[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Update on 2nd Republic, "private" definition

a) Prof. Roy's proposed Constitution has been properly formatted. Also, a
Word edition is available. Please print out and read. A neat, short, and
persuasive document, indeed. Someone had wished - some time ago - on this
list that our Constitution should have been much shorter. Well: here is
one. Once we are done with drafting a basic manifesto and Code of conduct,
etc., for an 'ideal' political party, we could spend some time considering
this rather well-written document, and if Prof. Roy permits, allow a
broader consensus to build around that document. India does need a shorter
constitution, which should be written based no the experience gained over
the past 50 years.

By the way, Prof. Roy was very deeply involved with Rajeev Gandhi's
formulation of the liberalization policies in India. In a very vital
sense, he is the architect of India's reform (which started with so much
promise and has chugged to a halt - almost). I would urge him to guide us
to other documents which we should consider in framing this document here,
including perhaps some of his recommendations on economic reform. We
definitely do not want to re-invent the wheel.  Also, I believe Parth was
going to send in a document he wrote last year with Prof. Bibek Debroy. We
could use that document when we summarize views on economic reform in a
week or two.

c) On the definition of private citizen:

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Chandrasekhar Commuri wrote:

> I am afraid the collapsing of the categories 'private' and
> 'non-governmental' might have some unintended consequences. 

I think we need to define this clearly, and so any of us who wish to
research this and tell us the alternative definitions, pl. do so. We must
agree to a definition and then put it up on the web. 

On a very preliminary analysis, I see shades of one's giving up one's
'privateness' as one moves toward more formal association: but government
I distinguish from any other association, simply because it owns the
monopoly on use of force. Also, in terms of one's ability to 'exit.' I can
give up my right to belong to a registerd society or corporation and start
another - competing one - instead. But I cannot quit being administered by
the government of India and start a competing Goverment of the Nation of
All (sabhlok!?) in the same geographical area, instead! If I do that then
the goverment of India will simply lock me up you know where. If these
were ancient times, I could have attempted that and maybe succeeded. But
now, that is a very remote option. 

Government 'servants' also tend to arrogate huge powers to themselves.
Un-authorized powers. And making them accountable is practically
impossible. And so one has to make an even sharper distinction between
government and the private citizen, and restrict government to very few,
basic tasks. Rule of thumb: If there is ANYTHING in the world that we can
do ourselves without a government doing it for us, then let us do it, and
prevent government intervention in that activity. I believe that you and I
as parents can run our schools better than governments can do. Therefore
let us run these schools as 'private' citizens, associated into a
registered society or some such thing. All schools. All universities.

Tax payers can FUND these things but we should NOT authorize Govt. to
manage these things.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/