On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Prashant Uikey <prashant.vikey@gmail.com> wrote:
I am in total agreement with Jagdeepji. There are several Anti Anna fronts today who are hell bent on proving Anna's team wrong on several points. History has taught us that one can very easily discredit a person, but it takes immense amount of hard work and several years to earn that same credit.
People who are opposing Anna's team are forgetting that the fight for an effective & result oriented Lokpal Lokpal Bill is no longer just Anna or his team mates fight, it has become the fight of the 1.2 Billion Indians who are severely frustrated by corruption. Its time for the people with narrow thinking to drop their inhibitions and join this Jan-Lokpal Movement. My message to ones who still are adamant would be "If you cant do some good for the society then atleast don't stop the person who is doing something. Even with all your opposing points, something is always better than nothing"
NOTE: Jagdeepji, sorry to bring this up, but kindly don't edit any ongoing thread's subject line as this creates a new Email that is disconnected from its mother email thread and ends up confusing members"On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Jagdeep DESAI <jagdeep.desai1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,Allow me to dissent.Any thing to do with the guy named MANDER, is highly suspicious.So if he is involved in the draft, my doubts will prevail over any confidence.Will stay far away from it.
Besides, if this particular draft is superior, then why is it not been widely circulated.
The problem with the current anti Anna front is that they are concentrating in shooting the messenger and not reading the message.If all agree that Anna and his team are not what they purport to be, so what, is the draft prepared by them, and including any number of inputs from the public at large via their site, then discuss the draft, not vilify the people.And analyse its pros and cons without emotion or sentiment, just on merit.By all parameters, it is within the Constitution of the Republic f India, That is Bharatha.Let us hope good sense prevails and this Jan Lokpal Bill is enacted.Jai Hind.
Jagdeep>>>--On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com> wrote:[Attachment(s) from Krishnaraj Rao included below]Sorry, attachments mentioned in earlier email were not sent. See attached.Regards,KrishOn Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bhaskar,I have read Aruna Roy's email to you (attachment no 1, copy-pasted as a separate word document) and the documents that she sent (attachments no 2 and 3). Her stand is correctly reasoned, and it goes to the heart of the problem. I wholeheartedly agree, and I am posting this reply on numerous email forums. I would invite others to take a stand on this crucial issue.In my opinion, the approach proposed by NCPRI is a reasoned and nuanced one. It expresses what my own thoughts on this issue developed over many months of the campaign for Jan Lokpal Bill. I am completely in agreement with the NCPRI stand, and I oppose the politicized approach where people who question the "Jan Lokpal Bill" approach are sought to be portrayed as traitors and congress stooges.Below are my thoughts in consonance with Arun Roy's email:Corruption is only one word, but this catch-all word is used to describe a very wide range of behaviours that cheat the system of checks-and-balances. These behaviours are not performed only by "public servants" alone, but by many civil society members in collusion. Builder mafias, water-tanker mafias, road-contractor cartels, industry-lobbyists and go-betweens, adulterators, hoarders, touts, slumlords, encroachers and thugs -- these are all civil society elements.Also, "public servants" is a catch-all term. It consists of a very wide range of persons, whose actions cannot all be dealt with by a single authority. Different authorities and different laws are needed to hold accountable ministers, bureaucrats, judges, clerk, bus conductors and neighbourhood sweepers, even though all of them are public servants. There cannot be one law to cover all of them, because the level of authority and discretion is massively different at each and every level.Therefore, the way the battle lines are drawn through the Jan Lokpal Bill is not only simplistic, it is misleading and dangerous. There is an attempt to create categories where none exist, and to set the stage for a witch-hunt, similar to USA's McCarthyism era. The battle against corruption cannot be seen as a battle between Us (clean civil society) versus Them (dirty politicians and bureaucrats). This is a basically incorrect premise; the battle against corruption can only be fought as an effort by 'We the People' to build systems of checks and balances that are effective in the modern context, and to use these systems to prevent abuse of the administrative systems. This battle has to be fought together in an inclusive manner.Also, as the problem of corruption is not a single homogenous problem, we cannot deal with it with a single monolithic authority with vast and overarching powers. The idea of a single magic want to solve all problems is a silly notion. Unfortunately, thoughtless zealousness is currently being dressed in the garb of patriotism. The right to hold a dissenting opinion is being demonized as leniency towards corruption.Like Aruna Roy and many others, I feel angry and betrayed that the proceedings towards framing a rational and effective Whistleblowers' Protection Bill (officially known as Public Interest Disclosure Bill) were hijacked to give birth to a pie-in-the-sky Jan Lokpal Bill. The Bill to facilitate whistleblowers and protect their lives was left in the lurch.The solutions to our nation's many problems lie not in creating thousands of zealots, but in creating many systems of checks-and-balances that are practical, down-to-earth and workable. The solutions will not be found in divisive Us-versus-Them thinking; they will only be found in cultivating a mindset of activating 'We the People' in constructive ways.Fasting does not automatically mean Satyagraha, if the intent is to provoke social division and anger. Being able to fast for many days does not necessarily confer moral superiority; I fasted for nine days in October 2010 -- six of them at the temple in Ralegan Siddhi where Annaji lives. For four days and nights, I literally slept outside Annaji's bedroom door, until I was picked up by the police one evening, and ordered not to stay there. Fasting is a form of non-violent protest, but it is also a method of arm-twisting.While I genuinely admire the massive public mobilization that Team Anna -- led by Arvind Kejriwal -- has done around the issue of corruption, I oppose the oversimplification and propaganda, and the confrontationist stances that are being consistently adopted. Such tactics (which are typically adopted by right-wing political parties like Shiv Sena and BJP) are an obstacle to sensible deliberations on any forum, including the parliament. Such tactics are unbecoming of public awakeners and activists.The problem of corruption is like an octopus. The rational and feasible approach is to seek to isolate each tentacle of the problem, pin it down with a suitable legislative mechanism, and then kill each tentacle by ensuring that implementation happens.That is the multi-pronged and methodical approach being proposed by Aruna Roy and NCPRI. I welcome this, and I would be happy to work for its success.Warm Regards,Krishnaraj Rao
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI
and Circulation---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Subject: The Lokpal- NCPRI approach: the right to differ
To:
Dear friends,
I am Forwarding the msg from Arunaji, of MKSS and NCPRI which is self explanatory. I endorse many of the positions taken by them.
Yours in service fo RTI
Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
Maharashtra RTI Council
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: aruna roy <arunaroy@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM
Subject: The Lokpal- NCPRI approach: the right to differ
To: "B. Prabhu" <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com>Dear Bhaskar,
As a preface and a possible apology, let me say that this is a
combination between a letter and a note. Please bear with the length
of it. We write to you on a matter of mutual and common concern, the
Lokpal bill, now in Parliament. The context of this letter is
explained below.
When the Joint Drafting Committee of the Lokpal was working on the Jan
Lokpal , the NCPRI had written to the Chair, Shri Pranab Mukherjee,
and the co-chair Shri Shanti Bhushan, enquiring about the TORs and the
process of and participation, in public consultation. Both assured us
that there would be formal public consultation. It did not happen.
When the government bill went to cabinet with the intention of placing
it in the monsoon session of parliament, the NCPRI decided to make its
position known. The NCPRI is continuing with its deliberations and
consultations and has prepared an approach paper and a set of
principles for circulation. This is a work in progress.
The belief in consultations and discussion is the reason why we write to you.
The NCPRI's (National Campaign for People's Right to Information)
involvement with legislation to deal with corruption and arbitrary use
of power, began with the demand for an RTI law in 1996. The Lokpal was
flagged as a law that needed to be taken up along with the Whistle
Blowers Bill to address the killing of RTI activists and establish
accountability. A committee was set up in the September 2010 for that
purpose. The issue of the Lokpal was however taken up by some members
of the NCPRI Working Committee, who formed the IAC and the NCPRI
discussions remained suspended.
The Lokpal discussion has had an interesting trajectory. It began as
the stated logical end of a large middle class mobilization on
corruption. The stated end of that campaign was the demand for the
setting up of a Joint Drafting Committee for a Lokpal bill. In common
usage and understanding of corruption, the term casually refers to a
range of corrupt practices. The political/governance spectrum is
indeed more culpable than others. For it is mandated to maintain
integrity in public life, to keep the country on keel with
constitutional and other guarantees. This includes preventing the
arbitrary use of power and corrupt practices. The Lokpal was too
simplistically ordained by the campaign as a solution to all varieties
of corrupt practices in our lives.
However the assurance that all solutions to the entire gamut of
corrupt practices could be worked out through a strong Lokpal has left
us with a great sense of disquiet. Not only because it does not
address the arbitrary use of power. But because it is an unrealistic
promise to rising expectations that it is an alleviation of all ills
through one bill. It is also a question of the contents of the Jan
lokpal draft itself.
There have been public meetings but few consultations on the content
of the Act in detail . While gestures and symbolic assent - like sms
and referendums - may approve the intent, drafting of an Act needs
more informed debate. The Lokpal debate has had its share of
general platitudes, we need now to go beyond that. We also have to
place the role of dissent squarely in the fulcrum of the debate. The
discussions after all, flow from the acceptance that a strong Lokpal
bill is needed. Also that the earlier and even the current government
draft is faulty, even on principles.
The NCPRI however did make efforts before the 5th of April to arrive
at a consensus with the IAC in a meeting held on 3rd April in the
NMML. The NAC took up the matter independent of the NCPRI on the 4th
April. The NCPRI had expressed reservations about the over arching
and overwhelming structure of a law, which included grievances and
corruption within its ambit. It was argued that though both are
equally important, they require different mechanisms for
implementation.
Subsequently events took over, and in the polarised discourse, it
became impossible to make suggestions and or suggest changes. Every
critique was attributed to wrong intent and viewed with suspicion and
mistrust by the civil society members of the Joint Committee. Critique
of the Bill has evoked sharp reactions, and statements have been made
that no amendments or change to the principles or the framework is
possible, and that disagreement with the draft was tantamount to
promoting corruption. We were baffled by such statements. The NCPRI
however continued with the consultations to evolve an approach, a set
of principles and measures to unpack the huge unwieldy and much too
powerful structure proposed by the IAC.
We are attaching a set of documents defining our approach to the
Lokpal, different both from the Jan Lokpal and the Government bills.
The NCPRI would like to share a set of principles and a framework for
deliberation. The summary of our basic arguments is detailed below.
This was placed in the public domain by the NCPRI and the Inclusive
Media 4 Change ( CSDS) on the 5th and 6th of June 2011.
The consensus that emerged was that in place of a single institution
there should be multiple institutions and that a basket of collective
and concurrent Lokpal anti corruption and grievance redress measures
should be evolved.
Summary of the NCPRI approach towards a series of concurrent and
collective Anti-corruption and Grievance Redress measures:
Rationale: Vesting jurisdiction over the length and breadth of the
government machinery in one institution will concentrate too much
power in the institution, while the volume of work will make it
difficult to carry out its tasks.
1. Unanimous endorsement of the need for accountability of all
public servants, including the contentious issue of inclusion of the
PM, with a few caveats. ( No one is above the law, enforcing the rule
of law).
2. An independent system for judicial scrutiny and standards.
3. An independent and strong institution to scrutinize corruption
of public servants and issues, which require different administrative
processes and organizational set-up.
4. and a mechanism to redress grievances of the common citizen
5. Whistle Blowers protection.
The five measures proposed by NCPRI are:
1. Rashtriya Bhrashtachar Nivaran Lokpal (National Anti-corruption
Lokpal): An institution to tackle corruption of all elected
representatives, including the Prime Minister (with some safeguards),
Ministers and Members of Parliament and senior bureaucrats (Group 'A'
officers) and all other co-accused including those in the private and
social sector. The Lokpal will be financially and administratively
independent from the government and will have both investigative and
prosecution powers.
2. Kendriya Satarkta Lokpal (Central Vigilance Commission): Amending
the Central Vigilance Commission Act to remove the single directive
and empower the CVC to investigate corruption and take appropriate
action against mid-level bureaucracy.
3. Nyayapalika Lokpal (Judicial Standards and Accountability Lokpal):
To strengthen the existing Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill,
that is currently before the Parliament, to ensure that the judiciary
is also made effectively and appropriately accountable, without
compromising its independence from the executive or the integrity of
its functions.
4. Shikayat Nivaran Lokpal (Public Grievances Lokpal): To set up
an effective time-bound system for grievance redress for common
citizens to make the government answerable in terms of its functions,
duties, commitments and obligations towards citizens. The grievance
redress structure would have decentralized institutional mechanisms
going right down to each ward/block level, and would ensure a
bottom-up, people centric approach so that complaints and grievances
can be dealt with speedily and in a decentralized, participatory and
transparent manner. It will integrate public vigilance processes like
vigilance committees and social audits, and provide for facilitation
for the filing of all grievances/complaints through the setting up of
block information and facilitation centres in every Block (rural) and
ward(urban) in the country.The grievance redress mechanism will be a
three-tier structure consisting of grievance redress officers at the
local level within the department, independent district level
grievance redressal authorities and central/State level grievance
redress commission. It will include and rationalize existing
structures.
5. Lokrakshak Kanoon (Whistleblower Protection Lokpal): To strengthen
the existing Public interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons
Making the Disclosure Bill, that is currently before the Parliament,
to ensure appropriate protection of whistleblowers.
These institutions, where relevant, will also be established at the
State level. In addition there will be a common selection process to
staff these institutions. We feel that all these measures need to be
brought in simultaneously to effectively tackle corruption at all
levels and provide a mechanism to redress grievances of citizens.
We write to you, to present this alternative, to elicit your
responses, and to invite you to be part of the discourse. Please do
let us know whether you are interested in being part of the discourse
and in receiving periodic updates.
Please forward this on to friends and other interested people.
We look forward to your reply.
Warm regards,
Aruna
--
Aruna Roy
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)
Village Devdungri, Post Barar
District Rajsamand 313341
Rajasthan
e mail: mkssrajasthan@gmail.com
web site : www.mkssindia.org
Telephone : +91 9413204488
+91 9929519361
01463-288247---------------
------------------------
------------------------------------
Prayer: Mother, let me lie in the mud
*******
We at "It's My Right" believe in Full RIGHTS to our Members.
Hence you can control the way, emails are being sent to you by clicking on "https://groups.google.com/group/its-my-right/subscribe?hl=en"
You can invite your friends to join this Group by forwarding the following link https://groups.google.com/group/its-my-right/subscribe?hl=en¬e=1
--
Thanks & Regards
Prashant Uikey
Founder - "It's My Right" Google groupStriving For Protection & Successful Implementation Of Citizen's Rights
--
*******
We at "It's My Right" believe in Full RIGHTS to our Members.
Hence you can control the way, emails are being sent to you by clicking on "https://groups.google.com/group/its-my-right/subscribe?hl=en"
You can invite your friends to join this Group by forwarding the following link https://groups.google.com/group/its-my-right/subscribe?hl=en¬e=1
--
"Indifference & Corruption, India's 2 most threatening malady"
"The Suppression of Documents deprives the Indian Public of Information it needs in order to Evaluate the Wisdom of Government Policy, to Hold Officials Accountable for their Decisions and to Ensure that the Mistakes and Abuses of the Past are Not Repeated in the Future."प्रत्येक लोकशाहि राष्ट्रात विधिमंडळ महत्त्वाची कामगिरी बजावित असते.आपण स्विकारलेल्या संसदीय लोकशाही शासन पद्धतीमध्ये भारतीय संविधानातील तरतुदींनुसार विधिमंडळाचे काम म्हणजे सरकार बनविणे, सरकारला योग्य प्रकारे वागायला लावणे व प्रसंगी सरकार बदलणे, सरकारी कामकाजावर देखरेख ठेवणे, सरकारी कारभारात गैरप्रकार आढळ्ल्यास त्याबद्दल जाब विचारणे इत्यादी विधिमंडळाची कामे आहेत.
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment