Govt. must frame rules which are practical

You take the example of any authority, whether it is a government, an institution or any business enterprise; they always frame various rules for their countrymen, their people or simply for their employees, who has to accept the same and obey. Now coming back to the rules and regulations being framed by a particular government in their respective countries, some are very methodical  and observe strong compliance to follow the same.  They do not allow anybody to violate their prescribed rules. Take the example of a country like Singapore.

When it comes to India, rules are there at every stage. But most of these rules are unwanted and not people friendly. Sometimes, these rules are so cumbersome that the citizen prefers not to accept or bypass the same.  In his various election campaigns, Modi is very emphatic in his speeches that we must discard unnecessary burden of various rules and only to impose a few rules for the purpose of good governance. As per him, these rules must be sensible and easily accepted by people. But somehow or  other, this principle is not being followed at the moment.  For example, take the case of anti-smoking rules. The government proposes to ban the sale of loose cigarettes and also to increase the age limit so as to control the purchase of these items as loose. The government wants to ensure that let it be purchased by people above the prescribed level of age group. Is it a practicable rule which is possible to enforce?  The statistics say that 80% of the total sales consist of loose cigarettes from thousands of retail outlets in our country.  Who will monitor? Has anybody ever thought how many people are needed to control these activities? Is it feasible for any government to spend money on administrative machineries to control these activities just to honor the rule. What is the need for framing this type of meaningless rule, which is neither possible to control nor it is possible to monitor? In that case all these rules become a burden or a paper oriented, documented rule only as our  government has no proper machinery to control this type of legislation.

When the administrative machineries are unable to control the various crimes, many of them are of heinous types say rape, terrorism, robbery, riots and a bit of a political unrest, how do you expect to check the sales of cigarettes?  Though cigarette smoking is awfully bad for health and the direction of this rule is somewhat good, but enforcement is practically impossible. Most of the literate citizens are aware that a lot of vacancies in the government departments, particularly related to the judiciary, legal and law enforcement departments are lying vacant for a considerable period of time for the reason that coffer is not flooded with cash required to fulfill these vacancies. So, it is not a prudent decision to frame rules and not able to monitor the same. It is better to concentrate and focus on those rules, which are possible to implement and monitor. 

Needless to say, smoking is a bad habit, which brings diseases causing untimely death.  Further, why to frame a rule of anti-smoking for  cigarettes only and why not to frame a similar rule for smoking of beedis? The reason is very simple that framing of various rules is not governed by the factor of benefiting the people, it is solely dependent on political compulsions. The beedis are very popular in rural and laborers are fond of smoking beedis  and further this  particular industry  is classified under the  small scale, and so any rule  to curb the sales of this item will reduce the overall sales of these commodities causing unemployment and  will raise a political chaos.

When the anti-smoking rules are under consideration by the politicians, the same fraternity gives encouragement for fertilizer subsidy to the farmers growing tobacco. 

The whole ideas of framing rules must ensure whether the same can be enforced by the existing manpower of the government, whether that can bring any changes in the social system or whether the new rules can help government to discharge the administrative functions more promptly and smoothly, that is more important. Otherwise, framing of new rules will lead to corruption, mass evasion, nepotism and favourism.

There are many rules, which are supposed to be implemented by our government, namely establishing a national green tribunal to check the pollution in many of the polluted cities, banning of burning of woods, leaves and plastics that add to pollution and no parking of cars on roads. These rules are really worth to implement in the form of legislation for pollution control, to create less congestion and ultimately these rules will definitely accrue  benefits to the common  people.

Further, it is better to create a minimum number of rules, make the same effectively controllable, monitor and enforce. The rules for the sake of rules have no meaning.  Either way, India has a bad reputation of red-tapism, unwanted rules, painstaking formalities whenever something is initiated to carry forward.  Modi has understood this phenomenon and he strongly believes that the time has come to reset all the old rules as practical as possible. He says that let us identify a set of ten rules, assess the same, see their feasibilities and if they have no broad meaning and producing any tangible results then let us discard the same and frame a one single and logical rule for the benefit of all. By framing this single rule, it will be easier to control, monitor and  which will beneficiary to one and all with less administrative support and  expenditure on account of government machineries. Modi has to be strict to bring in discipline in this regard for the prosperity of the country.