Can anyone explain office of whip is mentioned in any statue or established by convention. ?
Office of whip is mentioned neither in constitution, nor in rules of house, nor in parliamentary statute. It is based on the conventions of the parliamentary system of government.
recently some act has been which has given statutory status either to whip or some other post. Can't remember exactly. Do you remember something about it?
No idea.
When you shove laws down everyone's throat by weaponising mandate without any form of consensus building , grassroot movements are bound to emerge. The parliamentary supremacy has come to mean Executive Domination, less than 20% bills are refered to committees, opposition's views are not sought , parliamentary debates if they ever happen have become an exercise in denigrating each other rather than debating the rational of bills, ab aise me street politics nhi hogi toh kya hoga ? This is not setting any new precedent, rather it's only a reiteration of Gandhian Politics that began in 1920s and has periodically made its presence felt in form of JP movement, Anna movement, movement for FRA, and RTI etc. More than worrying about the outcomes of centres capitulation , we should be deliberating about the causes that have led to a revival of street politics again. The lesson is stop treating yourself as shensha and get down to doing things the democratic way , even if it means a spirit of give and take and takes its own sweet time to bear fruits. The spirit that characterized passge of GST needs to be resuscitated. Thats the only way to govern this vast land. It's when Leaders come to believe that only they know what's the right thing that a state becomes perverse and dysfunctional.
** Besides it's a matter of timing , govt has not capitulated as far as my understanding of politics is concerned. It has only furthered its political propspects in UP. Power is the means and power is the end here. Everything else is secondary. Yes even national interest whatever that nebulous word means. Aisa toh hai NHi PM uthe or Guru Purnima ke din suddenly decide kar liya laws repeal krne ka.
Wese ye Ambedkar vs Gandhi debate ho gya, Ambedkar loathed street politics, for him any kind of political expression should happen through parliamentary processes , he even went on to sya if Gandhian Politics continue into Modern Independent india , democracy will be imperiled. I don't know which side I am on , because to me both are complementary. Whenever the balance tilts in favour of one the other comes in to balance it ,and this balancing of forces can be observed in all kind of political questions . Like theres a view that Ashoka launched policy of Dhamma because of competition and conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism, that's why he says at nyoneone place anyone who disparages others religion not only harms himselff but also the cause of his religion. Nehru's Non alignment was also a way to find a middle path between factions withing congress that advocated pro US and pro Soviet stance respectively, and Mandal emerged to balance Kamandal or vice versa. So not polarised pluralism but middle path, should be pursued.
-- opinionated piece, consider skipping to not waste your precious time.
democracy is a slippery slope, there cannot be enough democracy....anyway democracy is good only till it is led by benevolent elites in a parliamentary system.. when people start exercising their democratic rights in the true sense anarchy erupts.
This statement is wrong at many levels. If people stop exercising their democratic rights or they stop participating in political activities, there is a threat of rise of Totalitarianism. I would want to quote Hannah Arendt here.
She was studying the rise of Totalitarianism and atrocities against Jews. She was searching for 2 answers:
1. How do these totalitarian systems ascend to power?
2. How do they maintain power despite doing unthinkable things?
To answer these questions, she goes back to Renaissance Period, when the seeds of modernity was sown. She thinks that modernity has produced a world where there is no actual public realm for people to engage in. We started getting our sense of identity through our job. This led to alienation of people. People starve for a sense of identity or how they contribute to a global economy. When they are starving for this identity, a political group comes along and gives people something meaningful to feel a part of.
Answer to the first question:
Nazis did not seize power in Germany, they were elected because a wordless alienated population dying to move for something devoid of a political realm where they could establish their own values. They were given something to move for.
Answer to second question:
Totalitarianism needs a unified homogenous society, which lacks diversity. This is why they often don’t allow for political dissent, this is why they don’t like the idea of equal citizens engaging in an open form of discussion. According to her, the enemy of the Totalitarianism is plurality. The political realm is the only place where a plurality of voices can be heard.
She would want us to understand that not living the active life can take on many different forms. You could surrender your responsibility to think, fall into identity given to you by someone else.
Of course this is an another opinion. But you can’t deny someone’s right to dissent, even if it’s wrong.
