#National: Should Delhi become Full-fledged Union Territory Again?

All political parties want Delhi to be made into a a full-fledged State like 29 other States of India. I think given the experience, we should do the reverse. Dissolve its assembly and make it a full-fledged Union Territory again; like it was done in the 1950s. I describe my reasons as below. But before that a bit of history.

After Independence, Delhi was a full-fledged State. The Delhi Legislative Assembly was first constituted on 7th March, 1952. Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Yadav was the first Chief Minister of Delhi. However in 1956, through States Re-organisation Act, Delhi was made a Union Territory under the direct administration of the President of India. Delhi Legislative Assembly became non-existent. In 1957, through the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, Delhi Municipal Corporation was formed. 

In 1991, through an amendment to the Constitution of India, National Capital Territory of Delhi was formed through which the Legislative Assembly, Council of Ministers and a Chief Minister also came back into existence. The first assembly election under new setup was held in 1993 and Madan Lal Khurana became CM. 

Now, reasons why Delhi should be under Union Territory status: 

Practically, Delhi is a Municipality; in whatever terms it stands for. It would make practical sense to make it a state only if it were a large diversified area with a combination of cities, towns and villages which also to a large extent made it a self-sustaining entity. Delhi is practically a city with its old villages having become urban. There is no point calling a city s "State". There is no point having an Assembly where practically most job is done by the Municipal Corporation.

New Delhi being capital of India, it practically makes more sense to keep Delhi directly under Central Government's administrative control. A Mayor of Delhi can do a better job than a CM. Every time a head of another country comes visiting India, anyways Central Govt agencies have to take care of all arrangements. All international media agencies have very stringent coverage of India's Capital and hence any signs of political instability, anarchy, crime or violence in Delhi gets an immediate and widespread international media coverage. A state government headed by a regional party is way too incompetent to manage such scenarios which have international repercussions. 

In Delhi, there is an unnecessary possibility of scuffle between State Govt (if there is one in Delhi) and the Central Government agencies because of inherent overlap of duties and areas of interest. Practically we have seen that State Govt of Delhi has been able to function well only if a National level political party was in its power; because it has better understanding of political and administrative governance and of managing work between various central and state agencies. The moment a regional party came into power, last few years have seen large instances of anarchy which we cannot afford in national capital region. Since in democracy there is always a possibility that political parties of all kinds can get power, we should purge this possibility. Having a divergent or an anarchist regional level party capturing power in the Capital of India leads to maligning India's image in the international forums. 

Finally, population of Mumbai and Kolkata are way more than Delhi but those cities are able to function well under a Municipal Corporation control. There is no specific reason why Delhi should have its own assembly, every colony should have its MLA and it should spend so much money in running a separate state government. If we dissolve state assembly and switch back to central control, the expenses saved in running a state government could lead to less taxes and better facilities for the population.

The conclusion is simple: India should make Delhi a full-fledged Union Territory again and focus on more productive matters. 

- Rahul Tiwary [Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal.]

[#Politics] Irom Sharmila Losing Elections in Manipur

Among the medley of news on recently held assembly elections, one small news item said that Irom Sharmila who was fighting election against Manipur CM got only 90 votes and has quit politics now, vowing not to fight elections again. 

Irom, known as "Iron Lady", had done hunger strike for 16 long years protesting against Armed Forces Special Powers Act which grants special power to the security forces to search property without warrant and arrest people on suspicion of acting against the state. Such harsh a law is applicable only in the North Eastern states and in J&K, obviously because there are powerful separatist and insurgent forces working in these regions against the republic. 

Irom was not alone in her fight against AFSPA and her long hunger strike of course won't be possible without people's support for her cause. She was not untouched from politics; from Anna Hazare to Mamata Banerjee to Communist Party, all have been in touch with her in the past. Not to speak of social organizations who have rallied around her. She has received several international prizes commending her for human rights and non-violence; including Amnesty International and Asian Human Rights Commission. 

It is unbelievable how she was able to manage only 90 votes.  

Her 16 years long fast ended just last year in 2016; meaning she won't have lost relevance in public's memory. She was born and brought up in Manipur and lives there; meaning she was no outsider to the state. She is known all over India due to her hunger strike and her noble cause and hence the locals would definitely have positive opinion about her. The results of assembly elections including the high number of seats won by the BJP indicate that people were looking for a change. Then what happened that she got only 90 votes? Why would the masses who were with her during her hunger strike suddenly abandon her? What does her defeat tell about Indian democracy - positive or negative?

I think the fact that she lost elections in this manner tells good about Indian democracy. I guess people were aware that despite being a good person with a noble cause, she was unprepared and lacked political experience to make actual changes. Also, spending decades on a single purpose of repealing AFSPA did not raise confidence in people that she would be able to take the state forward in all counts of important issues like employment, security, health and education, which do matter to people. Her decision to "aim too high" by fighting against the CM would also have backfired against her; as people judged her by comparing her with the CM who was a senior leader. Looking at opposition party BJP's numbers, it appears that she would have done much better had she joined and fought on a BJP ticket. But the mature and "unsentimental" manner in which people discarded her as unfit in politics, speaks that Indian voters are prudent and logical. They care about their votes and don't want to spend it either on sentiments or on single causes alone. 

Despite the valid reasons, one can't remain without feeling sorry for her. That is why popularity can be so dangerous - it raises the expectations so high that disappointments become more severe and damaging. 

Elections are called celebrations of our democracy. Then no festival is celebrated in all homes. May the losing ones be strong and be able to get on their feet again. Because life must go on!

- Rahul