BM_discussion http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion [email protected]
Today's topics: * Farmers shoot letter to AP Agriculture Minister seeking ban on GM cotton. - 1 messages, 1 author http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/59cd800667417ec5 * The Precautionary Principle in deciding environmental issues. - 1 messages, 1 author http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/d515f29601f7603b * BM: The way forward - a thought for National Meet at Jaipur - 1 messages, 1 author http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/c2bfffc315d38ba6 ============================================================================== TOPIC: Farmers shoot letter to AP Agriculture Minister seeking ban on GM cotton. http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/59cd800667417ec5 ============================================================================== == 1 of 1 == Date: Fri, Jun 9 2006 9:16 am From: Jagannath Chatterjee To Sri N.Raghuveera Reddy, Minister For Agriculture and Horticulture, Food, Civil Supplies, Legal Metrology and Consumer Affairs, Block-J,7th Floor, Room No-703, Ph: 040-23451196, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08.06.2006 Honourable Shri Raghuveerareddygaru, Please let me greet you on behalf of the 40 million and odd farmers of Andhra Pradesh on the auspicious day of Mrugasira Karte the day on which the first rain star takes birth. A day when millions of farmers reach their farm to plant the seed for a new season. A day on which hopes are planted on earth. And a long wait begins for the harvests of the planted seed. Tomorrow you will be joining Agriculture Ministers from seven cotton growing States of the country in a meeting at Hyderabad to discuss the issue of price of Bt Seeds. It is but natural that AP is chosen as the place for the agricultural ministers to discuss the price of Bt cotton, because you and your government have put up a historic fight against Monsanto to curb its greed and clip its evil corporate wings. A fight unprecedented in the agricultural history of the modern world. At least in the case of an all-conquering Monsanto which has used corruption, sleaze and threat to make most governments to bow before it. But you have remained a shining star. Probably a Mrugasira Karte, yourself. We trust, this is because you are a farmer yourself. And in a world swamped by burgers and pizzas, you still eat Ragi Mudda at home, paying tribute to mighty millets in your own way. It is this personal and politically persona of yourself that inspirers this letter to you. Reddygaru, please read this letter carefully before you attend the Ministers meet. Please spare a few minutes for this letter in your punishing schedule. On the one hand this meeting of Agricultural Ministers is a welcome news in the sense that there is a general understanding among the various Indian states that the enormously usurious rates of Bt seeds are robbing Indian farmers of the very small gains they get by cultivating Bt cotton. But we also think that this is certainly not the only issue that needs to be considered in your conference. What we urge you to discuss is the issue why Bt cotton should not be banned from Indian soils? What is it that we are going to lose if we do so except for saving the royalty adding upto of billions of rupees that Monsanto collects for its Bt gene and ploughs back into USA? Is it right for us to make the poor Indian farmer pay for the greed of one of the most profit hungry multinational? When you are sitting for this conference, surely you will have before you a long list of the history of failed Bt cotton in India, particularly in Andhra Pradesh. You are also acutely aware that at least a thousand farmers, if not more, have committed suicide after growing Bt cotton in AP, Maharashtra as well as in Karnataka. These facts are not yet very well known. But when they start emerging, they will be calamitous in their impact. In Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra at least half a dozen studies done by independent scientists [scientists who have not been bought over by the corporations nor the ones who are serving governments and therefore are under the obligation not to speak out] and development economists have clearly brought out the successive failures of Bt cotton both on the economic front and yield front. You, Shri Raghuveera Reddygaru, are more aware of this than your counterparts from other states. Our own studies have been regularly fed to you and your government, year after year. But unfortunately, these suicides and failures of Bt cotton will be passed on to an elegant phrase coined by the biotech industry called externalities. Will you be trapped by this elegant prose or are you ready to put your nose into harsh facts, Shri Reddygaru? If you do, let us produce some facts for you that you may not be very familiar with: There is no scientific proof in this country that mentions that pesticide consumption has reduced in the cotton growing districts after Bt cotton has been introduced. [If you read the statistics on the USDA website, you will know that in the USA, after a decade of cultivating GM crops on nearly 65% of its farms, pesticide use has not come down even by an ounce. The curve for pesticide use has remained flat for the last ten years]. Please consider this very seriously, since pesticide-reduction is the raison detre for the existence of Bt cotton in this country, according to the MoEF. The studies that we have ourselves conducted as well as the ones we are familiar with, the reduction of pesticides is only very marginal. Just about 6-7%, a fact that not merit the introduction of Bt Cotton. The accumulating evidences suggest that the pest, Helicoverpa armigera is already building resistance in India. This means that within two to three years farmers must get back more toxic pest sprays than before, or buy Bollgard II [which has been recently introduced in South Africa] seeds which are supposed to have higher pest resistance properties in them. But the catch is that in Australia Bollgard II sells at around $110 [5060 rupees] per hectare, an amount with which Indian farmers can purchase seeds for ten acres of land. And then the question of Yield. Bt is not a yield spinning mechanism as being promoted by industry. You know it more than anyone else Shri Reddygaru. In your state alone Bt yields have crashed year after year. Two AP governments have advised their farmers against Bt use. You are clearly aware that yield in Bt Cotton depends on the yield potential of the hybrid into which the Bt gene has been introduced. In other words, if Bt gene is introduced into a low yielding hybrid, the cotton yields will be low. If it is introduced into a high yielding hybrid, the yields will be high. There is no contribution by Bt gene itself to the yield increase in cotton However there are so many studies which point to the crash of Bt cotton in terms of yield, especially under non irrigated conditions. In Andhra Pradesh, during the 2002-2003 year of dry spell, Bt cotton yields were 35% less than non Bt cotton yields. This has clearly emerged in our study of 2002-2003. Since then we have done regularly scientific studies until 2006. In no year Bt yields were significantly higher than non Bt yields. On those rare years when Bt yielded higher than the same Non Bt hybrids, the difference was hardly 1 to 2 per cent. But let us caution about far more dangerous facts that are emerging from our studies: a. There are sufficient advance evidences to say that soils on which Bt cotton is cultivated are becoming reservoirs of pathogens causing root rot disease for subsequent crops such as chillies. b. The toxicity of Bt plants for small ruminants is proving fatal. In AP itself our own studies have carefully documented such instances since 2004 and have submitted reports to the Department of Animal Husbandry for their action. For a country in which most of the rural poor, especially women, who own a couple of small animals such as goats and many shepherd households raise large herds of sheep and goat, this can be fatal. c. There are early reports that people who have stored their Bt cotton harvest in their houses have started suffering from breathing allergies and skin rashes. WE MUST SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WHAT EFFECT THIS MIGHT HAVE ON POOR COTTON PICKERS FOR WHOM WORKING ON COTTON FIELDS IS A MAJOR LIVELIHOOD OPTION. Considering all these facts [and many more which we are willing to submit to you if you want them, both within India and across the world], the question now is not whether we will use Bt cotton at a reduced price? The question really is, whether in the interest of the economic well being small and poor farmers in India, in the interest of Indian soils, in the interest of the health of the farm labourers, particularly women, in the interest of the shepherding community of this country, ARE WE READY TO BAN BT COTTON? Mr Minister, millions of Indians in your state have elected you to this august position with a lot of faith and hope. Please keep their interests at your heart. Cutting through the corporate hype, brushing aside the manufactured evidence of the bought up science, confronting the powerful vested interests, please think on behalf of the small farmers who are your major constituency and their bitter experiences with Bt cotton. We have no doubt that you will concur with us that Bt is best Banned. On the day of Mrugasira kaarte, day on which millions of your farmer brethren go to their fields to plant new seeds for the new season, please give them new hope Shri Reddygaru, by banning Bt from their fields. Let their soils be saved, let their animals be saved. Let the health of your millions of farmer fraternity be saved. Please show this initiative with a new courage and determination, as you have always shown in the past. The state of AP and the Indian nation will be grateful to you for that act. Wishing you well in your deliberations [p v satheesh] Convenor, AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity Convenor, South Against Genetic Engineering To Sri N.Raghuveera Reddy, Minister For Agriculture and Horticulture, Food, Civil Supplies, Legal Metrology and Consumer Affairs, Block-J,7th Floor, Room No-703, Ph: 040-23451196, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copy to: 1. Dr Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Chief Minister, 'C' Block, 4th Floor, AP Secretariat Hyderabad, Ph: 23456698,23451805,23455205 Fax: (Off)23452498,23454828 (Res)23410555, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. Dr Poonam Malakondiah, Commissioner for Agriculture & Additional Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Ph: 23232107 Fax: 24565236 / 23237545 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ============================================================================== TOPIC: The Precautionary Principle in deciding environmental issues. http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/d515f29601f7603b ============================================================================== == 1 of 1 == Date: Fri, Jun 9 2006 10:19 pm From: Jagannath Chatterjee Courtesy : ZEUS INFORMATION SERVICE "The Precautionary Principle" Peter Montague http://www.biotech-info.net/rachels_586.html Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #586 February 19, 1998 A new principle for guiding human activities, to prevent harm to the environment and to human health, has been emerging during the past 10 years. It is called the "principle of precautionary action" or the "precautionary principle" for short. (See REHW #257, #284, #319, #363, #378, #423, #539, #540.) An international group of scientists, government officials, lawyers, and labor and grass-roots environmental activists met January 23-25 at Wingspread in Racine, Wisconsin to define and discuss the precautionary principle.[1] After meeting for two days, the group issued the following consensus statement: Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle "The release and use of toxic substances, the exploitation of resources, and physical alterations of the environment have had substantial unintended consequences affecting human health and the environment. Some of these concerns are high rates of learning deficiencies, asthma, cancer, birth defects and species extinctions, along with global climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion and worldwide contamination with toxic substances and nuclear materials. "We believe existing environmental regulations and other decisions, particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to protect adequately human health and the environment --the larger system of which humans are but a part. "We believe there is compelling evidence that damage to humans and the worldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that new principles for conducting human activities are necessary. "While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors. "Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. "The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." [End of statement.] Thus, as formulated here, the principle of precautionary action has 4 parts: People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. (As one participant at the Wingspread meeting summarized the essence of the precautionary principle, "If you have a reasonable suspicion that something bad might be going to happen, you have an obligation to try to stop it.") The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general public. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of alternatives" including the alternative of doing nothing. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open, informed, and democratic" and "must include affected parties." The precautionary principle is not really new. The essence of the principle is captured in common-sense aphorisms such as "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," "Better safe than sorry," and "Look before you leap." However, environmental policy in the U.S. and Europe for the past 70 years has been guided by entirely different principles perhaps best reflected in the aphorisms, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" and, "Let the devil take the hindmost." Participants at the Wingspread meeting came from the U.S., Canada, Germany, Britain, and Sweden. "Precaution is natural in our lives," said Gordon Durnil, a lawyer from Indianapolis, Indiana and author of THE MAKING OF A CONSERVATIVE ENVIRONMENTALIST. (See REHW #453.) "From my perspective as a conservative Republican, this is a conservative principle." During the Bush administration, Durnil served as chairperson of the International Joint Commission (IJC), established by treaty to resolve Great Lakes problems between the United States and Canada. (See REHW #284, #378, #505.) Joel Tickner of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, said "Current decision-making approaches ask, 'How safe is safe? What level of risk is acceptable? How much contamination can a human or ecosystem assimilate without showing any obvious adverse effects?' The approach stemming from the precautionary principle asks a different set of questions: 'How much contamination can be avoided while still maintaining necessary values? What are the alternatives to this product or activity that achieve the desired goal? Does society need this activity in the first place?'"[2] Participants noted that current policies such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis give the benefit of the doubt to new products and technologies, which may later prove harmful. And when damage occurs, victims and their advocates have the nearly-impossible task of proving that a particular product or activity was responsible. Carolyn Raffensperger, coordinator of the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) says, "The role of science [in decision-making] is essential. But the public must be fully involved. Informed consent is just as essential." Author Sandra Steingraber (see REHW #565) told the Wingspread meeting that the precautionary principle suggests certain kinds of arguments that grass-roots activists might use at the local level: When toxic chemicals enter our bodies --or the bodies of our children --without our informed consent, it is a toxic trespass. Such a trespass is wrong and almost everyone recognizes that it is wrong. A recent study by the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention concluded that only 2% of cancer deaths are caused by industrial toxins released into the environment. Steingraber points out that, if we accept such an estimate at face value, this 2% represents the painful deaths of nearly 11,000 individuals each year in the U.S. alone --the annual equivalent of wiping out a small city, thirty funerals every day. And these deaths represent a form of homicide. Such homicides are wrong and almost everyone recognizes that they are wrong. We all have a fundamental human right to enjoy our environment free of fear. Those who put toxics chemicals into the environment --whether as wastes or as products --deny us this human right. Almost everyone recognizes that such a denial of human rights is wrong. At the policy level, Wingspread participant Robert Costanza of the University of Maryland has suggested an "assurance bond" --which he has dubbed the "4P approach to scientific uncertainty." (See REHW #510.) The "4P" stands for "the precautionary polluter pays principle." Using the "4P" approach, before a new technology, process or chemical could be introduced, the worst-case damage would be estimated in dollar terms. Then the proponent of the new activity would be required to post a bond for the full amount before startup. Such "assurance bonds" are common in the construction industry today, to assure that a job will be completed on schedule. A "4P" bond would effectively shift the burden of proof onto the proponent --if harmlessness could be shown as time passed, some or all of the bond would be returned (with interest). A "4P" bond would also give the proponent powerful financial incentives to reduce the worst case damages by, for example, adopting intrinsically less-damaging alternatives. The "4P" bond would also give the proponent a financial incentive to continually examine the effects of the new activity --if damages could be shown to be less than the worst-case estimate, part of the bond could be returned (with interest) but the burden of proof for such a showing would remain with the proponent. It seems unlikely that the precautionary principle will replace the risk assessment approach to environmental protection in the U.S. any time soon. Opposition from the chemical industry alone would probably be sufficient to prevent that. A number of advisors to the chemical industry have called the precautionary principle unscientific and dangerous. For example, Jack Mongoven of the public relations firm MBD (Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin in Washington, D.C.), has advised the chemical industry to "mobilize science against the precautionary principle." (See REHW #496.) Mr. Mongoven says the precautionary principle is antagonistic to science, has its origins in instinct and feeling, and "threatens the entire chemical industry."[2] True, the precautionary principle does shift the burden of proof for harmlessness onto the producers of toxic chemicals. Most people readily accept such a shift in the case of the pharmaceutical industry, which must show safety and efficacy before marketing a new drug. The rationale for placing such requirements on the drug corporations was that humans would be directly exposed to drugs, so safety had to be shown and the need for the new drug established. Today we know that all landfills leak, incinerators don't fully destroy toxic chemicals, and humans are therefore exposed to low levels of essentially every industrial chemical released into commercial channels (whether as waste or as product). Therefore, the rationale for U.S. pharmaceuticals policy would logically lead to the conclusion that all industrial chemicals should be treated the same as drugs: the burden of proof of harmlessness (and proof of need) should fall on the producer. To assure that producers have confidence in their own estimates of harmlessness, the worst-case "4P" bond would serve nicely. (The 4P bond simply asks the chemical corporations claiming "no problem" to put their money where their mouths are.) If the producer's estimate of harmlessness turned out to be wrong, the large bond would be forfeited to pay the incurred costs. Those who say they favor market-based solutions to environmental problems should warmly embrace such an efficient and fiscally-responsible precautionary proposal. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) ===== [1] Wingspread participants (affiliations are noted for identification purposes only): Nicholas Ashford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Katherine Barrett, University of British Columbia; Anita Bernstein, Chicago-Kent College of Law; Robert Costanza, University of Maryland; Pat Costner, Greenpeace; Carl Cranor, University of California, Riverside; Peter deFur, Virginia Commonwealth University; Gordon Durnil, attorney; Dr. Kenneth Geiser, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Mass., Lowell; Dr. Andrew Jordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University Of East Anglia, Britain; Andrew King, United Steelworkers of America, Canadian Office, Toronto, Canada; Frederick Kirschenmann, farmer; Stephen Lester, Center for Health, Environment and Justice; Sue Maret, Union Institute; Dr. Michael M'Gonigle, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation; John Peterson Myers, W. Alton Jones Foundation; Mary O'Brien, environmental consultant; David Ozonoff, Boston University; Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network; Pamela Resor, Massachusetts House of Representatives; Florence Robinson, Louisiana Environmental Network; Ted Schettler, Physicians for Social Responsibility; Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition; Klaus- Richard Sperling, Alfred-Wegener Institut, Hamburg, Germany; Sandra Steingraber, author; Diane Takvorian, Environmental Health Coalition; Joel Tickner, University of Mass., Lowell; Konrad von Moltke, Dartmouth College; Bo Wahlstrom, KEMI (National Chemical Inspectorate), Sweden; Jackie Warledo, Indigenous Environmental Network. [2] Bette Hileman, "Precautionary Principle," CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS [C&EN] February 9, 1998, pgs. 16-18. [3] Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, "Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention," CANCER CAUSES AND CONTROL Vol. 7, Supplement 1 (1996), pgs. 3-59. ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. ** --------------------------------- Last Updated on 2/9/00 By Karen Lutz Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ============================================================================== TOPIC: BM: The way forward - a thought for National Meet at Jaipur http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/c2bfffc315d38ba6 ============================================================================== == 1 of 1 == Date: Sat, Jun 10 2006 7:10 am From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" NOTE: This entire text is available as a PDF File titled "bharatmission.pdf". Simply click on www.nyayabhoomi.org/bharatmission.pdf and you will be able to download the file instantly. ====================================== Bharat Uday Mission is a nascent organization. We are a few thousand online people loosely stringed together by a common zeal but little else - no structure, no leadership, no coordinated programmes, and no common policies or objectives. BUT... at least we have made a beginning. We shall build on what we have. Bharat Uday Mission needs to evolve into a properly structured and organized group with clearly identifiable and executable deliverables, backed by carefully thought out plans and strategy. We want a set of leaders who will select one amongst them (President) to lead the Mission. The President will select his own team and he needs to be provided with some initial resources. The Mission should evolve principles, policies, plans and programmes for nation building at two levels - as a social organization first, and as a group directly in command of the nation's destiny for later. Since politics is not and cannot be even on the horizon yet, this document is a proposed starting point for the Mission as a social organization - the one with a definitive difference. ISSUES - THE KEY TO WINNING HEARTS To get to where we want to be, let us work backwards and start on the assumption that one of our goals is to be in a position of authority through politics so that we can write, design and shape the destiny of this country. In a democracy, the power to grant this authority rests with the people. So we need to win their hearts, confidence, support and active participation first. The fastest way to have people on our side is to deliver results quickly and have them believe in our sincerity, integrity, commitment, and winnability. In other words, we must find issues and projects that we can successfully work on - something the people can base their trust on. We need to take up one or two issues/projects at the national level · which affect a large section of the population · where the potential to reverse injustice is huge · where success could come rather early which everyone can see · which carry within them the potential to fundamentally alter the system · in which masses can participate, and · which has a multiplier effect on both the results and our membership base We should also take up projects at local levels along similar lines but keeping in mind the resources available, and without sacrificing performance or the quality of the deliverables. Most of the projects - if not all - should be financially self sustainable, scalable, socially and morally kosher, capital light, and tightly managed. Once we have the results coming in, and people benefiting directly, the multiplier effect will automatically kick in. Citizen after citizen, volunteer after volunteer, success after success - one will follow the other and the other will follow the first. The momentum may be so forceful it may spin out of control. That is when, a good leader, a great team, a well coordinated strategy, and deft handling of the media will make all the difference - to our advantage. The Right to Information Act, 2005 and Reservations are the two proposed national issues - both knowledge based - that we can take up immediately. These are within our grasps both financially and intellectually, though the latter may not see success in a hurry. Organizing hawkers & roadside vendors as social entrepreneurs is another project we may consider. Further, a platter of issues as follows is suggested for metros and large cities to choose from: 1. Transport 2. Traffic 3. Water 4. Power 5. Roads 6. Sanitation 7. Encroachment 8. Bazaars and markets ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE Please click on www.nyayabhoomi.org/bharatmission.pdf to download a file to see an Organization Chart. Briefly, it is proposed as follows: 1. Chapter Heads are directly elected by chapter members for one year. 2. There should be a President elected for 2 years by all the Chapter Heads. 3. There are 5-6 Committees and members are elected for two years by Chapter Heads a year after the President is elected. 4. The President shall choose his own team of Vice Presidents except one. 5. VP - Vigilance is elected by all members of all Committees. Proposed Committees are: 1. Chapter Heads (all) 2. Audit 3. Budgeting 4. Performance 5. Ideology & Strategy Proposed VPs are: 1. VP Vigilance 2. VP Finance - Funds, Budget, Accounts 3. VP Admin/PIO - PIO, Events, Infrastructure, HR, DTP, Translators 4. VP CIO - M.I.S., Software, Web development 5. VP External - NGOs, Professionals, Students, Panchayats, RWAs, Trade bodies 6. VP Spokesman - Media, Presentations, Website, Newsletters 7. VP Issues Infrastructural - Project Managers 8. VP Issues RTI & Justice - Project Managers Collective or Rotating Leadership sounds appealing, but will it work? We need an efficient, effective and a forward thinking leader who can be given enough freedom, power, and the time to build his own team, chalk out plans and implement them with panache. Of course, there would be checks and balances, and the provision for recall in exceptional cases. CONSTITUTION Is there room or the need for a full scale constitution yet when we are nobodies? Perhaps a two page constitution will suffice for now, and we can build it up as we go along. Once BM is a sufficiently mature organization, we can prepare a proper constitution running into not more than 8 to 10 pages plus annexures. FUNDS - THE LEAST OF OUR WORRIES NRIs - Businessmen - Individuals - Trusts & Foundations - Members - Beneficiaries 1. Once our projects start to show up some success and the potential in them is revealed to the world, we can have as many rupees flowing in as we will need. There are people and organizations looking for the right projects to fund. They won't be interested in a small school for physically handicapped, or a shelter home in Delhi, or a few blood donation camps. They are not interested because half of the handicapped, all of the homeless and the entire lack of supply of blood are the consequences of the failure of the system. If we can show them we want to and we can fix the system, their ears will perk up and their eyes will shine. And they will throw lakhs and crores of rupees our way. 2. A modest membership fee of Rs.100 per person per year is proposed. 3. A modest 1% contribution of one's earnings from the members who are holding an office in BM is proposed. 4. We should explore social entrepreneurship by engaging hawkers and roadside vendors. Their businesses could become an important source of recurring revenues for us. All money should come to the Central Office first. Inflow into the Central Office and outflow towards various expenses are two separate channels. The logistics of money management shall be decided by the CFO and CIO. WEBSITE 1. The website should be fully functional, software and database driven, and constantly updated as if our life and the existence of BM depended on it. 2. The forums and groups should be internally hosted instead of using Yahoo Groups. 3. Names, designations and responsibilities within the BM, photos and CVs of everyone other than a primary member should be online too. 4. Members data will be part of the software application that we shall specially commission. 5. The application shall enable project management, tracking, monitoring, and supervision. 6. Every task can be assigned, reassigned, tracked, cancelled, completed, reported, etc. 7. By now, you should have got the idea. Let's work on it. COMMUNICATION / PROPAGATION Disproportionately high efforts/resources appear to be going into communication/propagation. Do we need this at all in the forms that it is being put forward by so many of our members? Attention span of the people is very short. Communication of just ideas without any work and results to show for them soon tends to fizzle out. In any case, given the many disappointments attributable to the political class, promises do not hold any, well, promises for the people. They want to see concrete things taking shape on the ground which they can see and benefit from. Internally too, unless we have programmes under way and the methods to constantly update everyone on the progress, we cannot maintain even members' interest and keep them productively involved. In the light of the above, some methods of communication as follows are proposed: INTERNAL 1. A weekly BM-wide online newsletter. Offline version may come out later. 2. Regular chapter-focussed online and offline newsletters where feasible and useful. 3. An internal web based system of messaging one another with reporting features. 4. Online forums. EXTERNAL 1. Prepare an introduction in the form of a brochure for wide distribution amongst targeted groups and individuals. 2. Prepare presentations and take them to RWAs, NGOs, trade associations, professional bodies of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., and other groups. 3. Senior members should approach opinion makers who hold views similar to ours. 4. Find a point man in every college of India who will print a PDF copy of the newsletter and post it on the notice board. We will soon use RTI application to ask the government to supply us a list of all colleges and educational institutions in India. 5. Use campuses and college festivals. SMS We must have an agreement with as many SMS service operators as possible (Indiatimes, Rediff, NDTV, etc.) in order to enable receipt of messages from across the country from users who will just type "BM message" and send to a short number such as 8888 or 6388. CALL CENTRE We should explore the feasibility of outsourcing a technology-enabled 24 hours call centre to receive calls about membership requests, donations, our work, etc. RAKESH AGARWAL CELL: 09873 222 222 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ============================================================================== You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BM_discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] or visit http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change the way you get mail from this group, visit: http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/subscribe To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ============================================================================== Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
