Dear Krish, Unfortunately this will move us into the domain of "Mir Jafars of RTI".
There is a concentrated assault by Mir Jafars (former babus corrupted by foreign funds, awards, IC-ships etc. - now masquerading as RTI gurus and activists) on the basic structure of the RTI Act. Hum Janenge is a nest / den of these vipers - mainly concentrated in Maharashtra (I have nothing against Maharashtra or Maharashtrians) and controlled by NRIs. The CIC is another such den. There are a series of SECRET (ie. not on CIC website) decisions in recent past (last 1 year) out of the CIC CURTAILING RTI via section 6 using section 4 as the excuse. Section 4(4)is a pivot to this wherein the MJs and ICs work hand in glove. The entire recent CIC 3rd convention was "dominated" by these Mir Jafars. I am also privy to a lot of information concerning all this which is not in the public domain. For instance, it is a matter of public record that C'IC Habibullah got handed over secret PMO documents marked CONFIDENTIAL to 3 of these Mir Jafars in my presence (and over my firm objections), within 72 hours of their RTI request, in a matter involving a most serious 8(1)(a) exemption and by bypassing all procedural safeguards in RTI Act. Would he do the same for you or me? People like you, and I am very sorry to say this, are either pawns of these Mir Jafars or idiots if you persist with your foolishness concerning so-called "inspection" allowed by the Explanation to 4(4). We are open to "healthy discussion", but not if the participants run away to the cozy sheltered environs of HJ (like Sandeep Jalan) or switch off their outgoing to RI when called to account. You will remember that we had elaborately commented to this dangerous line of thinking - which stands unanswered here. Please also remember that it is always the ignorant idiots (don't take this personally) who f*** up the RTI scene for other RTI users, by these "binding" decisions of the CIC and SIC in their cases which are invariably cited when we appear in ours. PS: I would request other members (pro and anti or just neutral) to intervene, have their say, and moderate our discussions, since the only thing I shall moderate in future is my language / tone. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Krishnaraj Rao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Sarabjit, > > As per dictionary.com, Moderator means: > 1) a person who moderates. > 2) a person who presides over a panel discussion > > So why don't you moderate discussions, rather than attempting to dominate > them? > > Why don't you let at least a few of your numerous group members form their > own opinions before putting forward your own overpowering, sarcastic views? > > By doing so, you are killing healthy discussions at birth. > > Warmly, > Krish >
