We Are Going In The Wrong Direction!

[CHANAKYA]

[size=5][b]The centre doesn't hold[/b][/size]

'We are going in the wrong direction!'
How often have we heard this in the recent past when talk veers to India's future? There is an overriding and all-pervasive atmosphere of pessimism today. There are, no doubt, short-term political issues, and these have been analysed in detail by people far wiser in such matters than I can ever be. I'm sure that as a country, considering our voting record, we will find solutions to our political problems.
Let me focus instead on a longer-term issue in this article. It has been much lamented that the root of our governance problems is the coalition era we are forced to contend with. Even amongst rational, thoughtful people, there is a deep concern with the leaching away of power from Delhi to the states. We long for one-party dominance, because then, apparently, we will have results. Do I agree? Frankly, I don't.

How many times has it happened in India's history that some powerful ruler has stamped his mark over most of the subcontinent? Not often. In the last two and a half thousand years, more than 50% of our land has been ruled by a stable centralised power for not more than 800 years: under the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, Marathas, British and the first 40 years post our independence.

There have been some ridiculous interpretations of this historical fact to say that India was never a country and that the British created it for us. This is pure nonsense. The concept of a nation-state didn't exist anywhere in the world before the various treaties of Westphalia in the 17th century. In 16th century London, if you said you were loyal to England and not to King Henry, you would be beheaded as a traitor. In early and medieval history, countries existed as cultural and tribal concepts, not necessarily as political concepts. Culturally, India was always one country through all of history. Politically however, we were, more often than not, divided.

And that political division was our competitive strength, for it encouraged innovation, the most powerful tool for wealth generation. India was a hotbed of innovation through most of history, from millennia-impacting innovations like the place value of numbers and the philosophical concept of karma, to practical, earthy innovations in areas such as architecture, surgery, ship design and irrigation techniques. By its very nature, innovation is disruptive and rebellious. Our political divisions allowed our innovators and free thinkers to have options. If the Palas didn't like your ideas, you could go to the Cholas. If the Tuluvas of Vijaynagar didn't like your thoughts, you could go to the Bahmani Sultans. Since we were culturally one country, travel was easy. Decentralisation helped innovation and kept us rich.

So can we argue the opposite? Does centralisation harm innovation? More often than not, yes, it does. A Chinese emperor, who ruled all of China with an iron hand, banned maritime activities just a few decades after Admiral Zheng He's trailblazing 15th century sea voyages. Nobody in China dared to rebel against the anti-innovation decision of the emperor. The long-term impact was that it wasn't Chinese ships that colonised the world, but European ones. Examples like this abound in India as well during our few centralised eras, for example the rejection of the Gutenberg press by Emperor Akbar (otherwise an absolutely brilliant ruler) or our suicidal economic policies from the 1950s to 1991. If India had been politically divided or decentralised at these times, these unfortunate decisions could have been challenged.

So a decentralised, messy and politically divided land is actually good for innovation. The problem with political division, however, is the risk of violence and chaos. That has happened quite often in India's history. But now, our democracy has given us the tools to manage these political divisions without the possible violence that comes with it. So I say let power go to our states; let the centre become weak. The stunning progress in some of our states will set up a demonstration effect which can trigger a very healthy competition between different chief ministers. Ruchir Sharma, the author of Breakout Nations, said that if you want to be pessimistic about India, go to Mumbai and Delhi. If you want to feel optimistic, go to the states.

The forced decentralisation that is happening in India today due to weak coalition governments is good for us. We need to strengthen that trend constitutionally - too many constitutional powers still remain with the Centre. They can't get things done, but they can stop others from doing them. Many items from the union and concurrent lists in the constitution need to be transferred to the states list. If the states become constitutionally stronger, you won't find regional parties wasting their time battling for sops from the Centre - they'll actually spend their time governing their states. And our country will become a hotbed of innovation once again.

The ability to innovate is a far more potent and long-term competitive advantage when compared to raw efficiency. Ask America. Interestingly, the US constitution has focused on states' rights, keeping the federal government relatively weak. Equally interestingly, India's modern, golden-economic period (post 1991) coincides with a political era when no single party has won a parliamentary majority on its own. Coincidence? I don't think so.

-- An Article by Amish Tripathi

[TENALI_TELUGODU]

Ok

[rikki]

He got wrong opinion in the last paragraph dude..

[karna11]

matter entoo koncham short gaa cheppu

[littlemoon]

well said antha bavundi... but last lo U.S tho comparision is not right ikada federal is still strong, ikada well developed states and federal both are balanced to say.. konni states ki asalu antha power ledhu

mana degara each state lo undee issues ekuva untunayi so central looks strong ... he raised right point..

my view our central is strong in wrong leads..

[CHANAKYA]

[quote name='Donnie' timestamp='1368538595' post='1303748069']
He got wrong opinion in the last paragraph dude..
[/quote]
[quote name='littlemoon' timestamp='1368539426' post='1303748088']
well said antha bavundi... but last lo U.S tho comparision is not right ikada federal is still strong, ikada well developed states and federal both are balanced to say.. konni states ki asalu antha power ledhu

mana degara each state lo undee issues ekuva untunayi so central looks strong ... he raised right point..

my view our central is strong in wrong leads..
[/quote]
u guys opinions r matching..

[CHANAKYA]

[quote name='karna11' timestamp='1368539031' post='1303748082']
matter entoo koncham short gaa cheppu
[/quote]
decentralization... ==> [size=4]states ki more powers ki ivvali than central ani... article saaramsam... [/size]

[karna11]

[quote name='CHANAKYA' timestamp='1368540644' post='1303748124']
decentralization... ==> [size=4]states ki more powers ki ivvali than central ani... article saaramsam... [/size]
[/quote]
inka states anni assameeee

[Nellore Pedda reddy]

[quote name='CHANAKYA' timestamp='1368537967' post='1303748049']
How many times has it happened in India's history that some powerful ruler has stamped his mark over most of the subcontinent? Not often. In the last two and a half thousand years, more than 50% of our land has been ruled by a stable centralised power for not more than 800 years: under the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, Marathas, British and the first 40 years post our independence.

There have been some ridiculous interpretations of this historical fact to say that India was never a country and that the British created it for us. This is pure nonsense. The concept of a nation-state didn't exist anywhere in the world before the various treaties of Westphalia in the 17th century. In 16th century London, if you said you were loyal to England and not to King Henry, you would be beheaded as a traitor. In early and medieval history, countries existed as cultural and tribal concepts, not necessarily as political concepts. [color=#ff0000][size=5][b]Culturally, India was always one country through all of history.[/b][/size][/color] Politically however, we were, more often than not, divided.

And that political division was our competitive strength, for it encouraged innovation, the most powerful tool for wealth generation. India was a hotbed of innovation through most of history, from millennia-impacting innovations like the place value of numbers and the philosophical concept of karma, to practical, earthy innovations in areas such as architecture, surgery, ship design and irrigation techniques. By its very nature, innovation is disruptive and rebellious. Our political divisions allowed our innovators and free thinkers to have options. If the Palas didn't like your ideas, you could go to the Cholas. If the Tuluvas of Vijaynagar didn't like your thoughts, you could go to the Bahmani Sultans. Since we were culturally one country, travel was easy. [size=5][b][color=#008000]Decentralisation helped innovation and kept us rich.[/color][/b][/size]

So can we argue the opposite? Does centralisation harm innovation? More often than not, yes, it does. A Chinese emperor, who ruled all of China with an iron hand, banned maritime activities just a few decades after Admiral Zheng He's trailblazing 15th century sea voyages. Nobody in China dared to rebel against the anti-innovation decision of the emperor. The long-term impact was that it wasn't Chinese ships that colonised the world, but European ones. Examples like this abound in India as well during our few centralised eras, for example the rejection of the Gutenberg press by Emperor Akbar (otherwise an absolutely brilliant ruler) or our suicidal economic policies from the 1950s to 1991. If India had been politically divided or decentralised at these times, these unfortunate decisions could have been challenged.

So a decentralised, messy and politically divided land is actually good for innovation. The problem with political division, however, is the risk of violence and chaos. That has happened quite often in India's history. But now, our democracy has given us the tools to manage these political divisions without the possible violence that comes with it. So I say let power go to our states; let the centre become weak. The stunning progress in some of our states will set up a demonstration effect which can trigger a very healthy competition between different chief ministers. Ruchir Sharma, the author of Breakout Nations, said that if you want to be pessimistic about India, go to Mumbai and Delhi. If you want to feel optimistic, go to the states.

[size=5][color=#FF0000][b]The forced decentralisation that is happening in India today due to weak coalition governments is good for us.[/b][/color][/size] We need to strengthen that trend constitutionally - too many constitutional powers still remain with the Centre. They can't get things done, but they can stop others from doing them. Many items from the union and concurrent lists in the constitution need to be transferred to the states list.[size=5][color=#FF0000][b] If the states become constitutionally stronger, you won't find regional parties wasting their time battling for sops from the Centre - they'll actually spend their time governing their states. And our country will become a hotbed of innovation once again[/b][/color][/size].

The ability to innovate is a far more potent and long-term competitive advantage when compared to raw efficiency. Ask America.[size=5][color=#FF0000][b] Interestingly, the US constitution has focused on states' rights, keeping the federal government relatively weak. Equally interestingly, India's modern, golden-economic period (post 1991) coincides with a political era when no single party has won a parliamentary majority on its own. Coincidence? I don't think so.[/b][/color][/size]

-- An Article by Amish Tripathi
[/quote]

[size=5][b]red - really??[/b][/size]

[size=5][b]Green - His argument doesn't make sense[/b][/size]

[paampachak]

Good one decentralisation is good. But look at International level, is the world equally decentralized ? Good that China is a superpower in the making in the east, I want Russia to develop too.

Ok leave the topic for now, what about our Franchizes, what about FDI and stuff. Don't you think supermarkets are big blow to our business innovations ? The concept that US is a innovative hub is a ######. That was in 70s, US is no more innovative. Because it reached it's innovative limits for all the basic necessities.

[rikki]

coz that's true and well obvious dude
[quote name='CHANAKYA' timestamp='1368540598' post='1303748121']


u guys opinions r matching..
[/quote]

[Anta Assamey]

[quote name='CHANAKYA' timestamp='1368540644' post='1303748124']
decentralization... ==> [size=4]states ki more powers ki ivvali than central ani... article saaramsam... [/size]
[/quote]

Not a Good Idea ..... Not Agreed ...

[rikki]

green: great catch dude..that is what ruined us except for the fact that we would be not improved technologically
[quote name='Nellore Pedda reddy' timestamp='1368542041' post='1303748210']


[size=5][b]red - really??[/b][/size]

[size=5][b]Green - His argument doesn't make sense[/b][/size]
[/quote]

[rikki]

y?
[quote name='Brahmanandam_AFDB' timestamp='1368542744' post='1303748272']


Not a Good Idea ..... Not Agreed ...
[/quote]

[Anta Assamey]

[quote name='Donnie' timestamp='1368542960' post='1303748284']
y?
[/quote]

India lo states vunna paristiti ki States ki ekkuva power iste inka penta penta chestayi.... For examples... Bihar ki special status ani mottukunaru... AP lo separate state and inka vere states kuda same demand vundi anuko....... TN emo Srilanka godava..... Ila evadiki vadu valla istam vachinattu chestaru.... Inka oka country ga vundi oka mata meda vunnadam antu vundadu....Every regional party will try to put their nose into international issues.... and there will be no image on India in the international front..... Deeniki recent example DMK saying we will pull out of gov if India doesnt vote against Srilanka.... This kind of regional parties blacmailing will not increase... It will only lead to total derailing of the system and credibility of the county.... adhi naa opinion..... Thats the reason i am AGAINST more powers to the State than Now..