Members of task forces are handpicked by the powers that be and are subject to
pressure and influence like anybody else.
I think it is counterproductive to demand selection by election sat from RWAs
or NGOs! One builder told me that he paid off the president of an RWA not to
make a fuss. He had no reason to bluff me!
They are also human and so will always dissatisfy someone.
However it does not stop one from lobbying the individual; members and even
pressurize them . The internet is a powerful medium that no one can ignore
today. It works both ways. No one can afford to be above it all and ignore even
untruths that are on the internet. After all they do move in society and have
children and in-laws and others who will ask uncomfortable questions.
----- Original Message -----
From: Anil kumar
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:22 PM
Subject: CAF3055 Re: Janagraha
But where is the people's participation in these task forces?
--- On Sat, 2/28/09, K. S. Raman <[email protected]> wrote:
From: K. S. Raman <[email protected]>
Subject: CAF3052 Re: Janagraha
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 10:40 PM
Dear Col. Mathew,
Your points are well articulated.
Appointment of special task forces to address macro issues has
been practiced for quite some time in democratic countriess. In Bangalore,
BATF is one such. At the national level, appointment of the Knowledge
Commission under the leadership of Sam Petroda is an example. Members of such
task forces are usually people in the news, "experts" in their domains, who
also happen to be well-connected.Naturally, this approach antagonizes several
experts who are excluded, as was the case with the Knowledge Commission. But,
this is the way the world works.
Personally, I don't have any problems with this approach
provided the recommendations of the task forces is placed before the elected
bodies and approved/rejected.
Raman
--- On Tue, 24/2/09, Mathew Thomas <[email protected]>
wrote:
From: Mathew Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: CAF3022 Re: Janagraha
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 24 February, 2009, 11:41 PM
Dear Mr. Raman,
The issue is far more serious than the mere nuances of
approach - top-down [as consultants] or bottom up [as a citizens group]. The
question is, "What is the essence of democracy?" Would you or anyone, like our
country to be "ruled" by the diktats of a few elite who have access to the CM
or PM?
I had tried to contrast this fundamental difference between
Janaagraha and CAF. I even used the word, "oligarchy" to describe the setting
up and functioning of ABIDe. This is what Janaagraha stands for, since its
founder is a member of ABIDe.
I am not making this comparison since, as anyone could
allege, because I have some grudge against that NGO or any scores to settle
with it, but because I believe that CAF members need to understand this
difference. This is my personal view. I am quite comfortable with anyone who
has a contrary view. I would like such people to express their views, with
reasons justifying them. This is what rational discussion is all about. I am
saying this since, there have been mails in this group indicating a view that
there is nothing wrong with having institutions, like ABIDe, being set up and
functioning in the manner, they do now.
Equally, importantly, I mentioned that ABIDe and its members'
idea of people's participation in governance is different from, what in my
view, should be, CAF's take on this crucial aspect of democracy. I also drew
attention to the fact that many who advocate "transparency", as a principle of
democratic governance, give the principle a go by, when they are beneficiaries
[recipients of office / decision-making privileges] of non-transparent
government functioning.
Regarding property tax, unfortunately, the legal aspects have
been ignored by all State governments. Hyderabad is no exception. I do hope to
take up the legal aspects and would post the developments in this group. We
also have data on the practice in many municipalities around the world.
Regards,
Mathew
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:26 AM, K.. S. Raman
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
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 ofJanagraha. But I can certainly say that
the so called rejoinder byRamesh 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
------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger.
Click here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date:
02/28/09 17:21:00
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
