Re: [rti4empowerment] A RAY OF HOPE ON RTI EFFECTIVENESS

1) And Himanshi Dhawan listens to you ?
2) Why should my views be of interest to Himanshi Dhawan ?
3) Why should I be interested in Himanshi Dhawan ?

It is precisely for this type of situation that I had requested our
members to email me IDs of journalists to be used appropriately
to convey the views of the group as a whole, not this kind of
pick-and-choose approach.

Sarbajit

On 2/27/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I am deliberately not joining issue with you, dear Sarab to save my time and
> energy and for mainting hormonious atmosphere on the blog.
>
>
> However, I sent your comments to Ms. Himanshi Dhawan, reporter of Times of
> India
> for her information.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sun, 27 February, 2011 5:56:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] A RAY OF HOPE ON RTI EFFECTIVENESS
>
> Dear Guptaji
>
> My stand
>
> 1) "250 words". Completely unexplained and arbitrary value. I am unable to
> understand why 250 words, nor can I understand how 500 words is any better.
> In
> my view if there has to be a limit it should be 150 words (to equate it to
> the
> Parliamentary provision) OR it should be scrapped
>
> 2) On 1 subject. It makes no difference to me. My comments to DoPT on this
> subject are in the public domain. I have asked them to set their own house
> in
> order first before before harassing the citizens with such rules.
>
> 3) On abatement of cases on death/killing of applicant. This is already
> covered
> in the RTI Act - the RTI request will die on his death.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit Roy ji,
>>
>>Sir,
>>
>>In fact, I was expecting such reaction from you when I was writing this.
>> We
>>have lodged strong protest against the proposed changes under the banner of
>>
>>Dwarka Forum (Regd) with 2500 on-line members. If you want, I can forward
>> that
>>to the group Some are unable to digest the name of Aruna Roy and others and
>> they
>>are more concerned to settle score with them than to serve the cause of
>> public
>>and protect the RTIAct from the onslaught. But u r on record on this blog
>> to
>>support these changes vide your previous mail. If u fail to find them, I
>> offer
>>my help in the task.
>>
>>Every member knows who is wasting their time. By the way, what is your
>> stand
>>about the proposed changes viz. word limit, one subject and abetment of
>> case
>>after the death or killing of applicant?
>>
>>Members are not babies to be satisfied with lollypops and understand the
>>scenario. I myself cannot ensure that my voice is heard but your or nobody
>> else
>>can snatch my right to raise my voice. Even you have not been able to
>> ensure
>>that your voice is heard therefore, writing frequently on Ms Aruna Roy and
>> other
>>prominent activists and lended your support to Shri S. D. Sharma, who
>> wanted to
>>know her religion (though he has more knowledge on the subject than other
>>members) and thinks that he is rendering a great service to the cause of
>> RTIby
>>doing so.
>>
>>
>>Pl. inform your perception of "Good News" on this. I have just shared a
>> news and
>>never said that it is good but only titled it "A ray of hope on
>>RTIeffectiveness". If other members think that my headline is wrong, I can
>>
>>withdraw the same and can make an apology otherwise will expect you to
>> regret
>>(not apologize) for your unwarranted and hostile comments on me for
>> maintaining
>>an amicable environment on this blog.
>>
>>
>>Let the members decide that the information shared by me was worth sharing
>> or
>>not.
>>
>>Regards,
>>(Can not say your collegue as u have already declared that I m not yr
>> co…..).
>>
>>M. K. Gupta
>>Jt. Secy and media advisor to Dwarka Forum and a Free Lance Journalist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
>>Sent: Sun, 27 February, 2011 9:44:25 AM
>>Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] A RAY OF HOPE ON RTI EFFECTIVENESS
>>
>>
>>Dear Guptaji
>>
>>This is NOT good news. This is the pre-planned lollilops they had planned
>> all
>>along to keep the little babies who cry all the time quiet. Please do not
>> waste
>>time of group members publicising such non-events. Instead, please post a
>> copy
>>of the comments YOU had submitted to DoPT on Draft RTI Rules. What are YOU
>> doing
>>to ensure that your voice is heard ? Do YOU agree that only Aruna Roy can
>>negotiate on behalf of citizens with DoPT?
>>
>>Sarbajit
>>
>>
>>On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>>A RAYOF HOPE ON RTIEFFECTIVENESS
>>>(Extract from Times of India, 27.2.2011)
>>>
>>>Sonias NAC prevails over govt on RTI, forest rights
>>>
>>>Seeks Staggered Food Act Rollout
>>>
>>>Subodh Ghildiyal & Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
>>>
>>>New Delhi: The Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) has won
>>> decisive
>>>victories in keeping at bay the governments attempt to regulate the Right
>>> to
>>>Information and ensuring that the pro-tribal Forest Rights Act (FRA) is
>>> made
>>>more effective for its intended beneficiaries.
>>>
>>>
>>>It disagreed with the government and insisted that procuring 65 million
>>> tonnes
>>>of foodgrain for a full rollout of the programme was not a difficult
>>> task.The
>>>Council,seen as a policy interface with civil society,is an influential
>>> body
>>>providing policy and legislative inputs,headed as it is by the Congress
>>>president.
>>>
>>>
>>>Prevailing on RTIand forest rights are major achievements while
>>> guaranteeing
>>>35kg of foodgrain a month to families below the poverty line and sections
>>> of the
>>>urban poor is a key Sonia scheme,too.
>>>
>>>
>>>The differences had fed into a perception of divergence between the
>>> Congress and
>>>the government.
>>>
>>>
>>>On RTI, the government ceded ground on its bid to restrict an application
>>> to 250
>>>words and a clause stating inquiry end on applicants death.
>>>
>>>NAC forces govt to lift word limit on RTIapplications
>>>
>>>New Delhi: On RTI, the government ceded ground to Sonia Gandhi-led
>>> National
>>>Advisory Council (NAC) in its bid to restrict an application to 250 words
>>> and a
>>>clause stating an inquiry would end if the applicant died.
>>>
>>>Now,it will say an application should preferably not exceed 500 words.It
>>> has
>>>also agreed that a query will not cease on an applicants death.The
>>> government is
>>>still insisting that an RTIapplication should be focused on one
>>> subject.But NAC
>>>has decided not to give up.Sonia Gandhi told council members on Friday
>>> that this
>>>should be pursued with the government.
>>>
>>>
>>>Department of Personnel and Training had earlier opposed NACs
>>>suggestions.Information activists who saw the proposed amendments as a bid
>>> to
>>>dilute the powerful act can rejoice after a protracted three-month
>>> battle.The
>>>250-word cap and the single-subject rule are in particular seen to be
>>> limiting
>>>clauses.Abatement of an appeal in case of an applicants death has also
>>> seen
>>>activists arguing that this provision could be misused to kill people
>>> asking
>>>uncomfortable questions as has been reported in some cases recently.
>>>
>>>****
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>