Deimos Politicians should do their political work for free, but only do so part time and be required to have

'normal' jobs in addition to their political careers. Not only would politicians then have an understanding of what normal people have to go through, but would get a keen appreciation for the effect of their legislation/regulation on everyone else.

Moreover, having two 'jobs' would weed out many potential politicians whose primary skill is getting people to like them by any means necessary. They would also have to be human beings to hold their money paying job. 3 months ago Report Abuse 0% 0 Votes Silas Its an argument that could go on forever (and probably will), but raises a related issue, i.e.: why not pay politicians? It makes perfect sense, because if anyone has a sweeter deal than teachers, with extensive pay and benefits with need to demonstrate ability and effectiveness, its politicians", Today politicians undergo studies, rigorous research, visiting constituencies. With pay they can perform. Hence the need to Pay politicians like other professionals.. 3 months ago Report Abuse 0% 0 Votes Dan They should work for free. Their wages can then pay off the debt created by the bank that the majority of politicians remain complicit in. This debt has nothing to do with us and we should not be made to suffer and feel responsible for. While politicians and bankers **** out caviar and urinate champagne. 3 months ago Report Abuse 0% 0 Votes MikeGolf Because if they worked for free - the only people who could afford to be politiciamns would be those rich enough not to need an income. I personally would prefer that at least some politicians be people who need a paycheck and have to budget their own money just like the people they represent. 3 months ago Report Abuse 0% 0 Votes 1 person rated this as good San I have seen practically that paying good money do not solve the problems.Greed always sets it is true in any profession. We are already paying and training the IAS and IPS and all the administrations.It has not helped. Ministers are only supposed to give vision and monitor the system. the permanent solution is to build the corruption proof systems. And have a system which will constantly monitor it and amend it or improve the system itself. And that the common citizen has to participate and demand his dues

The country cannot be left in the hands of few. In future working with computers we may not require the Ministers at all, Edited 3 months ago Report Abuse 0% 0 Votes willjoes... Good question. Politicians actually started getting paid back in ancient Greece! It was established by Percales in order to get more people to work for the government. This really strengthened democracy and made having a free nation easier. Politics is more of a voluntary act. With the amount of media attention and undertable money a politician earns, he need not be given any salary. Salary makes the whole idea of politics too corrupt and erases away the essence of leadership and statesmanship. With benefits and perks (directly and indirectly) a politicians earns, salaries becomes irrelevant. Against: With debate going around to encourage technocrats/professions and young graduate to opt for politics as a career, a handsome pay package would make it attractive. Today, politics is seen as a long term professional career (with courses in planning & administration catching up) and not as a social service. Across the world politicians are treated as professionals and youngsters view this as career-option that would fetch them financial security too! Absence of money/salary may discourage potential leaders from not-so-well-off families from entering this field ON MONDAY July 5th Raila Odinga, Kenya's prime minister, rejected the pay increase he was awarded by the country's parliament last week. MPs had granted Mr Odinga a rise to nearly $430,000 a year, while giving themselves a 25% increase to $161,000. This boost would place Mr Odinga among the highest-paid political leaders in the world. More worryingly, his salary would be some 240 times greater than the country's GDP per person (measured on a purchasing-power parity basis). Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister of Singapore, tops our list of selected leaders' salaries. He is paid more than 40 times the city-states GDP per person. At the other end of the scale, Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, reaffirms his reputation for saintliness by taking a modest sum from Indian taxpayers Pay is good ith the fat pay cheques our politicians will now be drawing, joining politics can be a viable career option for the youth. But even before money matters came to the fore, sons and daughters of politicians had taken the plunge. Jaivardhan decides to follow father Digvijay and join Youth Congress The Gandhi family showed the way and others joined the fray. The latest in this bandwagon is Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh's son Jaivardhan. He joined the Youth Congress three days back. "Yes, he has joined the Congress. Come and see the mood of the people at Raghogarh. They are delighted," said Laxman Singh, Digvijay's brother and Jaivardhan's uncle. Jaivardhan, a member of the royal family of Raghogarh principality in Madhya Pradesh's Guna district, is the youngest son of Digvijay. He has four sisters. Locally addressed as 'Baba', Jaivardhan studied at Doon School before doing his B.Com from Shri Ram College of Commerce, New Delhi. He completed his BBA degree from Mumbai and is planning to do his MBA from the UK or the US this year. Jaivardhan's entry into politics was the occasion of the closing ceremony of the two-

day state-level wrestling and kabaddi tournament in which more than 650 teams took part. This year, Jaivardhan not only organised the tournament but also invited his father to flag off the event. There 'JV', as he is fondly called by his father, shared the dais with Digvijay and his uncle, who was expelled from the BJP last month. On August 17, the closing day of the tournament, Jaivardhan expressed his desire to join politics. In his speech he reportedly called upon the young people to take the ongoing membership drive of the Youth Congress to the rural areas, where the country's 70 per cent people live. "We should tell them about the glorious past of the Congress and its policies. Then only the youth would be attracted towards the party as desired by Rahul ji ," he told the gathering. Digvijay watched as Jaivardhan delivered his speech and it is believed that after the tournament he gave his son the go-ahead to join politics. The Congress general secretary has his own reasons to introduce his son to politics. While one being the entry of Rahul Gandhi-many are following him and embracing the Congress-the other is that Digvijay is constantly on the move and has very little time for his constituency. The former Madhya Pradesh chief minister now wants someone who can share his workload. However, those who have seen Jaivardhan grow up before their eyes refuse to believe that he has joined a political party. "It's difficult for me to believe this. I remember him as a kid asking children of those who had come to meet his father to play cricket with him while his chief minister dad was busy meeting officials. Before his father could come and meet the people, 'Baba' used to collect the memorandum and applications from them and would go straight to his father and demand that he have a look at them," said an official in the chief minister's secretariat. In Madhya Pradesh, Jaivardhan is not the only one to have followed his father into the Congress. In recent years, MLA Ajay Singh 'Rahul Bhaiyaa' (son of former Union HRD minister Arjun Singh), MP Jyotiraditya Scindia (son of late Madhav Rao Scindia) and minister of state Arun Yadav (son of former PCC chief Subhash Yadav) also joined the party. Many in India love to believe that politicians here are inefficient and dont deserve to be paid any salary. But there are others, who feel that the current breed of politicians is the result of poor salaries, before the long awaited hike took place. It is well-known that the corporate sector in India has got the best talent due to the attractive salaries it pays. Now with a steep hike in salaries of MPs, will politics become a viable career option for youngsters? Can fat pay cheques draw them to join politics? Pukhraj Singh, an estate consultant says, Yes, it will make a good career option for youngsters. A handsome salary and power together will be a favourable combination. After becoming an MP you wont only get money, but power as well, which is not possible in well-paying companies. Since politicians are public servants elected by voters and are committed to serve the country, they should be given the kind of salary and perks that other public servants get, reasons Rajat Goswami, a filmmaker. He adds, Politics has power, money and an opportunity to govern. In a high paying job we may get paid better, but we dont have a say in policy-making. But here the government listens to what you have to say. The prospects of a well-paying job always attract youngsters, even if it means entering politics. A hike in salaries will definitely lure many to pick politics as a

career option, which will provide them good money as well as power. Thats a different thing if power and money corrupts these new breed of young politicians like their predecessors, explains Akshay Malhotra, a software engineer. But there are youngsters who beg to differ saying that politics is a mechanism to get things done in a democratic set-up and not a profession. People dont enter politics for money as there are many other less elaborate ways to do that. People join politics for power and for a sense of leadership. It is high time we scrapped the shadow of something murky, unclean and corrupt with the word politics. It is not a profession. It is a way of life. What politicians do for their party is politics and what they get paid for is for law making and governing, says Neha Lahoti, a law student. Handsome salaries of MPs can be an incentive, but politics should not be considered a profession like law, engineering and medicine. Aashima Malik, a PR executive thinks that though money is important and everybody goes for the best available package, politics is not a game. If youngsters start joining politics only for money then they would be no different from the already money making drones. But big money may attract youngsters, who earlier aspired to become politicians, but didnt take the plunge as it was not well-paying enough, she say

Global warming

"Economic impact of global warming is more of a hoax" "Economic impact of global warming is more of a hoax" Against A warming climate could bring either good news or bad news for the economy. Some people will benefit financially while other people will become bankrupt. Effects on economy are: Positive effect: Real estate prices will rise, due to the simple fact that there will be much less land to buy and sell. Those who manufacture equipment for water sports will benefit, as there will be much more water (especially shallow water) to boat, ski, swim, and play in. "Green" companies are already reaping financial benefits from global warming, as people are trying to buy products that do not hurt the environment when they are made. On the reverse side, many businesses and types of jobs will become obsolete and quickly go bankrupt. Those who go bankrupt due to global warming will crumble because they were in the wrong area, could not adapt quickly enough to the changing needs of the world, have the wrong type of business, or their job is not possible anymore. Technology: improvement in the field of automobiles, agriculture,

Negative effect: Anyone who owns coastal land will lose, because the ocean would claim itor at least turn it into swampland. That former land will be worthless. Ski resorts and companies that make winter gear will become obsolete, as the warming will destroy winter. Anglers who fish in the saltwater of the oceans and seas will no longer have a job. The freshwater that will be dumped into the sea will change the delicate balance of the ocean and kill of most marine life. Agricultural productivity would also be affected as monsoons will be short with intense bursts. Water supply would also suffer because of lesser snowfall in the Himalayas, which provide water for 40% of the worlds population. India may be a long way from melting polar ice caps, but its economy will be among the worst affect on account of climate change It has estimated that Indias GDP would dip by 5% for every two degree temperature rise. Top of Form about a month ago View Doc Like Subscribe Bottom of Form changed the group description to ""Economic impact of global warming is more of a hoax" Against A warming climate could bring either good news or bad news for the economy. Some people will benefit financially while other people will become bankrupt. Effects on economy are: Positive effect: Real estate prices will rise, due to the simple fact that there will be much less land to buy and sell. Those who manufacture equipment for water sports will benefit, as there will be much more water (especially shallow water) to boat, ski, swim, and play in. "Green" companies are already reaping financial benefits from global warming, as people are trying to buy products that do not hurt the environment when they are made. On the reverse side, many businesses and types of jobs will become obsolete and quickly go bankrupt. Those who go bankrupt due to global warming will crumble because they were in the wrong area, could not adapt quickly enough to the changing needs of the world, have the wrong type of business, or their job is not possible anymore. Technology: improvement in the field of automobiles, agriculture, Negative effect: Anyone who owns coastal land will lose, because the ocean would claim itor at least turn it into swampland. That former land will be worthless. Ski resorts and companies that make winter gear will become obsolete, as the warming will destroy winter. Anglers who fish in the saltwater of the oceans and seas will no longer have a job. The freshwater that will be dumped into the sea will change the delicate balance of the ocean and kill of most marine life. Agricultural productivity would also be affected as monsoons will be short with intense bursts. Water supply would also suffer because of lesser snowfall in the Himalayas, which provide water for 40% of the worlds population. India may be a long way from melting polar ice

caps, but its economy will be among the worst affect on account of climate change It has estimated that Indias GDP would dip by 5% for every two degree temperature rise.

Melting glaciers, rising incomes, and food. by Thomas C. SchellingJanuary 23, 2011 (NEWSWEEK) The real global challenge facing us will be organizing to reduce carbon emissions and provide help to poor countries coping with climate change. The worst, but not the most likely, consequences of climate change could be rising sea levels: there is grounded ice in Antarctica that, if loosed from its moorings, is worth five or six meters of sea level, enough to sink Stockholm, Manhattan, or London, or to oblige them to build levees to escape inundation, and to oblige millions of Bangladeshis and others to abandon their homes and workplaces and to migrate. (Levees cannot save Bangladesh; they leave no escape for the freshwater floods that need to reach the ocean.) The most likely consequences of climate change will be severe impacts on food production in the developing world. We can worry about urban heat waves, polar bears, and forest fires, but the worst effects are almost certainly going to be on food production in the poor countries, where half or more of the population depends on growing its own food. Estimates of lost world product due to climate change are moderate because the poor have so little to lose. More than a billion people, maybe 2 billion, are estimated to live on less than the equivalent of $2 per day. If a billion of those poorest people lost half their income, it would be an overwhelming tragedy, a true catastrophe, worse than all the earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, landslides, and fires of the past decade happening every year. But those billion people together would lose only $365 billion per year. That is less than 1 percent of world income! They have so little to begin with that what they can lose doesnt amount to much of a statistic. But they can lose tragically. In a developed nation like the United States, or most of Europe, agriculture is less than 5 percent of gross national product; nearly all the rest of Western income is substantially impervious to climate, or may benefit slightly from warming. The U.S. has scientific assistance to agriculture and experience with climates and crops across the country, and can respond with appropriate changes in crops and techniques of cultivation. Developing countries currently have little, if any, such capacity to adapt. World incomes will surely continue to rise, as will population. One of the notable changes in consumption with rising incomes is demand for meat. Already demand for meat in China is hugely increased in urban areas. The production of a single calorie of meat, depending on whether it is beef, pork, or chicken, requires four to 10 calories in animal feed. The shift toward meat will raise food prices everywhere; the rich may have to eat a little less meat, the poor will have to pay more for their rice and bread. Consumption inequalities between the worlds rich and poor will increase. Population continues to increase in the developing world, though less than predicted. Unpredicted by demographers a couple of decades ago, declining population in almost every developed country leads not only to smaller populations, but to a shift in age structure toward the elderly. Even the developing world is undergoing, not uniformly, unexpected declines in fertility and birthrates. But still the populations of

the developing world are increasing: more people to feed, and a likely shortfall in food production. As an example, there is much alarm about the shrinking of glaciers worldwide, especially in Greenland, but also in the Alps and the Andes. But the problem is not glaciers. It is that what ought to be snowfall is sometimes coming as rain, and the snowpack that ought to wait until late spring or early summer to melt is, in fact, melting earlier; the result is that what traditionally has been available for irrigation is lost to the oceans before food crops can use the water. This is crucial in China, South Asia, Chile, Peru, Colorado, and California, and even the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. Climate change will be primarily a threat to the poor in poor countries. Understanding this may make it hard to persuade the non-poor in the developed world to take the problem seriously

India should be divided

For: Number of Indian states is even larger than few countries. Going by this notion, where on the one hand, we have a fleet of ministers/administrators to run a country like Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and so on and so forth, then on the other we have only handful of them to run a state like UP or AP which is at par with above mentioned countries wrt to size, population and demographics. Moreover, having smaller state will enable proper usage of funds and deployment of recourses. It would allow proper representation of people (by increasing the number of MPs) in the parliament, as still we have very high people is to their MPs ratio. Against: More state would call for more fixed resources viz. police force, stations, parliaments, courts and other state functionaries. This would further give an avenue to administrator to redirect the funds to their personal accounts. More state means more funds allocation and more leakage. What can be done is to have joint CMs and virtually divide bigger states in zones for better administration rather than creating newer states with altogether new sets of infrastructure Number of Indian states is even larger than few countries. Going by this notion, where on the one hand, we have a fleet of ministers/administrators to run a country like Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and so on and so forth, then on the other we have only handful of them to run a state like UP or AP which is at par with above mentioned countries wrt to size, population and demographics. Moreover, having smaller state will enable proper usage of funds and deployment of recourses. It would allow proper representation of people (by increasing the number of MPs) in the parliament, as still we have very high people is to their MPs ratio. Against: More state would call for more fixed resources viz. police force, stations, parliaments, courts and other state functionaries. This would further give an avenue to administrator to redirect the funds to their personal accounts. More state means

more funds allocation and more leakage. What can be done is to have joint CMs and virtually divide bigger states in zones for better administration rather than creating newer states with altogether new sets of infrastructure. The demands for smaller states have periodically erupted across India . People agitate, they are quelled, and agitations die to revive again after a while. Vidharbha, Harit Pradesh, Gorkhaland, Mithalanchal Pradesh, Bodoland, Bundelkhand the list of aspirants for statehood stretch very long. Any rational reorganization of the nation into smaller states would give India around 50 states. Do small states suffer? Not if one views Punjab , Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Certain norms would have to be observed for creating smaller states. As far as possible the new states should be carved out of one large state and not comprise territory cutting across the borders of two large states. Opponents of Telangana state in Andhra argue that the voters rejected Telangana in the last assembly elections. This argument is flawed. People in Andhra legitimately oppose bifurcation of their state in isolation. But if all states -- UP, Bihar, Maharashtra and the rest -- are divided into smaller states, how would voters react? One suspects that a nationwide referendum would give a very different voter response, including response from voters in Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra. The reorganization of states throughout India would be a huge task requiring time and patience. But it should be undertaken and accepted in principle immediately. While the proposed Commission undertakes its task other measures regarding a rational division of responsibility between local, district, state and central governments should also be studied. India s political system requires reappraisal in its entirety. Let the announcement of a second SRC be the starting point. Let acceptance of a new Telangana state in principle defuse the explosive situation in Andhra. Should be divided This post is about the flavor of the week. It is my take on Telangana and the argument for breaking up the larger states into smaller more efficient states. When I sat down to write this post, I was against any division of the states. The divide, divide again and then rule approach was not making sense and appeared colonial. However, a little bit of research has managed to partially change my opinion. I will try and present some of the data that I came across. First, comments on what has been happening The pro-Telangana politicos are in hot pursuit of their goal for statehood.Chidambaram issued a statement that kicks of the process of stateformation. Going by Chidambarams track record on contentious issues (e.g. Operation Green Hunt) the directive to the Andhra government is probably a red herring aimed at a) diffusing a potential crisis and/or b) an effort to divide the opposition benches by throwing a bone to regional parties who have state autonomy as a part of their agenda. I will stick my neck out to predict that in all probability, Chidambaram will clarify his statement in studio interviews with anchors in a few weeks. The clarification will say that the issue is first a state subject and unless the legislature passes a resolution his hands are tied. He will once again play the state subject card with ease.

As far as Telangana is concerned, he chose his words (as always), with great care. In the process, he created a win-win situation for a fleeting moment. The media, and all parties concerned, bit the bait hook, line and sinker.However, his statement has set the cat amongst the pigeons in regional political circles. Many regional forces are brining back their demand for state-hood. Area that are being discussed include Vidarbha (Maharashtra) Bundelkhand (Uttar Pradesh) Gorkhaland (West Bengal) Bodoland (Assam) Second, the crux of the debate Two questions that are resurfacing and are being debated include Is the division of state based on language the right thing to do? Are smaller states easier to govern and they do they tend to have better administrative efficiencies? For starters the two questions are VERY different. The first question has political roots. Identity based on language has been a useful political platform for regional parties (e.g. MNS in Maharashtra and DMK in Tamil Nadu). I am not going to bother analysing this question. I think any discussion on these lines will be counterproductive. The second and far more relevant question is about administrative efficiencies. Do Small states address development priorities and administration better than a large state? Do they have less corruption? The rest of this post is an attempt to figure out the answer. Small states and administrative efficiencies? Small Assemblies One down side of the small state assembly (number of MLAs) is that they may be unstable. Small assemblies and the divisive nature of local politics leads to brittle governments with wafer thin majorities. Horse trading is rampant and governments may change more than once between elections. Haryana, Goa and Jharkhand are examples that come to mind. My Argument: If I were forced off the fence, I would say that it will not necessarily help in brining about better administrative efficiencies.

Corruption Will small states breed less corruption? Hard to say! Data that I found on the net did not provide any conclusive proof that small states fair much better than large states. However it is apparent that the level of corruption appears to be marginally less in the smaller states. My Argument- Based on available data. It appears that small states deal slightly better at dealing with corruption particularly when it relates to their poorest citizens.

Note - Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Himachal, Uttarakhand, and Punjab are treated as Large States by the original report/source

Voter Turnout Since we are a democracy, one good way to judge how healthy our democracy is to see what the voter turnouts looks like. Data Available in the National Election Study 2009 (courtesy EPW) seems to indicate that small states produce far better voter turnouts. This is a positive sign and an argument that works in favor of smaller states. My Argument: Electorates seem more responsible in smaller states. Literacy Rates One interesting indicator that should shed some light on development is literacy rates. According to the data available with the National Literacy Mission smaller states are performing much better than larger states. The area that grabs my attention is literacy rates amongst women. My Argument: Small states seem to have better literacy rates when it comes to women. It reflects that a key government portfolio is being delivered more efficiently if the state is smaller. Can we extend this to other indicators? Maybe or maybe not. At the risk of sounding radical, literacy and womens literacy are good enough reasons to start creating smaller states. Sate Per Capita Domestic Product Data is not readily and uniformly available on Per Capita domestic product (maybe I was looking in the wrong places). I will present two graphs based on Government of India data for 2009 (data downloaded with some difficulty). Source: MOSPI.gov.in [India in figures - 2009] My Argument: If this economic indicator is to be believed, smaller states are doing better economically (at least on a per capita scale). We can find case specific reasons for each small state and why they are where they are in these rankings. However, the fact remains, that citizens in small states appear to be doing better than the larger ones. Again, an argument in favor of small states. Urbanization of India Over 28% of India now lives in its cities.By 2030 this number will be close to 40% (source: EPW Vol 48, 2009). It is not just the metros that are bursting at the seams. Like metros, towns and cities across the country have grown. What was a large town 50 years ago is now a

sprawling city. Many of these cities have remained underdeveloped. My Argument: Infrastructure infusion into capital cities in new and smaller states will ease the burden on Metro cities in the country.There will be a multiplier effect around these cities that will give a better geographic spread to development. Conclusion When I began this post, I was convinced that Small states would not work well. What data I found says I may be wrong. I am confident, based on what I have read in the last two days, that most development indicators will be better in smaller states. Maybe this question deserves some serious thought. If the division of states happens based on regional developmental goals and not feudal family structures, I think we should invest in the shift Important The question whether smaller states are better governed than bigger ones is irrelevant. In our experience, both large and small states will continue to be badly governed until there is effective devolution of funds, functions and functionaries to local authorities, that is, elected panchayats in villages and urban local bodies in cities. For governance is not merely a question of how to deal with Pakistan or how to tackle Naxalism. It is more a question of good quality of living, of providing basic services of education, good health facilities, drinking water, employment and other basic requirements. In our race to accelerate growth, we have concentrated entirely on economic reforms to the total neglect of delivery of public good and services to the people at large. There is no public intervention in agriculture, handlooms and other sectors which have a bearing on the lives of a large section of the population. This is why income inequalities are widening so drastically; why the rich are getting obscenely richer and the ordinary citizens are finding even basic necessities getting further out of their reach. Forbes has just informed us that 0.0000001 per cent of population controls 25 per cent of the GDP of the country. In these circumstances, whether states are bigger or smaller is an issue that does not change anything. It is only with empowerment of local communities that people will secure their entitlement to basic goods and services. Progress in implementation of grassroot programmes in health and education occurs only in such states where some devolution has taken place. India's [ Images ] middle class has shown that over two generations of access to basic services has enabled it to get empowered. Our goal of inclusive growth will not be realised unless there is good governance, and this is not determined by size. Whether it is a small state like Sikkim or a big one like Bihar, good governance depends on the extent to which power is devolved. You have seen it in a big state like Madhya Pradesh [ Images ] under Digvijay Singh [ Images ] and a smaller state like Bihar under Nitish Kumar. It has to do with devolution of powers rather than anything else. There are many smaller states but do you see size guaranteeing their development? Again, if a large state has an enlightened leadership that sees merit in devolution of power, things move forward and people are better off with regard to access to basic goods and services. Karnataka [ Images ] is not a small state, but it's in the forefront when it comes to taking funds, functions and functionaries to the grassroots level. This helps in ensuring transparency and, hence, accountability. This, and not a state's size, is what helps governance. Kerala [ Images ] is a smaller state but its progress has much to do with the manner in which its governments have been able to distribute funds, functions and functionaries among different levels of government, taking power directly to the masses.

On the other hand, Jharkhand, which was created by dividing Bihar, has not been able to make its mark as a developed state. The reasons are there for all to see. It has not held any panchayat elections since it was formed. Unless power goes to the people instead of remaining concentrated in a single authority, there is no hope for the people in this state. Of course, many demands for smaller states have to do with ethnic identities and their sense of insecurity. That may or may not be a valid reason for such demands, but as far as governance is concerned, nothing can be a substitute for devolution of power. I do not want to get into the debate of whether states should be divided for any other reason. I would like to look at the matter only from my agenda taking power to the people. Ajit Singh, Rashtriya Lok Dal chief Uttar Pradesh [ Images ] is a classic example of how small states make better sense in a democracy. It is the sixth largest in terms of population in the whole world. Physically, too, it is very big. In a democracy, a dialogue between the ruler and the ruled is absolutely necessary. That is completely out of the question in a state the size of UP. The districts in western Uttar Pradesh, where we are demanding a separate Harit Pradesh, represent a totally different lifestyle, culture and even language as compared to that of, say, Bundelkhand on the other side of the state. That is another aspect of the problem of size. People of Haryana, which was carved out of Punjab [ Images ], can go to the capital to air their grievances or get their problems heard in the secretariat and return home by evening, whichever part of the state they are in. But if a citizen in western UP were to be heard in any of the state commissions or courts, he has to travel over 600 km to Lucknow [ Images ], spending large amounts of money in an attempt to get justice. People in western UP see for themselves how their neighbours in Haryana and Uttarakhand [ Images ] have prospered after becoming part of smaller states. Their per capita income is much higher compared to the earnings of people in western UP. So they feel a smaller state is essential to have any kind of progress. On the other hand, there are problem states like Jharkhand. Was Jharkhand any better off when it was part of Bihar? Naxalites [ Images ] had always been there. There are, however, other states like Haryana and Andhra Pradesh that have set good examples. The latter was part of Madras Presidency till it was carved out. Again, Gujarat is better off after being cut from the larger Bombay Presidency. Punjab was split into three -- Himachal Pradesh [ Images ], Haryana and Punjab and all of these are better off. Before the division, Haryana was the poorer part of Punjab. Men from Western UP never married the women there as they were known to walk 10 km to fetch water. Today, such a situation cannot be imagined in Haryana. Cultural identity is another reason why people demand separate states. But the underlying factor is a sense of alienation the people feel from the power centre. If Harit Pradesh is created by incorporating administrative divisions like Meerut, Bareilly, Mathura and Agra [ Images ], it would be as big as Rajasthan [ Images ]. So it won't necessarily be a small state. At present, UP has 80 parliamentary seats, and if it is divided by three excluding the five seats for Bundelkhand, it still makes for three big states. Gujarat, for instance, has 25 seats. Of course, one doesn't rule out demands for further divisions in western UP (demand for Brij Bhumi, a small stretch running from Mathura to Mainpuri) but that is a cultural issue rather than one of governance. The problem is that the Centre does not have pre-determined norms for dealing with such demands, but it acts only when people get violent. This sends a wrong message. As a result, people start burning buses at the slightest provocation as they feel that is the only way to draw Centre's attention.

Did Delhi [ Images ] notice what was wrong with sugarcane farmers till they came and surrounded the capital? Despite the Congress and K Chandrasekhar Rao having made a pact in 2000 to form Telangana, the Centre waited for Rao to go on a fast unto death to react. Today, the district of Coorg is also demanding statehood as it has a totally different cultural identity. Maybe the solution is not statehood here. But there are states whose chief ministers would not be able to remember the names of the districts or their district magistrates. This certainly is a sign that such states is ungovernable. Global aid for development is a chimera - it brings no substantial change Global aid has helped various countries in refurbishment of their tainted social infrastructure. Case being of India and sub-continent and Africa. Monetary aid and development assistance not only helps a country in technological leap-frogging but also introduces them to globally practiced modus operandi. Its because of Global aid that many African and Asian countries (including countries that are frequently hit by natural disaster) get change to stand back on their feet. For: Most of the time these global aids find its way into middlemen and administrator coffers. Moreover, countries/institutions design and craft the contracts in a manner that allows the host countries an entry into the helping countrys market and political system A recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) states that global defence spending in 2005 was a staggering $1 trillion. The top 15 spenders accounted for nearly 84% of the total expenditure. The United States of America led the chart with a mindboggling annual defence spending of $478.2 billion followed by United Kingdom ($48.3b), France ($46.2b), Japan ($42.1b) and China ($41b). The top five accounted for 65.5% of the global defence spending followed by Germany with $33.2b, Italy with $27.2b, Saudi Arabia $25.2b, Russia $21b and India with $20.4b. Incidentally barring Canada, all of the G-8 countries are part of the list of the top 15 defence spenders. What more, this annual defence spending does not include the several billions of dollars that are sanctioned by many of these countries on defence and allied research. The double standards of the developed world is revealed when one compares this with the fact that 2.8 billion people live with an income below $2 per day. And even then it takes years of deliberation and contemplation by the G-8 countries to write off the debt of $40b (when compared to what it spends on defence annually) of 18 of the poorest countries of the world, which included many of the poorest of the Sub-Saharan African countries. But in the new world order, it isnt to be so, for spending money on tools to take lives is more of a priority than saving those lives. Incidentally, the total debt of Africa is around $300b. If the G-8 takes the lead from the front in not only writing off the debt but also in intervening into the overall socio-economic development of Africa, half of mankinds misery might come to end. And thereby putting a strong deterrent on such offensive spends on defence expenditure Stretching helping hands to the needy and disaster-hit is indeed a good deed. But at times, those deeds have to face lots of obstacles. While

nature doesn't outweigh countries while it strikes, poor countries always fall prey to its rumbles. While several world communities and agencies show their generosity to the calamity-struck nations, managing disaster relief programmes in the underdeveloped nations is still embroiled with many hassles as corruption has become a key problem for them. In addition, poor governance, lack of transparency, callous and lethargic attitude of authorities concerned make relief and rehabilitation work less effective. A UN investigation report released recently paints a grim picture about how overseas relief programmes are being siphoned off. The report revealed as many as 50 per cent of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Somalia have been stolen. Corruption cost the nation $485 million in 2009. However, Somalia is not the only crisis for the foreign aid agency. Even amidst the ongoing deluge in Pakistan, humanitarian groups expressed their sheer dissatisfaction over the ugliest corruption committed by Pakistani authorities. Pakistan received about $1.5 billion flood relief aid and $3 billion loan from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. But the donors are skeptic as well as curious about how the money will be spent? A similar crisis was also witnessed while Haiti was struck by a devastated earthquake during January this year. While Haiti received $2.5 billion from the foreign aid agencies, a huge portion of the donation was amassed by government officials and aid workers. Moreover, the Indian Ocean tsunami aid generated a record amount of aid more than $11 billion. But the whopping amount, although not the whole, went into the wrong pockets. Africa receives the highest aid, but hasn't used it properly. Since 2001, the US has been donating nearly $1.4 billion a year to Africa for combating AIDS and for welfare works. By 2008, aid to Sub-Saharan Africa reached $50 per person. But rampant corruption has wasted a major portion of the aid. In Africa, cost of corruption is estimated about $150 billion per year. Realising the gravity of corruption, ex-Goldman Sachs economist Dambisa Moyo once asked the US to stop aiding Africa. Apparently, the US is now rethinking its decision to donate $3.9 billion to Afghanistan. But stopping aid during crisis is an unrealistic move as poor countries desperately need help. There are other ways by which these aid corruptions can be checked. Recipients should show greater accountability towards the donors. Stricter code of conduct and a transparent evaluation system, can certainly produce positive results. Although rampant corruption can't be wiped out totally, the relief-seekers should take some and swift actions against the perpetrators. The poor nations should now jointly take the cudgels to fight against corruptions in their countries.