I honestly cannot understand what precisely you are trying to convey to me or the other members.
My limited grievance at the present time with the NAC is to the extent NAC possesses powers to interfere in the DoPT's RTI Rule framing process. This is connected to the constitution of NAC, functions of NAC and delegation of powers by some other Constitutional functionary like the PM. The UPA-1 had an NCMP, the UPA-2 does not. There is thus some vagueness in the orders of the Cabsec for NAC-2.
BTW, this is an RTI group. All discussion must have a strong RTI connection.
Sarbajit
ingh
Dear Sarbjit Royji,The undersigned was at New Delhi on 12th May,2005 prior to agreement to share multi party decision and totake upthe National Common Minimum Programme. The undersigned had been opposing the FDI in retailTrade, Assistant to Small Scale Industries (Now MICRO,SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES).Both the common minimum programme could not finalise.We had many meetings of National Board ofMSME at Delhi chaired byb then Union Minister of MSME Shri Mahabir Prasad.There were two sectretariesof MSME, Dr. Chander Prakash and there after Dinesh Rai. There were two D.C. Jawahar Sarkar then Madhav Lal.Now the State Minister Shri Dinsha Patel has been replaced with VirBhadra SinghMr from Himachal Pradesh.Mr Virbhadra Singh was Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh.He could not protect the MSME at Himachal Pradesh.Can he do sofor entire country.?
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 4 February, 2011 9:56:35 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: My Grievance concerning the non-disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC
Dear Sir
You have not comprehended the issues raised by me, possibly because you are reading me at a superficial level.
PS: I am not a naxalite / leftist, nor do I support multi-party democracy (or dynastic politics)
Sarbajit
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Sir,I do not know you personally and have never taken the path you have taken in last 30 years.I understand your feelings,but please let me know,why did you not opposed the corruptionand family dictatorships.I had the oppertunity to meet D. Raja, Somnath Chatterjee, and many other elected members ofParliament prior to 12th May,2004 at New Delhi.They had joined the hand with Indian National
Congress to remain in power.Mr. Somnath Chatterjee was elected Speaker and he refused theparty line.The issues of Minimum Programme agreed could not materialise.To day we are facing acute shortage of food articles, inflation wenton double digit.The CPI and CPI (M), and other left parties have lostgrip on poor and common man .Now the one time elected Member of Parliament Mr. Pranab Mukherjeecould not force upon Smt Sonia Gandhi to make him Working Prime Minister,when Dr.Man <Mohan Singh was sick. and he claims the all the oppositonleaders are trying to unstable the Government and acting like naxalite.Are we all are naxalites?We elected the people on our votes.Is the voter,who casted thevote to the candidate other than INC are naxalites?Just think on it and may reply,if you wish.
Warm regards,
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 4 February, 2011 4:49:50 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: My Grievance concerning the non-disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC
To: Justice K. Nath
Respected Sir
Let me hasten to assure you that your emails are not an intrusion in any way.
Many citizens of India are agitated at the moment over the twin issues of a) corruption. and b) non-hearing of the citizen's voice by State. The outcry against this is taking place in many diverse ways, such as by satyagraha or naxalism etc.
The NAC is not a place for the ordinary citizen's voice to be heard, they have no structural mechanisms in place for this, nor are they likely to put these in place. As a legal luminary you will immediately catch this from the order of Cabinet Secretary dt. May.2004 constituting the NAC. The entire device of NAC is a legal fiction for Ms.Sonia Gandhi to interfere in Govt openly and get access for her private network of Congress-Leftist touts into corridors of power. (You will recall Sir, that the first UPA govt was dependent on Communist support so the NAC was packed with left-leaning Congress stooges). The members who pack the NAC are of 2 varieties - the eminent senior persons who are regrettably all in their 80's and only figure-heads, and the professional 'haramis' who actually do all the dirty work. The NAC at present is therefore a fountain of corruption in India.
Incidentally, all the "eminent" people who approached the Satyagraha brigade on 30th Jan to call off your fasts are part of the 'harami' network. They are all foreign financed touts also working for UPA govt, and they would do anything / say anything to shut down your protest. I think it was unwise to call off your fasts so soon on their say / assurances.
I don't think NAC would listen to me. In any case, I am not a fighter against corruption nor do I waste my time fighting it as an issue. I recognise corruption as a necessary part of the human condition, whilst steeling myself against it to remain pure / above it personally. With 30 years of intense experience fighting cases in person in SC and HC, my tactics are different from ordinary activists.
Lastly, I don't believe that the LOKPAL Bill is a good idea at all. It is just another diversionary device to buy more time and fool the voting masses / angry mobs. The Brigade's 2nd point (barring convicts from fighting elections) is well taken, the third (confiscation) is impractical.
Warmly
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sri Roy,
Pl. excuse me for this intrusion. I learn from your e-mail that NAC is, after all, on line and ideas could be expressed for its consideration. I do not know much about NAC, and may learn through its website; but that would be later.
Here I only wish to know whether NAC has any 'Anti-corruption' agenda. Every one knows now that 30th Jan 2011 (Martyr Day Anniversary – Gandhiji's martyrdom) rallies were taken out in more than 60 Cities against Govt. of India's inaction on Issues of Corruption and that 7 Satyagrahis (6 of them Freedom Fighters and more than 80 years of age) of Gandhian Satyagraha Brigade, New Delhi, went on FAST-UNTO-DEATH in continuation of Satyagraha since 1st Jan, after full advance Notice to the Government. The demand of the Brigade was on the Govt. to enact (i) an effective LOKPAL for investigating corruption by public functionaries, (ii) disqualification of persons charged of heinous criminal offences by a Court of Law from contesting Elections and (iii) forfeiture of property acquired through corrupt/illegal means. Late in the afternoon (of 30th Jan), the Fast was POSTPONED for 3 months on assurance of the leaders of the rally which started from Ramlila Grounds and went up to the site of Fast to promote and strengthen the resolve to achieve the 3 demands. Despite all this, not a leaf has stirred – much less any assurance – in the corridors of Power. Would you like to take up this issue with the NAC, because no amount of development projects will bring any good to the people if, in their implementation, the political bureaucracy swallows the fruits through corruption ?
Regards,
KN
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
:
Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ),
Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ),
Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )
Address
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone(s)
:
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746
From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:58 PM
To: Office NAC; ritasharma.secy@nac.nic.in; secy_mop@nic.in; jsata@nic.in; dirrti-dopt@nic.in; humjanenge
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: My Grievance concerning the non-disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC
To:
The National Advisory Council, by
the Joint Secretary
03-Feb-2011
Dear Mr Raju,
cc: Ms. Rita Sharma/Secy/NAC for directions
Many thanks for your email in reply,
Kindly note the correct spelling of my name as was given in my referred email as "Sarbajit Roy" for future correspondence.
I beg to state that my grievance was clearly stated to be in the context of "constitution, functions, duties and procedures etc for the National Advisory Council." (all to be declared under RTI suo-moto) As per the documents published on NAC website so far concerning the constitution of NAC, specifically the Cabinet Secretariat orders of 31.May.2004 and 29.March.2010, it appears to me that the present NAC ("NAC-2") is constituted "in pursuance of" the order of 31.May.2004 for the 2 purposes specified therein. The first purpose being for NCMP and the second for providing inputs / support on Govt policy and legislative business respectively.
I was therefore surprised to see from the initial Minutes of Meeting of NAC-2 that the members have arrogated to themselves powers inconsistent with the objectives for which NAC-2 was constituted on 29.May.2010 as specified in the CabSec order. Instead they have broadly referred to unspecified portions of a speech of her Excellency Madam President to Parliament as being the focus/vision of the NAC. It is not clear to me how the NAC is legally empowered to set its own agenda, and I seek clarity from you on this aspect. As it was very well known on 29.May.2010 that UPA-II does not have a NCMP, this could have been clarified in the CabSec order of even date itself by specifying "flagship programmes of Govt" for NCMP..
As a citizen of India, who is being invited by NAC-2 to participate in processes such as submitting comments and objections to proposed legislations like Food Security Bill, Communal Violence Bill etc being drafted by NAC-2, it is mandatory for NAC-2 to completely inform me of the "constitution, functions, duties and procedures etc for the National Advisory Council". The information on the NAC-2 website is incomplete, half-baked and evasive. No reasonable person can meaningfully participate under conditions of such information denial. This information evasion further confirms the words of the Hon'ble Prime Minister I had set out, viz. that NAC-2 is the instrument for Congress Party activists to participate in Government. The necessary converse is that persons not associated with Congress Party have no place in NAC-2's scheme of things and shall be subjected to information asymmetry and discrimination .
Accordingly, I clearly call upon you to inform me immediately the underlying basis (ie. Govt documents) for the following claims in the VISION on NAC website, so that I may submit my comments on NAC's various time bound public processes referred above. I am especially interested in the source of powers of NAC and their delegation to and exercise by NAC, its officers, Chairperson and members (such as I had described for Ms. Aruna Roy).
1) "NAC has been set up as an interface with Civil Society."
2) "The NAC would also give attention to the priorities stated in the address of the President of India to Parliament on 4 June, 2009."
3) "In addition, the NAC would review the flagship programmes of the Government and suggest measures to address any constraints in their implementation and delivery."
Looking forward to your prompt reply.
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Office NAC <office.nac@nac.nic.in> wrote:Dear S. Roy,
This has reference to your email addressed to Secretary, NAC dated 1.2.2011 bearing the subject "My Grievance concerning the non disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC".
With reference to the grievance you have referred to in your email, I would like to inform you that NAC's vision statement does not refer to National Common Minimum Programme as there is no National Common Minimum Programme for UPA-II
This is for your information.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/
(K. Raju)
Joint Secretary
Shri Sarabjit Ray
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.