Sachin Tendulkar as Rajya Sabha member !
Here is a debate which broke out between me an my frind on nomination of Sachin Tendulkar in Rajya Sabha;
NP: Conceived as a "House of Elders", where elderly wise people from various states could give advice to the "House of Commons", nominations to Rajya Sabha today have become a way of showing appreciation / reward.
While one applauds Sachin & Rakhi, will they really be able to do justice to the seat they occupy in Rajya Sabha? Would not nominating intellectual people who can really advice the government on issues facing the country, be better?
AK: Eminent persons are nominated to the upper house so tht they can represent their field. Sachin may give fresh views on sports bill. Jaya Bachhan n Shabana Azmi actively participate in the parliamentary process. However non-performers and frequently absent members like Lata Mangeshkar should not be nominated again.
NP: NO sir, this is not the function of Rajya Sabha. They are supposed to advice the government in matters of governance, and not any field as such. Sachin can give fresh views from outside parliament also, he does not have to be a member of Rajya Sabha for that. How many sports bills do u think Rajya Sabha will debate in one year? It is such a waste of a Rajya Sabha seat.
NP: ofcourse, they are reserved for eminent people, my point is why not someone who can be more useful. How much use a film star or a singer or a sports person can be for running the country, is the point to moot. Maybe one odd bill in 5 years, you should have people who can contribute substantially, not just on one issue
AK: My dear doctor, do not look down upon a person on the basis of his or her profession. They all make up our societies.
MS: So, The field of Sport,,aaahh,, CRIcket, is what needs helps because cricket is in distress in India! No other sports personality?? Why not make him sports minister or In-chareg of IOC,--where people like Kalmadi are controlling! It is a sham , a clever deceit to fool Indian masses afetr so many years, and afetr so many scams--CWG, IPL-gate, and So much cases of match-fixing.
AK: And his illustrious career in sports alone should not be the basis of removing him from decision making caucus of this country.
MS: Tendulkar is the eyewash to fool indian masses out of their Intellect.
AK: Anna Hazare n Arvind Kejariwal have been accused of dishonouring the parliament because they presented their views outside that building.
AK: Ok googled it. Out of 250, 12 are nominated by President for contribution to arts science social service etc. I think we should be making noise if they pick Politicians for those seats, not against Tendulkar.
MS: agreed that tendulkar is now worthy to be part of the decision-making caucus, but does he really speak and decide? How many times have we seen him giving his opinion on a matter,? rather, he is quiet a media-choked man, whose one word makes the media headline! Do you expect any great decisions and opinions? How would you evaluate him as a thinker?? There are no clues to this question in the public domain. tendulkar is a susbstitution of Lata mangeshkar, to keep those people quiet who complained of her absentia! This is clever deceit.I ccan bet. Tandualkar is a permanently media-gaged man!
AK: That doesn't say much actually. You have met me, n Dr Pandey. I don't speak so much in public either. That doesn't mean I don't think.
MS: i know! but there are clues to to it that you think. You facebook speaks. How about Tendulkar? guess he gave one opinion on Mratahi-Bihari-UP Bhaiya issue, that Mumbai is of all the Indians. But we can count on fingures how many times he can speak, and hold opinion. Can he do arguments?? Parliament is suppose to be doing that, no matter what field you have been nominated for.
AK: Let's give him some benefit of doubt. Let our perception not cloud our judgement. Let us have a clear conscience that we gave him a chance!
MS: Haha,, there are some 130 billion of us! 'Keeping conscious clear' is not the right criteria to act. That is , acting emotionally. In the scarcity of time at hand and limited number of seats, just 12, we need to find more robust criteria to send the right person over there. It is like choosing a right balance cricket team of 11. You cannot keep conscious clear by giving everyone a chance. You need to play the game and with the aim to win the game.
AK: Non-emotinally speaking, he fits the bill for the nominated seat. Period.
MS: how about Pankaj adani ?how about abhinav bindra? The criteria is not about fitting the bill..as though india as scare people "whose contributions to arts, science and social service" are not fit enough to win them Rajya Sabha job. Or that all sports are doing good but for cricket that someone from this sports needs to reach Parliament to make the case for "downfall' of cricket ! Rajya Sabha seat is not for adoration, or for award bestowing. It is job. To make the case for the problems in the field he represents, to the decision-making caucus of the country.
VAD: I have read all the above comments and feel that such personalities should come to parliament to show a different prospective on any issue other than the politicians typically.president nominates such people who add different flavour other than chilli of politics always.its always better to know some other view and thats why president was given this right.maybe rekha and Sachin will nt speak much but it adds to parliament like akbar's 9 jewels- they all were nt supposed to speak on all matters,important is what field they come from and do their bit for that field.
AK: I like Venu's point. But can't see like button on the mobile. :P
In any case she sums it up perfectly.
MS: the theory holds that such nominations, only of limited number and only to Upper house, (that is, 12 members to Rajya Sabha ), be made because the field Which have been chosen for such nominations have their people in minority about their opinions about professional matters. Minority is just not about religious beliefs, it is also about beliefs stemming from other works. For example, back in 16th century, person having belief about helio-centricity was a minority. The idea is not about adding taste to parliament, although in effect it may be spoken in that form as well. Every Rajya Sabha had enough Hema Malini's to add taste. The Idea of nomination is about being given special impetus through route of 'nomination' instead of 'selection' which other members take to reach Rajya Sabha, because such people maybe a minority in their beliefs to get enough votes for their selection by the due process. Back in the black and white cinema days, maybe Cinema and Crickets were minority view people. We all need to re-evaluate if it is so today.
SC: By jove, i tell you, such debate. Considering the fact that sachin and rakhi sawant are both well past their sell-by date, i think they both are excellent choices for the house of "elders".
NP: Conceived as a "House of Elders", where elderly wise people from various states could give advice to the "House of Commons", nominations to Rajya Sabha today have become a way of showing appreciation / reward.
While one applauds Sachin & Rakhi, will they really be able to do justice to the seat they occupy in Rajya Sabha? Would not nominating intellectual people who can really advice the government on issues facing the country, be better?
AK: Eminent persons are nominated to the upper house so tht they can represent their field. Sachin may give fresh views on sports bill. Jaya Bachhan n Shabana Azmi actively participate in the parliamentary process. However non-performers and frequently absent members like Lata Mangeshkar should not be nominated again.
NP: NO sir, this is not the function of Rajya Sabha. They are supposed to advice the government in matters of governance, and not any field as such. Sachin can give fresh views from outside parliament also, he does not have to be a member of Rajya Sabha for that. How many sports bills do u think Rajya Sabha will debate in one year? It is such a waste of a Rajya Sabha seat.
NP: ofcourse, they are reserved for eminent people, my point is why not someone who can be more useful. How much use a film star or a singer or a sports person can be for running the country, is the point to moot. Maybe one odd bill in 5 years, you should have people who can contribute substantially, not just on one issue
AK: My dear doctor, do not look down upon a person on the basis of his or her profession. They all make up our societies.
MS: So, The field of Sport,,aaahh,, CRIcket, is what needs helps because cricket is in distress in India! No other sports personality?? Why not make him sports minister or In-chareg of IOC,--where people like Kalmadi are controlling! It is a sham , a clever deceit to fool Indian masses afetr so many years, and afetr so many scams--CWG, IPL-gate, and So much cases of match-fixing.
AK: And his illustrious career in sports alone should not be the basis of removing him from decision making caucus of this country.
MS: Tendulkar is the eyewash to fool indian masses out of their Intellect.
AK: Anna Hazare n Arvind Kejariwal have been accused of dishonouring the parliament because they presented their views outside that building.
AK: Ok googled it. Out of 250, 12 are nominated by President for contribution to arts science social service etc. I think we should be making noise if they pick Politicians for those seats, not against Tendulkar.
MS: agreed that tendulkar is now worthy to be part of the decision-making caucus, but does he really speak and decide? How many times have we seen him giving his opinion on a matter,? rather, he is quiet a media-choked man, whose one word makes the media headline! Do you expect any great decisions and opinions? How would you evaluate him as a thinker?? There are no clues to this question in the public domain. tendulkar is a susbstitution of Lata mangeshkar, to keep those people quiet who complained of her absentia! This is clever deceit.I ccan bet. Tandualkar is a permanently media-gaged man!
AK: That doesn't say much actually. You have met me, n Dr Pandey. I don't speak so much in public either. That doesn't mean I don't think.
MS: i know! but there are clues to to it that you think. You facebook speaks. How about Tendulkar? guess he gave one opinion on Mratahi-Bihari-UP Bhaiya issue, that Mumbai is of all the Indians. But we can count on fingures how many times he can speak, and hold opinion. Can he do arguments?? Parliament is suppose to be doing that, no matter what field you have been nominated for.
AK: Let's give him some benefit of doubt. Let our perception not cloud our judgement. Let us have a clear conscience that we gave him a chance!
MS: Haha,, there are some 130 billion of us! 'Keeping conscious clear' is not the right criteria to act. That is , acting emotionally. In the scarcity of time at hand and limited number of seats, just 12, we need to find more robust criteria to send the right person over there. It is like choosing a right balance cricket team of 11. You cannot keep conscious clear by giving everyone a chance. You need to play the game and with the aim to win the game.
AK: Non-emotinally speaking, he fits the bill for the nominated seat. Period.
MS: how about Pankaj adani ?how about abhinav bindra? The criteria is not about fitting the bill..as though india as scare people "whose contributions to arts, science and social service" are not fit enough to win them Rajya Sabha job. Or that all sports are doing good but for cricket that someone from this sports needs to reach Parliament to make the case for "downfall' of cricket ! Rajya Sabha seat is not for adoration, or for award bestowing. It is job. To make the case for the problems in the field he represents, to the decision-making caucus of the country.
VAD: I have read all the above comments and feel that such personalities should come to parliament to show a different prospective on any issue other than the politicians typically.president nominates such people who add different flavour other than chilli of politics always.its always better to know some other view and thats why president was given this right.maybe rekha and Sachin will nt speak much but it adds to parliament like akbar's 9 jewels- they all were nt supposed to speak on all matters,important is what field they come from and do their bit for that field.
AK: I like Venu's point. But can't see like button on the mobile. :P
In any case she sums it up perfectly.
MS: the theory holds that such nominations, only of limited number and only to Upper house, (that is, 12 members to Rajya Sabha ), be made because the field Which have been chosen for such nominations have their people in minority about their opinions about professional matters. Minority is just not about religious beliefs, it is also about beliefs stemming from other works. For example, back in 16th century, person having belief about helio-centricity was a minority. The idea is not about adding taste to parliament, although in effect it may be spoken in that form as well. Every Rajya Sabha had enough Hema Malini's to add taste. The Idea of nomination is about being given special impetus through route of 'nomination' instead of 'selection' which other members take to reach Rajya Sabha, because such people maybe a minority in their beliefs to get enough votes for their selection by the due process. Back in the black and white cinema days, maybe Cinema and Crickets were minority view people. We all need to re-evaluate if it is so today.
SC: By jove, i tell you, such debate. Considering the fact that sachin and rakhi sawant are both well past their sell-by date, i think they both are excellent choices for the house of "elders".
Why Congress has not nominated honest people like E Sreedharan to RS their services may be more useful than Power Hungry Cricketrs and Filmstars. Is congress afraid of Honest persons
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteE Sreedharan is the best guy for Bharat Ratna too. But look at the political necessities, the political parties are trying all stunts to keep the knowledge fountains of people jacked down. Once E sreedharan reaches RS or gets a Bharat Ratna, and since he is bright thoughtful man and a good speaker, his speech will contribute towards opening the intellect of Indian masses. In comparison Tendulkar is dim -witted, humble, "soft-spoken" man, not aware of critical issues and not verse in the job of analysing public and governance policy issues and thus criticising. thus he is the choice. Put the dumb sheep in the lead, and the sheep flock will become dumb too.
ReplyDelete