Clinton OR Barack Obama

Three Reasons To BelieveThe best cases for why Clinton and Obama are electable.A conversation among Democrats about whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is better positioned to win the general election can get very slippery very fast. The starting point is fixed: the upcoming race against John McCain. But the polls aren't helpful in showing which candidate has the edge. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama perform the same, statistically, against John McCain. In the latest Gallup poll, Clinton is running two points ahead of McCain, 47 percent to 45 percent, while Obama is running one point behind, 45 percent to 46 percent.Without clarity in the numbers, the terrain quickly shifts to what it means for Clinton to have won big states versus Obama's greater collection of little states; or the value of caucuses versus primaries; or states that count versus Michigan and Florida, which don't. To help us out of the woods, here is a list of the top-three talking points for each of the two democratic candidates.

________________________________________________________________________________Hillary Clinton

Clinton talking point No. 1:

Clinton consistently performs better with downscale voters, women, Catholics, and older voters. In Pennsylvania, for example, she won among whites without college degrees by 42 points. She won whites earning less than $50,000 by 34 points. These constituencies are crucial to Democratic prospects in the fall, particularly in Pennsylvania, a key swing state, and in Ohio. The corollary to this argument is that Obama is the boutique candidate of young voters and wealthy elites, which taps unwelcome memories of candidates like Michael Dukakis and George McGovern, whom Republicans easily branded as liberals.Obama counterargument: There's no evidence to suggest that his problem with these voters will carry over to the general election. Most of the Democrats voting in primaries are going to support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is. Asked whether Obama "cares about people like you," 66 percent of Pennsylvania voters said yes. Hillary Clinton received almost exactly the same rate of endorsement, suggesting Obama is not seen as an elitist relative to Clinton.

Clinton talking point No. 2:

Voters consistently favor Clinton to Obama when asked which candidate can better handle the economy. In Pennsylvania, 75 percent said Clinton would do a better job of solving the country's economic problems. When asked which candidate would make the better commander in chief, voters also regularly pick Clinton by a large margin as they did in Ohio by 60 to 37.Obama counterargument: On the economy, Obama will be able to distinguish himself against McCain in a way he can't against Clinton, with whom he has nearly identical economic views. On foreign affairs, Obama says that his early opposition to the war gives him a better argument in the long run against McCain.

Clinton talking point No. 3:

She can take a punch. Clinton has shown extraordinary tenacity. Voters get proof every day of just how hard it will be for Republicans to beat her down. Obama, by contrast, can't stand the heat, according to Clinton's suggestion in her last ad. Clinton aides argue that Obama wobbled when challenged about his remarks relating to people who live in small towns or about his poor debate performance. Late-deciding voters in Pennsylvania saw this weakness and went overwhelmingly for Clinton, she can credibly claim.Obama counterargument: He can handle adversity—look at his well-received race speech in the wake of questions about his relationship to his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And he can also inspire voters—which is what they want, rather than more aggression and fighting for the sake of a fight.

Barack Obama

Obama talking point No. 1:

He can capture independents and younger voters, bringing new people into the Democratic fold and into the voting booth in November. Obama consistently wins voters under the age of 44, who represent the future of the party. In head-to-head matchups with John McCain, Obama regularly does better than Clinton among independents. Clinton's negatives, which reached their highest point in a recent ABC survey, mean that she'll never break through a certain ceiling with independents and moderates.Clinton counterargument: Obama isn't well-known and Clinton is. He's benefiting from that now, but once McCain and the Republicans attack him as a doctrinaire liberal, his negatives will rise and independents will run from him.

Obama talking point No. 2:

He is the candidate of change. Eighty percent of those polled say that the country is moving in the wrong direction. More than any other candidate, Obama is more associated than any other candidate with the change voters want.Clinton counterargument: The more Obama campaigns, the more he contradicts his promise to practice a new high-minded politics, weakening his appeal as a new kind of politician.

Obama talking point No. 3:

The party will explode if superdelegates reverse the will of the pledged delegates, among whom Obama leads. Young voters, first time voters, and African-Americans will stay home in November in protest or even vote for John McCain. That could lose Democrats not only the presidency but also other races down the ballot.

Clinton counterargument: According to Pennsylvania exit polls, Clinton's coalition would be more dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee than Obama's supporters would be if Clinton won the nomination. Sixteen percent of Obama's voters would stay home or vote for John McCain if Clinton were the nominee, but 24 percent of Clinton's would if Obama gets the nod. In other words, there's more to worry about, in terms of internal party dissent, from an Obama nomination.

China Terrorizes Tibet ????

Tibet is a human rights issue as well as a civil and political rights issue. But there's something else too - Tibet has a precious culture based on principles of wisdom and compassion. This culture addresses what we lack in the world today; a very real sense of inter-connectedness. We need to protect it for the Tibetan people, but also for ourselves and our children.'

- Richard Gere

TIBET: AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY

While China claims that Tibet has always been a part of China, Tibet has a history of at least 1300 years of independence from China. In 821 China and Tibet ended almost 200 years of fighting with a treaty engraved on three stone pillars, one of which still stands in front of the Jokhang cathedral in Lhasa. During the 13th and 14th centuries both China and Tibet came under the influence of the Mongol empire. China claims today that Tibet and China during that time became one country, by virtue of the Mongols domination of both nations. In validating this claim, it must first be remembered that virtually all of Asia was dominated by the Mongols under Kublai Khan and his successors, who ruled the largest empire in human history. Second, the respective relationships between the Mongols and the Tibetans and between the Mongols and Chinese must be examined. These two relationships were not only radically different in nature, but they also started and ended at different times. Tibet came under Mongol influence before Kublai Khan's conquest of China and regaining complete independence from the Mongols several decades before China regained its independence.

While China was militarily conquered by the Mongols, the Tibetans and the Mongols established the historically unique "priest patron" relationship, also known as CHO-YON. The Mongol aristocracy had converted to Buddhism and sought spiritual guidance and moral legitimacy for the rule of their vast empire from the Tibetan theocracy. As Tibet's patrons they pledged to protect it against foreign invasion. In return Tibetans promised loyalty to the Mongol empire.

The Mongol-Tibetan relationship was thus based on mutual respect and dual responsibility. In stark contrast, the Mongol-Chinese relationship was based on military conquest and domination. The Mongols ruled China, while the Tibetans ruled Tibet. The Mongol empire ended in the mid-14th century.

In 1639, the Dalai Lama established another CHO-YON relationship, this time with the Manchu Emperor, who in 1644 conquested China and established the Qing Dynasty.

By the middle of the 19th century, the Munchu influence in Tibet had waned considerably as the Manchu empire began to disintegrate. In 1842 and 1856 the Manchus were incapable of responding to Tibetan calls for assistance against repeated Nepalese Gorkha invasion. The Tibetans drove back the Gorkhas with no assistance and concluded bilateral treaties.

In 1911 the CHO-YON relationship came to its final end with the fall of the Manchu Dynasty. Tibet formally declared its Independence in 1912 and continued to conduct itself as a fully sovereign nation until its invasion by Communist China an 1949.

1. Tibet governed itself without foreign influence, conducted its own Foreign affairs, had its own army and operated its own postal system. Tibet sovereignty was recognised by its neighbours as well as by Britain, with whom Tibet entered into a series of treaties regarding travels and trade.

2. 1904 Britain invaded Tibet and subsequently Convention agreed between Tibet and Britain.

3. 1912 The last of the Chinese troops expelled from Tibet and Dalai Lama proclaims Tibet Independence.

4. During the Second World War Tibet remained neutral, despite strong pressure from the USA, Britain and China to allow the passage of raw materials through Tibet.

5. Tibet conducted its international relations primarily by dealing with British, Chinese, Nepalese and Bhutanese diplomatic missions in Lhasa, but also through government delegations traveling abroad. When India became independent, the British Mission in Lhasa was replaced by an Indian one.

6. When Nepal applied for membership of the United Nations in 1949, it cited its treaty and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality.

7. If Tibet was part of China, then there was no need for the 17 point agreement which was forced upon the Tibetan delegation to sign in China in 1951 and then China announced to the world that Tibet was liberated (from whom?).

8. From 1951 to 1959 China broke every promise that she made towards Tibet, resulting in the Tibetan uprising against China in March 1959. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and 100,000 Tibetans escaped into exile. From that day onwards Tibet affectively became an occupied country.

9. Today from the legal standpoint, Tibet to this day has not lost its statehood. It is an independent state under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation by PLA has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China.

Does China Care About Tibet?

For centuries Tibet, a vast high altitude plateau between China and India, remained remote from the rest of the world with a widely dispersed population of nomads, farmers, monks and traders. Tibet had its own national flag, its own currency, a distinct culture and religion, and controlled its own affairs. In 1949, following the foundation of the Chinese Communist state, the People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet and soon overpowered its poorly equipped army and guerilla resistance.

Tibet is important to China for strategic and economic reasons and because of the Communist Party's imperialist ambitions. In China today, it is a serious offence to say that Tibet is separate from China.

Tibetans are facing increasing marginalization as their economy becomes integrated with China and its population of 1.3 billion. They are losing out under the 'Western development' strategy, a massive campaign launched in 1999 to improve infrastructure in China's thinly-populated west, including Tibetan areas of China. The Chinese government has constructed a railway across the Tibetan plateau to Tibet's capital, Lhasa, which will increase the numbers of Chinese commercial migrants into Tibet, resulting in the further militarization of the region and accelerating the exploitation of Tibet's natural and mineral resources. The Chinese government claims that it is pouring money into health and education to benefit Tibetans. But the majority of Tibetans who live in rural areas do not have access to adequate or affordable health care and are still suffering from easily treatable conditions such as malnutrition, diarrhea, pneumonia, or even the plague. Education facilities and opportunities for the Tibetan children are minimal and many Tibetan parents cannot afford schooling So they send their children into exile to study at Tibetan schools in India. Often education that is available in Tibet suppresses Tibetan religious or linguistic identity. The Chinese government severely restricts the rights of Tibetans to exercise human rights as provided in the Chinese constitution, including the freedoms of speech, press, association, and religion. Reading an autobiography of the Dalai Lama or talking about freedom to friends in Tibet can be classified as 'endangering state security'.

Why tibet :

With an average elevation of 14,000 feet, Tibet is the highest country on earth. Tibet's fragile high-altitude environment is increasingly endangered by China's exploitative policies.

This matters to the rest of Asia and the world. Five of Asia's great rivers have their headwaters in Tibet and nearly half the world's population lives downstream. Deforestation in Tibet has already been linked to severe floods in the lower reaches of the Yangtze in China.

The high plains, forests and mountains of Tibet are home to rare and endangered wildlife such as the snow leopard, blue sheep and Tibetan antelope (chiru). Due to extensive resource extraction, poaching and unsustainable development, these ecosystems and many of their species are now endangered.

The forced settlement of nomads is wiping out a unique way of life, increasing poverty and contributing to grassland degradation. There are also strategic and economic motives for China's attachment to Tibet. The region serves as a buffer zone between China on one side and India, Nepal, and Bangladesh on the other. The Himalayan mountain range provides an added level of security as well as a military advantage. Tibet also serves as a crucial water source for China and possesses a significant mining industry. And Beijing has invested billions in Tibet over the past 10 years as part of its wide-ranging economic development plan for Western China.

Indian Reservation - A easiest way to get education

Lower Castes (Sudras): 42-44 percent (˜ 475 million)

Dalits (“SC”s): 16-18 percent (˜ 190 million)

Upper Castes: 12-14 percent (˜ 145 million)

Muslims: 12-13 percent (˜ 140 million)

Adivasis (“ST”s):7-8 percent (˜ 80 million)

Christians: 2 percent (˜ 22 million)

Sikhs: 2 percent (˜ 22 million)

Others (Jains, Parsis, Buddhists, Jews, etc.): 2 percent (˜ 22 million)

Allocating quotas and reserving seats for economically backward classes (and for other historically discriminated and disadvantaged groups) in higher educational institutions is economically inefficient, morally wrong, strategically flawed, and tactically ineffective. The policy does not help the underclass and ends up victimizing both the underclass and the so-called privileged class. The policy epitomizes what is called a “lose-lose” solution, while foregoing a “win-win” situation.

Now on to the specifics of why quotas in higher education for disadvantaged groups is bad policy. First, the economic efficiency argument. All economic policies create gainers and losers. If the gainers gain more than the losers lose, then it is theoretically possible for the gainers to compensate the losers for their loss so that after the compensation, the losers are not any worse off than before and the gainers are better off than before. Such a policy effects what is a called a “Pareto improvement” and is therefore an economically efficient policy. Conversely, if the losers lose more than the gainers gain, then the policy is economically inefficient and there is an overall welfare loss.

Quotas, if they have any effect on the system, effectively replace qualified candidates with otherwise unqualified candidates. Unqualified candidates who enter the system are by definition unable to benefit from the opportunity to the extent that a qualified candidate would have done. The quota candidates are unable to compete within the system. Aside from the welfare loss in terms of wastage of real resources, the quota students suffer psychologically as they fall behind their colleagues who are better prepared for the academic rigors. They are looked down upon by those who “earned” their place in the school. This reinforces the perception—within both groups—that the group which enjoys the quota is intrinsically inferior. This is perhaps the most pernicious of all the unfortunate effects of a quota system in higher education.

This brings us to the point why quotas in higher education for disadvantaged groups is morally repugnant policy. It penalizes certain people based on their group membership. Discrimination based on caste, creed, origin, color, etc, is morally wrong. So is reverse discrimination. The right thing to do is to remove discrimination, not impose it from up on high. If, for instance, a person from a certain caste is not being allowed to enroll because of his caste, then the right policy is to remove that barrier. If students from economically backward classes were being denied admission despite being qualified, then the policy response should be to remove such discriminatory practices. Since it is not the case that qualified candidates of economically backward groups are being discriminated against, imposing quotas for them is not the solution.

So then, what is the solution?

one should understand the problem. Here are two facets of the problem:

1. Seats are limited. If they were unlimited, you would not need a quota for anyone. They are limited because the government does not allow free entry into the higher education business.
2. Students from certain groups are unable to gain entry into the supply constrained system, and once inside they are ill prepared to compete within the system. If they were qualified, they would not need quota protection in the first place, and would be able to compete once there.

Both aspects of the problem need to be addressed by any proposed solution. The quota system addresses neither. The real solution has two main thrusts. First, get the government out of the business of controlling the supply of higher education. The second thrust is has to do with sequencing. It is undeniable that certain segments of the population are ill prepared to compete for seats in higher education. They are not intrinsically inferior in any sense; they are not naturally stupid. The fact is that they have not had the opportunity to prepare themselves for higher education. The solution therefore is that they have to be provided help in preparing for higher education, which basically means that they have to be given assistance at levels that precede higher education. They are handicapped at the level of higher education because they are handicapped at the earlier stages of education. If their handicap in the school level were addressed, you would not have to make special provisions for them in the post-school levels.

they were lucky enough to have had the opportunity of going to good schools because their parents were rich enough to afford them. While commending them on their hard work (to the extent they had to work hard), it is important to keep in mind that they were privileged in having the opportunity which are not available to those who come from the backward classes. Much of the outcome rests on the luck of the draw which dictates which socio-economic class one is born into, and that fact should induce some degree of humility in those who protest that their merit is not being recognized as a result of the quota system. The solution then is to help them with providing them opportunities in the lower levels first. Equality of opportunity at the lower levels (primary, secondary, and high school levels) is a necessary and sufficient condition for the disadvantaged segments to have a shot at competing with the others.

Quotas, as I claimed earlier, are economically inefficient. Assume that the full cost of, say, a 4-year IIT education is $50,000 (or about Rs 22 lakhs). Further assume that a quota student ends up benefiting less than the full cost, say, $10,000, while a non-quota student gets at least $50,000 of benefits. The net loss is then at least $40,000. Instead of wasting $40,000 on one backward class student at the IIT, if the money were spent school education, 20 students could have been educated (with an average spend of $2,000) and out of which perhaps one would have been sufficiently bright enough to gain admission in the IIT on merit and subsequently compete within the system as well.

To summarize: the fact that IITs and IIMs don’t have sufficient representation from some economically and socially disadvantaged groups is a symptom of a deeper problem. Therefore merely increasing the numbers from these groups by fiat will do no good, and indeed may end up harming the groups. I will outline the solution of the underlying problem in a subsequentpost.

Our government try to decrease the level of engineer and doctor ,that's why they like to give a chance to them who r not able to be an engineer or doctor.It's only the way to improve their Vote Bank and political issue nothing else .........

आसमा के पार की

मैं हरा नही ,
हौशला हैं , इरादे हैं , तमन्ना हैं ,
बुलंदी को छूने की ,
हैं यकीं मुझे ,
पहुचुंगा एक दिन ,
उस आसमा के पार ,
जहाँ बसी हैं ज़हान दुशरी |

देखता हूँ हर तरफ जब ,
बेचैनी का आलम भरा ,
दर्द की परछाइयाँ भरी ,
सोचता हूँ की बदल दूंगा सब ,
आएगी फिर से दीवाली ,
लाएगी खुशहाली |

पर देखता हूँ जब ,
अपनी तन्हाई ,
साथ मे एक परछाइ , तो
दहकती हैं साँसे ,
रुकते हैं कदम ,
कुछ करने से ,
जो याद दिलाती हैं मुझे ,
हरपल अपने हार की |

याद करता हूँ अपने जज्बात को ,
और सोचता हूँ ,
रास्तें मुश्किल हैं , पर इरादे बुलंद,
आसमा के पार की ,
मैं हरा नही ,
हौशला हैं , इरादे हैं , तमन्ना हैं ,
आसमा के पार की ................

Increasing in nudity due to bollywood movies

Bollywood film industry is in the process of reinventing themselves as traditional approaches to filmmaking . Economic challenges to traditional filmmaking are attributed to economic and cultural globalization with the expansion of democracy around the world, which brings Western cultural influences and entertainment styles to increasingly economically well-off and educated people in Asian countries. there is a growing Hollywoodization of Asian films – marked by sexual depictions, scantily clad women, and violence-oriented scripts within the framework of a pleasure-seeking culture.

The rising literacy levels in Asian countries and access to Western (mostly American) entertainment offerings are turning media consumers to be more demanding from their traditional cultural and entertainment industries. In his travels to a number of Asian countries,it is observed that pervasiveness of American culture being imported through a variety of media, especially movies and television programming, and increasingly the Internet. India’s film industry, based primarily in the western city of Bombay and nicknamed "Bollywood." India’s movie industry, which turns out more than 800 feature films a year in a variety of languages (Pendakur, 2003, p. 2) compared with about 250 produced by Hollywood annually (Plate, 2002), is the largest in the world. In recent years, movie theater attendance has fallen substantially because the industry’s traditional song-and-dance storylines and hackneyed treatment of love scenes have not produced big hits. As a result, the film industry has started to deal openly with sex or offer generous doses of skin in an attempt to draw audiences

Agence-France Presse reported that the biggest grossing film in 2003 was Jism (Body), which tells the story of a woman who is unapologetic about using her sexuality to persuade her lover to kill her rich husband. The small budget film turned out to be a surprise hit and its star, Bipasha Basu, is now one of the most sought after actresses in Bollywood. "The success of Jism showed that Indians are no longer ashamed of watching a steamy scene in a full house," said leading filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, who wrote the film's screenplay. Bhatt said the film reflected a change in the mindset of the Indian viewer. "Earlier, a steamy film would be shown in small towns and would be seen by men who came for titillation, but now urban women throng upscale halls to watch such films" (Bollywood turns on the steam, 2003). Julie, a Hindi film released in summer 2004, dealt with the subject of prostitution, played by a top beauty queen, Neha Dhupia. Boom shows the three main female leads strut through most of the two-hour film in little more than bikinis and are frequently the target of crude sexual remarks. One male lead asks a woman to perform oral sex under his desk as he works (Menon, 2003). Menon says that elsewhere in the world that might be considered relatively tame stuff, but not in India where even smooching in public can still cause outrage. For many years, Bollywood films shied away from showing even a kiss, with scenes cutting away chastely to shots of birds, bees or flowers. However, a 2003 release, Khwaish (Desire), showed not less than 17 kissing scenes and portraying a young couple who are anything but shy about discussing their sex life. Murder and Andaaz, other recently released films, have generated a lot of buzz over the actresses’ skimpy clothing or kissing scenes rather than their acting abilities.

The new phenomenon for movie making is "Sex sells. And it works well if it comes with a good story. Social critics, however, worry about the likely implications of the new trend in Bollywood filmmaking for the Indian society. Generally, the Indian film industry has not had a background in realism. It has consisted of escapist musicals with common storylines of good vs. evil and boy meets girl. Typically, the films have been family orientated and the plot is kept simple so that even the rural villager can easily relate to it. The new Hollywood-inspired shift in film style is seen to be a threat to the values and culture of the Indian people. The Film Federation of India, a regulatory body that presides over film content, complains that the films made in the New Bollywood are too Westernized and that they are degrading and diminishing India's true cultural identity.

Asian Values vs. Hollywood Values Dialectic

Most academic debates since the New World Information Order movement of the 1970s on the implications of the dominance of Western media for non-Western countries have warned of imminent dangers to indigenous cultures. Although the success of the sex and nudity-oriented Bollywood films confirms that there is a Westernized audience in India with an appetite for such films, India is still largely a rural country and farmers and villagers provide vital contribution to the economy of the film industry. They cannot possibly understand and appreciate the values and issues expressed by the New Bollywood. For now, enough films are being produced in India to serve the traditionalists, but whether that continues will depend on the box office success of such films.

Emerging Asian Movie Markets and Implications for Hollywood

MIT Professor Christina Klein notes that "Hollywood today is going into the business of producing and distributing ‘foreign’ movies. Klein says that Hollywood is finding ways to turn a profit on the desire of local audiences to see local films; rather than trying to beat the competition, the studios are joining it. The second implication of the Hollywoodization of Asian filmmaking is for the future of Hollywood itself. In view of the increasing globalization of filmmaking, and China and India projected to be larger movie markets than Europe, will Hollywood remain immune to Asian influences on its own style of filmmaking? The answers seems to be in the negative in view of the economic factor. Klein says that from 1950s through the 1970s, Hollywood earned about 30% of its money overseas. "That number is expected to grow over time, with some industry figures predicting the foreign share of box office earnings could rise to 80% within the next twenty years. This means that Hollywood is becoming an export industry, making movies primarily for people who live outside the US" (Klein, 2003). Asia alone is expected to be responsible for as much as 60% of Hollywood’s box-office revenue by then. Perhaps a larger benefit from the standpoint of humanity, rather than corporate interests, of moves toward globalization of film industries may be greater understanding and appreciation of world cultures.

CONCLUSION

It is obvious from the foregoing that film industries in several Asian countries are going through a process of reinventing themselves to maintain their economic viability amidst the globalizing media culture of the West, especially the United States. The question is whether it is the cultural dependency theory or the well-established production formula of Hollywood for commercial success that explains the changes happening in Asian film industries. ndeed, "cultural imperialism" or its academic variant called "cultural dependency theory" are terms often used by scholars in international communication and cross-cultural communication to explain negative influences of the West on the cultures and media industries of developing nations. Some have even suggested that "cultural imperialism" is slowly killing off indigenous cultures in some parts of the world.

Coalition government : just like ' KHICHDI '

A coalition government, or coalition cabinet, is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which several parties cooperate. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament. A coalition government might also be created in a time of national difficulty or crisis, for example during wartime, to give a government the high degree of perceived political legitimacy it desires whilst also playing a role in diminishing internal political strife. In such times, parties have formed all-party coalitions (national unity governments, grand coalitions). If a coalition collapses a confidence vote is held or a motion of no confidence is taken.Majority governments based on a single party are typically even more stable, as long as their majority can be maintained.Coalition cabinets are common in countries in which a parliament is proportionally representative, with several organized political parties represented. It does not appear in countries in which the cabinet is chosen by the executive rather than by a lower house (such as in the United States). In semi-presidential systems such as France, where the president formally appoints a prime minister but the government itself must still maintain the confidence of parliament, coalition governments occur quite regularly.
A coalition government may consist of any number of parties. In Germany, the coalitions rarely consist of more than two parties (where CDU and CSU, two non-competing parties which always form a single caucus, are in this regard considered a single party), while in Belgium, where there are separate Dutch and French parties for each political grouping, coalition cabinets of up to six parties are quite common.

India's present governing coalition, the United Progressive Alliance, consists of 14 separate parties. In Finland, no party has had an absolute majority in the parliament since independence, and multi-party coalitions have been the norm. Finland experienced its most stable government (Lipponen I and II) since independence with a five-party governing coalition, so called "rainbow government". The Lipponen cabinets set the stability record, and were unusual in the respect that both moderate (SDP) and extreme left wing (Left Alliance) sat in the government with the major right-wing party (National Coalition). The current government (Vanhanen II) is a four-party coalition. Japan is experiencing coalition governments since 1990s, which came into existence in 1993 after the defeat of Liberal Democratic Party, and it is present till today. Israel's governing coalitions meanwhile can include up to nine parties and are notoriously unstable as a result.

In Australia, the conservative Liberal and National parties are united in an effectively permanent coalition. This coalition has become so stable, at least at the federal level, that Australia, in effect, has become a two-party system.

In the United Kingdom, coalition governments (known as National Governments) have since 1915 only been appointed in times of national crisis. The most prominent was the National Government of 1931-1940. There was also an all party coalition during World War II. In other circumstances, when no party has found themselves in possession of a majority, minority governments have been the rule.

Arguments for and against coalition government

Advocates of proportional representation suggest that a coalition government leads to more consensus-based politics, in that a government comprising differing parties (often based on different ideologies) would need to concur in regard to governmental policy. Another stated advantage is that a coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.

Those who disapprove of coalition governments believe that such governments have a tendency to be fractious and prone to disharmony. This is because coalitions would necessarily include different parties with differing beliefs and who, therefore, may not always agree on the correct path for governmental policy. Sometimes the results of an election are such that the coalitions which are mathematically most probable are ideologically infeasible, such as in Flanders or Northern Ireland. A second difficulty might be the ability of minor parties to play "kingmaker" and, particularly in close elections, gain far more for their support than their vote would otherwise indicate.

Coalition governments have also been criticized of sustaining a consensus on issues when disagreement and the consequent discussion would be more fruitful. To forge a consensus, the leaders of ruling coalition parties can agree to silence their disagreements on an issue to unify the coalition against the opposition. The coalition partners, if they control the parliamentary majority, can collude to make the parliamentary discussion on the issue irrelevant by consistently disregarding the arguments of the opposition and voting against the opposition's proposals — even if there is disagreement within the ruling parties about the issue.

Powerful parties can also act in an oligocratic way to form an unholy alliance to stifle the growth of emerging parties. Of course, such an event is rare in coalition governments when compared to two-party systems, which typically exists because of stifling the growth of emerging parties, often through discriminatory ballot access regulations and plurality voting systems, etc.

A single, more powerful party can shape the policies of the coalition disproportionately. Smaller or less powerful parties can be intimidated to not openly disagree. In order to maintain the coalition, they will have to vote against the party's platform in the parliament. If they do not, the party has to leave the government and loses executive power.

SEZ - Special economic zone

India was one of the first in Asia to recognize the effectiveness of the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) model in promoting exports, with Asia’s first EPZ set up in Kandla in 1965. With a view to overcome the shortcomings experienced on account of the multiplicity of controls and clearances; absence of world-class infrastructure, and an unstable fiscal regime and with a view to attract larger foreign investments in India, the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) Policy was announced in April 2000. SEZs in India functioned from 1.11.2000 to 09.02.2006 under the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and fiscal incentives were made effective through the provisions of relevant statutes.

A number of meetings were held in various parts of the country both by the Minister for Commerce and Industry as well as senior officials for this purpose. The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, was passed by Parliament in May, 2005 which received Presidential assent on the 23rd of June, 2005. The draft SEZ Rules were widely discussed and put on the website of the Department of Commerce offering suggestions/comments. Around 800 suggestions were received on the draft rules. After extensive consultations, the SEZ Act, 2005, supported by SEZ Rules, came into effect on 10th February, 2006, providing for drastic simplification of procedures and for single window clearance on matters relating to central as well as state governments. The main objectives of the SEZ Act are:

(a) generation of additional economic activity
(b) promotion of exports of goods and services;
(c) promotion of investment from domestic and foreign sources;
(d) creation of employment opportunities;
(e) development of infrastructure facilities;

The SEZ Act 2005 envisages key role for the State Governments in Export Promotion and creation of related infrastructure. A Single Window SEZ approval mechanism has been provided through a 19 member inter-ministerial SEZ Board of Approval (BoA).

The SEZ Rules provide for :

• Simplified procedures for development, operation, and maintenance of the Special Economic Zones and for setting up units and conducting business in SEZs;
• Single window clearance for setting up of an SEZ;
• Single window clearance for setting up a unit in a Special Economic Zone;
• Single Window clearance on matters relating to Central as well as State Governments;
• Simplified compliance procedures and documentation with an emphasis on self certification

· The Board of Approval has been constituted by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the SEZ Act. All the decisions are taken in the Board of Approval by consensus. The Board of Approval has 19 Members. Its constitution is as follows:

(1)	Secretary, Department of Commerce	Chairman
(2)	Member, CBEC	Member
(3)	Member, IT, CBDT	Member
(4)	Joint Secretary (Banking Division), Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance
(5)	Joint Secretary (SEZ), Department of Commerce	Member
(6)	Joint Secretary, DIPP	Member
(7)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology	Member
(8)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Small Scale Industries and Agro and Rural Industries	Member
(9)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs	Member
(10)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence	Member
(11)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests	Member
(12)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice	Member
(13)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs	Member
(14)	Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development	Member
(15)	A nominee of the State Government concerned	Member
(16)	Director General of Foreign Trade or his nominee	Member
(17)	Development Commissioner concerned	Member
(18)	A professor in the Indian Institute of Management or the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade	Member
(19)	Director or Deputy Sectary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce	Member Secretary

Incentives and facilities offered to the SEZs

The incentives and facilities offered to the units in SEZs for attracting investments into the SEZs, including foreign investment include:-

• Duty free import/domestic procurement of goods for development, operation and maintenance of SEZ units
• 100% Income Tax exemption on export income for SEZ units under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act for first 5 years, 50% for next 5 years thereafter and 50% of the ploughed back export profit for next 5 years.
• Exemption from minimum alternate tax under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
• External commercial borrowing by SEZ units upto US $ 500 million in a year without any maturity restriction through recognized banking channels.
• Exemption from Central Sales Tax.
• Exemption from Service Tax.
• Single window clearance for Central and State level approvals.
• Exemption from State sales tax and other levies as extended by the respective State Governments.

The major incentives and facilities available to SEZ developers include:-

• Exemption from customs/excise duties for development of SEZs for authorized operations approved by the BOA.
• Income Tax exemption on export income for a block of 10 years in 15 years under Section 80-IAB of the Income Tax Act.
• Exemption from minimum alternate tax under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act.
• Exemption from dividend distribution tax under Section 115O of the Income Tax Act.
• Exemption from Central Sales Tax (CST).
• Exemption from Service Tax (Section 7, 26 and Second Schedule of the SEZ Act).

Land requirements for approved Special Economic Zones:

The total land requirement for the formal approvals granted till date is approximately 59685 hectares out of which about 97 approvals are for State Industrial Development Corporations/State Government Ventures which account for over 20000 hectares. In these cases, the land already available with the State Governments or SIDCs or with private companies has been utilized for setting up SEZ. The land for the 195 notified SEZs where operations have since commenced involved is approximately over 26072 hectares only.

Out of the total land area of 2973190 sq km in India, total agricultural land is of the order of 1620388 sq km (54.5%). It is interesting to note that out of this total land area, the land in possession of the 195 SEZs notified amounts to approximately over 260 sq km only. The formal approvals granted also works out to only around 596 sq km.

Exports from the functioning SEZs during the last three years are as under:

Year	Value (Rs. Crore)	Growth Rate ( over previous year )
2003-2004	13,854	39%
2004-2005	18,314	32%
2005-2006	22 840	25%
2006-07	34,615	52%

Projected exports from all SEZs for 2007-08: Rs. 67088 crores

Investment and employment in the SEZs set up prior to the SEZ Act, 2005:

At present, 1277 units are in operation in the SEZs. In the SEZs established prior to the Act coming into force, there are 998 units providing direct employment to over 1.83 lakh persons; about 40% of whom are women. Private investment by entrepreneurs in these SEZs established prior to the SEZ Act is of the order of over Rs. 7104 crore.

Investment and employment in the SEZs notified under the SEZ Act 2005:

Current investment and employment:

• Investment: Rs. 67347 crore
• Employment: 61015 persons

Impact of the scheme

The overwhelming response to the SEZ scheme is evident from the flow of investment and creation of additional employment in the country. The SEZ scheme has generated tremendous response amongst the investors, both in India and abroad, which is evident from the list of Developers who have set up SEZs:

• Nokia SEZ in Tamil Nadu
• Quark City SEZ in Chandigarh
• Flextronics SEZ in Tamil Nadu
• Mahindra World City in Tamil Nadu
• Motorola, DELL and Foxconn
• Apache SEZ (Adidas Group) in Andhra Pradesh
• Divvy’s Laboratories, Andhra Pradesh
• Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh
• ETL Infrastructure IT SEZ, Chennai
• Hyderabad Gems Limited, Hyderabad