What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

cloud4000 said:
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21709039-indias-press-more-craven-pakistans-all-hail

India’s press is more craven than Pakistan’s
  • by From The Print Edition: Asia
  • Oct. 21, 2016
  • 2 min read
  • original

THERE is no question that India’s democracy is stronger than Pakistan’s. It is less prone to coups and violence. Its minorities are more secure. And, most Indians assume, their media are freer. When Cyril Almeida, a Pakistani journalist, revealed earlier this month that he had been banned from travelling abroad after writing a story that embarrassed Pakistan’s security forces, India’s tabloid press gloated.

The Schadenfreude proved short-lived. To general surprise, Mr Almeida’s colleagues rallied in noisy support. Pakistani newspapers, rights groups, journalists’ clubs and social media chorused outrage at his persecution. The pressure worked; the ban got lifted.

Mr Almeida had been reporting on tensions between the Pakistani army and civilian leaders over the border crisis with India, which began last month when infiltrators from Pakistan killed 19 Indian soldiers. On the Indian side of the border, however, there has not been much critical examination of the government’s actions. Instead, Indian media have vied to beat war drums the loudest.

When an army spokesman, providing very few details, announced on September 29th that India had carried out a retaliatory “surgical strike” against alleged terrorist bases along the border, popular news channels declared it a spectacular triumph and an act of subtle statecraft. Some anchors took to describing India’s neighbour as “terror state Pakistan”. One station reconfigured its newsroom around a sandbox-style military diorama, complete with flashing lights and toy fighter planes. A parade of mustachioed experts explained how “our boys” would teach Pakistan a lesson it would never forget.

Such jingoism was predictable, given the fierce competition for ratings among India’s news groups. Disturbingly, however, the diehard nationalists have gone on the offensive against fellow Indians, too.

This month NDTV, a news channel with a reputation for sobriety, advertised an interview with Palaniappan Chidambaram, a former finance minister from the opposition Congress party. Mr Chidambaram was expected to say that previous governments had also hit back at Pakistan, but with less fanfare than the present one. Abruptly, however, NDTV cancelled the show. An executive sniffed that it was “not obliged to carry every shred of drivel” and would not “provide a platform for outrageous and wild accusations”.

Arnab Goswami, the anchor of a particularly raucous talk show, has declared that critics of the government should be jailed. Extreme nationalists in Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, have urged filmmakers to ban Pakistani actors. One party has threatened to vandalise cinemas that dare show a Bollywood romance, “Ae Dil Hai Mushkil”, due for release later this month, which features Fawad Khan, a Pakistani heartthrob. The film’s director, Karan Johar, has aired a statement declaring his patriotism, explaining that the film was shot before the current trouble and promising never again to work with talent from “the neighbouring country”. One commentator described his performance as akin to a hostage pleading for mercy.

Why, asks Mr Chidambaram, are the media toeing the government line so slavishly? Some answer that they have become ever more concentrated in the hands of big corporations, many of which carry heavy debts and so are wary of offending the party in power. Others ascribe the shrinking space for dissent to the unchecked rise of chauvinist Hindu-nationalist groups. Repressive colonial-era laws on sedition and libel also play a part.

Happily, India’s press still brims with multiple voices. Critics of Mr Modi may worry about internet trolls, but they do not fear assassination by terrorists or shadowy government agencies, as those in some neighbouring states do. The Indian public is, in fact, tired of endless brinkmanship with Pakistan and yearns for stronger, more effective government. Of course, to be truly strong and effective, governments need to tolerate and even heed critics.
Click to expand...

My god. Denying one interview make the Indian media more craven. This idiot has the point about assassination but still thinks India media is craven.
Any shred of independent point of view by anyone not in tune with their opinion is dangerous I guess.
 
tem56.png


Modi's healthy Gujarat which he wants to hide from Indians:
But we shall hold Kejriwal from the collar anyway.

Every film with Pak actor must pay Rs 5 crore to Army relief fund: Raj Thackeray

Subramanian Swamy in favour of banning Pakistani artists goo.gl/X3w8ev
 
Even Modi can not solve such simple thing, and he is the PM of India?
Oh I forgot he does not have degree:
Problem solving ability test = Modi = 0

riddle.png
 
Last edited:
 
EC revives an old question: Do states really need Upper Houses?

The Election Commission has dusted an old proposal and sent it to the government again. The issue concerns the utility of state legislative councils and the question raised is should they be abolished once and for all. These councils - Vidhan Parishads - do not mean much for most states in any case but they get their mandate from the Constitution. Doing away with their very existence will require a Constitutional amendment and that is a task easier said than done.

However, the EC has made out an interesting case, citing several arguments from the entire history of legislative councils in India. The commission's latest communication to the government on the issue has come because of a letter by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal. The letter is about the need to abolish Legislative Councils, especially in light of the latest elections for the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Parishad, in which the ruling Samajwadi Party won 31 out of 35 seats.

According to Agrawal, these councils are "white elephants" running on public money who do not serve any "fruitful public purpose". He has cited a few examples to substantiate his arguments and his demand that the "constitutional provision of having Legislative Councils in states should altogether be abolished". The Commission has forwarded this letter to the Union Law Ministry for 'appropriate action' and in connection with it, has cited the Commission's old proposal on the issue.

The then Chief Election Commissioner MS Gill had written in detail to the Law Ministry in 1999, mentioning the pros and cons of the issue and urging the government to initiate discussions on the issue with political parties. Here is a look at some key questions on the issue:

01
What is a Legislative Council?

It is the second chamber of a state legislature, an Upper House in states akin to the Rajya Sabha. Its members are not directly elected by the people of the state but by a combination of constituencies defined in the Constitution.

02
Who are its members?

Five categories of membership are explained under Article 171 of the Constitution:

(a) One third - persons from local authorities like municipalities, district boards etc

(b) One twelfth - persons who have been graduates for at least three years

(c) One twelfth - persons who have been engaged in teaching at at least secondary school level for at least three years

(d) One third - shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State, from amongst persons who are not members of the Assembly;

(e) The remainder shall be nominated by the Governor

03
Do all states in India have one?

Far from it. As of now, only 7 states have such councils - Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Many states have never had a second chamber while some others have created and abolished them at various points in history.

Interestingly, the country appears to have moved back to the initial position on the issue after Independence, when there were only 8 Legislative Councils - in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Jammu & Kashmir.

04
What purpose do these councils serve?

One, they add one more level of scrutiny to the legislative process in states and two, they enable a few people to directly contribute to law-making without going through the rigmarole of contesting elections.

05
What shortcomings did the EC see in them?

Gill said the fact that many states abolished the councils indicates that they hardly contributed to make debates on legislative and other matters "more mature and considered".

Secondly, most of these were not properly constituted as envisaged in the Constitution. For example, the Bihar Vidhan Parishad was functioning as a truncated house for 17 straight years at that time, with one-third seats lying vacant.

Third, a constituency exclusively for teachers may have been desirable after Independence when well-read and well-informed people were not too many in number. The situation has drastically changed and the rationale needs a re-look.

06
What do experts say now?

Anomalies do exist in the concept. Even the category of members nominated by the Governor has come under judicial scrutiny, with the Patna High Court serving a landmark notice to all 12 nominated members of the Bihar Legislative Council. The notice requires the MLCs to prove their expertise in the field for which they have been nominated to the council.

Political analysts say even the graduates' constituency is an archaic concept, just like the teachers' constituency, and should be scrapped.

Constitutional experts have examined the debate in detail and say that the issue requires deep examination. Former Secretary General of Lok Sabha, Subhash Kashyap, told Catch that there was much to say to present both sides of the debate, but this was not the most pressing issue facing the country right now. He said the EC's observations notwithstanding, the fact remains that conceptually, Legislative Councils do have a function to fulfill.

However, he ventured to say that if the utility of Councils was questioned, it might lead to questions on the utility of the Rajya Sabha, too, since their roles and problems are identical in many aspects. He cited, for example, that some people have already said that the Rajya Sabha is a nuisance if it impedes the government's decisions and a meaningless entity if it merely rubber-stamps them. So, if this debate begins right now, inference may be drawn by various political quarters that will suit their interests, Kashyap added.
 
Soumitra said:
If trolling is the only qualification for CM then lets make @ashok321 as the CM of Delhi

(As polling not possible in mid of thread those in agreement say Yes, those opposed say No in comments)
Click to expand...


People are probably not happy with their lives, if they are busy discussing yours.

tem567.png


Burn baby burn..

And yes, welcome to my 5 star Ignorian club.
 
Soumitra said:
EC revives an old question: Do states really need Upper Houses?

The Election Commission has dusted an old proposal and sent it to the government again. The issue concerns the utility of state legislative councils and the question raised is should they be abolished once and for all. These councils - Vidhan Parishads - do not mean much for most states in any case but they get their mandate from the Constitution. Doing away with their very existence will require a Constitutional amendment and that is a task easier said than done.

However, the EC has made out an interesting case, citing several arguments from the entire history of legislative councils in India. The commission's latest communication to the government on the issue has come because of a letter by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal. The letter is about the need to abolish Legislative Councils, especially in light of the latest elections for the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Parishad, in which the ruling Samajwadi Party won 31 out of 35 seats.

According to Agrawal, these councils are "white elephants" running on public money who do not serve any "fruitful public purpose". He has cited a few examples to substantiate his arguments and his demand that the "constitutional provision of having Legislative Councils in states should altogether be abolished". The Commission has forwarded this letter to the Union Law Ministry for 'appropriate action' and in connection with it, has cited the Commission's old proposal on the issue.

The then Chief Election Commissioner MS Gill had written in detail to the Law Ministry in 1999, mentioning the pros and cons of the issue and urging the government to initiate discussions on the issue with political parties. Here is a look at some key questions on the issue:

01
What is a Legislative Council?

It is the second chamber of a state legislature, an Upper House in states akin to the Rajya Sabha. Its members are not directly elected by the people of the state but by a combination of constituencies defined in the Constitution.

02
Who are its members?

Five categories of membership are explained under Article 171 of the Constitution:

(a) One third - persons from local authorities like municipalities, district boards etc

(b) One twelfth - persons who have been graduates for at least three years

(c) One twelfth - persons who have been engaged in teaching at at least secondary school level for at least three years

(d) One third - shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State, from amongst persons who are not members of the Assembly;

(e) The remainder shall be nominated by the Governor

03
Do all states in India have one?

Far from it. As of now, only 7 states have such councils - Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Many states have never had a second chamber while some others have created and abolished them at various points in history.

Interestingly, the country appears to have moved back to the initial position on the issue after Independence, when there were only 8 Legislative Councils - in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Jammu & Kashmir.

04
What purpose do these councils serve?

One, they add one more level of scrutiny to the legislative process in states and two, they enable a few people to directly contribute to law-making without going through the rigmarole of contesting elections.

05
What shortcomings did the EC see in them?

Gill said the fact that many states abolished the councils indicates that they hardly contributed to make debates on legislative and other matters "more mature and considered".

Secondly, most of these were not properly constituted as envisaged in the Constitution. For example, the Bihar Vidhan Parishad was functioning as a truncated house for 17 straight years at that time, with one-third seats lying vacant.

Third, a constituency exclusively for teachers may have been desirable after Independence when well-read and well-informed people were not too many in number. The situation has drastically changed and the rationale needs a re-look.

06
What do experts say now?

Anomalies do exist in the concept. Even the category of members nominated by the Governor has come under judicial scrutiny, with the Patna High Court serving a landmark notice to all 12 nominated members of the Bihar Legislative Council. The notice requires the MLCs to prove their expertise in the field for which they have been nominated to the council.

Political analysts say even the graduates' constituency is an archaic concept, just like the teachers' constituency, and should be scrapped.

Constitutional experts have examined the debate in detail and say that the issue requires deep examination. Former Secretary General of Lok Sabha, Subhash Kashyap, told Catch that there was much to say to present both sides of the debate, but this was not the most pressing issue facing the country right now. He said the EC's observations notwithstanding, the fact remains that conceptually, Legislative Councils do have a function to fulfill.

However, he ventured to say that if the utility of Councils was questioned, it might lead to questions on the utility of the Rajya Sabha, too, since their roles and problems are identical in many aspects. He cited, for example, that some people have already said that the Rajya Sabha is a nuisance if it impedes the government's decisions and a meaningless entity if it merely rubber-stamps them. So, if this debate begins right now, inference may be drawn by various political quarters that will suit their interests, Kashyap added.
Click to expand...
NT Rama Rao got rid of the Legislative Council when he became the CM of AP in the 1980s.

He called it a retirement home for unproductive,out of work netas :lol: & a waste of Public money; one of the first CMs to do so
http://www.napolstockimage.com/image-view/NTR-Abolished-Legislative-Council/11245

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/i...isit-the-rationale-for-their-relevance/156413

@jha ji @all UPites here, what is happening in UP??! :eek: Is it Akhilesh vs Mulayam?
https://twitter.com/x/status/790194608592465920
 

Similar threads

kmc_chacko
  • Poll
Indian General Election, 2024
Replies
1
Views
308
Skimming
S
Bilal9
No MPs and only 04 MLAs in India - BJP's march towards 'Muslim Mukt (Free) Bharat'
Replies
9
Views
453
Abdul Rehman Majeed
A
beijingwalker
Anti-Muslim hate speech in India concentrated around elections, report finds
Replies
2
Views
398
Areesh
Areesh
hatehs
Shifting politics make India a hotbed for Israel-Hamas war misinformation
Replies
0
Views
336
hatehs
hatehs
GamoAccu
Rahul Gandhi: India's Congress leader sentenced to jail for Modi 'thieves' remark
Replies
1
Views
560
RealDeal
R

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom