decision for us is better. It is done because people might think one party is good to govern a state and the other to govern the center. eg. one might think JDU is good for bihar but might not think that JDU is good enough to rule at the center as both require different sets of skills.

but if he falls in the opposition in the state , how can he represent my bill/law or my saying to the parliament ( please can you elaborate... ?)

He still has the power to introduce a new bill(without permission of the party if he is an independent MP) in the parliament and debate about it to sway the opinions of the MPs in the parliament. He needs the support of only 50 MPs in the house for the parliament to formally debate upon the bill and also vote upon it. If he manages to convince enough MPs then the parliament will pass the bill.
no i was asking about the law making..
The center makes laws on major policies like defence.... eg. no indian arms manufacturer can sell arms to another country without permission from government, currency policies, budget like how much income tax will a person have to give and stuff like that whereas state governments make laws on sales tax, transportation, etc. My knowledge is limited about this. Only a lawyer can best explain this to you.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was pointing that such a talented person like IAS has to work or directed by someone who is untalented and even uneducated in somecases
Again what kind of a person heads the ministry depends on the choice of the prime minister. Having a minister is important because otherwise these bodies will become independent and do whatever they want like the election commission of india.