Sunday, September 05, 2010

Managing States in India


[This follows the post titled ‘When will these state divisions stop?’ Here I discuss some recommendations and other observations.  You have to read the previous post before you read this.]

There are two initial conditions for the current set of problems we are facing where many regions are clamoring for new states.

Problem 1: The center was averse, reluctant and sometimes downright opposed to formation of new states in India equating it to balkanization of the country.
Problem 2: India being a weak-federal strong-central country, the incumbent states like to remain big so that their bigger strength in the Parliament gives them better negotiating terms.

These two problems form the premise for most of the problems that we are facing with various neglected regions in India.   There are two ground realities that emanate from the diversity of this country.

Reality 1: Though there are many states in India, we do not recognize various kinds of identities in India.  While some identities got statehoods, others did not.   Many states have one majority identity clubbed with few or many minority identities. 
Reality 2: All individuals and all identities work with self-interest.  If unchecked, a majority and privileged group could inadvertently dominate and marginalize the minority and underprivileged group within a state, even when no preset agenda or a plan exists.

Over a prolonged period of time, the above two problems combined with above two ground realities could result in the following situation.

Situation

Imagine a state where region A forms the majority and the privileged while region B forms the minority and the underprivileged.  Reality 1 and Reality 2 suggests that there should be safeguards, protections, guarantees and reservations to protect people of region B.  In most states of India those safeguards and protections do not exist because of shortsightedness and reluctance of India to recognize those identities as valid constituents. 

And where those safeguards and protections exist, like in Andhra Pradesh, the region A could still flout them with impunity using the clout of majority; and there is nothing the region B could do other than complain, protest, agitate, and in the worst case scenario ask for separate statehood. 

When the region B clamors for separate statehood, the incumbent state will be unwilling to let go of this region no matter what, because of Problem 2 – they don’t want to become smaller.  All efforts by region B to get attention from the Center will be snubbed, because of Problem 1 – center doesn’t want to create more states.  

So how do we get out of such situations? Here I propose some of the possible methods.

1. Run states as mini-nations

India should allow states to run like mini-nations.  That means recognition of an identity should not stop at state level, but should extend it within the state as well.  The way a nation protects the states from each other’s domination, a state should protect the regions from each other’s dominations.  That means the current setup of treating a state as a homogenous entity where only the number people’s representatives has a role to play is fraught with problems.  

The way a nation has states, a state in turn should have regions.  If state is a mini-nation, then each of those regions is a mini-state.  Each of those regions should have their administrative safeguards, protections, and reservations.  For example, extending Mulki Rule kind of protection (as done in Andhra Pradesh with an intention to protect Telangana) should be the norm not the exception.  Having a head for those regions could also be considered.

We should realize that it is natural for a majority region to suppress a minority region in each state – it comes as a natural outcome of common men and their leaders acting selfishly in their narrow schemes.  We should not see it as an exception but as a norm and design our states keeping that mind.  It’s time we realize that we have far too many identities and that all of them cannot be accommodated with a state for each of them.  However, we can take measures wherein minority and underprivileged identities are given their due share without being suppressed or marginalized.

If Andhra Pradesh was run like a mini-nation, Telangana would not have been so easily discriminated and marginalized.  A smaller region would have almost equal power as the larger region and thereby nullify the discriminatory resolutions.   We should learn lessons from Telangana and make sure other states do not go through similar problems.   If we make these changes, clamor for new states would drastically reduce, and regions would not have to put up with discrimination.

2. Make India a federation

The inherent assumption that center is always the best decision maker is flawed.  Many decisions that the center has taken have not gone well with many regions and they have suffered for that.  It’s also high time we started moving towards full fledged federation.  Right now, we are a very weak-federal country –called quasi-federal.  We became a strong-central country because our forefathers who framed the Constitution and the first few Prime Ministers had to contend with the real problem of breaking up of the country during the Independence times.   They believed that a Center was more benevolent compared to the states when it came to the mandate of keeping the country united.  This concentration of absolute power at the Center also led to certain excesses where Chief Ministers were fired again and again by New Delhi.  The only way to combat the excesses of the Center was to position regional parties at the states.  That’s exactly what happened in the last thirty years where regional parties came to power diluting the national parties’ power forcing New Delhi to have coalitions which now had to recognize the needs and demands of states.  Coalition politics substituted for a federation in India.

Right now, after 50 years of freedom, it is clear that India stands united in spite of its diversity and inherent contradictions.  Therefore, we don’t have to feel insecure anymore and pave the way for granting the States more power making India closer to a true federation.  The first step towards that direction is to accommodate states as an entity at the center.  Having a Senate like structure in US will make sense.

Senate for India

USA happens to have only two major parties because it is a very strong federal country.   US Congress elects candidates from each constituency and therefore is reflection of population of each state.  Bigger states have more Congressmen.  However, the Senate has two members from each state.  As result of this the Congress represents the people while the Senate represents the states.  Even a small state is equal to the biggest state. 

In addition to Lok Sabha, we should have a Senate like structure at the Center where every state sends equal number of representatives that are elected directly by the people (so that they are not the pawns for CM or PM). 

We are becoming a mature democracy.  Awareness amongst masses is increasing.  We are also becoming comfortable with our local identities while being proud of national identity.  It is clear that we are not ready to let go of our local identities to conform to the majorities.   With growing changes in Indian polity, it is a good idea to take steps proactively instead of killing people each time they clamor for a new state.  Why unnecessary agitations, lathi charges, putting people in jail, violence on the streets?  Why can’t we foresee what’s coming and take action now?

A strong federation with Senate like structure is the need of the hour.   That way we will see states like Mizoram, Nagaland also get the deserved attention.  Currently Northeast States are completely neglected and very soon we may be asking why these states want to separate from India.   With a strong federation, there is no more a compelling reason to be big.  Incumbent states that have neglected some regions, marginalized and discriminated some regions, or failed to create equitable society in wealth and opportunity amongst various regions, will no longer have to continue the injustices just because they have to remain big.

Also, I recommend that we scrap Rajya Sabha completely.  Currently it has absolutely no real use.  There is no need to have people like Jaya Bhachchan, Vijay Mallya, Anil Ambani sitting in that Upper House as if it is a fashion parade of celebrities. 

3. Democratization of political parties

Here, I am recommending certain changes in the current structure of political parties in India.  Since there is no jurisdiction of Indian Constitution over functioning of political parties, these recommendations cannot be enforced or implemented.  They will remain mostly as suggestions.

Though the Indian political parties participate in democracy and expect people to vote their leaders in an open election, they do not necessarily practice democracy within their party.   Even the more democratic of those parties, like the right-wing BJP or left-wing Communists, do not actually practice democracy all the way.

A candidate for MP or MLA is chosen by the high command, they are not elected by the party workers of that constituency.  Therefore, an MP or MLA is always subservient to the high command thereby nullifying the very concept of democracy.  The MLA/MP is now more accountable to the party high command rather than being responsible to the people who elected him. 

Lack of right spirit of democracy in political parties has resulted in MPs and MLAs making a beeline to touch the feet of the high command, grovel on the floor, lick their feet, making Indian democracy a farce.  The CM of a state is removed or appointed and the whims and fancy of the ruling party in New Delhi.  Indira Gandhi dismissed government in states at the slightest pretext.  How is India a democracy if an elected CM in a state can be removed so easily? 

Political parties should become more democratic

The political parties should work down-top and not top-down.  The registered party workers should elect the local MLA candidate and these candidates in turn should elect the state representation for the party for CM position.  In the same way, the party workers should elect the MP candidate who will in turn elect the PM candidate.   This will bring in true democracy making candidates more accountable and responsible towards the people rather than their party high command in the hands of one single leader or the family. 

The candidates will become powerful and will listen to the people rather than get coerced by the high command.  This will bring in true democracy in India.  Right now, people of Telangana are frustrated, leading to violence and suicides, because their elected leaders are not accountable to them.  They are instead playing to the tunes of their Madams and Babus.

Conclusion

Governing states like mini-nations and regions like mini-states, creating a strong federation, introduction of Senate-like structure, and democratization of political parties will make India mature in handling current issues coming from regionalism and make India a strong and vibrant democracy.   We will see fewer demands for new states because smaller regions will now be protected from dominance of bigger regions if run as mini-states.  We will see a decrease in the number of regional parties because now with strong federation, regional aspirations are met even by national parties.  That’s when we will move closer to two or three party system across the country.   

22 comments:

  1. Hi,
    I think your are thinking every thing why telangana is not forming. just remove that mask and think in the nutral manner then you will understand why telangana is not formed.
    Main demand is based on the hatred on the other region. do you think center will form to enemy states next to each other and they will fight with each other for next 50 years.

    the major reason the separatist claim that there is no development , agreements violated.
    but before skc, TRS submitted report along with major haters like prof jayashaker.they came out and simple told if telangana is not formed by skc there is a civil war in the state. just think how confident they are on the numbers they submitted that they fooled the people of the state.

    A lie, because of a whole region believe does not mean that it is true.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just because a section of people in AP want a separate T state you want to redraw the country's structure !!

    Sujai, what would be your argument against the formation of a state comprising Mahaboobnagar, Kurnool, Anatapur, Kadapa, Prakasam and Nalgonda.
    Another formed by Adilabad, Nizamabad and a few districts from Maharashtra and karnataka.

    ReplyDelete
  3. POK:

    Small people think small ;-)

    Just because a section of people in AP want a separate T state you want to redraw the country's structure !!

    To understand this article you have to keep aside your prejudice against Telanganas and Telangana Movement. I am not sure if you can, but there is no harm in trying, right?

    Sujai, what would be your argument against the formation of a state comprising Mahaboobnagar, Kurnool, Anatapur, Kadapa, Prakasam and Nalgonda.
    Another formed by Adilabad, Nizamabad and a few districts from Maharashtra and karnataka.


    If such a case arises I will spell out my stand. But right now, I am don't see the districts of Maharashtra and Karnataka willing to join Adilabad and Nizamabad in a new state. May be you should spend few years there and campaign to create such a case.

    Meanwhile, I do support separate state movements elsewhere in India which are being vocalized. Why talk about hypothetical cases when real cases exist?

    ReplyDelete
  4. My dear Andhras ,

    How long will you suffer humiliations in this country ? It didnt care for you when you guys were made to give up your claim on Madras city. It didnt care for you when it let 'statesman' like Rajaji get away with comments like "Get lost andhra dogs ".

    It let you down once again ,when it suppressed 'Jai Andhra' movement . You guys were made to accept that you have no right to work in your own capital city.

    Since then this country has been humiliating us in many ways. Never giving us our share of PSUs ,Railways, Tax revenues.

    Now , for the last ten years it has allowed Telangana fanatics to get away with spewing venom on us. Now it is allowing physical attacks on us. Soon the state will get separated and we will loose our claim on Hyd city. Then it will watch silently when andhras will be attacked every now and then ,and they will have to live at the mercy of Telangana fanatics.

    Think long and hard about your future. Is this the country that you should be loyal and patriotic to ? Give up your united andhra stand , give up your claim on Hyd . Protect what is left of you guys . This country is bent upon destroying the Andhra identity. In another 20 years the word andhra will look alien to you.

    Wake up now and fight , not for United Andhra or for Hyd but for the honour of being called a Andhra.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow POK I should say you are awesome and have very good reasoning power.I was thinking of the same idea.IF Telangana were to prosper and if the State has to be divided then it is imperative that the State be divided on basis of river basin. Form two states with Northern Telangana and Nothern Andhra with possibly some Telugu taluks in Maharastra(maybe not) and Southern Telangana with Southern Andhra and Rayalaseema.
    That way there would not be conflicts. Mark my words if SriKrishna Committee were to give its unbiased and fair judgement then it is this arrangement. Such a proposal was mooted in 1955 and was supported by the great legends Chenna Reddy and his most able Father-in-law Ranga Reddy.Once again Congratulations on the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  6. " May be you should spend few years there and campaign to create such a case. "
    There is no need for campaign ,Hyderabadis wanted to be with Nizam,they didn't have the opportunity,then Hyderabad wanted not to be trifurcated,it didn't happen,then there was a claim of seeking separate Telangana it didn't happen,Andhras wanted Madras,Madras wanted Tirupati,Gujarat wanted Bombay,everytime the prices are raised,people object.Nothing has happened.Therefore there is no need for campaign,if Govt imposed it people will get used to it.The best bet for Telangana if it were to get out of 'backwardness' would be if Andhra Pradesh would be split into two equitable chucks.That way administration would be easy and it adheres to small state theory.The most important point is that there would not be any riparian differences between regions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. rajkumar:

    Hyderabadis wanted to be with Nizam, they didn't have the opportunity

    ?? Who are Hyderabadis? Can you elaborate?

    then Hyderabad wanted not to be trifurcated,it didn't happen,

    Can you explain this so that some of us ordinary mortals can understand?

    then there was a claim of seeking separate Telangana it didn't happen

    It will happen now.

    Andhras wanted Madras

    They didn’t get Madras, but they got Andhra State. Then they wanted Hyderabad when they merged with Telangana to form Andhra Pradesh.

    Nothing has happened.

    Not really. Many things have happened. You just failed to see it. Most regions wanted to be states based on certain local identity and they got it. Malayalee people got Kerala carved out Madras State. Kannada people got Karnataka to which Gulbarga region of Hyderabad State was added because it was also Kannada speaking region. Marathis got Maharashtra. Gujarathis got Gujarat. The hill people of Uttar Pradesh got Uttarakhand. People of Himachal got Himachal Pradesh from Punjab. Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, all got their states. Tribals of Chattisgarh got their own state.

    So, when you say ‘Nothing has happened’, please understand that it is your failure to see what has happened.

    Therefore there is no need for campaign,if Govt imposed it people will get used to it.

    That’s a simplistic way to looking at complex thing of division of states. Your ignorance of history is allowing you to paint a broad and lazy stroke of generalization which is fraught with many flaws. Nehru did not want to create states along regional and linguistic identities but that’s exactly what happened. What people wanted happened, not exactly what the government wanted. Otherwise there is no reason why Goa should be a state, or why Sikkim should be a state, or why Gulbarga region of Hyderabad state should join Karnataka.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @sujai...

    Nice post...count me in for the views you had on managing the states...That was what i had in my mind too.and i wish i could see it happen when i am alive...

    All the best :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. "
    ?? Who are Hyderabadis? Can you elaborate? "

    It was a know fact that dalits and upper caste Hindus sided with Razakaars along with Feudal landlords.There was a strong section in the Communist party that leaned towards buying peace with Nizam to prevent the occupation by India.And another school of Communists that were hellbent on Telangana becoming a separate nation,evening approaching Stalin for his help. There was an organization Nizam Subject's League which was a proponent of Hyderabad Nationalisam,organized by Padmaja Naidu,B.Ramakrishna Rao.
    Ask the Telangana votaries like Ganta Chakrapani,Sujatha Sorepalli and faculties over Telangana universities. They will tell you that detailed research should be held to ascertain the feelings of Telanganites after liberation and that it was a notion the academics and most descendants of the landlord families carry even to this day.It goes without saying that none of the Muslim population roughly constituting over 13% of Hyderabad State population was against the merger with India.There was a Azad Hyderabad movement and Join Pakistan movement which was supported by some Communists too. The other day there was a discussion on one of the network Telugu news channel,our great friend Chakrapani went out of his to announce that the Telanganites during the Nizam days were against the merger with India.
    Next coming to the opposition towards trifurcation of Hyderabad.The Hyderabad Provincial Congress was in favour of Hyderabad State as it was,they were supported by Muslims and Nehru and Azad.The great stalwarts like B Ramakrishna Rao was in favour of keeping Hyderabad intact.There were many ministers P.Hanumantha Rao,Vinayaka Rao ,Editors of Deccan Chronicle,Siasat,Rehman-e-Deccan,Hyderabad Bulletin who infact submitted a memo to the SRC.Hyderabad Govt didn't submit any memo.It was Kannadigas who overwhelmingly supported disintegration along with Telugus seeking Visalandhra.Nehru in Congress Plenary at Nanalnagar (near Lunger Houz) asked to keep Hyderabad intact for atleast 15 years.Infact even in the Bharateeya Seva Samaj,Nizamabad meeting in 1956 Nehru sought to assuage the feelings of the Telangana people in view of the disintegration of Hyderabad and fear they might have had.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Malayalee..... "
    Interesting observation you've brought.That is how Telangana was added to Andhra.Most of the states you've mentioned formed on their own without being insisted by the people.Was there any referendum to ascertain the feelings.My take is even if they were formed nobody would be happy with their states now in light of new powerful articulations brought by our Telangana friends.Why should a person from Gulbarga be happy with Karnataka,they want a separate State ? Or a Saurasthra guy be happy with Gujarat.Or Kannur Guy with Kerala,or Vidarbha with Maharastra? Each region,subregion given a chance would like its own state for their own reasons.
    I'm personally in favour of resurrecting the old Hyderabad state since there is so much common with our neighbours in Karnataka and Maharasthra ,my second preference would be creation of two Telugu states . That way it will solve the water problem.I don't personally feel that language is a glue nor I acknowledge the fact that there is a regional kindred ship,that to me that is trash.But there was some logic to linguistic states that the leaders back then saw.To me river water is the basis.But nobody would listen.
    My take is simple,there was some madness in creation of new states in formation of States.Nehru wanted to preserve Hyderabad and create bilingual states and keep intact few states and he caved in favour of linguistic states when he realized the impracticalities,but when the concept of linguistic states are being questioned I feel that people need not be asked their opinions,the Govt can do whatever it wants and nobody would question.Believe me. If at all somebody does it would be 50 years from now like the present Telangana agitation and its upto our grand children to fight it out.Lets bequeath the legacy of fighting for meaningless formations to them,if they care so, so that they'll keep themselves amused for a while.Let's empower every region,every unit,every ethnic group,distribution of highways,rainfall,forests,people's average height,maybe states for women,children and what not, let's bring new arbitrary criterion for State formations which the govt need not divulge,let's create wealth,let's create new govts,make new chief ministers.Let there be a new Ministry called the Ministry for Creation of New States with single point agenda of churning new states like movies every year so that people would not be bored.Article 3 can be used to have fun since it doesn't specify any conditions and it makes new formations a child's play for a party having a majority in Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Malayalee..... "
    Interesting observation you've brought.That is how Telangana was added to Andhra.Most of the states you've mentioned formed on their own without being insisted by the people.Was there any referendum to ascertain the feelings.My take is even if they were formed nobody would be happy with their states now in light of new powerful articulations brought by our Telangana friends.Why should a person from Gulbarga be happy with Karnataka,they want a separate State ? Or a Saurasthra guy be happy with Gujarat.Or Kannur Guy with Kerala,or Vidarbha with Maharastra? Each region,subregion given a chance would like its own state for their own reasons.
    I'm personally in favour of resurrecting the old Hyderabad state since there is so much common with our neighbours in Karnataka and Maharasthra ,my second preference would be creation of two Telugu states . That way it will solve the water problem.I don't personally feel that language is a glue nor I acknowledge the fact that there is a regional kindred ship,that to me that is trash.But there was some logic to linguistic states that the leaders back then saw.To me river water is the basis.But nobody would listen.
    My take is simple,there was some madness in creation of new states in formation of States.Nehru wanted to preserve Hyderabad and create bilingual states and keep intact few states and he caved in favour of linguistic states when he realized the impracticalities,but when the concept of linguistic states are being questioned I feel that people need not be asked their opinions,the Govt can do whatever it wants and nobody would question.Believe me. If at all somebody does it would be 50 years from now like the present Telangana agitation and its upto our grand children to fight it out.Lets bequeath the legacy of fighting for meaningless formations to them,if they care so, so that they'll keep themselves amused for a while.Let's empower every region,every unit,every ethnic group,distribution of highways,rainfall,forests,people's average height,maybe states for women,children and what not, let's bring new arbitrary criterion for State formations which the govt need not divulge,let's create wealth,let's create new govts,make new chief ministers.Let there be a new Ministry called the Ministry for Creation of New States with single point agenda of churning new states like movies every year so that people would not be bored.Article 3 can be used to have fun since it doesn't specify any conditions and it makes new formations a child's play for a party having a majority in Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Malayalee..... "
    Interesting observation you've brought.That is how Telangana was added to Andhra.Most of the states you've mentioned formed on their own without being insisted by the people.Was there any referendum to ascertain the feelings.My take is even if they were formed nobody would be happy with their states now in light of new powerful articulations brought by our Telangana friends.Why should a person from Gulbarga be happy with Karnataka,they want a separate State ? Or a Saurasthra guy be happy with Gujarat.Or Kannur Guy with Kerala,or Vidarbha with Maharastra? Each region,subregion given a chance would like its own state for their own reasons.
    I'm personally in favour of resurrecting the old Hyderabad state since there is so much common with our neighbours in Karnataka and Maharasthra ,my second preference would be creation of two Telugu states . That way it will solve the water problem.I don't personally feel that language is a glue nor I acknowledge the fact that there is a regional kindred ship,that to me that is trash.But there was some logic to linguistic states that the leaders back then saw.To me river water is the basis.But nobody would listen.

    ReplyDelete
  13. my take is simple,there was some madness in creation of new states in formation of States.Nehru wanted to preserve Hyderabad and create bilingual states and keep intact few states and he caved in favour of linguistic states when he realized the impracticalities,but when the concept of linguistic states are being questioned I feel that people need not be asked their opinions,the Govt can do whatever it wants and nobody would question.Believe me. If at all somebody does it would be 50 years from now like the present Telangana agitation and its upto our grand children to fight it out.Lets bequeath the legacy of fighting for meaningless formations to them,if they care so, so that they'll keep themselves amused for a while.Let's empower every region,every unit,every ethnic group,distribution of highways,rainfall,forests,people's average height,maybe states for women,children and what not, let's bring new arbitrary criterion for State formations which the govt need not divulge,let's create wealth,let's create new govts,make new chief ministers.Let there be a new Ministry called the Ministry for Creation of New States with single point agenda of churning new states like movies every year so that people would not be bored.Article 3 can be used to have fun since it doesn't specify any conditions and it makes new formations a child's play for a party having a majority in Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bad things happen during Partitions there is not an iota of good will for andhras in telengana , andhra scum are continously testing our patience to the limit, when it snaps all the hell breaks loose on ur settler parasites.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Should read
    ............
    areas based on distribution of highways,rainfall,forests,people's average height,maybe states for women,children and what ............

    ReplyDelete
  16. "
    It will happen now. "
    I would not confound myself on prophesies ,I said in a historical perspective with reference to the socalled demand in 1950s.It is wide open.Its not over until the fat lady sings...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fine Sujai,

    What if people in Mahaboobnagar don't want to join telangana?

    What if Khammam people dont want to join.

    ReplyDelete
  18. POK:

    Its very easy to ask too many hypothetical questions to discredit any movement.

    What if people in Mahaboobnagar don't want to join telangana?

    What if Khammam people dont want to join.


    I could ask, what if Srikakulam wants to be with Telangana? What if Bidar wants to be Maharashtra? What if Khamman wants to be Chattisgarh?

    Unless such a case arises we can't go on asking hypothetical questions. Why do we deal with the question of a state for a Gorkhas in West Bengal but not Konkanis in Karnataka?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rajkumar:

    You are all over the place. You will have to present your thoughts in a coherent manner so that we can understand what you are trying to say. It looks like you are more interested in creating confusion rather than bringing in clarity.

    Proposing every wild idea that was mooted in the distant past as an idea worthy of equal importance may bring out a psychedelic version of our history but does not necessarily help us combat real problems with practical solutions.

    To me river water is the basis.But nobody would listen.

    To me the iron ore could be the basis. But does that mean that's how states are formed in real world?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Students beat up teachers in OU , most telangana people approve that act.

    Students attack exam centres and grab question paper from people writing exams and show it to the media. Again Telangana cheers such acts.

    This is the culture of Telangana. Remember this culture while dealing with telangana people in your personal and professional lives.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The issue is,

    If people of Mahaboobnagar don't want a separate T state, why should they be forced to become a part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. POK:

    If people of Mahaboobnagar don't want a separate T state, why should they be forced to become a part of it.

    The question is:

    Do people of Mahabubnagar don't want to a separate Telangana state?

    ReplyDelete

Dear Commenters:
Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.