You have not understood my arguments in totality.
1) If the purpose of the Lokpal bill/Act is to curb corruption, then what about all the existing legislation ? Will these be dumped ?
2) Santosh Hegde (and I have appeared before him in the SC -- his orders refer to me as "Ld. counsel" [which BTW is a disparaging term]) is not an entirely clean judge either. If he was a great legal luminary he would be on the Law Commission instead of scrabbling about for demeaning post retirement sinecures like Lok Ayukta.
3) It is completely incorrect for you to say that the majority of Indians want a LokPal Bill or that my ideas are impractical. At best these can be the opinion of a vocal minority. In my own community (which runs into the millions) we stand for all the issues I listed and hence I speak for about 10 million secular Indians (which is not a small number).
4) Why is there not a single Muslim, Christian, Adi Dharmi, Parsi etc amongst the 5 persons Anna Hazare nominated ? Which political and religious forces are behind this army deserter and coward ? Even the so-called land given to Anna Hazare by the Army is no great evidence of his heroism, it is under a scheme given to every Army sepoy at the time
Sarbajit.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM, S. Anoop Kumar <s.anoopkumar@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
If the civil society members in the draft committee are unbiased in
your opinion, then perhaps you have an answer as to which side they
are inclined towards and what are their selfish considerations that
would benefit them.
You are disputing the very essence of Lok Pal Bill when majority of
Indians are thinking that Lok Pal is what is required and we are
already late in having such a law in place. And majority Indians
think, wish, hope and pray that such a bill would bring in some change
in governance, responsibility and accountability in governance and
delivery mechanism.
And regarding the other alternatives to the Lok Pal Bill quoted by
you, you know for sure they are not practical and implementable and
still you suggest them. I see a day dreamer in you. It clearly
appears you are personally against a set of people and you fail to see
the good intentions of these people. And you will oppose anything
and everything these people would attempt to do. Just for the sake of
opposing. Even if they can bring in some good to the society.
Regards,
S. Anoop Kumar.
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:47 AM, S. Anoop Kumar <s.anoopku...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:43 am, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr Anoop Kumar
>
> 1) I dispute that Anna Hazare and his nominees constitute or represent civil
> society.
> If we examine the 5, we find that each and every one of them is a former
> public servant or the progeny. Wouls any reasonable person classify this as
> an unbiased panel.
>
> 2) I dispute that we need a LokPal to tackle corruption in the country. What
> we need is a Constitutional amendment making military service compulsory for
> every citizen below the age of 30 for "x" number of years. What we need is a
> movement to throw out / exterminate the foreign parasites and their progeny
> who drain our national resources like leeches. What we need is a
> constitutional amendment bestowing the right on each citizen to bear arms /
> alternatively the repeal of the Arms Act. What we need is honest and
> autonomous police forces. What we need is for corrupt advocates and judges
> to be strung up from the nearest lamppost. What we need is a complete repeal
> of the Representation of the Peoples Act so that a citizen can only be an MP
> / MLA for 1 term. The wishlist can go on and on. So stop dreaming and start
> living.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
>
> > I have been reading your messages which are mostly Anna bashing or
> > bashing of the other draft committee members of the proposed Lok Pall
> > Bill representing the civil society, that is us. Mr. Anna Hazare,
> > Mr. Santosh Hegde, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, Mr. Shashi Bhushan and Mr.
> > Prashant Bhushan are only members of the committee drafting the
> > proposed Lok Pal bill. They are neither offered any constitution
> > post nor they are aspiring for one. Mr. Santosh Hegde served as
> > Judge of Supreme Court of India and is now Lok Ayuktha of Karnataka
> > and due to retire soon.
>
> > It is a foregone conclusion that India, now considered as one of the
> > most corrupt nations, needs a strong anti corruption law, the law
> > which can be enforceable, swift, fast and result oriented. For which
> > we need to have a strong bill. A deterrent in the first place. The
> > bill which is devoid of any short comings and loop holes which would
> > be conveniently exploited to their advantage by the mighty and
> > powerful. In short, we do not need just another bill which is just
> > seen or read on papers but remains absolutely unenforceable or
> > powerless. The toothless tiger.
>
> > Mr. Shashi Bhushan has been advocating a strong Lok Pal Bill for the
> > past 40 years. He understand the dynamics of both politics and also
> > law. Mr. Prashant Bhushan and also Santosh Hegde are other legal
> > luminaries. Added with social activists like Mr. Anna Hazare and Mr.
> > Arvind Kejriwal in the committee, we can atleast hope for a strong and
> > enforceable bill that would protect the interests of the citizens of
> > our nation.
>
> > Instead of criticizing the draft committee members, and every other
> > who is supporting the Lok Pal Bill, I wish you concentrate on the
> > draft bill with constructive suggestions to make it effective and free
> > from errors or legal loop holes, get it tabled before the parliament
> > houses and also get it passed. This would be a great contribution
> > from your side. To us as a nation and to our coming generations.
>
> > Regards,
> > S. Anoop Kumar.
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:22 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Sankar
>
> > > As I have already asked the concerned Ministry, I need to know why say
> > > Mr Shanti Bhushan or Mr Anna Hazare is "cleaner" than me. Or
> > > conversely why I am "dirtier" / "blacker" than they are. It is only
> > > when every clean and honest citizen of India starts formally demanding
> > > to know these things (as we are entitled to demand to know in law)
> > > that there will be transparency in public appointments and clean
> > > people will be selected.
>
> > > Tomorrow if DoPT suggests Mr Shanti Bhushan or Mr Anna Hazare as
> > > Chief Vigilance Commissioner should we accept this like little sheep ?
>
> > > Sarbajit
>
> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Sankar Pani
>
> > > <sankarprasadp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > could u please suggest few names who do not have any allegation and are
> > > > absolutely clean and perfect also have competency. It would be better
> > in the
> > > > interest of the nation if you have anything to the contents of the bill
> > else
> > > > will just frustrate the purpose of your dream of absolute corruption
> > free
> > > > nation.
>
> > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:43 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > >> Your statements are grossly objectionable.
>
> > > >> 1) It is EASY to find competent people who are absolutely
> > > >> incorruptible and without any credible allegations against them.
>
> > > >> 2) The issue is not about the LokPak Bill's contents or the fashion
> > > >> it is brought about, BUT about the NEED for it in the first place.
>
> > > >> 3) Why should we the people of India settle for "RELATIVELY
> > > >> LESS CORRUPT or CONTROVERSIAL PEOPLE" ??
> > > >> You should reconsider the wisdom of statements you make in a
> > > >> public forum.,
>
> > > >> Sarbajit
>
> > > >> On Apr 22, 8:56 am, Sankar Pani <sankarprasadp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > If we start finding faults with each and every person, then only god
> > if
> > > >> > any
> > > >> > will be eligible in your scale to the Drafting committee.At the
> > present
> > > >> > juncture we can choose relatively less corrupt or less controversial
> > > >> > people
> > > >> > but never possible to find a person who do not have any such
> > allegation.
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > me it seems that we have to accept the best in the existing
> > committee
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > and should judge the objective of the committee.
>
> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:14 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > > Dear Satishji
>
> > > >> > > For the same reason that a mongoose wants to kill a snake.
>
> > > >> > > Sarbajit
>
> > > >> > > On Apr 22, 8:27 am, Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsat...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > Dear Sarbajit
>
> > > >> > > > Why u want to kill drafting committee?
>
> > > >> > > > S.K.Kapoor
>
> > > >> > > > ________________________________
> > > >> > > > sense ?
>
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Sankar Prasad Pani
> > > >> > A-70, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
> > > >> > India
> > > >> > PIN-751007
> > > >> > Cell- 9437279278http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/
>
> > > > --
> > > > Sankar Prasad Pani
> > > > A-70, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
> > > > India
> > > > PIN-751007
> > > > Cell- 9437279278
> > > >http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment