Showing posts with label Past. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Past. Show all posts

Central and State Governments Of India

The central government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the President, whose duties are largely ceremonial. The president and vice president are elected indirectly for 5-year terms by a special electoral college. The vice president assumes the office of president in case of the death or resignation of the incumbent president.

The constitution designates the governance of India under two branches namely the executive branch and the legislative branch. Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister of India. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority. The President then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister. In reality, the President has no discretion on the question of whom to appoint as Prime Minister except when no political party or coalition of parties gains a majority in the Lok Sabha. Once the Prime Minister has been appointed, the President has no discretion on any other matter whatsoever, including the appointment of ministers. But all Central Government decisions are nominally taken in his name.

The constitution designates the Parliament of India as the legislative branch to oversee the operation of the government. India's bicameral parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Council of Ministers is held responsible to the Lok Sabha.

The government can enact laws and ordinances as required for the governance of the country. However, laws and ordinances have to be passed by the legislative branch in order to be effected. Parliament sessions are conducted to discuss, analyse and pass the laws tabled as Acts. Any law is first proposed as a bill in the lower house. If the lower house approves the bill in current form, the bill is then proposed to be enacted in the upper house. If not, the bill is sent for amendment and then tabled again so as to be passed as an Act. Even if the bill is passed in the lower house, the upper house has the right to reject the proposed bill and send it back to the government for amending the bill. Therefore, it can be said that the governance of India takes place under two processes; the executive process and the legislative process. Ideally, the governance cannot be done through the individual processes alone. After the Acts are passed by both the houses, the President signs the Bill as an Act. Thus the legislative branch also acts under the name of the President, like the executive branch.

Ordinances are laws that are passed in lieu of Acts, when the parliament is not in session. When the parliament is in recess, the President assumes the legislative powers of both the houses temporarily, under Part V: Chapter III - Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The government has to propose a law to the President during such periods. If the President is fully satisfied with the bill, and signs the bill, it becomes an ordinance. The powers of ordinances are temporary, and each ordinance has to be tabled in the parliament when the houses reassemble. The President also has the right to withdraw an ordinance.

States in India have their own elected governments, where as Union Territories are governed by an administrator appointed by the central government. Some of the state legislatures are bicameral, patterned after the two houses of the national parliament. The states' chief ministers are responsible to the legislatures in the same way the prime minister is responsible to parliament.

Each state also has a presidentially appointed governor who may assume certain broad powers when directed by the central government. The central government exerts greater control over the union territories than over the states, although some territories have gained more power to administer their own affairs. Local state governments in India have less autonomy compared to their counterparts in the United States and Australia.

Indian Government

INDIAN POLITICS ENTERED a new era at the beginning of the 1990s. The period of political domination by the Congress (I) branch of the Indian National Congress came to an end with the party's defeat in the 1989 general elections, and India began a period of intense multiparty political competition. Even though the Congress (I) regained power as a minority government in 1991, its grasp on power was precarious. The Nehruvian socialist ideology that the party had used to fashion India's political agenda had lost much of its popular appeal. The Congress (I) political leadership had lost the mantle of moral integrity inherited from the Indian National Congress's role in the independence movement, and it was widely viewed as corrupt. Support among key social bases of the Congress (I) political coalition was seriously eroding. The main alternative to the Congress (I), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP--Indian People's Party), embarked on a campaign to reorganize the Indian electorate in an effort to create a Hindu nationalist majority coalition. Simultaneously, such parties as the Janata Dal (People's Party), the Samajwadi Party (Socialist Party), and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP--Party of Society's Majority) attempted to ascend to power on the crest of an alliance of interests uniting Dalits (see Glossary), Backward Classes, Scheduled Tribes (see Glossary), and religious minorities.

The structure of India's federal--or union--system not only creates a strong central government but also has facilitated the concentration of power in the central government in general and in particular in the Office of the Prime Minister. This centralization of power has been a source of considerable controversy and political tension. It is likely to further exacerbate political conflict because of the increasing pluralism of the country's party system and the growing diversity of interest-group representation.

Once viewed as a source of solutions for the country's economic and social problems, the Indian polity is increasingly seen by political observers as the problem. When populist political appeals stir the passions of the masses, government institutions appear less capable than ever before of accommodating conflicts in a society mobilized along competing ethnic and religious lines. In addition, law and order have become increasingly tenuous because of the growing inability of the police to curb criminal activities and quell communal disturbances. Indeed, many observers bemoan the "criminalization" of Indian politics at a time when politicians routinely hire "muscle power" to improve their electoral prospects, and criminals themselves successfully run for public office. These circumstances have led some observers to conclude that India has entered into a growing crisis of governability.

Politics Of India

Politics of India takes place in a framework of a federal parliamentary multi-party representative democratic republic modelled after the British Westminster System. The Prime Minister of India is the head of government, while the President of India is the formal head of state and holds substantial reserve powers, placing him or her in approximately the same position as the British monarch. Executive power is exercised by the government. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Parliament of India. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

According to its constitution, India is a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic." India is the largest state by population with a democratically-elected government. Like the United States, India has a federal form of government, however, the central government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and its central government is patterned after the British parliamentary system. Regarding the former, "the Centre", the national government, can and has dismissed state governments if no majority party or coalition is able to form a government or under specific Constitutional clauses, and can impose direct federal rule known as President's rule. Locally, the Panchayati Raj system has several administrative functions

American Economy

The Iraq war was one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions of the last few decades, and citizens across America and the world have looked on with horror as politicians and power got out of hand. Some of the primary arguments around the real motivations for war surround the rebuilding effort, and the benefits this would bring to US-based contractors and business owners. However, there are a number of reasons why this argument, in particular, is flawed and the Iraq war has actively punished the US economy—in addition the punishment dealt to innocent Iraqis and young Americans in the armed forces.

The US invaded Iraq on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, claiming the Saddam Hussein regime was an imminent threat to world security and were sponsoring and supporting terrorism. Of course this turned out to be false, but at least there was the access to Iraqi oil reserves and the significant rebuilding contracts that would go to American contractors, correct? Actually, this didn’t happen either, and the Iraq war fiasco has led to nothing but bloodshed, with no economic advantages arising from invasion.

After the needless destruction of Iraq was completed, the rebuilding effort was to provide employment to American workers and the US economy. But that wasn’t to happen. The projects were outsourced to cheap labour economies to save money, and thanks to NAFTA, any jobs that would’ve been available for American workers were diverted elsewhere. Thus a further betrayal by the current government and another lie to fuel the flames of the Iraqi war effort.

While the cost in human lives can never compare, the US government have spent billions of dollars on the war machine for no reason. Despite the financial gains they may have sought, the US economy is still struggling and the reconstruction contracts have gone to lower labour economies as a result of cost restrictions and international treaty arrangements. For the US people, this represents yet another lie in the Iraq saga, and further undermines the credibility of the current Presidential regime.

Public Interest Litigation

Though the Constitution of India guarantees equal rights to all citizens, irrespective of race, gender, religion, and other considerations, and the "directive principles of state policy" as stated in the Constitution obligate the Government to provide to all citizens a minimum standard of living, the promise has not been fulfilled.


The greater majority of the Indian people have no assurance of two nutritious meals a day, safety of employment, safe and clean housing, or such level of education as would make it possible for them to understand their constitutional rights and obligations. Indian newspapers abound in stories of the exploitation -- by landlords,factory owners, businessmen, and the state's own functionaries, such as police and revenue officials -- of children, women, villagers, the poor, and the working class.

Though India's higher courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court have often been sensitive to the grim social realities, and have on occasion given relief to the oppressed, the poor do not have the capacity to represent themselves, or to take advantage of progressive legislation. In 1982, the Supreme Court conceded that unusual measures were warranted to enable people the full realization of not merely their civil and political rights, but the enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, and in its far- reaching decision in the case of PUDR [People's Union for Democratic Rights] vs. Union of India [1982 (2) S.C.C. 253], it recognized that a third party could directly petition, whether through a letter or other means, the Court and seek its intervention in a matter where another party's fundamental rights were being violated.

Indian Politics

In Indian politics, there are political parties in which one being pulls all the strings. This affection existed even afore India's independence, if Mahatma Gandhi was the ancestor amount of the Indian Civic Congress until his afterlife in 1948 even admitting he accommodated from the Congress in 1933. Indira Gandhi for some aeon was in complete ascendancy of her party. Her affair was aswell named, Congress (Indira). Shiv Sena is bedeviled by Bal Thakarey. Even if the Shiv Sena won the accompaniment elections in Maharashtra, Bal Thakarey handled the enactment of the accompaniment government but did not accredit himself as the Chief Minister but appointed anyone abroad for this post.

Some of these parties, like the Shiv Sena in which one being pulls all the strings, accept their bastion in the accessible not because of their baton but because of affair ideology. While added parties are absolutely dependable on the account the baton of the affair has in the public. One such affair is Samata Affair and its baton is George Fernandes. Another such affair was Lok Shakti and its baton was Ramakrishna Hegde.

Many of the ample civic parties accept a pre-election acceding with abate parties on collective candidates in some constituencies. This applicant belongs to one of the parties and the added affair supports this candidate. This is done to anticipate a achievability of parties, with accepted civic calendar or accepted accompaniment agenda, appoint their own altered candidates causing the agreeable of the votes of their addition and so accident the constituency to the battling wing.

In Indian backroom there are aswell abounding absolute candidates. These candidates participate in acclamation constituencies apart after the abutment of any party. In actual few cases the beyond parties aswell abutment absolute candidates.

Priyanka Gandhi: New Queen of Indian Politics

Some say she is the most charismatic Gandhi today in India’s political firmament. But the riddle that is Priyanka Gandhi is yet to be solved. She has helped her mother Sonia with election campaigning but has never publicly shown any ambition to carve out a political career for herself.

“I am here only to help my mother win a seat in the Indian Parliament,” she said. But it’s not as simple as it sounds. Behind that portrait of ordinary life and the charming smile is a human being, much of whose life was spent in circumstances far from ordinary or charming.

Hers has been a life shadowed by bodyguards. Her grandmother, Indira Gandhi, was assassinated when she was barely 12; her father, former Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was slain when she was not even 20; and her mother, the diva of the ruling Congress Party, declined the prime minister’s job couple of years back, sending a nation of one billion, as well as all the news gatherers across the world, into a tizzy at present, brother Rahul is the one into active politics while Priyanka Gandhi herself ostensibly prefers to be in the background. But the buzz about her political future refuses to die down.

This is Priyanka Gandhi, whom the “secular” Congress once projected as its main hope for the future. Admittedly charismatic and youthful, she attracts millions of votes from young heart-broken bachelors from all over India. Without doubt the prettiest politician in India today, political analysts predict a bright future for her.

History of Watsonville , California

Europeans and Mexicans descended upon the region in 1769. They were on a voyage to expand the missions of Baja, CA. One of the first things they noticed were what are now referred to cost redwoods, a very tall type of tree in the area. Three missions sprung up in the area: Mission Santa Cruz, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, and Mission San Juan Bautista.

When Mexico gained its Independence the land the three missions sat on was granted to citizens of Mexico. Seven "ranchos" were established from the land grant: Bolsa de Pajaro, Bolsa de San Cayetano, Laguna de Calabasas, Los Corralitos, Salsipuedes, San Andres, and Vega del Rio del Pajaro.

During 1848 prospectors flooded the area during the boom of the Gold Rush in the Sierra Mountains. Some had a level of success with finding gold. Those that didn't cashed in on farming due to the population explosion in the region. Land was fairly inexpensive to purchase during this time.

Many ethnic groups came to the region during that time: African Americans, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, and Northern and Southern Europeans. Direct descendants of Californios and Ohlones indigenous to the area, kept a very strong presence.

The history of Watsonville, California involves the city being founded in 1852 then becoming incorporated in 1868. Its name was adopted from a judge by the name of John Watson. The judge brought litigation against Sebastian Rodriguez who owned Rancho Bolsa de Pajaro. When Watson lost the suit against Rodriguez he moved out of the area, but his name stuck as the city's name tag.

Food manufacturing facilities and agriculture of fruit, vegetables, and flowers are still the mainstay of the economy in the city and has been for a century and a half. Potatoes, wheat, and lettuce were some of the most popular crops grown in the region. More than eighty varieties of crops can be produced in the area due to the rich soil.

The Agricultural History Project does much to educate people on how the region has produced crops for more than fifty years. They work to preserve knowledge of prior farming techniques so they can be shared with subsequent generations. Some former facilities that produced frozen vegetables have since moved to Mexico.

Kashmir Divided

The Cease fire resulted in de facto partition of Jammu and Kashmir State. It was the second partition within 16 months of the first partition of India which had divided Punjab and Bengal on the basis of the religion of the people.

Whatever the reasons for this impulsive decision of Pt. Nehru the timing that he chose for or ordering cease fire was wrong, and disadvantaged India. Indian troops had left their defensive positions and were advancing on all fronts. Given some more time they could have cleared major part of the State of the Pak invaders and ended the encirclement of the valley. Nehru perhaps was keen to stop the war immediately because he had contended an international conference at New Delhi to consider the siluation arising out of Dutch aggression against Indonesia which had just wrested freedom from Dutch Colonial Yoke. He wanted to establish his own bona- fides as a man of peace by ending the war over Kashmir which had been forced on India by Pakistan. This conduct of Nehru was in keeping with his reputation of subordinating national interests to his personal whims and craze for international praise.

The Cease Fire line which was finalised at a joint military conference of India and Pakistan held at Karachi from July 18 to July 28, 1949, divided the Jammu & Kashmir State roughly into two equal parts. Beginning from near the Siachin Glacier in the North this line runs close to the Srinagar-Leh road near Kargil and then runs along the great Himalayan range dividing Kashmir from Baltistan; then turning South a little it passes near the mouth of the Burzila pass on the Kashmir side. From there it runs along the Western mountains dividing Kashmir from Chilas and Karen unto Uri from where it goes South-West parallel to the river Jehlum and touches the Southern boundary of the state near Bhimber. A major portion of Baltistan excepting Kargil, the whole of Gilgit and a major portion of the Punjabi speaking area of Muzaffarabad Poonch and Mirpur fell on the Pakistan side of the Cease Fire line. The strategic Burzila pass, the only direct link between Kashmir valley and Gilgit, also fell on the Pakistan side.

Thus out of six distinct geographical linguistic and cultural regions of the State, three came into the hands of Pakistan. All of them are predominently Muslim. All Hindus including Sikhs in these parts have either been killed or driven out.

The remaining three - Jammu, Laddakh and Kashmir valley - lie on the Indian side of the Cease Fire Line. Of these, Kashmir valley alone has a Muslim majority. The remaining two are Hindu and Buddhist majority regions of the State.

Thus by proposing the Cease fire and allowing the Pakistani forces to remain in occupation of the Pakistan held areas of the State, the Indian Government virtually accepted a partition of the State. The Cease Fire Agreement did not mention the right of the State Government to administer the areas held by Pakistan or the so-called Azad Kashmir Government. Those areas were left to be administered by the the "Local Authorities" which practically meant the "Azad Kashmir" Government or any other authority sponsored and supported by the Pakistan Government.

Visits our Health Blogs:–
Health Plus Pharmacy - Health Related Terms - Health Related Terms

Still sound like a good idea?


"Let’s go back in history. It is possible that if there had been no free speech for [Karl Marx] and the [Communist] Party in Germany during the early 1920s – if their meetings and marches had been stopped – they may not have grown in strength and influence. Denying them an opportunity to propagandise, gain respectability and enter the political mainstream might have thwarted their rise to power. This may have prevented the [Communists] from assuming the government of [Russia]. Without [Lenin] in power, the [Ukranian Genocide] and World War Two may not have happened. Tens of millions of lives may have been saved if the free speech of [Communists] had been suppressed early on.

This is, of course, historical speculation. We don’t know for sure. But it is plausible that “no platform” for [Communists] in the 1920s could have prevented the horrors the [Communists] later perpetrated. On these grounds, I would argue that it would have been justified to deny the [Communist] Party freedom of speech."

Copyright © Deepak's Group All rights reserved. and Designed by Blogger Schools