Its excellent to note vibrant democracy manifested in cyber space deliberations.
HUMAN CIVILISATION has progressed through small steps(often) and large strides(rarely) ,often on tentaive lines,as at no point of time any FINALITY has been known.Its virtually a statement of truism.
What we all now know is that through framming the questions,and examining the same dispassionately(what is called via Martian Angle),we could ,in the given time frame,and with due diligence,come up with most satisfying solutions.Its also a part of decision making process, namely"harmonious resolution of conflicting interests".
Without going into the generalities let me raise just a few issues. I'll give my humble opinion(also based on foud decades of public service,inclusive of fourteen total years of srevice in VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION area),just a little later as my discussions with some of the stalwarts in this field are,as yet, not conclusive.I'll do that very transparently,and using SWOT analysis and relying on DATT(Direct Attention Thinking Tools),ten most admired principles of the genius in creative thinking(lateral thinking) Mr Edward De Bono.
1.Is a legislation like LOK PAL absolutely essential?As a corollary what happens,or should happen to some other Statuates/Organisations
2.Who should draft it?
3. Is the current exercise the best one,under the circumstances?
4.What provisions need most attention,should it be considered that the Statuate is essentially reqd?
5.How should the decisions finally be taken at DRAFTING STAGE and at PARLIAMENTARY level?
6.How should actual functioning of LOK PAL be there?( effective,efficient,expeditious)?
Just a word of suggestion that in our serious deliberations we MUST be cautious about FALLACIES,as it derails the decision making process and also leads to improper inferences.Hope Sh S Roy does favou by circulating a neat document on this subject as the one with me may not be very good for this FORUM.
S P Mathur IPS DGP (retd)
BE MBA PhD(Knowledge Management)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:09 PM, S. Anoop Kumar <s.anoopkumar@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Roy,
Mr. Chandra Jain posted his message at 10.54 a.m. on 25th. I received
a copy of the message in my mail box for he has marked a copy to me in
addition to few others. The message was held up in the moderation
loop and the message was not cleared for posting till today morning.
And I posted my message at 07.16 p.m. in which I mentioned that the
message of Mr. Chandra Jain was not cleared from the moderation
loop. And Mr. Chandra Jain's message and also my message got cleared
and were cleared for posting together on the message board only today
morning.
I have already expressed my views on several bills already in place
and their (in)effective implementation. And we are fondly looking at
Lok Pal Bill to overcome such maladies. And people are working
towards it. Let us give it a try. We have nothing to lose any
further.
I beg to disagree with you - "that the majority of Indians are simple
decent people who should not concern themselves with high levelcorruption". Who is paying for this loot ? It is the simple decent
people and tax payers who are overburdened with all sorts of taxes in
various forms from birth to death. If simple Indians were not be
concerned than Anna Hazare and his team would not have received so
much of support which shook the highest seat of power, that of the
prime minister himself. The outburst of the simple Indians was
spontaneous and was there for all of us to see.
I am aghast that you feel that bloody violent revolution is required
to safeguard (our) democracy and the values. I cannot & will not
subscribe to your views. And I am clearly at loss as to what you
meant by - "We need new Indians not new laws". Perhaps most of the
group members would like you to solve this interesting riddle to get
the clear, hidden and the intended meaning.
With best regards,
S. Anoop Kumar.
> http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/3df600...
> ...>
> You will see that Chandra Jains message WAS posted to this group about
> 10 hours before your message
> It seems that you have no respect for the moderation abilities of the
> management of this group or their honesty and integrity.
> It seems that you have more faith in a bunch of communal and corrupt
> people who are doing their best to fragment our country.
>
> I note that you have evaded replying to my point on the status of all
> the other laws on corruption. At the end of the day even the LokPal
> Act will only be just another law to be implemented. Certainly every
> order made under it will be subject to appeal in a High Court or the
> Supreme Court. Is LokPal Bill going to magically clean up the mess in
> these Courts ? Today I have a Contempt matter I filed in SC listed
> ( in MC Mehta pollution matter). The Court is taking it up as a "New
> PIL" along with a similar clutch from 2005-2006 after a delay of 6
> years - and that too only after I sent an email last month to the
> Registrar General of the Court complaining of the pervasive corruption
> in the SC Registry. I m certain the bench will wring its hands in mock
> anguish and dispose of the matter as infructuous now that all the
> contemnors have retired. If the SC has no respect for contempt against
> itself, then should citizens believe in law and justice, or should
> they take up arms to defend the state ?
>
> I reiterate that the majority of Indians are simple decent people who
> should not concern themselves with high level corruption. Tackling
> such high level corruption is not going to be solved with laws, laws
> and more laws. They can only be solved with a bloody violent
> revolution to safeguard democracy and the values enshrined in our
> Constitution. Indians today are soft weak and lazy. We need new
> Indians not new laws
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Apr 25, 7:16 pm, "S. Anoop Kumar" <s.anoopku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
>
> > Your opinion appears personally & grossly biased towards few persons. Whether it is Justice Santosh Hegde or Anna Hazare or the others. You are clearly not looking at the bigger picture. Or is it a case of 'severe heartburn & nothing else' as mentioned by Mr. Chandra K Jain in his message, the message which did not find place on the group message board or conveniently removed.
>
> > The need of the hour is a strong anti corruption bill that works. The existing legislations have proved to be ineffective and have been misused, exploited or taken for a spin by our hardcore politicians and bureaucrats. Again and again. And you are certainly aware of the same. Our laws have been changed with the changing times. And that is required to keep pace with the dynamics & laws of motion. Several of the acts have been amended and several have been repealed and some have been superseded. If Lok Pal Bill can supersede any other weaker laws what is wrong in it ?
>
> > You are questioning the fairness in the constitution of the draft committee from the civil society side just because it does not include a Muslim, a Christian, a Parsi or a Adi Dharmi. I do not know your community but you state that you represent a ten million strong community. It is sad this is coming from you, of all the people. Now you want the committee to be divided and formed on religion lines. Mayawati already raised that the committee does not contain someone from dalit community. And she wants the committee to be divided and formed on caste lines. Some one else will stand out and would demand that each state should have a member in the committee (what prevents ?). And every political party would seek representation in the committee. After all this is democracy. The people who are opposing the committee and dividing the same on caste and communal lines are the people who do not want such a bill taking a shape, leave alone getting it passed in the legislature. All their efforts are pointing towards derailing the entire process. And these are the same people who have brought us to this sorry state of affairs today.
>
> > Anna Hazare never claimed he was a war hero. He was a driver in the army and was a partaker in the 1967 war. And Anna is reported to be using his piece of land (gifted to him by the govt.) for the welfare of the community. And Anna has earned his respect for the deeds he has done for the community. The govt. relented and is in the process of making a Lok Pal draft bill all because of Anna's involvement. Any other person would not have made such an impact on the government.
>
> > If you cannot make a fruitful contribution atleast do not criticize or belittle or throw stones at others who are working on it and are trying to be open and transparent. And this would be your most constructive contribution to the nation. And we would all appreciate it.
>
> > Just for your info, Mr. Salman Kursheed is not only a Muslim, but is also a Union Minister of Minority Affairs. And he is a member of the draft committee.
>
> > Regards,
> > S. Anoop Kumar.
>
> > .
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Apr 25, 10:41 am
> > Subject: Why Santosh Hegde MUST quit !!!
> > To: HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act 2005
>
> > Dear Anoop
>
> > You have not understood my arguments in totality.
>
> > 1) If the purpose of the Lokpal bill/Act is to curb corruption, then
> > what
> > about all the existing legislation ? Will these be dumped ?
>
> > 2) Santosh Hegde (and I have appeared before him in the SC -- his
> > orders
> > refer to me as "Ld. counsel" [which BTW is a disparaging term]) is not
> > an
> > entirely clean judge either. If he was a great legal luminary he would
> > be on
> > the Law Commission instead of scrabbling about for demeaning post
> > retirement
> > sinecures like Lok Ayukta.
>
> > 3) It is completely incorrect for you to say that the majority of
> > Indians
> > want a LokPal Bill or that my ideas are impractical. At best these can
> > be
> > the opinion of a vocal minority. In my own community (which runs into
> > the
> > millions) we stand for all the issues I listed and hence I speak for
> > about
> > 10 million secular Indians (which is not a small number).
>
> > 4) Why is there not a single Muslim, Christian, Adi Dharmi, Parsi etc
> > amongst the 5 persons Anna Hazare nominated ? Which political and
> > religious
> > forces are behind this army deserter and coward ? Even the so-called
> > land
> > given to Anna Hazare by the Army is no great evidence of his heroism,
> > it is
> > under a scheme given to every Army sepoy at the time
>
> > Sarbajit.
>
> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM, S. Anoop Kumar
> > <s.anoopku...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > Dear Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
>
> > > If the civil society members in the draft committee are unbiased in
> > > your opinion, then perhaps you have an answer as to which side they
> > > are inclined towards and what are their selfish considerations that
> > > would benefit them.
>
> > > You are disputing the very essence of Lok Pal Bill when majority of
> > > Indians are thinking that Lok Pal is what is required and we are
> > > already late in having such a law in place. And majority Indians
> > > think, wish, hope and pray that such a bill would bring in some change
> > > in governance, responsibility and accountability in governance and
> > > delivery mechanism.
>
> > > And regarding the other alternatives to the Lok Pal Bill quoted by
> > > you, you know for sure they are not practical and implementable and
> > > still you suggest them. I see a day dreamer in you. It clearly
> > > appears you are personally against a set of people and you fail to see
> > > the good intentions of these people. And you will oppose anything
> > > and everything these people would attempt to do. Just for the sake of
> > > opposing. Even if they can bring in some good to the society.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > S. Anoop Kumar.
>
> > > On Apr 24, 11:43 am, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Dear Mr Anoop Kumar
>
> > > > 1) I dispute that Anna Hazare and his nominees constitute or represent
> > > civil
> > > > society.
> > > > If we examine the 5, we find that each and every one of them is a former
> > > > public servant or the progeny. Wouls any reasonable person classify this
> > > as
> > > > an unbiased panel.
>
> > > > 2) I dispute that we need a LokPal to tackle corruption in the country.
> > > What
> > > > we need is a Constitutional amendment making military service compulsory
> > > for
> > > > every citizen below the age of 30 for "x" number of years. What we need
> > > is a
> > > > movement to throw out / exterminate the foreign parasites and their
> > > progeny
> > > > who drain our national resources like leeches. What we need is a
> > > > constitutional amendment bestowing the right on each citizen to bear
> > > > arms
> > > /
> > > > alternatively the repeal of the Arms Act. What we need is honest and
> > > > autonomous police forces. What we need is for corrupt advocates and
> > > judges
> > > > to be strung up from the nearest lamppost. What we need is a complete
> > > repeal
> > > > of the Representation of the Peoples Act so that a citizen can only be
> > > > an
> > > MP
> > > > / MLA for 1 term. The wishlist can go on and on. So stop dreaming and
> > > start
> > > > living.
>
> > > > Sarbajit
>
> > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:47 AM, S. Anoop Kumar <s.anoopku...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > Dear Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
>
> > > > > I have been reading your messages which are mostly Anna bashing or
> > > > > bashing of the other draft committee members of the proposed Lok Pall
> > > > > Bill representing the civil society, that is us. Mr. Anna Hazare,
> > > > > Mr. Santosh Hegde, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, Mr. Shashi Bhushan and Mr.
> > > > > Prashant Bhushan are only members of the committee drafting the
> > > > > proposed Lok Pal bill.
>
>
> read more »
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.