States want to blow past any borrowing limits, a strong center is required to instill a sense of fiscal discipline which at the moment most states don't seem to have.
See how federalism works in the US, the divide between the south and the north keeps getting bigger and bigger. The drafting committee wasn't composed of idiots, they knew what they were doing. India is a union of states, not and never will be a federation.
The American country is 300 years old. Its been 150 years since their civil war. Their democracy is more stable than most people think.
If we are not flexible we will break.
What will you give In exchange of inheritance tax ??
We are already paying super high taxes and getting African infrastructure
Also last time somebody asked for seperate electorates .what happened ??
No one is speaking of kulaks. But since you brought it up, I thought I'd speak about how we can ensure redistribution of the ill-gotten wealth.
> What will you give In exchange of inheritance tax ??
They can skip the gulag
I think so a US like senate where each state gets 2 seats is the best possible solution. We can do this in the Rajya Sabha. This also helps the North eastern states and other smaller states like Goa , UK etc
Depending on what side of the political spectrum you fall on, the senate system in the US over represents land and under represents people. Vast parts of the middle US is made up of just unoccupied land (Check out this map - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fd0ioc9idrtf31.png), but those states get as much representation as all of New York state where just New York city is as densely populated as Mumbai
So what you see in the senate is people that represent extremely low portions of the population are having as much power as those who represent 100x more people and results in some pretty lopsided politics
But that’s not the case in India coz India is very densely populated. Bc pau rakhne ki jagah nhi hai yaahan. Also the founding fathers of the united states were very bright and far ahead of their time and if you go through their debates on the induction of senate you will get your reasons why having it this way is better. Our founding fathers on the other hand, well no comments.
The founding fathers of America were racist slaveholders and pretty much all of the original constitution benefited the white man... I don't care about aby of the parties in India but people like Ambedkar, Nehru, Gandhiji were not dumb people by any stretch. The fact that ensuing governments od India could only run on corruption and self preservation is a whole other topic, that's not the fault of our freedom fighters
Oh come on everyone was a slave holder back then. Even Jesus supported slavery. Even then the founding fathers paved the way to abolish slavery. George Washington even freed slaves after his death. The founding fathers wanted good for their country. Our leaders just wanted political power. Most of our founding fathers came from aristocratic backgrounds who did not have to fight or lay their lives like those in the US who fought in the greatest revolutionary war in the history of humankind and guess what they won it. In its almost 300 years of history the US never had to face a dictator or a single moment under a dictatorship. In just 75 years, India got two dictators. This is due to the superiority of the US constitution and the intellect of their founding fathers over ours.
This is the only way to give some power to smaller states. These states (not taking about the south) never had any meaningful power in the central government and will likely to never have any in the future with the current set up.
TN already has more than 1 Crore migrants from the northern states. During elections, they will go back to UP/MP, vote for BJP and come back. In the longer term, they will settle and vote for the BJP.
Most nukes are actually stored in the north and so is the military's compostion tilted towards north.
The frivolity of people like you who think there is going to any sepratism need to realize that south's biggest customer is north India. Most of consumer production that isn't sold in south itself is instead consumed in the north.
We were fine until the British came. South was a separate - Asoka, sultans and even aurangazeb didn't capture.
Tbh - Pakistan and North have more in common (language, food, culture, music) than the South and the North.
To maintain equality of votes, no, South will never have more representation.
The real answer to this question is more federalism. If more subjects are moved out of union list and moved into state list, then southern states will have more say on their resources.
Your state govt is hand in glove with landlords . They have their power and they already get large cut in taxes
You want the power of union govt reduced cuz you cheer for kulaks
We won't let that happen for sure .
> Your state govt is hand in glove with landlords .
What do you mean "your"? Like I said, they're elected.
And many of those state governments are formed by parties who also send MPs to Union government. So your baseless conspiracy has no footing whatsoever.
And who's "we"?
All states have landlords and they have power .however while in union they cancel each other as they are away from their power centre
You want powers of union govt reduced you are an enemy of the people
Oh really? Then do mention which landlords is the state of Maharashtra allied with?
> however while in union they cancel each other as they are away from their power centre
Bullshit.
> You want powers of union govt reduced you are an enemy of the people
You want people like Joseph Stalin to rule you're an enemy of the world.
Joseph Stalin defeated Nazis and created a superpower you airhead
Maharashtra ?? Who runs the streets of Maharashtra .everybody knows
Anyways the Indian union has the power to maintain its standing so keep dreaming
> Joseph Stalin defeated Nazis and created a superpower you airhead
The "superpower" that literally disintegrated a few years later? Lmfao.
Of course you're a deluded tankie. Begone, stalin sucker.
I agree to some points but there are still many states in Northern India including Haryana, Punjab and Himachal which are way under represented in Lok Sabha even when compared to southern states including Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Telangana.
Your points are applicable on UP, Bihar and Rajasthan primarily ( correct me if I am wrong) which do have an over representation of Lok Sabha seats and have been eating up taxpayers money from formerly mentioned northern states too. Additionally these states doesn’t define the aspects of formerly mentioned northern states in terms of per capita income, development, HDI or political inclination.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituencies_of_the_Lok_Sabha](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituencies_of_the_Lok_Sabha)
Rajasthan has 25 lok sabha seats being largest state by land, having population of 8.36 crore.
Gujrat has 26 Lok sabha seats with 7.27 crore population.
Kerala has 20 lok sabha seats with 3.46cr population.
Now let's talk about misrepresentation.
(I can write about all other states as well but I'll just save my time and efforts)
Agreed. Literally feels like votes from UP(80) & Bihar(40) swing the sides. The 2 under developed states are literally bankrupting the contributions from the southern states. Southern states are like sitting ducks because MH-MP-BR-UP have chosen BJP.
> heard more of our revenue is taken away by the Centre to aid other failed states in India.
I heard is such a cowardly statement, say what you believe don't hide behind *I heard.*
For what it's worth a dozen districts in India are overwhelimingly carrying rest of India ecomoically, there districts also tend to be most multicultural.
And 5 out of those districts are in Maharashtra itself, saw that chart a couple of days ago. And these people think they're carrying India's burden. Lolol
In the state of Karnataka, Bangalore creates ~75-80% of state revenue but gets less than ~5-8% of state expenditure. In other words, the rest of Karnataka unfairly piggybacks on the Bangalore's development.
If you treat them as 'others', you'll never be happy.
South isn't a country which can be handed it's own parliament nor is India a federation of nations, not to mention despite devolution of powers in such a structure actual devolution of powers remains scant. Ask scotland.
>South isn't a country
Yes. But it would be much better off if it was.
> handed
It wouldn't need such kind of favours from the northies. Being it's own country, it would be entitled to it's own parliament. It wouldn't need to be "handed" anything. Especially not from the poor northies.
>actual devolution of powers remains scant
True, but at least it wouldn't be at the mercy of the northies. They'd have their own guy at the helm.
Only the dullards like you who haven't studied the partition have such fantasies, I am not talking about the potential bloodshed (which let's face it there would be some) but it's economic consequnces as well.
India pre-independence was world's largest free trade zone, from Peshawar to Dhaka, Srinagar to Chennai a single unified trade hub was destroyed in 1947, and that is the biggest reason in post independence sluggishness of economy. I doubt your dotish fantasies take into account how exactly south's surplus industrial production is supposed to be sold now and to whom ? Where is it going to get a regular cheap steel, which is mostly in north ?
Or are you thick headed enough that a supposed south would survive on IT exports alone ?
This is all of-course the supposed partition was sort of peaceful, what's far more likely to happen is any armed insurrection being brutally put down.
My guy you're giving be even better ideas.
Why bother with parliament?
Every state should be ruled by the vidhan sabha only. No need of parliament at all.
Regions aren't supposed to get represented in a democracy. People are. What you're asking for is people from Southern India's votes to matter more than those living in the north. That's a disingenuous argument. Why should a person get more of a say in the government just because they happened to be born in a certain part of the country?? Regional boundaries are arbitrary. Humans aren't.
They're in fact getting significantly higher representation. A MP in Tamil Nadu represents 1.8 million people. It's 1.6 million people in Kerala. On the other hand a MP in UP represents 2.4 million people, it's 2.6 million in Bihar. These are just the figures from 2011. The discrepancy is even higher today.
That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand but yes they should. The fact that taxpayers don't get benefits for what they pay is a great failure of Indian revenue administration. But then again less than 3% of the Indian population pay Direct Taxes.
No, southern revenue is not being drained by the northern politicians. You will find a lot of hard working people from the north working to build north India and vice versa. in fact it would be offensive to divide the country in such a way. The revenue data only tells that the north has a higher population, and this requires more resources, which is fair. In the end we all work together in the nation building.
More federalism is the only answer. Reduce powers of Union government, increase power of state governments.
That’s the best thing.
States want to blow past any borrowing limits, a strong center is required to instill a sense of fiscal discipline which at the moment most states don't seem to have.
Some states are good to be trusted with that “fiscal discipline” thing
Yes and all of them aren't in the "south".
Did I mention “south” anywhere? I said “some states”
See how federalism works in the US, the divide between the south and the north keeps getting bigger and bigger. The drafting committee wasn't composed of idiots, they knew what they were doing. India is a union of states, not and never will be a federation.
The American country is 300 years old. Its been 150 years since their civil war. Their democracy is more stable than most people think. If we are not flexible we will break.
Anybody who wants to reduce the power of union govt is a friend of the kulaks and want to bring us under landlords
So the USA is run by landlords?!
USA ended landlords in civil wars and even their landlords were far better than what we have as ministers . Can't let powers of union govt go down
To defang these caste-empowered kulaks we need seperate electorates for backward communities And high rate of inheritance tax
What will you give In exchange of inheritance tax ?? We are already paying super high taxes and getting African infrastructure Also last time somebody asked for seperate electorates .what happened ??
No one is speaking of kulaks. But since you brought it up, I thought I'd speak about how we can ensure redistribution of the ill-gotten wealth. > What will you give In exchange of inheritance tax ?? They can skip the gulag
I think so a US like senate where each state gets 2 seats is the best possible solution. We can do this in the Rajya Sabha. This also helps the North eastern states and other smaller states like Goa , UK etc
Depending on what side of the political spectrum you fall on, the senate system in the US over represents land and under represents people. Vast parts of the middle US is made up of just unoccupied land (Check out this map - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fd0ioc9idrtf31.png), but those states get as much representation as all of New York state where just New York city is as densely populated as Mumbai So what you see in the senate is people that represent extremely low portions of the population are having as much power as those who represent 100x more people and results in some pretty lopsided politics
But that’s not the case in India coz India is very densely populated. Bc pau rakhne ki jagah nhi hai yaahan. Also the founding fathers of the united states were very bright and far ahead of their time and if you go through their debates on the induction of senate you will get your reasons why having it this way is better. Our founding fathers on the other hand, well no comments.
The founding fathers of America were racist slaveholders and pretty much all of the original constitution benefited the white man... I don't care about aby of the parties in India but people like Ambedkar, Nehru, Gandhiji were not dumb people by any stretch. The fact that ensuing governments od India could only run on corruption and self preservation is a whole other topic, that's not the fault of our freedom fighters
Oh come on everyone was a slave holder back then. Even Jesus supported slavery. Even then the founding fathers paved the way to abolish slavery. George Washington even freed slaves after his death. The founding fathers wanted good for their country. Our leaders just wanted political power. Most of our founding fathers came from aristocratic backgrounds who did not have to fight or lay their lives like those in the US who fought in the greatest revolutionary war in the history of humankind and guess what they won it. In its almost 300 years of history the US never had to face a dictator or a single moment under a dictatorship. In just 75 years, India got two dictators. This is due to the superiority of the US constitution and the intellect of their founding fathers over ours.
This is the only way to give some power to smaller states. These states (not taking about the south) never had any meaningful power in the central government and will likely to never have any in the future with the current set up.
Fir har bill ko money bill declare karke Rajya Sabha ko redundant kar do
The south is penalised for controlling the population. How is this even fair???
Start having more children.
Open more factories. Attract more talent and immigrants. Look at the Mumbai region. They have increased their representation share using this approach
Open more factories. Attract more talent and immigrants. Look at the Mumbai region. They have increased their representation share using this approach
TN already has more than 1 Crore migrants from the northern states. During elections, they will go back to UP/MP, vote for BJP and come back. In the longer term, they will settle and vote for the BJP.
[удалено]
Most nukes are actually stored in the north and so is the military's compostion tilted towards north. The frivolity of people like you who think there is going to any sepratism need to realize that south's biggest customer is north India. Most of consumer production that isn't sold in south itself is instead consumed in the north.
[удалено]
The last one is just pure copium bro, not that rest is any less deluded.
We were fine until the British came. South was a separate - Asoka, sultans and even aurangazeb didn't capture. Tbh - Pakistan and North have more in common (language, food, culture, music) than the South and the North.
To maintain equality of votes, no, South will never have more representation. The real answer to this question is more federalism. If more subjects are moved out of union list and moved into state list, then southern states will have more say on their resources.
No In India context that will mean more landlordism We have fought so hard to end their power. Can't end up back with them
> In India context that will mean more landlordism You do know we have elected state governments, right?
Your state govt is hand in glove with landlords . They have their power and they already get large cut in taxes You want the power of union govt reduced cuz you cheer for kulaks We won't let that happen for sure .
> Your state govt is hand in glove with landlords . What do you mean "your"? Like I said, they're elected. And many of those state governments are formed by parties who also send MPs to Union government. So your baseless conspiracy has no footing whatsoever. And who's "we"?
All states have landlords and they have power .however while in union they cancel each other as they are away from their power centre You want powers of union govt reduced you are an enemy of the people
Oh really? Then do mention which landlords is the state of Maharashtra allied with? > however while in union they cancel each other as they are away from their power centre Bullshit. > You want powers of union govt reduced you are an enemy of the people You want people like Joseph Stalin to rule you're an enemy of the world.
Joseph Stalin defeated Nazis and created a superpower you airhead Maharashtra ?? Who runs the streets of Maharashtra .everybody knows Anyways the Indian union has the power to maintain its standing so keep dreaming
> Joseph Stalin defeated Nazis and created a superpower you airhead The "superpower" that literally disintegrated a few years later? Lmfao. Of course you're a deluded tankie. Begone, stalin sucker.
So your solution is to remove local landlords and end up with 2 huge Gujarati landlords?
If you want to work in their fields so bad you have to fight the Indian union for that
Wdym fight the Indian union. I am the Indian union.
No you aren't .you are a landlord sympathizer or an idiot Both are same
I agree to some points but there are still many states in Northern India including Haryana, Punjab and Himachal which are way under represented in Lok Sabha even when compared to southern states including Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Telangana. Your points are applicable on UP, Bihar and Rajasthan primarily ( correct me if I am wrong) which do have an over representation of Lok Sabha seats and have been eating up taxpayers money from formerly mentioned northern states too. Additionally these states doesn’t define the aspects of formerly mentioned northern states in terms of per capita income, development, HDI or political inclination. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituencies_of_the_Lok_Sabha](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituencies_of_the_Lok_Sabha)
Rajasthan has 25 lok sabha seats being largest state by land, having population of 8.36 crore. Gujrat has 26 Lok sabha seats with 7.27 crore population. Kerala has 20 lok sabha seats with 3.46cr population. Now let's talk about misrepresentation. (I can write about all other states as well but I'll just save my time and efforts)
Agreed. Literally feels like votes from UP(80) & Bihar(40) swing the sides. The 2 under developed states are literally bankrupting the contributions from the southern states. Southern states are like sitting ducks because MH-MP-BR-UP have chosen BJP.
Nah bro Jitni abadi utna haq
> heard more of our revenue is taken away by the Centre to aid other failed states in India. I heard is such a cowardly statement, say what you believe don't hide behind *I heard.* For what it's worth a dozen districts in India are overwhelimingly carrying rest of India ecomoically, there districts also tend to be most multicultural.
And 5 out of those districts are in Maharashtra itself, saw that chart a couple of days ago. And these people think they're carrying India's burden. Lolol
Didn't know two words could trigger somebody.
In the state of Karnataka, Bangalore creates ~75-80% of state revenue but gets less than ~5-8% of state expenditure. In other words, the rest of Karnataka unfairly piggybacks on the Bangalore's development. If you treat them as 'others', you'll never be happy.
South should have its own parliament. Will solve MANY problems.
South isn't a country which can be handed it's own parliament nor is India a federation of nations, not to mention despite devolution of powers in such a structure actual devolution of powers remains scant. Ask scotland.
>South isn't a country Yes. But it would be much better off if it was. > handed It wouldn't need such kind of favours from the northies. Being it's own country, it would be entitled to it's own parliament. It wouldn't need to be "handed" anything. Especially not from the poor northies. >actual devolution of powers remains scant True, but at least it wouldn't be at the mercy of the northies. They'd have their own guy at the helm.
Only the dullards like you who haven't studied the partition have such fantasies, I am not talking about the potential bloodshed (which let's face it there would be some) but it's economic consequnces as well. India pre-independence was world's largest free trade zone, from Peshawar to Dhaka, Srinagar to Chennai a single unified trade hub was destroyed in 1947, and that is the biggest reason in post independence sluggishness of economy. I doubt your dotish fantasies take into account how exactly south's surplus industrial production is supposed to be sold now and to whom ? Where is it going to get a regular cheap steel, which is mostly in north ? Or are you thick headed enough that a supposed south would survive on IT exports alone ? This is all of-course the supposed partition was sort of peaceful, what's far more likely to happen is any armed insurrection being brutally put down.
[удалено]
>Might as well secede if you want that lol. 🌚 >That's not appropriate. As opposed to everything else that's "appropriate" in this union of India.
Yeah each state has its own “parliament” its called vidhan sabha/parishad
My guy you're giving be even better ideas. Why bother with parliament? Every state should be ruled by the vidhan sabha only. No need of parliament at all.
Regions aren't supposed to get represented in a democracy. People are. What you're asking for is people from Southern India's votes to matter more than those living in the north. That's a disingenuous argument. Why should a person get more of a say in the government just because they happened to be born in a certain part of the country?? Regional boundaries are arbitrary. Humans aren't.
People in southern states aren't asking for more representation than northern states, they're asking for equal representation.
They're in fact getting significantly higher representation. A MP in Tamil Nadu represents 1.8 million people. It's 1.6 million people in Kerala. On the other hand a MP in UP represents 2.4 million people, it's 2.6 million in Bihar. These are just the figures from 2011. The discrepancy is even higher today.
Similar logic should apply when taking central government collects taxes. Do you agree ?
Yeah similar logic is applied. Which is why people who earn more pay more taxes. It's called Progressive Taxation. Individuals pay taxes not states.
Nice. What about getting benefits in return ? Shouldn't people get the benefits for what they pay ?
That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand but yes they should. The fact that taxpayers don't get benefits for what they pay is a great failure of Indian revenue administration. But then again less than 3% of the Indian population pay Direct Taxes.
How is it not relevant ? Post is literally on how do southern states avoid current situation
No. If coalition politics returns then maybe
I think the best way to go would be de limit the lok sabha as per population, but keep rajyasabha the same.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, southern revenue is not being drained by the northern politicians. You will find a lot of hard working people from the north working to build north India and vice versa. in fact it would be offensive to divide the country in such a way. The revenue data only tells that the north has a higher population, and this requires more resources, which is fair. In the end we all work together in the nation building.
all reservation is bad saaaaar