I am all for televising the live proceedings. But before that lets do a test. Telecast live the proceedings on Rural Development programs, Health Missions and other such non-glamorous and non-controversial proceedings. Only if people take an equal amount of interest in them then make the other glamorous and controversial proceedings live. Else it means that we are interested only in controversies and nothing more. 

The need for transparency was very much apparent in Murlimanohar Joshi's PAC meetings.  If they were televised, Mr. Chidanbaram and Mr. Sibal and what not, could not have passed 'notes' to their cronies in the committee.  People would have known, how stupid and childish UPA representatives behaved.

I believe that the Hazare group's request to televise the proceedings of the Lokpal Drafting Committee was rejected on the grounds that it would inhibit "free and frank" discussion.

Anwaar is right that frequent viewing of  telecasts of all these debates would be injurious to health and prevent you from staying awake. However, we can rely on our various TV channels (at least those with the fortitude to sit through) to telecast the juicy bits at prime time. Visuals of MPs hurling invective (if not anything more lethal) at each other would provide a solid boost for their TRPs.

 Once the proceedings are telecast live, corruption will get tamed. There are very many sincere parliamentarians, who ask only relevant questions. There are others who try to intimidate the witness to fall in line. Scandals take place only when parliamentarians choose to look the other way. Besides, the unnecessary tours undertaken by the committees will be curtailed. It is bound to expose the futility of many committee's tours and meetings. The corrupt shall have some fear of the law. Presently they (the corrupt) Rule the Law, whereas they are supposed to help establish the Rule of Law.

Parthasarthy,

>>  I hope you are not trying to convince us that these are not telvised because they are too boring?

They are "not televised" until they are "televised". That's what happened in UK and USA. The bulk of such hearings are boring but that is no reason for not televising them. The hearings of Murli Manoher Joshi's PAC would have been interesting to watch.

 # 9 

Anwaar, I hope you are not trying to convince us that these are not telvised because they are too boring? :)

Only the most momentous Congressional hearings of the US Senate and House draw any interest, e.g. Senator Erwin's Senate Committee on Watergate, the hearing on Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration and the hearings in the House as well as the Senate on the impeachment of President Clinton. As a rule there is hardly any interest in most of the Congressional hearings, which are boring anyway. C-Span, which is the TV channel which ordinarily televises such hearings is known for being boring.

TV cameras may make the legislators try to exploit the medium by giving high-falutin speeches and trying to outshine each other, but may eventually add to the decorum and dignity of the proceedings. The process is very educative for the public.

 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

"Why dont we televisde Parliamentary proceedings? LOL LOL

DONT WE ALL KNOW WHY?

Gora-saheb themselves have changes long ago. But the Kala-saheb, who got it from the Gora-sahel refuses to do so.
We are always more British than Brits, more Arabian than Arabs. Only thing missing is, we are less Indian than Indians.

Irreverent Indian,

We only follow the good" aspects of parliamentary democracy inherited from Britain. "Bad" things such as sending MPs to jail for submitting fake claims are quite rightly not followed. Who gave you,me or anyone else for that matter the right to question anything an MP does. Even the police`have to go cap in hand to the Speaker and take his/her permission before they can even say hello to an MP.

He has been elected, so just shut up and let him do his job without unnecessary distractions like having to apply makeup for TV cameras.

"And, that only means more money spent on their airfare, tea, snacks, hotel, cars, security etc....."

Sincere apologies for my misleading comments.I am told that fake bills are submitted for claims even if the netas don't make the trip. So, the expenditure will remain practically the same. Since, the claims will no longer be fake, this will help reduce corruption.

Why should our parliamentarians want debates televised. That would imply that they have a duty to let those who elected them know how they are fulfilling their trust. This we know is an absolutely untenable proposition.

The electorate has the right to elect and nothing more. Once they have exercised their right, they are irrelevant, non existent if you will, until the next election. the elected representatives by virtue of having won an election (never mind how) have been elevated to an unassailable position. Let's leave it like that. televising such debates will only result in disillusioning those voters who still hold the quaint notion that the electees are actually working for their (the electors') good and result in even lower turnout at the polls. If this continues there will be no one willing to waste his time in voting and we will have a parliament for life.

The nation should be spared from seeing the wooden face of Sonia and Rahul day after day.The one's like Barkha Dutt and Rajdeep Sardesai may comment that the mother and son are in deep thought on the subject.But,a commonman knows that they are incapable debating on any subject.Already we have the Doordarshn covering the proceedings,so please don't torture us.

It is such a stupid argument to talk about live coverage of parliamnet committee proceedings. It means that the scoundrels will have to actually attend the meetings. And, that only means more money spent on their airfare, tea, snack,s hotel, cars, security etc. And, outcome would still be the same - NIL.

 The proceedings of the Hacking scandal telecast live showed that those who have no ulterior motive are transparent and willing to share it all,wonder all those in this country who said the demand by civil society to have the same on the Lok Pal committee done was unrealistic and untenable.It shows how a few jokers holding positions can allow the corrupt politicians to get away given the loot for last 60 years.Now if we as public dont speak unanimously considering the gravity of the issue ,who will.Have we lost souls(we have) the images of dead farmers families in Bundelkhand being subjected to inhuman treatment by corrupt babus and a insensitive government is disgusting ,why do we talk of human rights and dignity for Indians in the West ,when our very own arnt given the same here.This nation will never improve as the soul has been sold ,the plunder of Ganga by a so called Nationalistic party is a vivid example of were   we are headed.

Gora-saheb themselves have changes long ago. But the Kala-saheb, who got it from the Gora-sahel refuses to do so.
We are always more British than Brits, more Arabian than Arabs. Only thing missing is, we are less Indian than Indians.

Why should our parliamentarians want debates televised. That would imply that they have a duty to let those who elected them know how they are fulfilling their trust. This we know is an absolutely untenable proposition.

The electorate has the right to elect and nothing more. Once they have exercised their right, they are irrelevant, non existent if you will, until the next election. the elected representatives by virtue of having won an election (never mind how) have been elevated to an unassailable position. Let's leave it like that. televising such debates will only result in disillusioning those voters who still hold the quaint notion that the electees are actually working for their (the electors') good and result in even lower turnout at the polls. If this continues there will be no one willing to waste his time in voting and we will have a parliament for life.

The need for transparency was very much apparent in Murlimanohar Joshi's PAC meetings.  If they were televised, Mr. Chidanbaram and Mr. Sibal and what not, could not have passed 'notes' to their cronies in the committee.  People would have known, how stupid and childish UPA representatives behaved.

Irreverent Indian,

We only follow the good" aspects of parliamentary democracy inherited from Britain. "Bad" things such as sending MPs to jail for submitting fake claims are quite rightly not followed. Who gave you,me or anyone else for that matter the right to question anything an MP does. Even the police`have to go cap in hand to the Speaker and take his/her permission before they can even say hello to an MP.

He has been elected, so just shut up and let him do his job without unnecessary distractions like having to apply makeup for TV cameras.

The nation should be spared from seeing the wooden face of Sonia and Rahul day after day.The one's like Barkha Dutt and Rajdeep Sardesai may comment that the mother and son are in deep thought on the subject.But,a commonman knows that they are incapable debating on any subject.Already we have the Doordarshn covering the proceedings,so please don't torture us.

I believe that the Hazare group's request to televise the proceedings of the Lokpal Drafting Committee was rejected on the grounds that it would inhibit "free and frank" discussion.

Anwaar is right that frequent viewing of  telecasts of all these debates would be injurious to health and prevent you from staying awake. However, we can rely on our various TV channels (at least those with the fortitude to sit through) to telecast the juicy bits at prime time. Visuals of MPs hurling invective (if not anything more lethal) at each other would provide a solid boost for their TRPs.

 # 9 

Anwaar, I hope you are not trying to convince us that these are not telvised because they are too boring? :)

"And, that only means more money spent on their airfare, tea, snacks, hotel, cars, security etc....."

Sincere apologies for my misleading comments.I am told that fake bills are submitted for claims even if the netas don't make the trip. So, the expenditure will remain practically the same. Since, the claims will no longer be fake, this will help reduce corruption.

 The proceedings of the Hacking scandal telecast live showed that those who have no ulterior motive are transparent and willing to share it all,wonder all those in this country who said the demand by civil society to have the same on the Lok Pal committee done was unrealistic and untenable.It shows how a few jokers holding positions can allow the corrupt politicians to get away given the loot for last 60 years.Now if we as public dont speak unanimously considering the gravity of the issue ,who will.Have we lost souls(we have) the images of dead farmers families in Bundelkhand being subjected to inhuman treatment by corrupt babus and a insensitive government is disgusting ,why do we talk of human rights and dignity for Indians in the West ,when our very own arnt given the same here.This nation will never improve as the soul has been sold ,the plunder of Ganga by a so called Nationalistic party is a vivid example of were   we are headed.

Only the most momentous Congressional hearings of the US Senate and House draw any interest, e.g. Senator Erwin's Senate Committee on Watergate, the hearing on Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration and the hearings in the House as well as the Senate on the impeachment of President Clinton. As a rule there is hardly any interest in most of the Congressional hearings, which are boring anyway. C-Span, which is the TV channel which ordinarily televises such hearings is known for being boring.

TV cameras may make the legislators try to exploit the medium by giving high-falutin speeches and trying to outshine each other, but may eventually add to the decorum and dignity of the proceedings. The process is very educative for the public.

It is such a stupid argument to talk about live coverage of parliamnet committee proceedings. It means that the scoundrels will have to actually attend the meetings. And, that only means more money spent on their airfare, tea, snack,s hotel, cars, security etc. And, outcome would still be the same - NIL.

Only the most momentous Congressional hearings of the US Senate and House draw any interest, e.g. Senator Erwin's Senate Committee on Watergate, the hearing on Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration and the hearings in the House as well as the Senate on the impeachment of President Clinton. As a rule there is hardly any interest in most of the Congressional hearings, which are boring anyway. C-Span, which is the TV channel which ordinarily televises such hearings is known for being boring.

TV cameras may make the legislators try to exploit the medium by giving high-falutin speeches and trying to outshine each other, but may eventually add to the decorum and dignity of the proceedings. The process is very educative for the public.

Parthasarthy,

>>  I hope you are not trying to convince us that these are not telvised because they are too boring?

They are "not televised" until they are "televised". That's what happened in UK and USA. The bulk of such hearings are boring but that is no reason for not televising them. The hearings of Murli Manoher Joshi's PAC would have been interesting to watch.

It is such a stupid argument to talk about live coverage of parliamnet committee proceedings. It means that the scoundrels will have to actually attend the meetings. And, that only means more money spent on their airfare, tea, snack,s hotel, cars, security etc. And, outcome would still be the same - NIL.

Irreverent Indian,

We only follow the good" aspects of parliamentary democracy inherited from Britain. "Bad" things such as sending MPs to jail for submitting fake claims are quite rightly not followed. Who gave you,me or anyone else for that matter the right to question anything an MP does. Even the police`have to go cap in hand to the Speaker and take his/her permission before they can even say hello to an MP.

He has been elected, so just shut up and let him do his job without unnecessary distractions like having to apply makeup for TV cameras.