Stalin government replaces Rupee symbol with Tamil letter in state budget amid language row

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Mariyam said:

Unrelated to the delimitation discussion. More like an FYI.

Karnataka, good the proverbial long rope when the states of India were re-organised on the basis of Language.

i think we mean/understand two different things by delimitation.

I see delimitation as re-drawing the electoral district map of India based on current population numbers. so i dont see what having more or less languages has to do with delimitation....

[coffee_rules]

10 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

@mishra

@coffee_rules

@Muloghonto

 

The views in my previous post re: Delimitation are basically from a book called "The Degeneration of India" by the former Chief Election Commissioner of India: T.N. Seshan.

He has many pages re: Formation of Districts/Delimitation in India after the Linguistic organization of states. Approaches on further delimitation etc

 

They are a part of the curriculum for anyone who wishes to specialize in Constitutional Law. I think he would know a thing or two about what a democracy is.

 

@coffee_rules, Thane was delimited to Thane and Palghar districts solely on the basis of Socio-Economic reality. Agriculture heavy regions were separated from the Service sector/ Industrial regions and were then infused with central funds for making of SEZs.

 

 

DIdn't get the context of Thane and Palghar? Did Thane get more seats (MLA) than Palghar or otherway around? Or is it proportional to their respective  population sizes?

[Mariyam]

4 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Just because of TN Seshan, I will not chage my opinion of basic logic and reasoning. Do you agree with his viewpoint for this opinion or because of his expert knowledge in Constitiional law?

And TN Seshan joined Congress after his CEC role. 

I agree with the basic premise of his arguement. His reasons and procedure for how delimitation should be carried out so that it simply isn't a political tool in the hands of the ruling class.

 

Everybody worth anything was in the Congress in those days. Can't be the reason to disagree with a person.

[coffee_rules]

8 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

@Muloghonto

Strictly speaking, Karnataka is an oddity in Indian State after the linguistic re-organization. There are 3 distinct language ( as defined by the 8th Schedule of our Constitution) zones.

Kannada: Most of central and non coastal Karnataka.

Marathi areas: Belgaum and Northern Karnataka

Konkani: The coastal belt

Tulu: Mysore and thereabouts. Language of the Bunt community. Not in the 8th Schedule yet, but quite likely to be.

It was not a clear demarkion for Karnataka. In Kolhapur district esp Pandarpur areas there were a lot more Kannada speakers that wetn to MH. Kasargod , a predominently Kannada speaking taluk went to Kerala. Tulu is spoken in southern coastal areas of Udupi/Mangalore. 

 

Bihar is an oddity too. It gas 4 language soeakers - Hindi, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Maghadi. They were all given one state !! I don't theink they put a lot of thinking into state formation. 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Just because of TN Seshan, I will not chage my opinion of basic logic and reasoning. Do you agree with his viewpoint for this opinion or because of his expert knowledge in Constitiional law?

And TN Seshan joined Congress after his CEC role. 

 

Bhai i remember TN Seshan from my 90s days in India - i was young back then, but what i do remember of note, is that EVERYONE - from PVNR to Jyoti Basu to ABV to Sonia....everyone was afraid of TN Seshan for being some ultra-hardcore rules-book dude during elections.

Back then there were several elections in succession and everytime the big buzz amongst the buzurg-log were ' will TN Seshan kybosh the whole thing ? will CPM reign in their booth-capture methods' etc.

 

I dont know much about the guy personally, but his 'kattar rules-book guy' image stuck out for me amongst election comission peoples.  No one i know of had the same aura as he did.

Ofcourse, i wont accept refutation of logic as 'TN Seshan says so, so it must be right' sort of appeal to authority fallacy, but i will say i highly doubt that this dude was corrupt.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2025 by Muloghonto

[coffee_rules]

4 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

I agree with the basic premise of his arguement. His reasons and procedure for how delimitation should be carried out so that it simply isn't a political tool in the hands of the ruling class.

 

Everybody worth anything was in the Congress in those days. Can't be the reason to disagree with a person.

What about a level-paying field to start with? Also , each person gets a fair share of representation no matter where he lives. That is another fallacy in his basic premise. 

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

DIdn't get the context of Thane and Palghar? Did Thane get more seats (MLA) than Palghar or otherway around? Or is it proportional to their respective  population sizes?

i think she means delimitation as in basis of creating district itself... as in they created a district just for farmers or something.

Well okay.

I dont care if district is made just for farmers or baniyas in the region. What i care for, is that X number of people = 1 elected candiate, where X is constant or within reason ( lets say we dont want a 5000 people parliament so we dont give Delhi 20 seats but we also dont want Ladakh to be irrelevant and give it enough seats so that people per candiate in ladakh at worst  = 2x people per candidate in delhi).

 

whether u make new electoral district out of mumbai red light district or mumbai stock exchange workers or gangubhai, i dont care. what i care is x=1 as above.

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Bhai i remember TN Seshan from my 90s days in India - i was young back then, but what i do remember of note, is that EVERYONE - from PVNR to Jyoti Basu to ABV to Sonia....everyone was afraid of TN Seshan for being some ultra-hardcore rules-book dude during elections.

Back then there were several elections in succession and everytime the big buzz amongst the buzurg-log were ' will TN Seshan kybosh the whole thing ? will CPM reign in their booth-capture methods' etc.

 

I dont know much about the guy personally, but his 'kattar rules-book guy' image stuck out for me amongst election comission peoples.  No one i know of had the same aura as he did.

Ofcourse, i wont accept refutation of logic as 'TN Seshan says so, so it must be right' sort of appeal to authority fallacy, but i will say i highly doubt that this dude was corrupt.

 

 

He was known for his unbiased role as a CEC  diring the 90s, an autocratic roie in conducting elections was liked and  hated by all. Him joining Congress of all parties makes me doubt his unbiased role as a CEC. But , he is free man after his executive powers. 

[Mariyam]

2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

DIdn't get the context of Thane and Palghar? Did Thane get more seats (MLA) than Palghar or otherway around? Or is it proportional to their respective  population sizes?

The Lok Sabha constituency of Thane included Kalyan. In the late 2000s the district of Thane was delimited basis primary occupation and *not* population distribution/density @Muloghonto.

The district of Thane was also split into Thane and Palghar. Which meant double the representation at the centre. This cleave was also basis what primary occupation in both places was until that time.

 

The reason for this particular logic, was to single out the least developed areas of the district, create a district that would fall behind development parameters which would enable the Government of Maharashtra to seek central funds in Developing the said areas. Generally, central funds are the biggest reasons why the politico class asks for delimitation.

 

This specific split was predicted by T.N. Seshan in his book a good decade and a half before it took place.

[Mariyam]

9 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It was not a clear demarkion for Karnataka. In Kolhapur district esp Pandarpur areas there were a lot more Kannada speakers that wetn to MH. Kasargod , a predominently Kannada speaking taluk went to Kerala. Tulu is spoken in southern coastal areas of Udupi/Mangalore. 

 

Bihar is an oddity too. It gas 4 language soeakers - Hindi, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Maghadi. They were all given one state !! I don't theink they put a lot of thinking into state formation. 

Thing is Konkani and Marathi are languages in the 8th schedule. Magadhi and Bhoojpuri aren't. They are defined as dialects. So the Bihar example doesn't hold.

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

The Lok Sabha constituency of Thane included Kalyan. In the late 2000s the district of Thane was delimited basis primary occupation and *not* population distribution/density @Muloghonto.

The district of Thane was also split into Thane and Palghar. Which meant double the representation at the centre. This cleave was also basis what primary occupation in both places was until that time.

 

The reason for this particular logic, was to single out the least developed areas of the district, create a district that would fall behind development parameters which would enable the Government of Maharashtra to seek central funds in Developing the said areas. Generally, central funds are the biggest reasons why the politico class asks for delimitation.

 

This specific split was predicted by T.N. Seshan in his book a good decade and a half before it took place.

 

His reasons then are undemocratic and tyrannical and need to be reversed. You cannot justify more voting rights to an individual. period. That is fundamental violation of principle of democracy, where its 1 man and 1 vote and therefore must also be equal votes to elect a candiate EVERYWHERE.

Whatever your argument against this is, it still boils down to me having less voting power than you, which is undemocratic.

 

We are looking at two different things here. You seem to focus on how state boundaries were made and how districts were made. I dont give two hoots about that - all i care for, is x number of people = 1 candidate being constant throughout the country, with some exceptions made only for extremely low density places ( i am fine with unequal representation if it means more for AP or Ladakh coz 1-2 extra seats wont change anything for the big picture.)

 

Edited March 24, 2025 by Muloghonto

[coffee_rules]

1 minute ago, Mariyam said:

The Lok Sabha constituency of Thane included Kalyan. In the late 2000s the district of Thane was delimited basis primary occupation and *not* population distribution/density @Muloghonto.

The district of Thane was also split into Thane and Palghar. Which meant double the representation at the centre. This cleave was also basis what primary occupation in both places was until that time.

 

The reason for this particular logic, was to single out the least developed areas of the district, create a district that would fall behind development parameters which would enable the Government of Maharashtra to seek central funds in Developing the said areas. Generally, central funds are the biggest reasons why the politico class asks for delimitation.

 

This specific split was predicted by T.N. Seshan in his book a good decade and a half before it took place.

That is a different aspect of delimitation within a state. Karnataka too added many sucjh districts due to soicio economic easons. But none of it were of any concern because total MP seats were still 28. The number of assembly seats were distributed as per population. I have to find out more. As a nation, states are not represented proportionally. 39 and 20 seats for TN/Kerala is way too disproportionate to Raj/MP - 25/29. This is the delimition bill across the states that is proposal now.

[Mariyam]

12 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

What about a level-paying field to start with? Also , each person gets a fair share of representation no matter where he lives. That is another fallacy in his basic premise. 

Even if we were to assume your assertion, that there wasn't a level playing field to begin with, there is nothing that we can do now to change that.

 

However, we can plan for the future. There is a Delimitation Commission , which is set up to study and act upon the advise/research conducted by the EC.

The next one is scheduled for 2026.

Edited March 24, 2025 by Mariyam

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Thing is Konkani and Marathi are languages in the 8th schedule. Magadhi and Bhoojpuri aren't. They are defined as dialects. So the Bihar example doesn't hold.

Ok fair enough. But Karnataka too didn't get some of the areas of MH and Kerala on basis of Kannada. It is a travesty that Kar got lesses seats (MP) to start with. It was not on the basis of language distribtion. 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Even if we were to assume your assertion, that there wasn't a level playing field to begin with, there is nothing that we can do now to change that.

 

However, we can plan for the future. There is a Delimitation Commission , which is set up to study and act upon the advise/research conducted by the EC.

The next one is scheduled for 2026.

Ofcourse we can change that. we can bring in equal number of votes for 1 seat and re-draw districts by that.

[mishra]

51 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

The reward for good behaviour is only if all start at the same level and get same investments. All states were not the same, especially the Bristish presidencies which Bristish favoured nore. They penalized North more because of the freedom and independence struggles were more in North than in the south  Kings/Raj states developed theit states differently. After independce , whe the country was united, many Raj states didn't want to join the union, it was a people's mandate to unite. Some staes which were developed in the south got preferential tratement because it was farther away from the border, so all prestigious educational institutes and PSUs were established in MH/South . Lehru left Northawalwe to do  kheti-badi. South  developed more with natural resources of the north and east. Where was all the coal coming from for the south industries? When these states gave away natural resources for all of the country, whey didn't they refuse then? Jab lena tha sab le liye. Ab dene ke liye ro rahein hain.

 

There is no such thing as socio-economic / HDI factors in delimitation. It was not distributed proportionally to begin with, with states like TN getting a unfairly higher seats. It needed correction after 75 years.

No, There is no such reward in democracy

[Mariyam]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

His reasons then are undemocratic and tyrannical and need to be reversed. You cannot justify more voting rights to an individual. period. That is fundamental violation of principle of democracy, where its 1 man and 1 vote and therefore must also be equal votes to elect a candiate EVERYWHERE.

Whatever your argument against this is, it still boils down to me having less voting power than you, which is undemocratic.

 

We are looking at two different things here. You seem to focus on how state boundaries were made and how districts were made. I dont give two hoots about that - all i care for, is x number of people = 1 candidate being constant throughout the country, with some exceptions made only for extremely low density places ( i am fine with unequal representation if it means more for AP or Ladakh coz 1-2 extra seats wont change anything for the big picture.)

 

 

How do you ensure that? In principle what you say is correct. 

However, for the people who wrote the constitution the *primary* objective of drawing district maps was ensuring development percolates to the lowest level. There has to be some basis for the breaking of districts?

 

How is that of no consequence to you? How would YOU redistribute Lok Sabha seats in a place like UP say if you want to increase the total representation UP has by 6%?

I think setting a precedent in stuff like this is of ample significance.

 

 

2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

That is a different aspect of delimitation within a state. Karnataka too added many sucjh districts due to soicio economic easons. But none of it were of any concern because total MP seats were still 28. The number of assembly seats were distributed as per population. I have to find out more. As a nation, states are not represented proportionally. 39 and 20 seats for TN/Kerala is way too disproportionate to Raj/MP - 25/29. This is the delimition bill across the states that is proposal now.

The two aren't unrelated. We are speaking of the same thing. Kalyan has its own MP in the Lok Sabha today. Prior to 2008, there was one MP for Thane and Kalyan.

[coffee_rules]

2 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Even if we were to assume your assertion, that there wasn't a level playing field to begin with, there is nothing that we can do now to change that.

 

However, we can plan for the future. There is a Delimitation Commission , which is set up to study and act upon the advise/research conducted by the EC.

The next one is scheduled for 2026.

Yes, States like TN and Kerala will lose their dominance and they fear they will not be able to play a major part on Govt formation. Hence the oppositio to any proposal of EC 2026. But, with NDA, pretty sure it will be passed. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Mariyam said:

 

How do you ensure that? In principle what you say is correct. 

However, for the people who wrote the constitution the *primary* objective of drawing district maps was ensuring development percolates to the lowest level. There has to be some basis for the breaking of districts?

 

How is that of no consequence to you? How would YOU redistribute Lok Sabha seats in a place like UP say if you want to increase the total representation UP has by 6%?

I think setting a precedent in stuff like this is of ample significance.

 

 

The two aren't unrelated. We are speaking of the same thing. Kalyan has its own MP in the Lok Sabha today. Prior to 2008, there was one MP for Thane and Kalyan.

how do i ensure X =1 seat fixed constant throughout India ?

By seeing a map, using a pencil on map and doing math that i expect 7 year olds to be able to do...........

 

My primary objective of a democratic system is democracy....undemocratic rationales are rejected. Most of our founding fathers were grade A leftist morons. So their intents are not very relevant to me.

Development via fascism and curtailing rights of others = no bueno.

[mishra]

30 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Bhai i remember TN Seshan from my 90s days in India - i was young back then, but what i do remember of note, is that EVERYONE - from PVNR to Jyoti Basu to ABV to Sonia....everyone was afraid of TN Seshan for being some ultra-hardcore rules-book dude during elections.

Back then there were several elections in succession and everytime the big buzz amongst the buzurg-log were ' will TN Seshan kybosh the whole thing ? will CPM reign in their booth-capture methods' etc.

 

I dont know much about the guy personally, but his 'kattar rules-book guy' image stuck out for me amongst election comission peoples.  No one i know of had the same aura as he did.

Ofcourse, i wont accept refutation of logic as 'TN Seshan says so, so it must be right' sort of appeal to authority fallacy, but i will say i highly doubt that this dude was corrupt.

 

 

I know his days very well. After TN Seshan experience, structure of CEC reporting was re done. While I liked him at the time, but with experience, Now I see him as a autocratic person else why tthe hell Centre was forced to reform EC immediately after Seshan experience.

 

Think Delimitation is must. And Just like census, it must be regular excevise and should be done atleast once in every 25-30 years.

Edited March 24, 2025 by mishra