human rights
B.B.R.Goud.
(Querist) 09 April 2010
This query is : Resolved
as per the preamble of our constitution, ours is socialistic character...that means the natural resources and means of production shall not be in the hands of a single or group of private people?
the state is only the custodian of the natural resources to see that every person should get his due share.but the state is not the owner.in this light of socialist phylosophy, how a state or it's agency acquire the land or other natural resource and hand over to the private party? by means of this the persons may get shortage or polluted or under quality of the natural resources without which the life is in danger. the state is not come under the violation of human rights? who has to monitor and control it?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 10 April 2010
This issue is under debate in the political and social circles since a long time. As you know that mere Governments cannot develop the Nation due to lack of various factors so private sector is also involved therein and it also require land and other natural resources for that purpose.
It is not true that prvate sector is destroying the natural resources and the public sector is protecting it. My experience is otherwise. In various field private sector has provided and protected the natural resources more than government sector and citizen is facilitated more in the hands of private sector.
bhagwat patil
(Expert) 10 April 2010
For the betterment of society as whole the public elected body can deside it. somtimes private sector do well than govt. agencis.
B.B.R.Goud.
(Querist) 11 April 2010
sir...thank you very much for sharing ideas...but my idea is: when the private hands means corporates and industry & business people possessed a major share then it leads to monopoly..where a common man can not even question any thing? is it not the duty of the state to protect the common man from these chos?
