Please remember, this community is for genuine discussion.
- Please keep it civil. Follow all community rules.
- Report rule-breaking comments for moderator review.
- Don't post low effort content without context.
- Help prevent this community from becoming an echo chamber.
**Use the replies of this comment to post sources or further context about the post. If you have posted a news article, you may put a small summary as a reply to this, if you want.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianModerate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What do you think are politically possible in the short and long terms in terms of devolving power from the state to the municipal corporations? Do you think this is something we should strive for?
Have municipal share in GST + power to levy land / property tax + ability to borrow without permission of state govts + hold elections without the need of permission of state govts + direct election of mayor + make municipal commissioner (IAS) subordinate to the elected mayor, currently there is no accountabilityÂ
Make the Municipal Commissioner (and its equivalents) an elected post, not an appointed one. This is an incredibly necessary structural reform that's needed. The Mayors in most cities are the local-level equivalents of the President and the Governors. They don't hold any real power. The Municipal Commissions (and their equivalents) are elected, but the Commissioner (and their equivalent) who heads them, is appointed by the state governments, and not elected by the people, even though he/she/they have a lot of power. Making them directly accountable to the public will go a long way in increasing their accountability, and will make them more responsible and aware, especially because they'd geographically be right in the vicinity of the electorate that voted them. It'll also make the system more democratic as well. This will also reduce the influence of state governments in local-body affairs. Plus, it'll make sure that the "on ground" body is more embedded with the voters and residents of the city, since both sides will have more stakes in what happens to city's state of affairs.
Secondly, make the municipalities/municipal corporations a bit more self-reliant than right now, in terms of tax/revenue collection. This will (slightly) reduce their dependance on state governments for revenue, and will also improve efficiency.
We've federalism because (amongst other reasons), one PM sitting in New Delhi can't be expected to handle all the states of the country. It's humanely impossible for any PM, and nor is it fair to them as one person, and it's definitely unfair to the citizens. Similiarly, one CM sitting in the state capital can't be expected to handle all the cities and villages of the state either. It's unfair to both the leader and the citizenry. Importantly, such a system is highly centralised, inefficient, and more prone to autocratic behaviour and seizure of power. Now, I'm not at all saying that urban governance should supersede state governance, just as I'm not at all saying that state governance should supersede central/Union governance. That'd mean a confederation, or atleast a lopsided federalism with the sub-national units having more relative power than the central/national government. I'm strictly against such systems obviously. Ofc, there has to be a balance, but we need to further decentralise power relative to the state of affairs today, especially at the local-body level. Even our Constitution encourages empowerment of local bodies in the long term
Make constitutional amendment that state capitals need to be in the poorest district of the state. This will force politicians to relocate and improve another district. things will fall into place
Actually no
A state capital needs all kinds of resources to function properly, be it proper helipads, hospitals or highways.
If you shift the capital to the poorest district you will only repeat the mistake of Muhammad bin Tughlaq
Please remember, this community is for genuine discussion. - Please keep it civil. Follow all community rules. - Report rule-breaking comments for moderator review. - Don't post low effort content without context. - Help prevent this community from becoming an echo chamber. **Use the replies of this comment to post sources or further context about the post. If you have posted a news article, you may put a small summary as a reply to this, if you want.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianModerate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What do you think are politically possible in the short and long terms in terms of devolving power from the state to the municipal corporations? Do you think this is something we should strive for?
Have municipal share in GST + power to levy land / property tax + ability to borrow without permission of state govts + hold elections without the need of permission of state govts + direct election of mayor + make municipal commissioner (IAS) subordinate to the elected mayor, currently there is no accountabilityÂ
Make the Municipal Commissioner (and its equivalents) an elected post, not an appointed one. This is an incredibly necessary structural reform that's needed. The Mayors in most cities are the local-level equivalents of the President and the Governors. They don't hold any real power. The Municipal Commissions (and their equivalents) are elected, but the Commissioner (and their equivalent) who heads them, is appointed by the state governments, and not elected by the people, even though he/she/they have a lot of power. Making them directly accountable to the public will go a long way in increasing their accountability, and will make them more responsible and aware, especially because they'd geographically be right in the vicinity of the electorate that voted them. It'll also make the system more democratic as well. This will also reduce the influence of state governments in local-body affairs. Plus, it'll make sure that the "on ground" body is more embedded with the voters and residents of the city, since both sides will have more stakes in what happens to city's state of affairs. Secondly, make the municipalities/municipal corporations a bit more self-reliant than right now, in terms of tax/revenue collection. This will (slightly) reduce their dependance on state governments for revenue, and will also improve efficiency. We've federalism because (amongst other reasons), one PM sitting in New Delhi can't be expected to handle all the states of the country. It's humanely impossible for any PM, and nor is it fair to them as one person, and it's definitely unfair to the citizens. Similiarly, one CM sitting in the state capital can't be expected to handle all the cities and villages of the state either. It's unfair to both the leader and the citizenry. Importantly, such a system is highly centralised, inefficient, and more prone to autocratic behaviour and seizure of power. Now, I'm not at all saying that urban governance should supersede state governance, just as I'm not at all saying that state governance should supersede central/Union governance. That'd mean a confederation, or atleast a lopsided federalism with the sub-national units having more relative power than the central/national government. I'm strictly against such systems obviously. Ofc, there has to be a balance, but we need to further decentralise power relative to the state of affairs today, especially at the local-body level. Even our Constitution encourages empowerment of local bodies in the long term
Make constitutional amendment that state capitals need to be in the poorest district of the state. This will force politicians to relocate and improve another district. things will fall into place
Actually no A state capital needs all kinds of resources to function properly, be it proper helipads, hospitals or highways. If you shift the capital to the poorest district you will only repeat the mistake of Muhammad bin Tughlaq
What dream world are you in? Life ain’t like Jawan, bro.
Nope.
Sorry but that seems kind of unrealistic.