Hum Janenge

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] Re: Urgent Notice: Impersonation of Humjanenge owners/moderators

Dear All

I'm shocked to read all this about Arwind Kejriwal, and he is a publicity hound who showed disrespect to your Master-ji etc. I see Arwind Kejriwal on television and he looks and talks like a fat corrupt babu..

In guru-sisya parampara highest respect must be given to teacher, and even if someday student excels his teacher, which is indeed proudest moment for both teacher and student. It is a great shame for me that I have not come across any great guru who can teach me about RTI.

Rajeshwar Rao

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sharma ji

As there is so much misinformation, let me clarify exactly although it
deeply pains me to remember past evernts

1) Our mentor and Masterji late Prakash Kardaley founded HumJanenge
yahoogroup in 2004 after some (minor) disagreements with Mahararshtra
RTI Adhikaar. Whereas Mahadhikar was (and still is) a Maharashtra RTI
group, H-J was intended as a national group for the Central RTI Act
2005. For a long period H-J was a Maharashtra-centric group, and with
the enactment of the NRTI 2005 the Maharashtrians attempted to
dominate all RTI discussions based on their experience with MRTIA.

2) Sometime in 2004, Masterji came in contact with me. I clarify that
he approached me for some assistance concerning RTI and not the other
way around. I was made co-owner of H-J in 2005. I am as equal an owner
of HJ-YG as Masterji was. From 2007 onwards Masterji was very unhappy
with a few RTI publicity hounds like Arvind Kejriwal and Shailesh
Gandhi who were being promoted by Arunaji and Shekharji. They made
tall promises to him which were never fulfilled and on 2 occasions
they disrespected him publicly, including at the 2007 Pune National
RTI Conference. Yet Masterji never allowed this fact to be known
generally.

3 Masterji always believed in youth of India. He made 6 youngsters
moderators of HumJanenge. 2 of them (Vishal and Anuradha) stabbed him
in the back by switching loyalties to.Arunaji They have done their
best to ensure that HJ is only a publicity blog. They have stifled all
free discussion at HJ. They have moderated to ensure that 75% of all
post made to H-J are rejected. This dynamic duo ensure that hardly any
fresh members are allowed into the group unless personally approved by
Arunaji's group of chamchas.

4) The final insult to all Masterji's chelas came when his iconic
photo (Masterji with Annaji) was removed from HJ webpage and replaced
with one of Arvind and Rahul, and text alterred making out that HJ's
existence is due to Rahul and Arvind and all the grief is only for
these 2.

5) It is height of hypocrisy for Vishal to say that he does not know
who I am. As a moderator of HJ-YG he knows exactly who I am and what I
can do to HJ-YG if I so choose.. Vishal also knows the sacrifices I
have made for RTI and H-J so that the public decencies and outward
appearances could be preserved for outsiders not to exploit the
politics within RTI family

PMK

Re: [HumJanenge] Indian Institutions need brand building

Dear PVCHR

You are hereby being expelled from this group. Your crimes against the people are as follows:-

a) That you did Cross-Post your message to other groups simultaneously.
b) That your message post is completely irrelevant to this group
c) That you have attempted to contact our members by publishing your contact details including telephone number.
d) That your message post is a thinly disguised puffery for yourself and your organisation,
e) That Lenin is dead (after murdering Trotsky).

PMK

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:03 AM, PVCHR <pvchr@yahoo.com> wrote:

As the Winter session of the Parliament began few days back, there is a visible anxiety among many individuals and human rights organizations including PVCHR, who are concerned about the final outcome of the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010(PTB,2010)for two reasons; one, to what extent the select committee absorbs the suggestions and recommendations of the CSOs, and second, how far the legislative deficiencies highlighted by the honorable members of the Rajya Sabha(Upper House) are considered in the final draft. PVCHR continues to believe that irrespective of the final shape of PTB, 2010 is a victory for the survivors of torture. India's highest policy making body has finally, acknowledged that torture exists in India and it should be addressed within a definite legal framework.

PVCHR, while taking up the causes of the victims and survivors will continue to fight against the attitude of the institutions, which are designed and mandated to stop and eliminate torture. It feels that these institutions have been constantly trying to hide torture by ignoring it with a small reference while talking about larger issues of violence. This intentional and deliberate act by the institutions is to hide their inefficiency and inability to grow to address the increasing challenges generated in the system. India is shamed across the globe on issues of torture the same way it is praised for its democratic tradition and economic growth. The recent case of the Dannish gun runner who is accused of dropping arms in Purulia in 1995 is a case for serious introspection. The lower court in Denmark, did not allow the extradition of the accused to India on the ground that state prisons in India do not live up to International Human Rights standards, and there was nobody monitoring prison conditions in the country. We are sure; anyone who lives in India will not disagree on that except perhaps the government of India that is trying to bring Niels Holck since 2002, for a prison value addition. What India need to do is to initiate systemic reforms, induced or enforced to create a brand value for its institutions. Only reforms can create hope for the people inside and outside the country towards our institutions and reverse trust deficit.
As the nation's freedom space is shrinking and becoming limited to towns and cities, the larger challenge of establishing rule of law across the country becomes larger. PVCHR, at this point of time, is just hoping that the substantial and concrete suggestions provided by various civil society organizations have been sincerely considered to make the present bill more effective to end torture in India.
http://pvchr.blogspot.com/2010/11/indian-institutions-need-brand-building.html

--

Dr. Lenin
Executive Director-PVCHR/JMN
Mobile:+91-9935599333

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee or authorised to receive for the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail to pvchr.india@gmail.com and delete the message. Thank you.

[HumJanenge] Indian Institutions need brand building

As the Winter session of the Parliament began few days back, there is a visible anxiety among many individuals and human rights organizations including PVCHR, who are concerned about the final outcome of the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010(PTB,2010)for two reasons; one, to what extent the select committee absorbs the suggestions and recommendations of the CSOs, and second, how far the legislative deficiencies highlighted by the honorable members of the Rajya Sabha(Upper House) are considered in the final draft. PVCHR continues to believe that irrespective of the final shape of PTB, 2010 is a victory for the survivors of torture. India's highest policy making body has finally, acknowledged that torture exists in India and it should be addressed within a definite legal framework.

PVCHR, while taking up the causes of the victims and survivors will continue to fight against the attitude of the institutions, which are designed and mandated to stop and eliminate torture. It feels that these institutions have been constantly trying to hide torture by ignoring it with a small reference while talking about larger issues of violence. This intentional and deliberate act by the institutions is to hide their inefficiency and inability to grow to address the increasing challenges generated in the system. India is shamed across the globe on issues of torture the same way it is praised for its democratic tradition and economic growth. The recent case of the Dannish gun runner who is accused of dropping arms in Purulia in 1995 is a case for serious introspection. The lower court in Denmark, did not allow the extradition of the accused to India on the ground that state prisons in India do not live up to International Human Rights standards, and there was nobody monitoring prison conditions in the country. We are sure; anyone who lives in India will not disagree on that except perhaps the government of India that is trying to bring Niels Holck since 2002, for a prison value addition. What India need to do is to initiate systemic reforms, induced or enforced to create a brand value for its institutions. Only reforms can create hope for the people inside and outside the country towards our institutions and reverse trust deficit.
As the nation's freedom space is shrinking and becoming limited to towns and cities, the larger challenge of establishing rule of law across the country becomes larger. PVCHR, at this point of time, is just hoping that the substantial and concrete suggestions provided by various civil society organizations have been sincerely considered to make the present bill more effective to end torture in India.
http://pvchr.blogspot.com/2010/11/indian-institutions-need-brand-building.html

--

Dr. Lenin
Executive Director-PVCHR/JMN
Mobile:+91-9935599333

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee or authorised to receive for the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail to pvchr.india@gmail.com and delete the message. Thank you.

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] Re: KU: Ignorant of rules, PIO returns RTI Application - Early Times - 11 Nov. 2010

To: Manoj/WEDS (2 messages in 1)

1) The Delhi High Court (in Sanskrit Schools matter) has held that
establishment / constitution by appropriate govt is not an ingredient
for non-governmental organisations (and KU is an NGO) while examining
2(h) (defn of P/A).

2) KU is admittedly a NGO substatntially financed indirectly by
Central Govt through UGC.

3) It is unclear if the RTI applicant Raman Sharma is a resident of
J&K or not. Hence if the issue of which act the application was made
is in doubt the PIO can certainly pick and choose which Act he would
prefer to reply under.

4) Nothing turns on "2006". It can be explained as a typographical error.

5) The Karnataka HC is as fully empowered as the Central Govt (DoPT)
is to specify that they will only accept fees by money order. <wink>.
There is no question of "overriding An Act passed by Parliament of
India!" in this. Furthermore the KSIC has upheld this practice thus
"Since the Petitioner has not paid the required fee in the format
prescribed by the Karnataka High Court, the application and the
complaint are not maintainable ". So you know where your remedy to
this lies <ha ha ha>

6) Any High Court can set aside a decision of the CIC / a SIC subject
to maintainability of the Writ Petition.

Sarbajit

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hate to differ with you, Sarbajit, the University of Jammu and Kashmir were birfurcated into two seperate Universities by the Act of the State Legislature in 1969. No doubt you are right that it receives substantial financial assistance from the UGC, but then it had be formed by an act of the State Government with control vested with the State.
>
> Maybe you are right about who can apply or could be denied the info under the Central or State Act as the case maybe, but the issue is here is the case of the PIO returning the RTI Application by quoting the wrong act. Before, we proceed further, let us ask if the information is important to the applicant seeking the information.
>
> Were I the applicant and if the info was important to me, I would file a fresh application and send the requisite fee in form of DD Under "RTI, Act, 2006" - repeat "RTI, Act, 2006" as stated by the PIO. I would keep trying till I get the desired information. Later, I would go in for a complain for each application earlier denied.
>
> As far as the issue of the citizenship / place of residence is concerned, let me inform, that even before the State Act came into force in 2009, I could manage to get information from not only the State and Central Public Authorities, but a few local Public Authorities of J&K as well. How I got them is another story.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Manoj Pai
>
>
> --- On Sat, 11/13/10, sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> Dear Mr Bhat
>>
>> Kashmir University is substantially financed by the
>> University Grants
>> Commission by Central funds.
>>
>> So does this mean that citizens of India not resident in
>> J&K cannot
>> DIRECTLY apply to Kashmir University under the RTI Act 2005
>> (Central)
>> to seek to know how these funds are being used, and since
>> they are not
>> allowed to use J&K RTI Act 2009 ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [HumJanenge] Re: India's Whistleblower Bill - A Comparison with International Best Practice Standards

Dear Vinita,

Please get in touch outside the framework of this network.

Mani

Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:17:54 +0530
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: India's Whistleblower Bill - A Comparison with International Best Practice Standards
From: vinita.dsmkh@yahoo.com
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Dear Mr Nayak,

You wrote
"> > You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> > refusal to receive email alerts."

In previous emails to this list you have criticised the practice of sending
unsolicited emails. Yet I find that your organsiation "Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative" indulges in precisely the same practices.

On Nov 13, 7:31 am, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Venkatesh
>
> Many thanks for this, but
>
> 1) The links are not working
> 2) The attachment is not attached.
>
> Rgds
> Sarbajit
>
> On Nov 13, 7:20 am, Venkatesh Nayak <humjanenge.ow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
>
> > In a couple of my earlier despatches I had sent out preliminary analyses of
> > the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the
> > Disclosures Bill, 2010 (Whistleblower Bill). The Government of India tabled
> > this Bill in Parliament in August 2010. The Department-related Standing
> > Committee of Parliament on Personnel, Law and Justice is currently examining
> > the Bill in detail.
>
> > I have attached a study of the Whistleblower Bill in the light of
> > international best practice standards. It is useful to compare the
> > Whistleblower Bill with the provisions of such laws in order to identify all
> > the improvements that can be made. This study compares the Indian
> > Whistleblower Bill with internationally recognised principles on
> > whistleblower protection and similar laws operational in Commonwealth and
> > non-Commonwealth countries.
>
> > Please feel free to circulate this study within your networks. Please send
> > me your comments as they will be very useful for revising the study.
>
> > In order to access the our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
> > please click on:
>
> > <blocked::http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&
> > view=article&id=65&Itemid=84>http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...
> > le&id=65&Itemid=84
>
> > You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> > refusal to receive email alerts.
>
> > With best wishes,
> > Sincerely,
> > Venkatesh Nayak
> > Programme Coordinator
> > Access to Information Programme
> > Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> > B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> > New Delhi- 110 017
> > tel: 91-11- 43180215/43180200/ 26864678
> > fax: 91-11- 2686 4688
> > website:www.humanrightsinitiative.org
> > <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
> > alternate email: <mailto:nayak.venkat...@gmail.com<nayak.venkatesh%40gmail.com>
>
> > nayak.venkat...@gmail.com <nayak.venkatesh%40gmail.com>

Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court

Dearest Dr Sharma Sahebji,

Let me take to my own case of contempt . It was referred to D B of High Court. The advocate argued the matter before lower court for contempt on a fake document circulated internally in the organisation.!!! See the modus operand of Advocate.

But when hearing of my case of contempt came up ( In my Absence ) Before Judge it was dismissed. Becaus they all know my modus operandi fighting for the truth. But in all my cases Advocates followed wrong path of subimkteing untruth , Porivisions of law not granting stay, wrong arguments, far a way from reality of the cases and many thin more. It is always taught during the Procedure code to negate first of all allegations . Whether right and . wrong. Repsondent does not accept allegation and like. Allege the Plaintiff with all types of allegation , malafide intention , abuse of law. and all. But I belive that before writing theis negation one should see the case fully.

U have written rightly .

Mr Bhushanji are very well known and before doing any thing one should think/ give thought twice , hundred times to do anything against nthem.

God save us.

From: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: ng.puthoor@gmail.com
Sent: Sat, 13 November, 2010 3:16:37 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court

Dear Leslie
You have rightly offered your gratitude to the steps taken by Mr
Prashant Bhushan and his father, who are fighting corruption in
Judiciary.
Be sure, the Judges will think not only twice but ten times
before sentencing the duo.
I have made complaint against 3 Judges and contempt proceeding
suo motto has been moved by the Hon High court and another judge of
High Court has fined Rs 10000/-, on the feed back of his brother
colleague.
Also My hats off to them

Jai HO
Dr JN Sharma
ADVOCATE/HUMANRIGHT ACTIVIST

On 11/10/10, leslie almeida <leslie_almeida@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> If someone opens a can or worms, and sticks to his convictions, he prefers
> to go to jail rather than bow down to corruptions my hats off to him, a true
> Mahatma Gandhi in the making.
>
> Jai HO
>
> Leslie Almeida
>
>
> 11 Nov 2010 07:19:10 +0530 wrote
>>Prefer jail to
> apology, ex-minister tells court
>
>
>
>
> SAMANWAYA RAUTRAY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 New Delhi, Nov.
> 10: Former law minister Shanti Bhushan today told the Supreme Court
> he would rather "go to jail" for contempt of court than say sorry for
> his comment on corruption in the judiciary.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 The statement came
> at a hearing of a contempt case against his son, activist lawyer
> Prashant Bhushan, whose sweeping remarks about corruption among judges
> in a magazine interview had prompted the charge.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 "A lot of people
> believe there is lot of corruption in the judiciary," Bhushan senior,
> who had impleaded himself in the petition, said. "I would prefer to go
> to jail than say sorry. I will keep repeating it. There is no question
> of any apology," he told the bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 Asked to clarify
> if he was speaking for his son, he said: "I am speaking for both."
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 In the interview,
> Prashant Bhushan had made adverse comments against Chief Justice S.H.
> Kapadia, then next in line to be the CJI, for ignoring potential
> conflict of interest and awarding mining leases to a company in which
> he held some shares.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 On November 6 last
> year, the court issued contempt notices against the lawyer, who has
> been spearheading a campaign for making the judiciary more transparent
> and accountable.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 The lawyer, who is
> represented by Ram Jethmalani, chose to stay away from the proceedings.
> The next hearing is on December 7.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 Earlier, Rajeev
> Dhavan, lawyer for Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal whose magazine
> published the lawyer's remarks, angered the court saying there was "no
> doubt there is corruption in the judiciary".
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 "Don't make
> sweeping statements," Justice Kabir snapped.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 "I will say it
> properly if I can," Dhavan retorted.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                 "Propriety demands
> that you do," the judge said.
> --
> When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit
>
>
> from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with
> others.
>
> " Vande Matharam "
>
> ng.puthoor@gmail.com
> Gangadharan Nair N.
>
>
>
> When you realize you've made a mistake, please have the courage
>
>
> to admit it & also take immediate remedial steps to correct it.
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] Re: Urgent Notice: Impersonation of Humjanenge owners/moderators

Dear "PMK"

Since neither Vishal or you has replied to my query, I (like Ram
Jethmalani) shall keep posting 1 more query every day.

My query for today is "Why is vishalkudchadkar sending messages as
Vihar Durve on HJ-YG , and from his v_kudz@yahoo.com ID which you say
has been hacked ?"

Here is the evidence

[HumJanenge-YG] Mah SIC Aug 2010 Pendency

fromvishalkudchadkar <v_kudz@yahoo.com>
reply-toHumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in
toHumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in
dateSat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:16 PM
subject[HumJanenge-YG] Mah SIC Aug 2010 Pendency
mailing list<HumJanenge.yahoogroups.co.in> Filter messages from this
mailing list
mailed-byreturns.groups.yahoo.com
signed-byyahoogroups.co.in
unsubscribeUnsubscribe from this mailing-list
hide details 10:16 PM (1 hour ago)
Images are not displayed.
Display images below - Always display images from v_kudz@yahoo.com

Vihar Durve <vihardurve@gmail.com>
date Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM

Attached papers relating to subject matter
http://www.box.net/shared/1g4h9pkpe7

Thanks & Regards,
Vihar Durve
0-9860586039

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a new topic
Messages in this topic (1)

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear "PMK"
>
> I have 1 question in addition to what Sharmaji had posted
>
> Consider this thread at HumJanenge(Google)
> http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/dcc132a8f06a58e0
>
> Vishal Kudchadkar makes 2 posts to this group (ie. googlegroup) on Oct 24 from his email ID "v_kudz@yahoo.com" claiming that he has nothing to do with this group. This fact is immediately noticed and commented upon by Krishnaraj Rao. Vishal does not reply.
>
> Now if I click on Vishal's "profile" on the first 2 posts in this thread I find that Mr. Vishal Kudchadkar has been busy making 11 other posts to this group from "v_kudz@yahoo.com" between Oct 19 to Cct 24 2010.
>
> So my query is:
>
> What caused Vishal Kudchadkar to recant from his association with HJ-Google on Oct 24 2010 ?
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:09 AM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sharma ji
>>
>> You asked 2 questions (not 1) "Why / How", so I am replying in a second post
>>
>> "Why" was answered in my previous post
>>
>> "How" is as follows
>>
>> a) As co-owner of HJ-YG I get emails from HJ-YG for all messages
>> posts / subscription requests which are pending moderation. This
>> includes the "Google Alerts" facility which immediately informs all
>> moderators/owners about breaking news as soon as Google indexes the
>> RTI news stories.
>>
>> b) Emails from my HJ-owner account are fowarded to HJ-GG and then
>> filtered / processed by a google python (.py) script before being
>> automatically posted to HJ-GG. If the poster (to HJ-YG) is also a
>> member of HJ-GG with full posting rights then it is posted in
>> name/email ID of member to HJ-GG. If poster at HJ-YG is either not a
>> member of HJ-GG or is moderated the message is posted in name of
>> member but with email ID <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> The process is
>> fully automatic and transparent. No fake / forged emails are being
>> posted in anyone else's name/ID from this group.
>>
>> c) The python script is programmed to leave original header if message
>> originates from either of the HJ groups.
>>
>> Hopes this clarifies everything
>>
>> PMK
>