Dear Sarabjit, That was truly graceful of you. I won't crosscheck anything you say, I'll accept it in good faith. Let us just shake hands and be done with the entire matter.
Some others on the forum -- Jagannath and V4veeresh -- ask what else is wrong with your critique. To them, my answer is -- nothing is "wrong". If we take away the offensive, put-downish part of the message (unintended as you assert), there is nothing wrong with it. Let me explain: With my post, I took a stand or proposed a course of action. With your critique, you have voiced your opposition to the course of action that I propose. So we now have a view and a counter-view... which is fantastic! Let those who are interested in this theory -- either for or against -- energetically debate it or mull over it in silence. To a number of us -- here in Mumbai and elsewhere, these are not empty mental exercises. It is approaching midnight, and I have just returned from a long meeting with fellow activists who tweaked the PIO's checklist (which triggered off this exchange) and another SIC's Order checklist into a broadly acceptable shape. We shall be spending half the day tomorrow at the General Administration Department and the SIC in trying to get these checklists to work with PIOs and SIC. We believe in what we are doing. I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of this with anybody else who wants to engage in some form of action to improve compliance of RTI Act. However, I would rather not get sucked into a myriad academic arguments with those who think this whole idea is either Quixotic, or wrong, or both. I don't need to defend this idea, my friends; I need to do what makes it work on the ground... even if only in a small degree. I won't take any criticism personally, because the idea is not mine any more; it is collective -- it belongs to a group of us who believe. If you reject it, that's your personal choice; no room for arguments there. Warm Regards, Krish On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:57 PM, sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Krishna > > I am truly very sorry ... > > FYI: > The term "silly little RTI activists", "foolish little RTI activist", > "Mir Jafars of RTI" et al are generic terms (coined by me) regularly > used on this group. Use the Yahoo Groups search tool if you don't > believe me. They are / were certainly not directed to you personally. > > A few examples: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/2064 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/2089 > > Unfortunately eve since I began being a little more outspoken than > usual recently, even the media has started describing me as an RTI > activist. As for example here (latest issue of OULTLOOK) where I am > maligned as "freedom-of-information activist Sarbajit Roy". > > > http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081201&fname=AANetSociety&sid=1 > > We only censor / "moderate out" under extreme circumstances. > We defend freedom of speech here to an extraordinary degree. > Any I am glad that we have brought these issues into the open > and resolved them. If there's anything further you require from me, > I'll try and oblige. > > PS: We were a nice cozy club with 200 members. Now at 850+ and > growing there are bound to be some teething problems. Many private > complaints are pouring in about "too many emails" and "moderation is > required". > > Best Wishes > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Krishnaraj Rao" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear Mr Roy, > > > > "Silly little minds of RTI activists...", you say, with reference to my > > email titled "Your hidden Rights under RTI Act". > > > > That was a most un-moderator-like choice of words, don't you think? > > > > We all have differences of opinion, but is there any need to be > > insulting? That was unprovoked and gratuitous, because I don't recollect > > having ever used any adjectives against you or slighted you (or anyone > > else), directly or indirectly. > > > > I think a graceful apology and retraction is in order, as this is a > > civilized public forum. (We all lose our tempers occasionally, and > say or > > write things against our better judgement. However, we should be > capable of > > making amends if the occasion arises. Don't you think so?) > > > > I trust you will allow this message to appear on this forum. > However, just > > in case it is 'moderated out', I am emailing this to a couple of > friends who > > share this discussion space. > > > > Warm Regards, > > Krishnaraj Rao > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:19 AM, sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > "Top down lectures on RTI" from the commanding heights of > > > the silly little minds of RTI activists is not encouraged > > > on this group. We are a collaborative discussion forum, so > > > please state preconceived opinions in the form of queries or > > > topics for group discussion. > > > > > > In my experience PIOs are not in the habit of saying > > > "This is not the sort of information that can be given to > > > citizens under the RTI Act". In fact PIOs rarely make such > > > statements because in law they are not allowed to say this. > > > > > > The argument that 7(8)(1) gives rights to know reasons in > > > this situation is fallacious. The right to know reasons for > > > rejection is only in the case when the rejection is > > > communicated under 7(1). (please read the clause carefully) > > > > > > When 7(1) is used for rejection/denial, an exemption under > > > section 8 or 9 must be used. So 7(8) merely deals with a > > > very limited case where the *ENTIRE* (untransferred portion > > > of) RTI request is rejected by the PIO and the appellant is > > > entitled to know the reasons why - so as to correct it by > > > way of a fresh application. > > > > > > In fact a careful reading of 7(1) will show that if an > > > applicant has asked for say 10 separate pieces of > > > information - 1 of which is covered by an 8(1) exemption - > > > PIO can technically reject the *ENTIRE* RTI request. > > > > > > People who follow our Responsible RTI Code will not be > > > bothered by such half-baked PIOs. (I've never eaten a > > > half-baked PIO and am interested in knowing what they > > > taste like). For example to my own many many RTI requests, > > > only once has a PIO (Exec.Dir of RBI / Shri V.Das) > > > ever used an 8(1) exemption against me - and which was > > > promptly dismissed by the FAA (Dr. Rakesh Mohan). > > > NB: As someone else pointed out, this FA of mine is available > > > in our Files section to see how 8(1) exemptions are to be > > > challenged. > > > > > > No, what our RESPONSIBLE RTI Code following members are > > > now up against is the last defence available to the P/A. > > > Bribing the Central Information Commission, by cash, houses, > > > women, liquor, gifts .. you name it to ensure that our > > > cases never come up for hearing before it and that information > > > is never given to us. > > > > > > Our group does not allow file attachments. This is to > > > safeguard members from computer virii. If the MS-Word attachment > > > is emailed to me offlist, it can be uploaded to our File > > > section. > > > > > > PS: Our group policy also discourages usage of misleading unofficial > > > titles like "RTI speaker" which have the potential to confuse > > > some of our new members. The Indian Constitution (Art. 18 ?) > > > also discourages Indians from accepting foreign titles > > > and honors. This policy also applies to mobile numbers. > > > > > > Sarbajit > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com><rti_india% > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > "Krishnaraj Rao" > > > > > > <sahasipadyatri@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > When a PIO or an Information Commissioner authoritatively argues, > > > "This is> not the sort of information that can be given to citizens > > > under the RTI > > > > Act", many of us are speechless, and unable to defend our right to > > > > information. What are the relevant points of the RTI Act in our > > > favour? How > > > > can we prove that the point being used by PIOs to deny us > information is > > > > illogical? > > > > > > > > Being unable to logically argue our cases before PIOs and > Information > > > > Commissioners, we falter. Even seasoned PIOs and Information > > > Commissioners > > > > speak from half-baked knowledge, unable to apply their mind > > > systematically > > > > and logically to the various sections, sub-sections and clauses of > > > the RTI > > > > Act. > > > > > > > > *Did you know that the RTI Act entitles you, the appellant, to a > > > detailed > > > > justification for denial of information?* This is a fact that many > > > > Information Commissioners never point out at the time of 2nd Appeal > > > > hearings, and usually downplay. They don't ask PIOs to set down in > > > writing > > > > the reasons for denial; instead, they readily accept lame excuses in > > > order > > > > to waive penalties of flimsy or imaginary grounds. > > > > > > > > *Section 7 (8) clearly says: * > > > > > > > > *Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the > > > Central Public > > > > Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case > > > may be, > > > > shall communicate to the person making the request, * > > > > > > > > * (i) the reasons for such rejection;* > > > > > > > > * (ii) **the period within which an appeal against such > rejection may be > > > > preferred; and* > > > > > > > > * (iii) **the particulars of the appellate authority.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Further, section 19 (5) states: * > > > > > > > > *In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a > > > request was > > > > justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or > > > State Public > > > > Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.* > > > > > > > > * * > > > > > > > > *To defend ourselves, we must know what our rights are and where > exactly > > > > they are under which clause of RTI Act 2005.* > > > > > > > > As a remedy to widespread ignorance, RTI speaker G R Vora and I > put our > > > > heads together and created a checklist to compel PIOs to provide > valid > > > > reasons under RTI for denying information. The attached checklist > > > > enumerates the myriad reasons for which information must NOT be > > > withheld, > > > > and the handful of reasons that allow a PIO to justifiably deny > > > information. > > > > In the near future, we hope to make this form compulsory for PIOs, > > > whether > > > > or not they are denying information. It would bring greater > clarity and > > > > compliance, and ease the task of both applicants and PIOs. > > > > > > > > Please understand your various rights including many hidden > ones by > > > > studying this checklist (attached word file called "Form for PIOs > > > denying > > > > information to applicants") . > > > > > > > > When you find a sub-section or clause cited, study the actual > > > sub-section > > > > etc. in its context by referring to the Word file of RTI Act > 2005 (also > > > > attached). > > > > > > > > Study this and get extra confidence to deal with PIOs, 1st Appellate > > > > Authorities and Information Commissioners. By correctly citing > various > > > > sections of the Act, you can reduce their scope to wrongly deny you > > > > information. > > > > > > > > As always, I welcome your inputs and feedback. > > > > > > > > Warmly, > > > > Krishnaraj Rao > > > > 98215 88114 > > > > > > > > * * > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
