Dear all, The very fact Committees are formed with out any clear indication on its implication on their findings or recommendations. Committee has to report, to whom is the first question. Should it not be put out to seek the required approval or Mandate from the Citizens before they are submitted to the Authorities? Media should necessarily have a roll to play to there on to keep reporting as to what is the status or what has happened to itor where it stands for its out of tax payers money such committee works and rtheir all expednses are met.Many such questions will arise if such Committees work in the true spirit. When these Elementaries are ant been happening or met where is the question of discussion or debate? untill and unless if the citizens do really think of putting up a Candidate, who stands above the present day or exisiting politics, Can we think of getting the much required or needed HELP. Ramesh C Dutt.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Dwarakanath <[email protected]> wrote: > > Friends, > while , we at North Bangalore Citizens Association, do not want to > change the directions or destinies of dicussion n this regard, we > strongly feel that whatever organisations called by whatever name > however popular, their outlook is most of the time confined to their > present knowledge and experience. In other words , as far as AAM ADMI > is concerned, we have plenty of information and awareness that > government bodies have not done anything recognisable nor intend to do > it. On the otherhand day in and day out things a happening to the > contrary.of their interest. The only hope we have is honourable > Courts to come to their rescue. There seems to be a crying need for > change of Laws that really gives the required support to the Middle > and lower class of people. The ABIDE and other similar committees are > made up of Elite and Rich people with certain interest and motives. If > they can see the truth they may help. dwarakanathdm > > On 3/1/09, Vinay Baindur <[email protected]> wrote: > > If Task forces are doing all this work then what work are the Ministers > > doing and the bureaucrats? > > > > Like we have outsourced the Vision 2020 doc for Karnataka to the PWC > company > > in 2007. The new doc is now available and ends being a case for private > > sector gain and less development for the citizens > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Ralph Coelho > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >> *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]<[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 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. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> < > http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_messenger_6/*http://messenger.yahoo..com/invite/ > > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------ > >>>> Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Click here > >>>> > >>>> < > http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_webmessenger_2/*http://in.webmessenger.yahoo.com/ > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Click here > >>> > >>> < > http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_webmessenger_2/*http://in.webmessenger.yahoo.com/ > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> 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 > >> > >> < > http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_messenger_6/*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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
