Re: [HumJanenge] Stir planned against ‘possible dilution’ of RTI Act

Dear Mr Gupta

I applaud you on your deep commitment in bringing such articles
forward for this group's knowledge and consideration.

Although you had not directly indicated the source of this news
report, it is from "the Hindu" (which at one point of time was a
staunchly nationalistic / patriotic paper, till they got corrupted
after their Bofors expose).

It may interest you to know that Mr. N.Ram (who is part of the family
which owns the Hindu - although there are some family disputes now) is
associated with "The National Foundation of India" which regularly
receives Millions of Dollars of CIA funding each year through front
organisations like the Ford Foundation. In 2007 they received 2.5
million US dollars, in 2012 they have received 900,000 US dollars so
far.
http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=116908

To see a list of these massively foreign financed haramis
http://www.nfi.org.in/index.php/trustees
"Andre Beteille" was the keynote speaker at this year's RTI Convention.
Ratan Tata is the Harami who went to the SC asking that the Radia tapes
be muzzled from being broadcast.

So I repeat, thank you Guptaji for bringing such stories to our notice,
so that we can inform you who the HARAMIs who sell out the country
are, and so that our patriotic members can stay well clear of them.

Sarbajit

On 10/16/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Stir planned against 'possible dilution' of RTI ActMOHAMMAD ALI
> SHARE · COMMENT · PRINT · T+
> Prime Minister's statement has disturbing implications for implementation of
> the Act, say civil society activists
> Civil society activists have decided to launch a nationwide campaign in case
> there are attempts by the Government to dilute the Right to Information Act,
> 2005. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while inaugurating the 7 annual
> convention of the Central Information Commission on Friday, had cautioned
> against misuse of the transparency law and suggested "the citizens' right to
> know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information
> encroaches upon someone's personal privacy".
> Activists like Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey, who had actively pushed for the
> legislation in 2005, said on the anniversary they expected the Prime
> Minister to call for a more "energetic and vibrant RTI regime" but "what the
> Prime Minister actually spoke has disturbing implications for the overall
> implementation of the Act on the ground".
> Arguing that with the Prime Minister's views on issues like the RTI Act
> vis-à-vis public-private partnership (PPP) "frivolous" queries and the
> "possible infringement" of personal privacy could strengthen those who
> wanted to "dilute and weaken the Act", Mr. Dey said the RTI activists will
> take this to every State and create pressure from the public against any
> possible dilution of the Act.
> "On the occasion of the 7 anniversary of the RTI Act we have decided to
> raise a country-wide debate on the way it is being implemented, focusing on
> the problems the transparency law faces on the ground. After what the Prime
> Minister talked about, it will also be a part of our nationwide campaign to
> create pressure on the Government," he said.
> Ms. Roy of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information said the
> transparency law has been one of the most monitored Acts from the people's
> side which will not tolerate its weakening.
> The activists also issued a statement with a point-by-point rebuttal of the
> Prime Minister's arguments on the Act.
> Countering his view that blanket extension of the law to PPP bodies may
> "discourage" private enterprises from entering into partnerships with the
> public sector entity, they said "the PPP is a ploy by the Government to
> escape its responsibilities and accountability. If anything, PPP should have
> greater standards of transparency and accountability because a public
> service is being entrusted into the hands of a private body. We see no
> justification for this suggestion."
> Countering the Prime Minister's argument that "frivolous" RTI applications
> don't serve any "productive social purpose", they said terms like frivolous
> and vexatious are "undefinable and arbitrary".
> "Any application can be termed 'vexatious and frivolous' as per the whim and
> fancy of a PIO. The law has adequate provisions under Section 8 to reject
> applications that are not legitimate."
> On the issue of privacy, the activists said the Prime Minister had neither
> elaborated why the provisions of the law were inadequate nor cited a case in
> which personal privacy had been infringed because of the RTI Act.
> While agreeing with the Prime Minister that the RTI Act should not be taken
> as an "irritant but something that is good for all collectively", they
> argued "the fact of the matter is the areas of concerns outlined by the
> Prime Minister and potential proposed changes will promote just the
> opposite".