Dear members of this group and to Sarabjit roy, veeresh, kalia and ashish,
This clarification should have come earlier- a month earlier to be
precise- but since i thought i had unsubscribed from this group 8 months
ago- i never saw the mails that ended up in the spam folder.
Firstly, i clarify on behalf of Ms.Divya Raghunandan, Greenpeace that we
had paid no consultation fee to _anyone_ on this case. Mr. Shekhar Singh
has been helpful to us and to the cause of exposing the truth about
unsafe GM crops for the last 2 years on this case and has never asked or
been given any consultation fee.
Secondly, I would like to tell that that the compensation we had
claimed( but not provided as yet) was a intended to be a contribution
to the works of NCPRI and not for Mr. Shekhar Singh.
Thirdly, for people who are not clear of the facts of this case- this
is about denial of safety data about GM crops developed by a company for
public introspection. The entire fight started in 2006 march and
continued till 2007 November at the CIC where the decision was to
provide the data and we were also offered an oppurtunity to claim for
compensation.
The PIO and the appellate authority of the department of biotechnology
has successfully confused us, disobeyed orders, deliberately kept the
industry out of the loop for 20 months and made it impossible to get the
data for a public introspection. The data(part of it) was finally
forced out of the clutches of the government when a independent case in
the SC ordered its disclosure. the data is available on the government
site- igmoris.nic.in.
The safety of GM crops are debated worldwide and EU and many other
countries have entire bans on their commercialisation. In India as well,
there are strong lobbies to permit these crops which are moslty promoted
for corporate profits. I request any one who needs to know the
underground realities of the issue of GM crops to write to me personally
so that i can prove that how, scientifically, gm crops are a harm to the
human health, and to farmers livelihoods.
regards,
jai
in tune with nature,
Jai krishna.R
Campaigner- Sustainable Agriculture
Greenpeace India
No. 60 Wellington street, Richmond Town
Bangalore - 560025
Tel: 080-41154861
Fax:080-41154862
Mobile:+91 9845591992
www.greenpeaceindia.org
Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation that uses
non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental
problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future. For
more information and support go to www.greenpeaceindia.org
pasting the thread for your reference:
Re: NCPRI and RTI "touts"
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/4206;_ylc=X3oDMTJyc2RlaG5qBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRtc2dJZAM0MjA2BHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzEyNDc5MDQ0MDg->
Posted by: "ashish kr1965" [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=%20re%3a%20ncpri%20and%20rti%20%22touts%22>
ashishkr1965 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/ashishkr1965>
Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:47 am (PDT)
Sarbajit
You might want to check these out
http://www.genecampaign.org/home/Reports/Workshop%20I%20.pdf
<http://www.genecampaign.org/home/Reports/Workshop%20I%20.pdf>
http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/Workshop_I__Delhi.pdf
<http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/Workshop_I__Delhi.pdf>
It is "Ms. Suman Sahai" and not "Mr. Suman Ahai" of Gene Campaign and
Ms Divya Raghunandan has quite a bit to say about RTI too here :-)
"In the discussion following the three presentations on the Right to
Information
Act, Mr. Shekhar Singh of the NCPRI (National Campaign for People’s Right to
Information) while praising the three efforts, spoke about using the
RTI to solve
systemic issues."
"From a campaign perspective, it would be best if a legal position could be
advocated which requires government to collect this information. In such
a case,
government would be bound to give the information as it would be
collected using
the taxpayer’s money. Unless there are very good reasons, the very fact
that the
public wants certain information, should be reason enough for the public
authorities to start collecting the information.
"
rgds
Ashish
==Sent from my Blackberry==
--- In [email protected] <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>,
"sroy1947" <sroy1...@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Ashish,
>
> My specific objection in that reported CIC decision was that Mr
Habibullah had seen fit to get Ms Raghunandan's case assigned to a
double "bench" including Mr Shailesh Gandhi and that Mr. Gandhi DID NOT
RECUSE HIMSELF from this matter despite knowing the facts!!!
>
> Was Mr Gandhi unaware that Mr Shekhar Singh was his predecessor as
NCPRI convenor and that Mr Suman ahai of Gene Campaign is also a NCPRI
W.Committee member?
>
> Was Mr Shailesh Gandhi (or for that matter also Mr Habibullah)
unaware that Mr Gandhi CONTINUES TO BE NCPRI CONVENOR as per the NCPRI
website?
> http://www.righttoinformation.info/member_working.htm
<http://www.righttoinformation.info/member_working.htm>
>
> Is Mr Habibullah communicating to us that this is not his decision
but Mr Gandhi's (a-la Pontius Pilatus)?
>
> I shall comment on the "fee" vs "cost" aspect you have raised in a
separate post.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> "LIST OF MEMBERS > Working Committee Members
>
> 1. Ajit Bhattacharjea
> 2. Anjali Bhardwaj
> 3. Aruna Roy
> 4. Arvind Kejriwal
> 5. Bharat Dogra
> 6. Harsh Mander
> 7. Maja Daruwala
> 8. Nikhil Dey
> 9. Prabhash Joshi
> 10. Prakash Kardaley
> 11. Prashant Bhushan
> 12. Shailesh Gandhi (Convenor)
> 13. Shekhar Singh
> 14. Suman Sahai
> 15. Vishaish Uppal
> 16. Angela Rangad
> 17. V. Suresh
> 18. Jagdeep Chhokar
> 19. Trilochan Sastry
> 20. Samir Acharya
> 21. Balraj Puri
> 22. Manesh Kumar Gupta
> 23. Venkatesh Nayak
> 24. Jagmohan Singh
> 25. P. Wangchuk
> 26. Debu Bandhopadhya
> 27. Jean Dreze
> 28. Harivansh
> 29. Sandeep Pande
> 30. Vinay Mahajan
> 31. S. R. Sankaran"
>
> --- In [email protected]
<mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Virresh Kumar
> >
> > you wrote:
> > "> Sh Sekhar Singh is pioneer of RTI in India. There is nothing
wrong in
> > > it if he helps people to file RTI or is charging fees for giving
> > > professional services for RTI."
> >
> > I find your approach to be quite pragmatic. Shekhar Singh is
undoubtedly
> > a man with many talents, not limited to RTI - being a former member of
> > the Planning Commission and also on an Supreme Court Environmental
> > Committee. etc.
> >
> > I suspect that the 10,000 rupee "fee" he took from Greenpeace actually
> > represents the "cost" of filing and succeeding in a Second Appeal
before
> > India's highest appellate body for obtaining information.
> >
> > best wishes
> > Ashish
> >
> > == sent from my Blackberry ===
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, veeresh kumar <v4veeresh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Roy,
> > >
> > > Sh Sekhar Singh is pioneer of RTI in India. There is nothing wrong in
> > > it if he helps people to file RTI or is charging fees for giving
> > > professional services for RTI.
> > >
> > > veeresh
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr Kalia
> > > >
> > > > I presume that when a responsible activist like Ms Divya
Raghunandan
> > > > of Greenpeace avers that she had paid the Big Daddy of RTI (ie Mr
> > > > Shekhar Singh) Rs.10,000/= to "assist" her in her RTI 2nd
appeal, that
> > > > she has actually done so. If this statement (which is duly
recorded in
> > > > the CIC's order) is false, then Mr Singh or any of his well wishers
> > > > would have denied it by now.
> > > >
> > > > This is not the first time Mr Singh has lent his weight to such
> > > > "public spirited" citizens who are saving Indian farmers. I
recall his
> > > > "assistance" to Ms Aruna Roy (on behalf of Ms Medha Patkar) to
> > > > "procure" within 48 hours official GoI documents marked
"Secret" and
> > > > "Confidential" by using the good offices of the CIC. It is not
> > > > pertinent that they already had illegal copies of those
documents but
> > > > required to show that it was legally obtained in RTI.
> > > >
> > > > Sarbajit
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:29 AM, nripinder kalia <nnkalia@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My dear Roy,
> > > > > If it is true,then it is really shamefull.The activist at the
level of
> > > > > Mr.Shekhar is,did it.I doubt.
> > > > > N.N.Kalia.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM, sroy1947<sroy1947@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-26062009-01.pdf
<http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-26062009-01.pdf>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this decision at page 9, Ms Divya Raghunandan of
Greenpeace claims to
> > > > > > have paid Mr Shekhar Singh Rs.10,000 as "consultation fees".
> > > > > > The CIC has observed thereafter that these are "normal
expenses" incurred in
> > > > > > the course of pursuing an RTI 2nd appeal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr Habibullah (in his capacity as CIC Vigilance head) may
also explain
> > > > > > (preferably publicly) why Mr Shekhar Singh's colleague at
NCPRI - IC Mr
> > > > > > Shailesh Gandhi was on this bench, and how much was paid to
him to get the
> > > > > > decision in favour of Ms Divya Raghunandan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sarbajit Roy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
in tune with nature
greenjai
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4321 (20090810) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
