i fully agree with u . these groups are open forums where we should
exchange views , provide solutions with an honest approach keeping in
mind the larger interest of the society , never try to impose our
ideas or ideologies on others n instead always respect ideas n
ideologies of the others , if we do not agree with them , we have no
right to play with their feelings . sometimes we should agree to
disagree like true intellects .
everyone has positive n negative traits and noone in this world is
perfect. so everyone can learn from everyone ,if he has an open n
generous soul.
freedom is subjective in nature , depends on circumstances and is best
exercised if u have concern for others freedom.my freedom ends where
your starts n so on .......
we should express our feelings openly but be ready to accept if we are
at fault .only then we can have a positive contribution towards the
nation.
urvashi
On 11/11/09, Krishna Dhirendra <dhirendra.krishna@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friends,
>
> Proposal made by RTI activists about appointment of Kiran Bedi is
> democratic, in true sense of the term. Other suggestions regarding
> candidature to the post are also a matter of healthy democratic dissent. I
> have initiated a poll on personal qualities of Information Commissioners, in
> view of the debate on successor of Shri Wajahat Habibullah at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti4empowerment/surveys?id=12959928. The poll
> would close on 14th. November and my analysis would be sent to the President
> and Prime Minister.
>
>
> Internet groups provide us an opportunity to express our views and share it
> with others. Article 19 of the Constitution of India empowers each one of
> us to do so. Some of the views expressed in such groups are conveyed to
> concerned authorities and may result in some actions.
>
> For example, recently Secretariat of the President of India, has sent
> several issues raised in rti4empowerment to (i) Secretary to the Government
> of India, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions, Department
> of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances, (ii) Chief Election
> Commissioner Election Commission of India , (iii) Secretary to the
> Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,(iv) Additional Secretary to
> the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice,
> (v) Chief Information Commissioner Central Information Commission , etc. for
> appropriate action. None of the authorities may accept these suggestions,
> but they are required to give due consideration.
>
>
> Internet has enlarged our "space" for exercising our democratic rights.
> Practical use of technology requires sustained innovations to extend it to
> empower citizens.
>
> Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired)
>
>
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
> From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: <righttoinformationinindia> It's About Democracy As it Should be {
> Fw. mail }
> To: "rti act 2005" <rti-act-2005@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009, 8:47 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> res. all
>
> open discussions are must to strengthen democratic values ,enhance
> knowledgebase of individuals , help understand point-of-views of others and
> show future course of action.
>
> one point should be clear to all , we all r working for same cause - real
> swaraj/lokraj
>
> regards
>
> urvashi sharma
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Parivartan India <parivartan_india@rediffmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Parivartan India <parivartan_india@rediffmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [AntiBriberyCampaign] Why Aamir Khan Should Not Lobby for Kiran
> Bedi
> To: rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in
> Date: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009, 7:48 AM
>
>
> It's About Democracy As it Should be
>
> It is difficult to understand why the proposal made by some RTI activists
> and other eminent persons for appointment of Kiran Bedi as the next Chief
> Information Commissioner (CIC) should come in for sharp criticism from some
> friends.
>
> Don't the citizens have a right in a democratic system to tell their Prime
> Minister publicly and openly that 'we know this person to be good; please
> consider her for the post'?
>
> If some people had privately written to the Prime Minister or secretly met
> him and recommended some name, would our friends object? On the contrary,
> someone in media would have prominently published it as a privileged leak.
>
> So, are the objections directed at the open and transparent manner in which
> we made our proposal in keeping with the spirit of RTI Act?
>
> Intense behind-the-curtain manipulations are going on for the CIC's post. We
> have challenged those manipulations by our proposal. It is strange that some
> friends, even if they don't agree with the name proposed by us, should find
> this kind of open proposal dangerous for democracy.
>
> Nowhere are we saying that we are recommending Bedi's name on behalf of
> 'civil society' or on behalf of the people of India. But we thought that as
> individual citizens, we had a right to ask our Prime Minister to appoint a
> good person.
>
> When copies of our letters were sent to the media, they not only gave the
> proposal an enthusiastic coverage but also ran several straw polls. More
> than 90% of the respondents to these polls voted for Bedi as the next CIC.
>
> So this proposal may have been made by a few eminent people but is now
> endorsed by dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands, of other citizens. TIE,
> the association of Indian software engineers globally, has written to the
> Prime Minister, proposing Bedi's name for the post. PAN IIT, the global
> association of IIT alumni, is writing such a letter. The IIM alumni
> associations have also started a similar campaign, I have learnt. What
> started as a proposal made by a few people is turning into a much larger
> campaign.
>
> Why Kiran Bedi? We think she is a no-nonsense person, who implements laws
> strictly, which is needed today to save RTI.
>
> There would surely be more people across the country, who would make a great
> CIC. Sure. Let others also write to the Prime Minister to propose those
> capable persons. I am told this time the Government has received many such
> applications and nominations from across the country. As part of a campaign
> to pressurize the government to improve its selection process, several
> activists have sent several nominations to the Government this time.
> Unfortunately, the media did not pick them up because those recommendations
> were made by lesser mortals who were recommending other lesser mortals.
>
> All that we are asking for is that the Government put in place a transparent
> and credible process of vetting all these nominations, invite public opinion
> on these nominations, and finally let the committee decide who should be
> appointed.
>
> The public also owes an explanation as to why the Government preferred a
> person over other candidates. Our critics have found fault with our demand
> that if the Government appoints some person other than the candidate
> proposed by us, it ought to explain what made its choice more suitable than
> ours (and other nominees). In fact, such a duty is cast upon the Government
> by RTI Act. Section 4 of RTI Act says that the Government would, suo moto,
> explain reasons for its administrative and quasi judicial decisions. We only
> want the Government to fulfill its obligations under RTI Act.
>
> South Africa and Indonesia appoint their Information Commissioners in this
> manner. The final nominees are even publicly interviewed in these countries.
> In US, the people have a direct say in appointments of even judges to their
> Supreme Court through public confirmation hearings.
>
> Look at some statistics from a recent survey to understand the state of RTI.
> Only 27% of people who approach information commissions finally get the
> information requested. Sixty one per cent of information commissions' orders
> are not implemented. Though RTI Act requires every violation to invite
> penalty, only 2% of the violations detected by the information commissions
> actually invite penalties. So, if a public information officer (PIO) does
> not give information, there are 2% chances that he would be penalized. Is
> this a sufficient deterrent? Twenty five information commissioners (out of
> 72) and four state information commissions did not impose a single penalty
> last year, despite thousands of recorded violations. When RTI Act came into
> force, officials were scared of its strong penal provisions. No more. Penal
> provisions have been rendered practically ineffective by these information
> commissioners.
>
> Presently, there is a committee of Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and
> Law Minister to decide who should be an Information Commissioner. However,
> their choices do not inspire confidence. Ask anyone who has used RTI and
> appeared before any of these information commissioners. They are primarily
> responsible for the sad state of RTI today.
>
> We want this committee to open up, to make some procedures for itself, to
> make its functioning transparent, participatory and inclusive. Repeated
> requests in the past to the government to improve its process, so that it
> appointed better people, fell on deaf ears.
>
> However noble a law or an institution may be, the Government of the day can
> kill it by simply appointing a weak, ineffective and pliable person as its
> Head. Almost all central and state governments have been killing
> institutions systematically. It is important that the appointments to CAG,
> CVC, CEC, judiciary, NHRC and all other such institutions be made through
> transparent, inclusive and participatory processes.
>
> It is being said that democracy would collapse if people started
> "interfering" in important appointments. It is being alleged that 'civil
> society' is trying to become an alternate source of power. I would like to
> think that democracy gets strengthened by active citizenry. And I also
> believe that the people are the "real" source of power in a democracy.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:40:43 +0530 wrote
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> @i$#w@ry@!
>
> http://desicritics.org/2009/11/10/125409.php
>
> Why Aamir Khan Should Not Lobby for Kiran Bedi
> November 10, 2009
>>Ruchi
>
>
> The campaign by Aamir Khan, Subhash Chandra, Arvind Kejriwal et al for Kiran
> Bedi's appointment to the top CIC position is both flawed and inappropriate.
> The RTI Act 2005 is a landmark legislation that gives Indian citizens a
> platform to demand state accountability. Information commissioners are
> without doubt key to implementing the spirit of the RTI Act and not just its
> bare minimum legalese. If information is denied to the appellant, the Act
> allows two appeals: the First Appellate Authority (usually a direct
> supervisor of the PIO); then an Information Commissioner. If information is
> denied by the commissioner, there is no further source of redress. Hence,
> information commissioners are the final adjudicating authority for the
> implementation of the Act. There is wide consensus that differential and
> often regressive application of the Act by the Commissioners has stymied the
> Act's implementation and intention. The Chief Information Commissioner is
> thus central to free access to information, necessary for a functional
> democracy.
> Given that Kiran Bedi is a "person of eminence in public life" and freedom
> of ex-pression is every citizen's democratic right, it seems
> counterintuitive to argue against this lobbying effort. However, there are
> three reasons why this lobbying/campaigning for Kiran Bedi gives the real
> civil society cause for concern.
> First, suitability not public opinion should be the basis for administrative
> appointments. Public opinion will by definition privilege the celebrity over
> less known persons. Kiran Bedi gets the overwhelming favourable response in
> public polls because she's essentially uncontested - the public is not
> gauging her relative suitability vis-à-vis another individual. Moreover,
> public opinion is based largely on disseminated information and has little
> basis or even interest in validation. Clearly, we cannot select the next CIC
> based on an Indian Idol type SMS poll. As to Kiran Bedi, she may or may not
> do a good job as the CIC. However, she has compromised her credibility and
> seriousness by promoting a beauty creme. How can an individual celebrated in
> part for advancing gender equality (first women IPS officer) use her very
> reputation ("bedaag reputation ek din main nahi banti") as analogy ("nahi
> bedaag sundarta") to promote regressive consumer products
> like beauty cremes for women?
> Second, if public opinion is to be used to pressurize the appointment
> committee, then the candidate (without whose implicit consent this campaign
> could not have been launched) must present a manifesto for the
> implementation of the Act post-appointment. The public should not be asked
> to form an opinion merely on the basis of celebrity endorsements. The
> campaign and candidate should make explicit their interpretation of the RTI
> Act (e.g., define information, use for resolution of grievance) and their
> stand regarding current provisions (e.g., implementing mandatory penalties)
> and proposed amendments (e.g., excluding file notings, "vexatious and
> frivolous" applications).
> Third, the endorsers represent not the civil society but celebrities in
> their fields. If the campaign was to bypass the real civil society in favour
> of renowned persons, then there are other more relevant people, notably the
> NCPRI (National Campaign for People's Right to Information) who are not even
> part of this lobbying effort. Additionally, the impression of diversity of
> the letter writers (and hence the manufactured image of her universal
> appeal) is false. Half of letter's signatories are on the RTI Awards jury
> and there is a clear common thread connecting these apparently unconnected
> people. This brings us to the most disturbing fact of this campaign - using
> unqualified celebrities to promote a celebrity. The CIC post is not the film
> censor board so using Aamir Khan simply for the high decibel publicity
> perverts the appointment process. What gives Aamir Khan etc any special
> right to send this letter? Giving indiscriminate credence to
> celebrity opinion centralizes power and creates the same type of opaque
> nexus that's against the spirit of RTI. People rise and become public
> figures for specific reasons and their power/influence should be confined to
> those areas, as opposed to the revolving door status quo we have now where
> unqualified actors, sportspersons, businessmen and politicians occupy
> multiple positions like oscillating electrons in quantum mechanics
> The underlying tenet of democracy is transparency, not popularity contests
> in the name of inclusiveness and participation. India is a representative
> democracy and such appointments are the responsibility of the executive
> body. The decision making process should of course be transparent; however,
> public opinion driven by celebrity endorsements (instead of democratic
> people's movements) is susceptible to opacity and manipulation, and cannot
> and should not be the basis for serious administrative decisions.
> Ruchi has recently returned to India after seven years in the US. Wanting to
> fit, yet (unconsciously) judging at the same time, she sees not "India
> Shining", but an India going terribly awry: an inefficient and corrupt
> state, mind-numbing poverty, deficient public services, unprofessional and
> frivolous news media, and general political apathy amongst the Indian
> populace (in the world's largest democracy!). Ruchi is currently obsessed
> with mainstreaming civic engagement in the city/country to demand
> accountability from the administration. Blogging is but a fringe effort. She
> is working on an idea to organize the discrete dissenting voices into some
> kind of a critical mass to ensure that citizen voice/concerns are heard and
> addressed by our polity. Please email her or visit her blog
> (http://bourgeoisinspirations.wordpress.com)
>
>
> Connect more, do more and share more with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn more.
>
>
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply to sender
> |
> Reply to group
>
>
> Messages in this topic
> (1)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Recent Activity:
>
>
>
>
>
> Visit Your Group
> Start a New Topic
>
>
>
>
> MARKETPLACE
>
>
> Parenting Zone: Find useful resources for a happy, healthy family and home
>
>
>
>
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> __,_._,___
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage
>
>
>
>
> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
> http://in.yahoo.com/
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> visit website -> aishwaryaj.hpage.com
> and use
> right to information helpline no . 09235169855
> to fight corruption
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
--
@i$#w@ry@!
----------------------
-----------------------
@i$#w@ry@!
No comments:
Post a Comment