Om

22 | Economics, politics, philosophy
My opinions are mine alone.

[Om @ItsYourOm]

Every bureaucrat who helped modi and shah from 2001-2010 r now on major positions in government.

[Om @ItsYourOm]

Optics

[Vinay Aravind @vinayaravind]

You can imagine the thought process. Not 'how can we prevent this from happening again?' but 'what theatrics can we do that will make the braindead dumbfucks happy?'. As long as this perverse incentive structure sustains, this country will sink deeper and deeper into disaster.

[vir sanghvi @virsanghvi]

@Vasudha156 I don’t think the Governor will let the swearing in happen till the Bengal show is over. Nothing will be allowed to detract from that glory

[Om @ItsYourOm]

bhai @SPFleming7 @Ruutu1331 whjile batting first, always keep Akeel in the playing XI. Keep Gurjapneet as the Impact Sub. That way, if you need Prashant Veer, you can bring him in without sacrificing Akeel's powerplay overs

[Salman Khan @BeingSalmanKhan]

Don't waste your time on these bakwass things . not important, important is that u r so busy that u don't have any time for this rubbish

[Maadhyam @maadhyam_engage]

Various theories are floating around but Govt itself has not provided any justification for the magical number of '850'!

First it must be noted that 850 is the upper limit. The actual number of seats, after delimitation, may be lesser. Just like right now, upper limit is 550 but actual number of seats in #LokSabha is 543.

But even then, why 850?

The most plausible theory is that the additional seats are as many as will need to be reserved for women (850 - 1/3 of 850 is approx existing seats). So, no male MP will need to vacate their seat for a female🙄

But with a dysfunctional #Parliament, low sittings and crunched time, would 850 MPs, particularly the women MPs, get any real opportunities of making productive contribution?

Other theory of 50% increase for all states is also quite problematic. How was it decided that it should be '50% increase' and not 32% increase, for instance?

Compare this to what happened in 1973. Till then, maximum seats for states in Lok Sabha were 500. Then reorganisation in North East happened and it went up to 506. Census happened in 1971 and since the Constitution mandated a delimitation post every census, a delimitation commission was set up.

In 1973, through the Constitution (Thirty First) Amendment Bill, seats for states in #LokSabha were increased to maximum of 525. This is what Statement of Objects and Reasons said, "It is felt that it would be better to ensure that any readjustment and consequent allocation of seats does not adversely affect the existing number of seats allotted to each State in the House of the People and to achieve this purpose it would be necessary to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha suitably." (Link - https://t.co/a0PA9TyNFE)

So, while it was anticipated that seats will have to be adjusted after census and delimitation and some states may gain, to prevent any state from having its seats reduced, total number of seats were increased, just like what is being proposed now. But it was a modest increase from 500 to 525.

The last increase was in 1987, after reorganisation of Goa, Daman and Diu which also further took the maximum from 525 to 530 for States. And since then, there hasn't been any increase.

Yes, multiple census have happened since then and population has significantly increased, does it still justify a sudden ~300 seats increase? Would we have reached 850, if we would have continued with the trend of modest 25-30 seats increase every 10 years?

And why 850, why not 750 or 950? The Statement of Objects and Reason of #Constitution (131 Amendment) Bill, doesn't provide any rationale for this, but makes a cryptic statement about 'demographic change' and 'disparities in population' (see pic).

So, how and why did the government arrive at this figure of 850?

[Om @ItsYourOm]

💛💛

[Sarayu Pani @sarayupani]

Delimitation is merely the flashpoint - the broader problem is the excessive concentration of power at the union.

If we had a truly federal state, representation in the Lok Sabha would be a secondary concern.

[floptok @_eoantao]

AQUELA PESSOA QUE DESATIVA O INSTAGRAM MAS VIVE NO TWITTER

[Om @ItsYourOm]

@Okaykimichi bhopal is not that bad city ig

[Stanly Johny @johnstanly]

donald trump shouldn’t have started this war; #Iran was ready to make a deal on the nuclear programme; he should have taken it; the oil prices would have remained stable; he could still have used the threat of military action as a pressure tactic to get concessions from Tehran; American bases in the Persian Gulf would have remained intact; and the Strait of Hormuz would have stayed open.

Now he lost the advantage over the threat of military action; the regime change agenda has backfired; U.S. bases got battered; Iran’s negotiating position, even on the nuclear programme, has got hardened and the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a whole new problem for which trump doesn’t have any easy solution—except his pointless threats.

he shouldn’t have started this war.

[gg. @okok_coolcool]

from getting allout to making allout, we're so back🥳
https://t.co/s6IiPDF5ts