Using your phone's internet browser
go to:  qna.rediff.com
Click and drag this link to
the Home icon in your browser.
Q.

It is understood that as many as 79 MPs are going to be the Union Ministers which is almost 15% of the total Parliamentary seats ! Do you think that such volume of Ministers are necessary particularly while India is facing lot of financial crisis ?

Asked by ashis, 28 May '09 01:07 pm
  Invite a friend  |  
  Save  |  
 Earn 10 points for answering
Answer this question  Earn 10 points for answering    
4000 characters remaining  
  
    
Keep me signed inNew User? Sign up

Answers (8)

 
1.

There is this 91st Constitutional Amendment which restricts the number of ministers to a maximum of 15% of the directed elected legislative assemblies or the Lok Sabha, which means for the later a maximum of 81 ministers including the PM for a total strenth of 543 members. This amendment effective from April 1st, 2004 was introduced after the State Govts started making a mockery out of the system, where in some States like Bihar and U.P, at one time they had nearly 100 Ministers and in smaller states where the pendulum kept swinging due to shifting loyalties, they had even resorted to make every ally a minister where by we had a situation where in a house of 70, with the ruling Govt hanging on with 40 members for support, all the 40 were made ministers!!!!

Please remember that, the decisions on the ministry\'s strength is not always finalised on \'need basis\' but political expediency. It is easy to damn the PM or the the powers that be for such a jumbo sized ministry. But we have ...more
Answered by Omega, 28 May '09 07:29 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (3)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
2.

Number could have been reduced to the barrest minimum.India being hetrogeneous in nature,PM has no option but to satisfy all section of the country.
Answered by anantharaman, 28 May '09 09:32 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
3.

Every supporting party (alliance) wants their MPs to be the Union Ministers, unless, if it is not satisfied, like Mamta Benerjee and DMK, demanding 6 or more MPs to get cabinet seats., congress is in pressure, so thus appointing. Who is worried about money.
Answered by mohd yousuf, 28 May '09 03:53 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
4.

When Obama can do with 13 ministers in USA why the need for so many in India?Dr. Manmohan Singh is under pressure from the supporting parties for ministereal seats and he has to bow under the pressure.
The common man would be the worst sufferer as it is his pocket that will be picked to support all this extravaganza.Already the signs are starting to emerge (1) Petrol prices are due to be raised by Rs2/- per litre (2) In Delhi the power rates are due to rise (3)In Delhi the MCD is proposing to hike the property tax rates by 24%.
All this and the next steps will be a harsh blow to the common man.
Lastly I would like to say that such people are being appointed as ministers who do not know even the basics of the department of which they are the ministers.
Also ministers and MP\'s are supposed to serve the people but the mad rush for acquiring the position of an MP or a minister very truly shows that these people are here not to serve the common man but to loot him as much as possible a ...more
Answered by HEMANT MEHTA, 28 May '09 03:26 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
5.

The minister volume is dependent not on the financial position of the country but on the necessity for smooth functioning of the government. Ministers are to government what managers are to corporates business houses. If we consider a business house, say Tata\'s, there are more than 100 of managers working for the organization. If we compare the annual income of Tata\'s it will be much below that of annual income of the central government. If more than 100 managers are required to run a big corporate business house then a figure of 79 ministers to run a country the size of India is not all that high a figure.
Answered by Shyam, 28 May '09 02:16 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
6.

It\'s a jumbo ministry does not suit for this poor country and it is the second thing that PM did wrongly. Number one was succumbing to the pressure of a family to admit 4 ministers from them. Remember Obama has reduced his ministry to 13 to control expenses. Here we have money, if not we will impose more and more tax heads to lure the public. Eg. service tax without giving any service!
Answered by vasudevan surendran, 28 May '09 02:03 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
7.

Why do we think now. This is the fist expansion. It will be expanded from time to time, at least quarterly.
Answered by Srijith KP, 28 May '09 01:11 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
8.

Otherwise it will become \"Kissa Kursi ka\" and defection starts. As such as a consolation they are bound to give and accomodate as many as they can.
Nice observation that when we are facing financial crisis this is sheer waste of money towards in particular their perks.
Answered by jameel ahmed, 29 May '09 07:46 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (1)
Your vote on this answer has already been received

Ask a Question

Get answers from the community

600 characters remaining

Related Answer

Q.
A

No. Union minister for rigging. As a captain, he did not guide his team members well. So he has no fresh ideas. Hence does not fit the bill..more

Answered by Shashi LS