This is a important thread started by our beloved Gulshanji,but yet it is unanswered. so I am bringing back. Let discussion start.....

This is a important thread started by our beloved Gulshanji,but yet it is unanswered. so I am bringing back. Let discussion start.....

Thanks for your response. I think debate is good as this educates all about contrary opinions on any matter and stimulates further thinking. But I feel that there is not much scope for debate among Presidential candidates. Whoever is elected as President has to act on advice of Union cabinet, read address prepared by Union cabinet in joint session of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, read independence day eve speech prepared by Union cabinet.

When President has no scope for his own policy but acts according to Union cabinet and ruling party, he cannot promise any policy changes or other matters. Hence, there is no need or justification for debate among Presidential candidates.

I do not understand on what issue Sangma wants to debate with Pranab Mukherjee.

This is a important thread started by our beloved Gulshanji,but yet it is unanswered. so I am bringing back. Let discussion start.....

Thanks for your response. I think debate is good as this educates all about contrary opinions on any matter and stimulates further thinking. But I feel that there is not much scope for debate among Presidential candidates. Whoever is elected as President has to act on advice of Union cabinet, read address prepared by Union cabinet in joint session of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, read independence day eve speech prepared by Union cabinet.

When President has no scope for his own policy but acts according to Union cabinet and ruling party, he cannot promise any policy changes or other matters. Hence, there is no need or justification for debate among Presidential candidates.

I do not understand on what issue Sangma wants to debate with Pranab Mukherjee.

I ould agree with that.Indian presidents are rubber stamps only, I wonder why they have the post at all since we already have a prime minister and cabinet minister...we are blindly following the UK system where the Queen has the very same role.

This is a important thread started by our beloved Gulshanji,but yet it is unanswered. so I am bringing back. Let discussion start.....

Thanks for your response. I think debate is good as this educates all about contrary opinions on any matter and stimulates further thinking. But I feel that there is not much scope for debate among Presidential candidates. Whoever is elected as President has to act on advice of Union cabinet, read address prepared by Union cabinet in joint session of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, read independence day eve speech prepared by Union cabinet.

When President has no scope for his own policy but acts according to Union cabinet and ruling party, he cannot promise any policy changes or other matters. Hence, there is no need or justification for debate among Presidential candidates.

I do not understand on what issue Sangma wants to debate with Pranab Mukherjee.

I could agree with that.Indian presidents are rubber stamps only, I wonder why they have the post at all since we already have a prime minister and cabinet minister...we are blindly following the UK system where the Queen has the very same role.

ceremonial functions are also necessary. We need a separate head of state
in addition to Prime Minister who is executive head. In event of hung parliament, President's role gets important. But we may think over changes in system. Presidential system like that in U.S.A is an alternative. There can be other reforms also. Presently, President has no executive duties. Constitution may be amended so that President becomes ex officio Lok Sabha Chairman (speaker) and the speaker post be abolished.

But this is another matter. That may be discussed in another thread. Here let us only consider desirability of debate between Presidential candidates.

The role of Governor of state is also same that is the difference with other countries.

The role of Governor of state is also same that is the difference with other countries.

There are some differences between President and Governor. A governor is not elected. He is appointed by President of India on advice of Union cabinet. In fact, Governor is more like Central Government's representative in state. He sends periodically reports to center and if he find that it is not possible to run a state in accordance with Constitution, he recommends President's rule. Unlike President, Governor exercises discretion in many matters. In U.P., Governor is Chancellor of all universities and this is his independent role.

The role of Governor of state is also same that is the difference with other countries.

There are some differences between President and Governor. A governor is not elected. He is appointed by President of India on advice of Union cabinet. In fact, Governor is more like Central Government's representative in state. He sends periodically reports to center and if he find that it is not possible to run a state in accordance with Constitution, he recommends President's rule. Unlike President, Governor exercises discretion in many matters. In U.P., Governor is Chancellor of all universities and this is his independent role.

You are right.I wanted to say that president says as per central Govt and Governor says as per State cabinet, though they have some unique role.

The role of Governor of state is also same that is the difference with other countries.

There are some differences between President and Governor. A governor is not elected. He is appointed by President of India on advice of Union cabinet. In fact, Governor is more like Central Government's representative in state. He sends periodically reports to center and if he find that it is not possible to run a state in accordance with Constitution, he recommends President's rule. Unlike President, Governor exercises discretion in many matters. In U.P., Governor is Chancellor of all universities and this is his independent role.

You are right.I wanted to say that president says as per central Govt and Governor says as per State cabinet, though they have some unique role.

Despite apparent similarity, there are following differences between President and Governor:

(1) President is elected. A Governor is not elected. He may also be transferred from one state to another state.
(2) consequently, a Governor's role is to act as representative of center. This is like British Government practice of posting Resident in Indian princes states
(3) In case of disputes, governor goes by central government views and opposes Chief Minister. This often creates controversy.

I remember that once Dharma Veera, West Bengal Governor refused to read certain portion of his address prepared by state Government, headed by Ajoy Mukherjee, the first Left Front chief Minister of West Bengal. The relevant portion was criticism of central government policy.

My view is that current system of appointment of Governor by Central Government should be changed. Instead Governor should also be elected by members of MLAs, Panchayats, members of municipal corporations. The Governor must act on advice of state government only and he should not act as Central Government representative. This will ensure true federalism.