Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com
http://iasbaba.com/2015/09/think-learn-perform-tlp-gs-mains-synopsis-day-11/
Another simple question. Note that the question is not asking for the demerits of the parliamentary type of
government. It is asking for what has gone wrong with the Indian Parliamentary system, and if by changing the
system, these aberrations will be removed or not.
The Top Answer for this question is written by Santosh Venkatesh
Ans) Indias experiment with the parliamentary form of government started with the Charter act of 1853 and got
final shape with the Constitution of India.
But there have been deviations or aberrations from the system in the following aspects
After coalition politics came in political ideological homogeneity was lost.
Formation of government by Minority parties with least representation of people by means of coalitions.
Accountability of Executive to legislature undermined by extensive use of extraordinary devices such as
Ordinances, National emergencies etc.
Autocratic tendencies of the prime minister and dictatorship of cabinet thus bringing in despotism.
Moral deviations criminalisation of politics, disrespect to parliamentary conventions, parliamentary disruptions
and improper conduct of members.
The presidential form of government Advantages
Faster consensus, better efficiency, coherent, long term policies, faster decision making and hence faster
development.
Independence of executive, Legislature and Judiciary would provide better use of checks and balances.
But India is better suited for parliamentary government because
Conflict of executive and Legislature, Unaccountability of former to latter would prove very costly of India.
Past Indian governments have shown Resilience in taking tough decisions and consensus eg LPG reforms.
Familiarity with parliamentary form of government.
Thus along with the above reasons the very nature of India with many religions, castes, languages demands a
parliamentary form of government which is more inclusive.
Q.3) Comment on the financial relations between the Union and the States in India. Has the post-1991
liberalization in anyway affect it?
The Top Answer for this question is written by Nishant
Ans) Two provisions govern the Centre-State financial relations in Indian federal setup:
1. Constitution : Under Article 280 Finance Commission (FC) provides for devolution of taxes between the Centre
and States.
2. Extra-Constitutional : Planning Commission gives funding via Central Plan Assistance to States and Centrally
Sponsored Schemes (CSS)
In this regard, states have raised two major issues:
1. Demand for greater financial autonomy via FC devolution to meet non-plan expenditures.
2. Faulty designs of CSS and their profligation has shrunk the share of untied funds. State plans have suffered
due to this.
Post 1991 Liberalization has added its own impact:
1. Naturally endowed states gained from increased investment inflow. This widened the inter-state financial divide.
2. On the positive side, improved fiscal condition gave more voice to states. Some became prominent
stakeholders in regional development. Eg Tamilnadu.
3. Multiplication of CSS via increasing funds from World Bank etc.
Taking cognizance of the demands, the devolution of taxes has steadily increased from 29% in 10th FC to 42% by
14th FC. The Planning Commission has been done away with and CSS rationalized and delinked to free up funds
for the States. Setting up of NITI Aayog shows Centres commitment to inculcate a spirit of cooperative federalism
and rectify its past mistake of a unilateral policy regime.
Q.4) The freedom of speech available to the members on the floor of the House is different fro that
available to the general citizenry under Article 19. Comment.
The basic difference between Article 19 and Article 105 is all that is needed.
The Top Answer for this question is written by BS
Ans) The freedom of speech given to member of parliaments or citizens is an essential feature of democracy.
However there are many differences between them:
1. Source: Freedom of speech to citizens comes under article 19 and to MP comes under article 105. However
both are constitutionally granted.
2. Nature: Freedom of speech under 19 is a fundamental right of citizens; however that granted to MP is not a
fundamental right.
3. Scope: The right for citizen extends to whole country and that for former only inside the parliament and its
committees.
4. Restriction: Restriction for article 19 can be put on reasonable grounds mentioned in article 19 itself and no
other ground. However the freedom granted under 105 is subject to provisions of constitution and also to rules and
standing orders regulating procedures of parliament.
5. Amendment: Only a constitutional amendment can bring change in article 19. However the freedom of speech
can also be affected through parliamentary rules and orders.
One other fundamental difference is freedom under article 19 facilitates expressing individual view and opinions
whereas that under 105 helps to express popular views through peoples representatives. However both facilitate
mass democracy.
Q.5) Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve
the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss. (2013 Mains GS 2)
The Top Answer for this question is written by Indushree
Ans) Parliament enacted the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956 under Art 262 to resolve interstate water
disputes and River Boards Act to regulate interstate waters. The recurrent nature of water disputes, highlight
structural and procedural flaws in these legislations.
Structural Reasons: