Can Anyone explain me the structure of Indian Govt ?

[naveen_reloaded]

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.

i dont want to bring in the current political state into the debate , as it is very much a garbage. I jsut want to understand how and why the constitution was framed and rational behind it. So far I understood the constitution was not framed properly enough to seperate the elected and management of a particular department seperate. thats why i sid , why cant there be three groups like this



so that elected representatives can have a say on the possible outcomes. elected reps are there to take the problems at ground level to the top assembly and resolve it. And by this way , i think elected reps can demand for solution and even question the H.O.D`s what they actually did . And if elected reps are talented enough , they can come out with bills and table them . this way all can debate on it and pass it. so that a bill will have the ground level problems of people involved , highest possible solution the h.o.d`s can offer and also direct input from participants (people) who can repesent the facts and even deabte on the bill on that given day. please do tell me why this idea wont work , i mean flaws in this method ?


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.

do you think people who just voted out DMK will vote for them for Ls , since they will do good (scams )at centre better ? this is just plain stupidity imo. if one party can shine at centre , wont that party be elected for state too ? to do good for them here .?
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.

thanks.. its a big process then ?

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.

well i totally understand the part where we need to have a centralised body to take care of these. I am totally with it too. but when a law is framed like lokpal , which is against corruption and everyone is affected , why should it leave it to state govt at teh end to have thier own framework ?


Thanks for taking time and replying. I just feel that current structure is not that optimized enough. Its way to slow and takes long path and too many procedures to do something. i read that a bill which is passed from LS to RS can sit there for 6 months , who even frames such stupid limitation ?

 

[blr_p]

I jsut want to understand how and why the constitution was framed and rational behind it.
Then you need to follow the Constituent Assembly Debates

or you could hit your local bookshop for a study guide on the constitution.

 

[naveen_reloaded]

Thanks , will **try** to go through. I thought people can help me with simple easy explanation so that i can understand. Its very sad to see people not trying to understand the working / structure of the govt and take everything for granted. (Except for law students and others who read and knows about our govt).can you also answer my other question in my prev replies if you have time. ?

 

[agantuk]

Its very sad to see people not trying to understand the working / structure of the govt and take everything for granted.

I think it is also a case of not having sufficient time to get into this debate. There are folks who have read this stuff and are knowledgeable about it, but sometimes typing all that on a forum takes a lot more time than having a verbal discussion.

 

[rockingtushar]

dude indian constitution is very very long. it will take years to understand every aspect of it.

 

[naveen_reloaded]

I understand , but since you guys know it , do you think current structure is effecient ? . Also politicians will do everything to maintain the status quo of the current political environment

 

[blr_p]

I understand , but since you guys know it , do you think current structure is effecient ? . Also politicians will do everything to maintain the status quo of the current political environment
You seem to be in a mighty hurry to change things.

To do that you've got to understand FIRST what it is you are changing.

 

[dovahkiin]

ok i will bite. Our constitution is not just some random laws put together , the framers took time to study every constitution in the world and the best of the best of every one was included and amended to Indian needs and also made better. the basic 3 things is that our constitution has kept a very brilliant form of checks and balance on every part of governance and peoples life. the fact that we are not federal state as was the intention in the beginning gets rise from the fact that India was loose confederation of independent states at one time, giving them too much power would, could have left are very big hole , that they could have declared themselves free from indian govt any time, i.e is why all the important powers lie with center, like defense, currency, laws, etec and in same time states were given the powers to enact their own laws according to Geo-cultural , economic powers at play there. center does not interfere with the day to day law and order in a state , unless and until things go out of hand and section 365 is imposed i.e presidential rule in that state. the logic of different govts and center and state level though not intentional but more from the thinking of people , different parties in state and center again counter balance , people do tend to vote for one party in state election and another for center , check and balance again. this also depends on the party , some regional party would do good for that region but is wasted at center. running a central govt and state govt are 2 very different things.as to your 1st query no mps's are not even expected to have any knowledge of the subject that they might be minsters of. it is the bureaucrats which make all decisions and important ones too. mps face the music and sometimes reap the reward of their bureaucrats. bureaucracy has in some ways made this country and in other ways destroyed it too. this we picked up from brits. as the saying in inner circles goes 'you don't pick a minster for department of which he might know something , he might do some work there' and believe me it is not a joke. picking Manmohan singh as the finance minster in the 94 govt was the turning point in India's economic recovery, he did work and has nearly done away with bureaucrats and red tape in economics of the country to the bare minimum and you can look at the results. in early 90's India was broke with just 1million in foreign currency reserves thanks to countless and worth less govts we had for nearly 8 years , from 94 to a leading economic force in 2011, where we are lending money to European countries for their economic reforms we have come a long way , just thanks to one guy who knew what he was doing. in a practical world it would ideal to put some in charge of dept of which they know or have mastered it but till we are shackled by red tape it won't happen. p.s that is not to say that bureaucracy is bad , if it was not for bureaucrats this country would have collapsed long time ago , again check and balance. as to the the rest i will be back

 

[rockingtushar]

I understand , but since you guys know it , do you think current structure is effecient ? . Also politicians will do everything to maintain the status quo of the current political environment

Yes, I do believe that the constitution of the country is well researched and meticulously written. We all might have some gripes about some parts of the constitution(like i have with the special status given to J&K and some other states) but on the whole it is an excellent constitution. The founders of the country did a good job.

ok i will bite.

Our constitution is not just some random laws put together , the framers took time to study every constitution in the world and the best of the best of every one was included and amended to Indian needs and also made better.

the basic 3 things is that our constitution has kept a very brilliant form of checks and balance on every part of governance and peoples life.

the fact that we are not federal state as was the intention in the beginning gets rise from the fact that India was loose confederation of independent states at one time, giving them too much power would, could have left are very big hole , that they could have declared themselves free from indian govt any time, i.e is why all the important powers lie with center, like defense, currency, laws, etec and in same time states were given the powers to enact their own laws according to Geo-cultural , economic powers at play there.

center does not interfere with the day to day law and order in a state , unless and until things go out of hand and section 365 is imposed i.e presidential rule in that state.

the logic of different govts and center and state level though not intentional but more from the thinking of people , different parties in state and center again counter balance , people do tend to vote for one party in state election and another for center , check and balance again. this also depends on the party , some regional party would do good for that region but is wasted at center. running a central govt and state govt are 2 very different things.

as to your 1st query no mps's are not even expected to have any knowledge of the subject that they might be minsters of. it is the bureaucrats which make all decisions and important ones too. mps face the music and sometimes reap the reward of their bureaucrats. bureaucracy has in some ways made this country and in other ways destroyed it too. this we picked up from brits.

as the saying in inner circles goes 'you don't pick a minster for department of which he might know something , he might do some work there' and believe me it is not a joke. picking Manmohan singh as the finance minster in the 94 govt was the turning point in India's economic recovery, he did work and has nearly done away with bureaucrats and red tape in economics of the country to the bare minimum and you can look at the results. in early 90's India was broke with just 1million in foreign currency reserves thanks to countless and worth less govts we had for nearly 8 years , from 94 to a leading economic force in 2011, where we are lending money to European countries for their economic reforms we have come a long way , just thanks to one guy who knew what he was doing. in a practical world it would ideal to put some in charge of dept of which they know or have mastered it but till we are shackled by red tape it won't happen.

p.s that is not to say that bureaucracy is bad , if it was not for bureaucrats this country would have collapsed long time ago , again check and balance.

as to the the rest i will be back

 

[blr_p]

I suppose now would be a good time to post some excerpts from Ashwani Kumars speech in the RS last saturday

Sir, as a student of law we were told as the first principle of the Constitution is that Constitutions are established to be bulwark against the impulses of transit majorities. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the highest court of this country. First, in the Kesavanand Bharati case; and thereafter in a number of cases. Well, they say that certain features of the Constitution owe no apologies to the transit impulses of the momentary majorities. In elections Governments are voted to power; Governments are voted out of power. But certain fundamentals which are the beliefs of a nation which are so sacrosanct, which are so non-negotiable that they have consciously, deliberately, advisedly and in my respectful rightly kept outside the purview of the legislations which should not be construed as a negation of those fundamental principles of the Republic.

Sir, parliamentary democracy today stands embedded as an integral component of the basic structure of the Constitution. Nobody disputes that the ultimate sovereignty of the people of India is something that vests with them and in their hands which they exercise after every five years, as Winston Churchill said, "By using a small pencil and marking a tick on a ballot paper." That is how this sovereignty of the people of India, the true custodians of the conscience of this country is exercising in a system that we the people of India have given unto ourselves.

We cannot really elect our own prejudices into legal principles, or, even our own preferences, howsoever lawful they may be, into legal principles. Legal principles and constitutionalism are intended to survive for centuries and to guide succeeding generations.

It is not as if today one Government is in power and it can tinker with the Constitution, and tomorrow, another Government comes and it can tinker with the Constitution. That is not the intention. That has never been the case.

the Constitution, unlike the law, unlike the statute, is not only a legal document, but it is also the mode of life, the way of life. It embodies the relationship of free citizens in a free State for the fulfillment of their fundamental needs.