Col. Mathew, Thanks for clearly articulating your approach to public service. You have chosen to work from the bottom up. As you have found out, this approach is difficult. It seems that Janagraha has chosen the top-down approach, which is used by consultants.
Regardless of the approach, to me what is important is thorough study and objective analysis of issues. The work done by CAF in property tax is an example. I and many others I know have benefited from this work. Having said this, I am of the view that CAF's arguments would be strengthened if it can present information on property tax in Hyderabad, which is similar to Bangalore in several respects. Furthermore, efficient tax collection is important. I am a novice on the legal aspects of the present tax scheme. This needs someone with good knowledge of the legal aspects of teh tax. Raman. --- On Sun, 22/2/09, Mathew Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: From: Mathew Thomas <[email protected]> Subject: CAF3016 Re: Janagraha To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, 22 February, 2009, 11:56 PM #yiv448388423 <!-- _filtered #yiv448388423 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv448388423 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #yiv448388423 #yiv448388423 p.MsoNormal, #yiv448388423 li.MsoNormal, #yiv448388423 div.MsoNormal {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:11.0pt;} #yiv448388423 .MsoChpDefault {} #yiv448388423 .MsoPapDefault {margin-left:72.0pt;text-align:justify;} _filtered #yiv448388423 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} #yiv448388423 div.Section1 {} #yiv448388423 The onus of proof is certainly on the one who wishes to establish any fact. That is the law of evidence. I know that many find Janaagraha, an organization that states that they subscribe to very lofty principles and are hence quite impressed. I worked closely with them for about two years in another organization, called PROOF.. The Co-Founders of Janaagraha are very capable people and easily impress many who come across them. They are rendering service to the public, as per their view of public service. The reason why I thought it sensible to caution CAF members against some not so palatable aspects of that organization's functioning is that I believe that their idea of transparency or people's participation in governance is different from mine. For example, it is my view that members of institutions, like ABIDe have been selected in a non-transparent manner. I find it strange that people who advocate transparency do not mind non-transparency when they are selected for such positions. Secondly, they also seem to have very different ideas of participation. ABIDe did not hold any public hearings or consultations before they came up with proposals that involve huge expenditure of public monies. Their idea of "consultation" seems to be putting up their proposals on a website and inviting comments and then deciding whatever they fancy. I think CAF's view of people's participation should be different. This does NOT mean that we need to exclude the kind of views that organizations like, ABIDe or Janaagraha espouse. We [CAF] are committed to the principle of "all-inclusivity". We need to discuss this rationally, without getting into polemics that borders on abuse. I also believe that institutions like ABIDe are both unconstitutional and undemocratic. It is rule by elite or oligarchy. I would NOT wish CAF to have any part in such organisations, either as members or as invitees or in any other manner. If our constitution makers felt that such organizations served a purpose, they would have provided for it. If there is now a need for such organizations, let the people vote for amending the constitution. The Government is at liberty to consult anyone they wish. When governments incur public expenditure, they could do so only through legislative sanction. Keeping the CM as ABIDe Chairman and ensuring that there is no opposition to proposals of ABIDe is completely undemocratic. CM is Chairman of BMRDA. We all know how effective that body is. We elect representative to legislative bodies to fulfil the election promises they make and to facilitate our views being heard in legislatures. NOT one of our elected reps knows anything about what ABIDe is proposing. If, as some would certainly feel, our reps are criminals and know nothing, and we need bodies like, ABIDe, then why have this pretence of democracy? Let us dispense with legislative bodies and have only an elected CM and his chosen advisers. This is like the presidential form of government. As long as our present constitution exists, we have no option but to follow it. Hence, when a person, who advocates people's participation, becomes a member of institutions like ABIDe, we have to view such acts with great circumspection. When such conduct is consistently seen, we need to be even more cautious of such people and organisations. Now, coming to proof, all we need to ask ourselves, are a few questions. Why did so many of the original civic leaders who were once very active in Janaagraha leave that organization? How is it that the founders of Janaagraha are also advisers to Modi [Gujarat] (against whom the Supreme Court had some adverse things to say and even transferred cases out of that State), Vasundraraje [Rajasthan] (who lost the elections and is now accused of serious improprieties), and also Chairman of TAG, JN-NURM, all at the same time; and now ABIDe? This speaks volumes for their ability. Unfortunately, with such illustrious associations, I doubt whether they could really serve the aam aadmi! Regards, Mathew On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:58 PM, K. S. Raman <[email protected]> wrote: I am not a member of Janagrah. As I have said, I know many young people who like their association with that organization. In such situations, who carries the onus of proof? The accuser or the accused? Raman --- On Sat, 21/2/09, raghavendra srinath <[email protected]> wrote: From: raghavendra srinath <[email protected]> Subject: CAF2999 Re: Janagraha To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, 21 February, 2009, 11:56 AM If you are member of Janagraha Mr. Raman perhaps you could throw some light on this instead of brushing aside that the allegations are hard to prove. Srinath --- On Fri, 2/20/09, K. S. Raman <[email protected]> wrote: From: K. S. Raman <[email protected]> Subject: CAF2994 Re: Janagraha To: [email protected] Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 12:55 PM Anyone who expected a response other than denial of all the allegations would be naive. Furthermore, most of the allegations are hard to prove. Raman --- On Mon, 16/2/09, Srinath <[email protected]> wrote: From: Srinath <[email protected]> Subject: CAF2967 Janagraha To: "Citizens' Action Forum" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 16 February, 2009, 11:27 PM All these days I was going carefully about the issues raised by Col. Mathew in response to the Ramesh Ramanathan's article in Mint. I am not a member of Janagraha. I don't know the working of Janagraha. But I can certainly say that the so called rejoinder by Ramesh Ramanthan never addresses the issues raised by Col. Mathew. I look forward to a detailed rejoinder by any of Janagraha members. Even their website doesn't throw much light on the subject issue. Srinath Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Click here Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizens' Action Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/citizens-action-forum?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
