Showing posts with label Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Policy. Show all posts

Politics, Politicians And People

When we hear the word politician, words that come to our mind are corruption, crimes, liars and many more. We Indians do not agree on most of the topics but if you ask the above question to anyone, the answer would be synonymous. So who is to blame for creating such a persona about politicians? Well, in all probability the one responsible the most are politicians themselves.

The country is made up off people, including politicians. Whenever there is a scandal showing a politician taking bribes, the whole nation jumps on the ship blaming politicians. That is one of the few occasions you can see people of India united. But in everyday life, normal people are taking bribes for doing smallest of jobs. So if the people of the country are doing it, then it just gives green signal to the politicians as well. I'm not saying politicians do not hold any responsibility, but that, if we have to blame someone, first we have to take a look at ourselves.

Politics in India is run like a family system. When the head of the family dies, the next in line takes his or her position. The same goes for our political system, in that when a party leader resigns, the immediate person to look for will be his relative. Instead of having the thought of elections, they have a thought of bringing the relative of the outgoing leader. In this age where even a child has a mobile phone in his hand, people want the country should run as it did during the old ages (mughal rule etc- where the son would take over the chair after his father). Another important issue is that poverty in India has somewhat taken a back seat while it has been rising all the time, just like our population. Also India has a literacy rate of only 60% where as countries like Cuba, France, Netherlands etc have literacy rate of 90% or higher. We have the resources to do it, but the inner voice is missing.

All in all the system has to change if we want India to move further. I remember reading an article written by the former president of India, Mr. A.P.J. Kalam. In that article he said that our government should be aiming at a new India by 2020. According to me it will take more than just a few statements or words of encouragement for the government to start thinking about the country rather than themselves. Also by 2020, global warming would have taken a tremendous turn towards damaging the world, we would be fighting for our lives by then. Well here a question comes to my mind, which is more lethal, global warming or our government? At that time also the government of India would only be worried about how they will hang on to their chairs or posts.

A saying goes that a country is fare reflection of its government and people. Well going by that, India would not look like an ideal place to be. Yes there has been improvement as we are growing at an average rate of 8-9% GDP. But at the same time rate of corruption and level of greed is also growing at a tremendously high rate. So it's like everything is balancing itself.

Indian government also has few good men in its cadre. They are all trying very hard to do something for their country, make it a self-sufficient nation. But they are not allowed to do any progress by other officials running the system. The recently ongoing nuke deal between India and USA has been the talk for the politicians. Some are interested, some are not also for sure there will be some who don't give a horse's ass about it. Whenever talk about moving forward comes, everyone is like "hell yeah, we will make India the best place both economically and educationally". But when the time comes to move forward, then all of them just want to stay were they are.
This sort of attitude does not take the country anywhere except backwards. It will be an arduous task to get India to the top but when we believe only then we can reach the top.

I'm pretty sure that if anyone from the past, who fought for our freedom, see the India of today they would again kill themselves. They fought for freedom and thought that India to come will be full of promises, but in turn it has been full of jokes. It just feels sad to see the state of our country, India. Though I myself have not done anything in my whole life for India and criticize our country at every opportunity I get but I stand for those who have been doing something for our country without any selfish motive involved. I m not a true Indian, I can say it loudly (not proudly) because only those can call themselves true Indians if they have ever done anything for their country.

We the people of India have become inure to this situation and are ourselves reluctant to do anything about it. We have to stand up and speak for ourselves because the time has come when situations like corruption, racism, rich-poor inequality, poverty or illiteracy can be eradicated from our country we call India. If we change then the politics and politicians will definitely change.

Modern History of India

From mid-18th century to the independence of India, which is on August 15, 1947. Then the deluge. It is fashionable among historians to deplore the lack of historical sense among historical Indians, which has made their work very difficult.

What is heartening is that Indians still lack a sense of history and not much is being done to record contemporary history of India. So much so that a series on the Indian Independence movement was commissioned by the Indian government years ago to counter a British series on the subject. The series is still to come out, and don't hold your breath for it either.

Indian History might seem like a labyrinth, or one of those confusing Tower of Babel paintings. This is primarily because each region in India was pretty much doing its own thing and creating a history of its own. For the sake of everyone's sanity, we have tried in our sections of history of India to give you a brief background of what was happening in that period with special reference to the major dynasties of the era. of course, having known that much you’ll be hungry for more, for which keep watching this space as the saga unfolds!

Indian removal

Early in the 19th century, while the rapidly-growing United States expanded into the lower South, white settlers faced what they considered an obstacle. This area was home to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicasaw and Seminole nations. These Indian nations, in the view of the settlers and many other white Americans, were standing in the way of progress. Eager for land to raise cotton, the settlers pressured the federal government to acquire Indian territory.

Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. In 1814 he commanded the U.S. military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The U.S. acquired more land in 1818 when, spurred in part by the motivation to punish the Seminoles for their practice of harboring fugitive slaves, Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida.

From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. The tribes agreed to the treaties for strategic reasons. They wanted to appease the government in the hopes of retaining some of their land, and they wanted to protect themselves from white harassment. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina. This was a period of voluntary Indian migration, however, and only a small number of Creeks, Cherokee and Choctaws actually moved to the new lands.

In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. This was because their "right of occupancy" was subordinate to the United States' "right of discovery." In response to the great threat this posed, the Creeks, Cherokee, and Chicasaw instituted policies of restricting land sales to the government. They wanted to protect what remained of their land before it was too late.

Although the five Indian nations had made earlier attempts at resistance, many of their strategies were non-violent. One method was to adopt Anglo-American practices such as large-scale farming, Western education, and slave-holding. This earned the nations the designation of the "Five Civilized Tribes." They adopted this policy of assimilation in an attempt to coexist with settlers and ward off hostility. But it only made whites jealous and resentful.

Other attempts involved ceding portions of their land to the United States with a view to retaining control over at least part of their territory, or of the new territory they received in exchange. Some Indian nations simply refused to leave their land -- the Creeks and the Seminoles even waged war to protect their territory. The First Seminole War lasted from 1817 to 1818. The Seminoles were aided by fugitive slaves who had found protection among them and had been living with them for years. The presence of the fugitives enraged white planters and fueled their desire to defeat the Seminoles.

The Cherokee used legal means in their attempt to safeguard their rights. They sought protection from land-hungry white settlers, who continually harassed them by stealing their livestock, burning their towns, and sqatting on their land. In 1827 the Cherokee adopted a written constitution declaring themselves to be a sovereign nation. They based this on United States policy; in former treaties, Indian nations had been declared sovereign so they would be legally capable of ceding their lands. Now the Cherokee hoped to use this status to their advantage. The state of Georgia, however, did not recognize their sovereign status, but saw them as tenants living on state land. The Cherokee took their case to the Supreme Court, which ruled against them.

The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.

In 1830, just a year after taking office, Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation called the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress. It gave the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Under these treaties, the Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. Those wishing to remain in the east would become citizens of their home state. This act affected not only the southeastern nations, but many others further north. The removal was supposed to be voluntary and peaceful, and it was that way for the tribes that agreed to the conditions. But the southeastern nations resisted, and Jackson forced them to leave.

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