No, Mathew, it was addressed to me by name and it is unsolicited to that extent. Your contribution to CAF is not denied, nor of all other members, and there is no graded appreciation for contributors. Please do not arrogate any thing more to yourself. You are not NSM and you are not CAF. The mail was to NSM as President and you are not the President - PERIOD.
Major Kapur On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The mail was posted as an open one on the CAF group. Please send your > private mails only to addressee. The comments were intended not only for > you, but for all. Everyone is at Liberty to accept or reject views or > comments. There is no solicitation or unsolicited advice. Open > communications would attract comment. Hope this clarifies the issue. It > would have been nice if you had responded to the points rather than resort > to devices of labeling it unsolicited advice. You were not seeking advice > from NSM. You telling him about your concerns of direction CAF is taking. As > one who has a small part in this, I exercised my right to reply. Let us > agree to disagree, without being disagreeable. Mathew > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > > ------------------------------ > *From*: Promod Kapur > *Date*: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:26:17 +0530 > *To*: <[email protected]> > *Subject*: CAF3144 Re: Abide ..the papers themselves. > Dear Mathew, > First of all I did not address the mail to you and do not accept any > unsolicited advice or clarifications from quarters that I have not direcdtly > addressed. The mail is marked to Mr Mukunda, President of CAF and copied to > CAF members for information. Clarifications if any should come from the > President. > > However your response typifies the style of debate that I find unacceptable > to me atleast. I can not say for others. > > Since the only common area of your and my interest lie in the Master plan, > I shall restrict myself to association with CAF only to this extent. Your > mail, has only managed to re-enforce my views about style and functioning > within the group. > > Incidentally, I hope you have been to the lawyer to sign the document. > > Major Kapur > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Mathew Thomas > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear Promod and all CAF members, >> >> >> >> I do appreciate Promod’s confusion and feelings. May I try to reduce some >> of his confusion and assuage at least part of his feelings? >> >> >> >> I shall respond to Promod’s mail, addressed to NSM, CAF 3125, in two >> parts. In this, first part, I deal with his wounded feelings. In the next, I >> shall deal with his confusion. >> >> >> >> Firstly, on his view or feeling that there is acrimony. Acrimony, as we >> all know, means “angry and bitter feelings or words”. There is no such thing >> here, as far as I could see. In the cut and thrust of debate, one would use >> language that is most appropriate and effective to convey the idea, one is >> propounding to counter forcefully, the opposite view. This could take the >> form of poking fun or use of sarcasm. Such language is considered >> parliamentary. Those who participate in a discussion or debate need to be >> able to handle such counters. As long as personal accusations are not made, >> and defamatory language is not used, strong language should be acceptable. >> For example, the opposition leader called our PM the weakest we have had. I >> do not recall the PM’s exact words in reply, made during the debate on the >> nuclear deal, but I do remember that he was very sarcastic. >> >> >> >> In the mails on “Ends and Means”, I had pointed out that the Father of the >> Nation had always held that the ends could never justify the means. This was >> repeatedly ignored and in propagating the view that the Government’s use of >> ABIDe is justifiable on the grounds that “results is all that matters”, was >> taken by the opposite side, I was constrained to extent this logic to show >> how we would end up in a ridiculous situation, if this line of reasoning >> were to be pursued further. >> >> >> >> I believe that the moderation policy in this group should follow >> parliamentary practice and cyber laws, as applicable in such cases. I have >> stretched this policy far more than what is stated above, where I have been >> at the receiving end of diatribes, and even though I have been personally >> attacked and accused of many things, I did not see it fit to moderate, the >> mails. I shall continue to adhere to this policy. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Mathew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Promod Kapur <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Dear Mr. Mukunda, >>> >>> I am responding after a very long gap, so please bear with this long >>> mail. I am deeply concerned and I am am also a bit confused as to what >>> direction, if any we are taking. >>> >>> The way forward is to connect and resolve, not to sit aside and >>> criticize. After all every person on the board of any >>> organisation/association/Forum is a human being with his/her point of view. >>> He/she is no worse than the next person but on the plus side does bring some >>> background of success in some field or the other. That experience must not >>> be lost to society. If there is a different view, we should debate with the >>> person and either convert him/her or get converted. This down-up proposition >>> is theoretically and constitutionally correct, but does not necessarily mean >>> that in order to get jobs done, which otherwise never get done or get done >>> in a half baked fashion, the man at the top should not look at tools that >>> will help him make plans and deliver services. We have elected a man who is >>> chosen a Chief Minister and as the CEO he has to have his team and tools >>> that will enable him to deliver in the way he feels he can. If we are not >>> satisfied with his performance, please do not bring him back to power the >>> next time around. For now, if he wants us to connect with ABIDe, as he >>> specifically asked us during our last meeting with him, then we must. He >>> wants to listen to us but he wants to hear us through ABIDe. Under the >>> circumstances, I do not understand the relevance of this debate about >>> constitutionality or otherwise of a body specifically put in place by the >>> CEO to connect with citizens of Bangalore directly. For those who wish to >>> connect in the constitutionally correct way, please wait for the BBMP >>> elections. If you want to get jobs done for now, please connect with ABIDe. >>> Take your choices. >>> >>> Now the question of planning down - up model. I would like to know, for >>> my education, which is the planning body of citizens at ground level that >>> effectively interacts with local residents and deliver accordingly? How do >>> the citizens get involved in initiating a plan? And how many residents >>> actually come forward with their constructive views? And what is the channel >>> that they can take to address their problems? Ralph Coelho has given a very >>> apt description how RWAs work and how they get things done. Ward Sabhas are >>> notional bodies on paper only. And let us face it, even if the Ward Sabhas >>> are activated, who are the kind of people who will regularly interact with >>> them? How many well meaning citizens will get involved, knowing full well >>> that their views may not go down well with some sections because it may >>> sound 'elitist' and not responding to the popular demands of a section of >>> society and thus divide their community because interests will clash? Some >>> may surmise from this that it is after all back to politics and politicians. >>> Frankly, I am a little puzzled how this concept will actually work on the >>> ground, although I wish there is a way out because it is important for >>> citizens to participate in the development of their areas in a clinical >>> fashion - not haphazardly and not because some local person has some >>> political influence or personal interest. >>> >>> Although I do not have any opinion personally, as yet, my experience is >>> that there is a user fee all over the country in all airports, collected in >>> one fashion or the other and this is accepted all over as being part and >>> parcel of the project. There is also a toll tax on all the new highways >>> also. Do we accept it? If you think it is unfair or illegal, please seek >>> remedy from appropriate quarters, by connecting with them. You can connect >>> either directly or through direct action and if we fail, then the courts are >>> there to decide. What other option do we have? There are always going to be >>> differences of opinions and that is the precise reason why the down - up >>> model has not really worked and succeeded so far. Because we have so many >>> opinions and views, but no consensus. However we agree that in the end any >>> ONE course of action has to be followed. WHICH ONE? There will always be a >>> section that will remain dissatisfied. Delivery can therefore take place >>> only if this section is ignored, otherwise there will be neither delivery >>> nor satisfaction. >>> >>> For those of us in the CAF, we have the benefit of reaching out to each >>> other, discussing issues, but what next? Endless debates, most of which lead >>> to obfuscation of the real 'seed' issue and getting into trivialities or >>> side issues, which unfortunately take a major part of our time and end up >>> none the wiser as to what next? The seed issue is already doomed because we >>> have got into peripheral issues. >>> >>> In that sense, I admire and commend colleagues like Vidyadhar and >>> Venugopal, and am sure several others who are not as high profile, who will >>> not lose sight of the seed issue and pursue their goals relentlessly. >>> >>> In my humble view, CAF should get down to connecting with people, even if >>> we do not agree with their view point, and try to proactively get them to >>> deliver their promises. Sitting on opposition benches all and every time >>> will render us as being habitual dissenters and cribbers with "nuisance >>> value", because we are not constructively participating in the real issues >>> we intend to address. >>> >>> I appeal to you Mr. Mukunda, as President of CAF please take the >>> leadership and give us the direction. Endless debates and acrimony are not >>> conducive to a harmonious and mature working environment. >>> >>> I am and will always be available for any constructive interaction which >>> will enable CAF to take a stand, and towards that objective, if the wordings >>> in our constitution need to be changed to enable CAF to have a point of view >>> that will make us engage constructively with people, in whatever capacity >>> and in whichever forum, then I feel I will have some thing to contribute to >>> society through CAF. >>> >>> For the FIFTH ESTATE to be effective, we need to be active and we need to >>> have our view point conveyed effectively too, not necessarily through >>> seminars alone or through pre. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Major Kapur >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM, mukunda ns <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Vidyadhar, >>>> >>>> The basic defect is the non involvement of the citizens during the >>>> planning stage. How could a small group whether it is Abide or CAF or Civic >>>> or PAC or Janaagraha or any other small group, first plan for the citizens >>>> and then seek their opinion on that particular plan. It smacks of a >>>> feudalistic, arrogant top down approach which if adopted will lead to lot >>>> of >>>> disconnect between the actual requirements and the so called plan/design. >>>> >>>> Just for a moment tell me how an industrialist who claims that effluent >>>> treatment is the responsibility of the Govt and that of the polluting >>>> industry can sit and plan as to what the other citizens require ? It is a >>>> fundamentally flawed approach and therefore, by definition, cannot yield a >>>> proper solution. A user fee in the present social context ? It is a cruel >>>> joke. It only demonstrates a mental set up far removed from reality. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> nsmukunda >>>> >>>> >>>> BE YOUR OWN SELF >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* TANIAPPA VIDYADHAR <[email protected]> >>>> *To:* [email protected]; vidyadhar tan < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, 9 March, 2009 11:22:48 AM >>>> *Subject:* CAF3115 Re: Abide ..the papers themselves. >>>> >>>> Vijayan, >>>> >>>> Thanks for enlightening on Abide agenda. >>>> >>>> “ Single Authority for Bangalore, Neighborhood area committee, >>>> strengthening Loka Ayukta, strengthening transparency, >>>> >>>> "public transport and pedestrian amenities, >>>> >>>> equip suburban areas so as to decongest core city" >>>> >>>> All the above are most dearer to all of us . Only difference is that a >>>> group selected by the Govt is talking our language. Who cares who does it ? >>>> We need results. Only thing CAF should do is to ensure public debate on the >>>> subject that were proposed by Abide. so that the concerns of citizens or >>>> suggestions if any can be incorporated befoire Govt implements the >>>> proposals. >>>> >>>> Most talk about the elected bodies. Are we talking about one who >>>> does not know what is CDP, one who says that parking may be allowed on the >>>> road when marriege hall is built to accommodate 1000 guests, or one one who >>>> says that 30 ft road is good enough when every house has or will have 4 >>>> wheelers, or a Minister who says that lakes are meant for washing trucks >>>> and >>>> washing cows etc. I am not saying that all the elected leaders are dumb. >>>> But >>>> matured voters will vote a visionary with grass root knowledge. Todays >>>> voters preferences are money based,caste based, culture based ( Read todays >>>> TOI . An Auto driver insists that Kannada girls should wear saris when he >>>> sees half naked girls dancing in Kannada movie) . Even CM said once that >>>> the elected folks are not " Sarvajnas" This is a matured statement. >>>> >>>> One last thing is that in due course of time we can persuade the Govt to >>>> refine the composition of ABIDE to include experts on different >>>> fields/disciplines and a few grass root experts. >>>> >>>> Hope this debate will benefit the City/ State. >>>> >>>> T.Vidyadhar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- On *Sun, 8/3/09, Anil kumar <[email protected]>* wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Anil kumar <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: CAF3112 Re: Abide ..the papers themselves. >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Date: Sunday, 8 March, 2009, 6:31 PM >>>> >>>> I fully agree with Vinay's views >>>> >>>> --- On *Sun, 3/8/09, Vinay Baindur <[email protected]>* wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Vinay Baindur <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: CAF3110 Re: Abide ..the papers themselves. >>>> To: "CAF2" <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: "Vijay Menon" <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 1:58 AM >>>> >>>> It is quite simple the fundas.... >>>> >>>> No planner worth his salt in the 21st century will ever *organise*input >>>> seeking consultations >>>> *after preparing a plan*, since this is an insult to the public whose >>>> views for the future of the city matter the most. >>>> >>>> Are the abide scared of going to the public?... Or do they think the >>>> public only stays in Kmangala , Indiranagar ? This is something we need to >>>> watch closely.... >>>> >>>> Can we overlook some of the points this gap in the basic process... why >>>> should we? And that is why such a top down plan is >>>> invalid...straightforward >>>> >>>> Since the public were not and are not likely to be consulted about the >>>> future growth of Bengaluru, may we ask who were? >>>> The vision docs are really a *distraction*.... >>>> >>>> *The Plan Bengaluru 2020 will illustrate that * >>>> http://abidebengaluru.in/report/show/2 >>>> >>>> The very same bureaucrats and government servants from BDA, BESCOM, >>>> BWSSB, BMTC who are continuously criticised by the private sector, world >>>> bank etc and are target of public sector reform wash..... >>>> >>>> we all know these bureaucrats have never consulted the public even >>>> during the BATF stakeholder summits.... so does Abide have something to >>>> learn from them ? well I dont know what that is.... >>>> >>>> If Human development and quality of life and comfortable living for the >>>> public of the city are important, then infrastructure investment at all >>>> costs should be questioned by all. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately there is no realisation that the majority are also those >>>> for whom another world is possible and where freedom of thought can be >>>> possible? >>>> >>>> Vinay >>>> >>>> ======================================== >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Vijay Menon >>>> <[email protected]<http://in.mc79.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry all...a very long note. Maybe some of u will have the patience!! >>>>> >>>>> Elsewhere in this group, the whole democratic/constitutional/ >>>>> transparent aspects of Abide/Jangaraha etc are being discussed. I have >>>>> my personal views on this. Essentially that, say Abide is, as at least >>>>> as constitutional/ democratic/ transparent as anything else we have. >>>>> Also for me after years of working in an imperfect but highly >>>>> demanding world , I have preferred to look at results rather than >>>>> minute hair splitting on the method, within some set of basic norms. >>>>> >>>>> However I do not want to get too much into that, but into another >>>>> aspect....the actual papers/recommendations that abide have brought >>>>> out and which are in public domain. Interestingly there is no comment / >>>>> study or a critique of this in our group. >>>>> >>>>> (NOTE:I have uploaded some files on the files section. but could not >>>>> load the larger files .Do go to www.abidebengaluru.in to see the >>>>> whole files/papers etc. >>>>> >>>>> My "umble" feeling is that if all of us at CAF had spent the same >>>>> energy and time in looking and commenting on the final papers rather >>>>> than a debate on the genesis of Abide, we could serve both ours and >>>>> the public at large interests better ..In that I would want to ask CAF >>>>> to consider if we are in the danger of being cribbers rather than a >>>>> group that engages constructively. >>>>> >>>>> So here goes..Only to get this going... (If there is such an interest >>>>> in the group).And below are my initial opinions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A) Govern Blre paper: >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the best one I have seen so far on the topic.Borrrows heavily >>>>> from kasturirangan recommendations, but differ at crucial areas >>>>> especially in >>>>> --"single authority "concepts. >>>>> --responsibilities and accountabilities of the system (elected mayor >>>>> etc) >>>>> --Strengthening of ward concepts. >>>>> --introduction of “neighborhood area committee" under ward to decide >>>>> at a very local level what they want (even up to land use conversions/ >>>>> commercial usage of space) >>>>> --Broad guidelines for contracting. >>>>> --Strengthening of transparency and discloure..Including Strengthening >>>>> of lok ayuktha act. >>>>> --Focus on environment, heritage and beauty...restarting of "Bangalore >>>>> Urban arts commission" >>>>> >>>>> Note: I suspect that the financing portion will come under some >>>>> criticism from the proverbial "status quoist" ,"Pseudo --socialist” >>>>> because there is more than a small mention of User fees.!!! >>>>> >>>>> B) Road and traffic management. >>>>> >>>>> Some of the main guiding directive principles are >>>>> >>>>> --"public transport and pedestrian amenities are of prime importance" >>>>> --"Equip suburban areas so as to decongest core city" >>>>> ---'Elimination of silos in public administration of traffic and >>>>> transport" >>>>> --"Improve utilization of existing capacities" >>>>> >>>>> A good paper with a fair amount of specific worked out >>>>> proposals ..rther than just directions.and these will tend to happen , >>>>> in my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> And quite a bit more> >>>>> >>>>> Note: I suspect however the naysayers will pick on one issue; Say the >>>>> BIG 10 arterial roads, to focus efforts of their general abhorrence >>>>> with Abide! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And there are 2 other papers: >>>>> >>>>> -Secure Bangalore: (law enforcement paper)I think this is the weakest >>>>> document. >>>>> -Urban poor: A tome..I guess Anita Reddy had a hand in this. and I >>>>> would baulk at even considering commenting on her work. and any way I >>>>> do not know much in this area. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So the important issues: >>>>> >>>>> a) Are abides plans /reccos really elitist or is it just that we >>>>> cannot stomach page 3 personlaities.Perhaps we need to separate >>>>> persons from the plan. >>>>> b) Do we focus one some of the not so great aspects of the plans to >>>>> bring down the entire Abide initiative? >>>>> c) Do we recognize that Abide also needs support to get some of the >>>>> more radical, new methods proposals (which by the way are not >>>>> elitist)...And do we try to give that support. >>>>> d) And does CAF participate actively in this planning and >>>>> administration process or sit by the wayside cribbing. >>>>> >>>>> Decide… the Abide process is very much on in Bangalore, one way or >>>>> another. >>>>> >>>>> Vijayan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Get your own website and domain for just Rs.1,999/year.* Click here! >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! >>>> <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_ysb_4/*http://in.business.yahoo.com/>Invite >>>> them >>>> now.<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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
