Should voting be made compulsory?

General Elections are going on and for a change this time India is witnessing a higher voter turnout this year. The
change is specially seen in the urbane area where people are educated and use the social media. Call it a trend
or call it awareness but the change is good. The voter turnout is better but still it is lacking far behind from the
100% mark. The active participants wants voting to made compulsory. Do you agree?

Yes

The development of country depends upon the kind of government that comes in for ruling. Making voting
compulsory will increase the probability of choosing the better governance.

Compulsory voting is a way which will bring all the different sectors of the society to come together and vote. It
will help in reducing the political polarization.

If voting will be change from an option to a compulsory duty then people will take interest in politics. They will
make efforts to choose the right government.

There are some countries where voting is compulsory. Australia is one of the examples.

If voting is made compulsory then it will make the process more transparent. It will become difficult for the
special interest groups to control the electoral process.

No

Making voting compulsory is against the rule of democracy where people have the right to take their own
decisions.

Compulsory voting cannot affect the outcome of any election. People will take is as another task and will vote
without knowing the candidates.

Just because voting is made compulsory will not make the people more politically engaged individuals.

India is a vast country where it wont be feasible for the government to levy penalties and punish people for not
voting.

In India a higher percentage of people live below poverty line or are uneducated. In a scenario where they find it
tough to earn bread and butter, they cant be forced to vote.

Quality of votes matter more than the quantity of votes. It is necessary for people to analyze the candidature of
elected representatives before they vote for them.

Conclusion

There is no harm even if the voting is made compulsory. When there is no harm from implementing an activity
then why it should be ignored. Change is the law of nature and this is the high time to change. It is necessary to
make people realize the importance of their one vote.





Should IPL be banned in India?

Recently, Justice Mudgal committee gave its report on the spot fixing case of IPL season 6. Even before, IPL has
been marred with controversies regarding the auctioning of players or funding of money.

When IPL was launched, it was a new concept and grabbed eyeballs from all over the world. But with every day
controversies, the question arises whether IPL should be banned or not. Lets find out:-

Yes

1. IPL has provoked the issue of a girls objectification as the cheer girls employed for the matches present the
picture of a modern woman in a bad light.

2. Many issues have pointed towards the spot-fixing and match- fixing in IPL matches. It has encouraged betting
culture in Cricket.

3. In the Mudgal committee itself, issues have been raised about the funding of IPL franchises. Also if sources
are to be believed, underworld don is also behind the betting and funding of matches.

4. The name of a union minister has also come under scanner, earlier when it was reported that black money
was involved in IPL.

5. It was launched to encourage friendship and co-operation among various players from different countries but in
the matches itself, we have seen players abusing and fighting with each other.

6. IPL has become a mode of earning windfall gains for famous entrepreneurs of our country.

7. There is no transparency in the process of selection of players and allocation of franchises in the IPL.

No

1. IPL has made India a center of attraction in the world of cricket.

2. With various players from different countries playing together; it has provided a platform for brotherhood and
friendship. Also it has encouraged sportsmanship.

3. It has generated various employment opportunities during the tournaments.

4. When players all over the world play together, they get to know about the weakness and strengths of their
colleagues which helps them in main cricket matches.

5. Many retired cricketers, who still have the stamina to perform, get a platform to showcase their sportsman
abilities.

6. It creates revenue for BCCI as well as for state and central government in the form of tourism; as many people
come to India to watch the matches. It is a win-win situation for all.

7. Ban is not the answer for any allegation, investigation is.

Conclusion

IPL was initiated with a good spirit and also became very popular all over the world. But it cant be denied that
there have been various discrepancies in the way the tournament is being carried out at present.

What needs to be done is to investigate into all the allegations and also make the process more transparent so
that, the chances of cheating and fixing are minimized. This will help in keeping the tournament intact from
controversies.

Should the retirement age be increased to 65 years?

Recently the parliament standing committee recommended that the age of retirement be increased to 65 years
from the current 60 years. This initiated a new debate whether this step would be profitable or not.

Although it is seen in the light of 2014 general elections but still its pros and cons must be weighed. Lets have a
look over the feasibility of this decision:-

For
1. Yes the age should be raised because it acts as an important social security measure in the society.

2. Longer serving employees will certainly lessen the burden of new employments in the offices.

3. Early retirement will put an additional burden on the retirement funds and trouble the economy of our nation.

4. Retirement should not be defined by an specific age as it is a matter of capability. If someone is able enough to
work even after passing 60 years of age he must be allowed to work.

5. Increasing age of retirement is a productive step for the economy and will yield better results in terms of
efficiency.

6. This step will reduce the burden of jobless old people many of whom are entirely dependent on government
subsidies and schemes for their survival.

7. The number of people in the retirement bracket of 60 years if increasing and the life span has increased too. If
the retirement age is not increased, the number of dependent people will keep increasing which will further
increase the burden on the economy.

Against
1. Raising retirement age will impose longer serving employees on the departments irrespective of their
capabilities creating lack of motivation for younger employees.

2. Age should not be raised because many elder people need the help of government schemes as soon as they
qualify for them.

3. Our nation has a lot of youth population and increasing the retirement age would exploit their talent and
productive contribution to the economy.

4. There a lot of jobs which are done manually and it would be exploitive to ask old people to do such stuff.

5. Salary of employees who will retire late will increase the burden on the budget.

6. There is a balance and fixed tenure till which one Is required to work and with such steps the balance tends to
lose.

7. The opportunities for young and productive generation would decrease as the old generation would not make a
way for them.

Conclusion
The age of retirement can be increased and that is not disputable but one age limit cant be imposed on all sorts
of jobs. Work that involves mental labour can cover the above age criterion but for manual jobs the age needs to
be different.

Also, the economic pros and cons of this step should be measured before it is implicated.

Is dynastic politics good or bad for the country?

With national elections round the corner, every political party is busy making its strategy against the other. And
now-a-days every party is attacking the other about dynastic politics; son taking over the reins after his father and
so on.

Though there are such leaders in almost every political establishment who have followed the footsteps of their
family members to enter into politics. But whether it is good or bad for the country, lets find out:-

Good for the nation

1. In dynastic politics, the person entering into politics already holds a lot of experience about the work he is
ought to do and is not a novice as he has already seen his family doing the same.

2. If a person who comes after his father or any other family member, commits any mistake there is a lot of help
and advice which he can receive from his elders.

3. Dynastic politics isnt a sign of lack of capability. We cant conclude that the person doesnt have ability to enter
politics and is there only because of his family strongholds.

4. In dynastic politics there is no fight for the successor of power; this helps in escaping the fight and grudges
among the contenders for the top position.

5. There is a personal aspect to dynastic politics. When a family continues ruling, there is this sort of bond
created between the nation and the rulers.

6. All over the world, dynastic politics has given some brilliant politicians; even in India.

7. Dynastic politics may lower the entry barrier but ultimately it is the performance of the individual which gets him
to the top.

Bad for the nation

1. Dynastic politics enables only those leaders who have strong connections to come forward and take the
charge irrespective of the ability of that person.

2. Dynastic politics discourages young and new talents to come forward and join politics.

3. There is very less public participation in dynastic politics and people have very less or no option to choose as a
leader.

4. In many nations where there is dynastic rule, absence of democracy has been observed like in gulf nations.

5. At times, less capable or even incapable leaders are imposed upon the nation in the name of dynasty.

6. Dynastic politics in a country like India will mar the basic spirit of democracy and our constitution.

Conclusion

Politics is completely dependent on the type of leaders it creates. So dynastic politics can be fruitful for the
country only if it ensures that good and competent leaders are allowed to come forward. Otherwise it can create a
void of good politicians in the nation.

Privatize to reduce corruption

Privatization, in lay mans language is the transmitting of shares, equities or proprietorship from a civic
sector to private sector.
For:
Corruption does not depend on whether it's private or government, it completely depends on individual's
attitude. But by privatization, we can reduce corruption up to some extent.

Privatization will reduce corruption because it reduces corporate greed.

Due to the privatization, there will be lots of job opportunities, jobs will be simpler, easier to come by, and easier
to keep. As there will be more employees, there will be less pressure for performance, and competition will be
against other countries.

Employees of private companies are given high salaries, so they are much more motivated to do work and have
less interest in corruption.

Private companies have strict rules and policies which creates fear in employees for doing any corruption.

Private companies have competitive spirit. So, they offer more features to public.

Through privatization, our country's GDP increases from the taxes.

People out of fear of being noticed very fast may be less corrupt.

It reduces prices of goods and has less interference of government.

There is a close relation between employees and managers. They both work together in order to maximize
profits in the correct way. Certainly, if there are profits, corruption will be less.

Against:
Privatization is transferring of ownership from the public sector to the private sector and corruption could be in
any form and in any field whether a public sector or private sector. It entirely depends on the people.

Privatization does not reduce corruption and instead causes more corruption.

Privatization makes individuals think that they are above the law and governmental regulations, and thus should
be discouraged and instead more regulations through the government are needed to reduce the corruption if
someone wants to privatize.

Privatization does not guarantee that it will lead to less corruption. In recent times, we have heard lots of cases
where private companies were in the news for the scams.

Privatization increases the cost of products and decreases our rights of demanding for reasonable price.

Privatization gives more liberty to people to do as they like.

Privatization also introduces more risk which means people to save their assets will certainly get into corruption
by any means.

Privatization may lead to monopoly. People are free to make any sort of Adjustments.

Privatizing a sector is not the solution. People are corrupt in almost all hierarchies.

Vote bank politics- Good or bad for the country?


Good

1. Vote bank politics is very decisive is ensuring the rights and progress of a certain group. For ex: - In India,
Mayawati became the face of backward classes and she made sure that her vote banks (Dalits) are given their
due.

2. In a country as diverse as India, it is very important to have vote bank politics because any single party will not
be able to represent the manifestations and expectations of such widely diverse population.

3. When there is politics and elections, voter appeasement is inevitable. So, there is no harm if any party which
represents a certain group seeks vote from them because only if they become its vote bank, that the party would
continue its support for them.

4. For the unity of a nation, it is important that every class, caste, creed or religion has its own space and liberty.
Vote bank politics ensures this and helps in maintaining the unity of the country.

5. Even before independence, Congress was made only to represent the agitation of the common Indian against
the British rule. Similarly, Muslim League was formed to ensure the representation of Muslims in Independent
India. So, vote bank politics has always been fruitful for the nation.

6. Because of vote bank politics, the downtrodden population of India has gained the confidence to rise and
stand against all kind of atrocities. If a party makes women as its vote bank, it is bound to work for the upliftment
of women.

Bad

1. Vote bank politics lately has been used as a tool to invoke the regional and casteist prejudices among the
people of this country.

2. In India, the vote banks are divided only on the basis of their religion, caste, language or place of living. In
every manner, this criterion has damaged the unity and integrity of India.

3. Babri Masjid demolition, exploitation of U.P.ites and Biharis in Mumbai, decision of releasing the killers of Rajiv
Gandhi or even the Gujarat riots- they are all a few examples of the bad consequences of vote bank politics.

4. Now a days, politicians are least concerned about the progress of their vote bank. When elections are near,
they appease their group either by provoking them against others or by making false promises.

5. It is because of vote bank politics that corrupt leaders and bad administrators come to power again and again.

6. In India, because of vote bank politics the real issues of the nation like Corruption, Inflation, and women
security never get the required attention.

7. India is a much divided nation. Dalits vote for BSP, Hindus for BJP, and Tamils for AIADMK etc irrespective of
the work done by those parties. This is because of vote bank appeasement politics.

Conclusion

Vote bank politics, initially was very good. It helped in the representation of one and all in the policies of the
government. But in the current scenario, it has only become a method to exploit the prejudiced emotions of
masses and cater more votes. But situation can improve only if the public of India is ready to rise above their
religion or caste and vote for a candidate who is honest and hardworking.

Electronic voting is better than paper voting

General Elections are seeing higher voter turnout this year. People have started understanding the importance of
their vote. They are utilizing their rights but are their votes reaching to the person they are voting for. This is the
question that constantly haunts peoples minds whenever they go for voting. Whether it was the era of paper
voting or now the era of electronic voting, the doubt remains. Still people find electronic voting as a better form
than people voting. Do you agree?

Yes

Electronic voting is more secure as there is no probability of destroying of votes. The paper votes can be
destroyed easily.

The paper votes are more prone to damage by the unavoidable external factors. It is not the case with
electronic voting.

The votes casted by electronic voting are stored in secured database system as soon as the voting is done.

It is easy and time saving to count the electronic votes. The counting of Paper votes is a long and cumbersome
process.

The resources required in the case of electronic voting are much lesser than that of paper voting. It helps to
save costs.

No

Electronic Machine is more prone to malfunctioning. There is a higher probability of technical errors coming at
the real time.

Many a times, the machines can have problems with the internal system. The votes casted can go to another
candidate.

The old age people can make mistake in pressing the right button. They might click the wrong button during the
voting.

Although electronic machines are not connected to the internet but still there is always a risk of hacking of
information of electronic votes.

The US Government has started keeping up the paper ballot back up along with the electronic voting. If the
backup is required then there is no significance of electronic voting machines.

Conclusion

When paper voting was prevalent, there was fear of damage of votes, and now when electronic voting is there
then there is a fear of tapering of votes. In any case the fear factors or rather say the risk factor exists. Therefore,
it is better to go with the electronic voting machines as this is what the present time demands of.





Cricket should be the National Game of India

IPL has started and along with it the people have changed their work schedules to watch the IPL matches.
Cricket fever is one peoples mind and it is not for the first time. Indians are die hard fan of cricket. Whenever
there is a series, they forget all their tasks just to watch cricket. Does this means that Cricket should be the
national game of India?

Yes

Change is the law of nature. If it is what the local citizens of India demands, then the change should be
welcomed.

People feel much more connected with the cricket and find it more entertaining than hockey.

If you look for overall craze of Indian citizens for any sport then it is for cricket only. Cricketers are treated like
God in Indian.

People often blame that government dont make any efforts to encourage other supports. But if the local people
dont support it then no efforts are useful.

Cricketers are rich and famous, and pay a large sum of money in taxes. It all comes from the game of cricket.

No

If cricket is made as national game of India then it will directly discourage the inclination towards other game.

It will greatly hurt the sentiments of the hockey players. It will give a wrong message to the other sports too.

Future can never be known by anyone. Today cricket is famous but if tomorrow some other sport will be famous
then again people can demand to change the national game.

It is the media, government and people who are responsible to make other games popular. It is not that hockey
and football have no fans, they do have, but there is no proper source to encourage the other games.

Cricket is the national game of England. So in one way are we making ourselves the complete slaves of British
culture?

Conclusion

If cricket is made the national game of India then there will be no additional benefit that cricket will get. Also, it will
not have any impact on the cricket fans. But definitely making cricket as a national game will attract a lot of
criticism from many other areas. It will give a wrong message to the youngsters and will hurt the spirit of game.
Therefore, it makes no sense in making Cricket as our national game.







Internet is becoming a tool of democracy

Internet is playing an important part in all areas of life. It is used by people to gather information. In the General
Elections too it is playing an important role for both the groups i.e. the common man and the politicians. Internet
is becoming a medium through which the citizens can keep their point of view in front of the government. Do you
believe Internet is an effective tool of democracy?

Yes

It is possible to promote the social messages and important information through the internet. It is not confined to
the regional boundaries.

Politicians can use the internet to communicate with the people. They can also form an event or can launch a
movement on internet.

People can use the different government websites to put their problems. They can create a mass complaint of
the problems are not solved.

Internet allows people to connect with the outer world. The problem that is a part of one country can be solved
by the combined efforts of other participants.

No

People can spread the information but then it is the government who stays a watch dog over certain matters.

Many a times certain movements are not allowed to boom. They are stopped even before they take the initial
step of the process.

The government websites can be used to launch the complaints but then again the system is slow and
unresponsive.

Politicians just make use of the internet for their own benefits. They dont use it to work for the welfare of
people.

In India, the use of internet has increased but still majority of people dont have the access to the internet.

Conclusion

The impact of internet in decision making is increasing. But still it is at the initial level. A country where illiteracy
rate is high, there the chances of implementing democracy through internet will take a long time to become a
reality.