Hi
1) "> Let the debate be public on this list, i would like, being
interested in the
> politics of the decision to know who stands for what."
The "politics" are summarised in
">> Accordingly we have resolved that the new primary purpose of this
>> group is to facilitate information exchange between the stakeholders
>> in RTI process, so that responsible citizen users get maximum
>> information in RTI without delay, and that PIOs and FAAs deny maximum
>> information to irresponsible applicants / appellants without fear of
>> penalty."
Moderator-1 (Sarbajit) stands for citizens getting maximum information
(preferably home delivered without RTI requests being filed) "expeditiously"
Moderator-2 ("India Public Servant" - alas long retired, Mr S.D Sharma)
stands for giving information strictly as per the mandate of RTI Act,
banning frivolous/vexatious applicants, imposing penalty on RTI users,
putting J&K under martial law (officially), adding more exemptions to
section 8 etc. Banning NGOs from filing proxy RTIs etc. and many other
citizen friendly measures -such as removing file notings (His BSNL internet
connection has not been working for a week now, so I'm putting this
down temporarily on his behalf)
2) "> RTI is not only the technicalities of getting information, which
should have
> been ours by right, it is also about the politics of information and without
> the politics the information it is at best data."
RTI is essentially about getting access to official records and
supporting documents (if any). As these are otherwise classified as
"official secrets" the information is classified as a) innocuous &
suitable for general dissemination - section 4, b) normally secret and
disclosable to bonafide applicants on a selective basis - section 6.
The information which a citizen has a "right" to is limited to section
4 information. The citizen's "right" does not extend to information
which is requested for under section 6. <-- For the logic behind this
see 8(2) r/w 22 which makes it clear that not only can 8(1) exemptions
be used to deny info, but also the entire OSA 1923.
Citizens previously had a FUNDAMENTAL "right to information" which was
easily enforceable. Now by this stupid RTI Act (which, as per you,
was allegedly brought about by "active activists") our Fundamental
Right has been downgraded to an ordinary civil right by the
'harami's'. To use an example, anti-biotics are effective only as long
as they are administered by / available to experts, used judiciously,
and carried forward to their logical conclusion. Till such time as RTI
was a Fundamental Right it was effective, now when every RTI quack is
prescribing it for Rs.10 a shot (like those water injections), it is
useless, and its so-called anti-corruption effect is a media bubble -
as effective as.a 3 day media cycle wonder
3) IMO, the reason why we are talking at cross -purposes actually
centres on your phrase "active activist people". The terms "active"
and "activist" are not necessarily congruent - and many active /
concerned people actively (sorry) dislike being tagged as "activists".
4) So this group has no problem whatsoever, with active / concerned
members posting anything (sense / nonsense) to the list. The
opposition is to systematic misuse of this group's bandwidth to
promote ORGANISED / PROFESSIONAL "activism" and "activist" agendas..
Rest later.
Sarbajit
On 7/28/10, Ramnarayan.K <ramnarayan.k@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sarabjit , and other people on the list, specially the other moderators
>
> Seems like we have some prevaricating about many bushes before we can chew
> on the substance of many issues.
>
> Yet again i and some others have some problem with Sarabjit's, the moderator
> in this case, mail , specifically they are below.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The Moderators of this group have (after considerable internal debate)
>> decided that we (responsible RTI stakeholders) are collectively fed up
>> with being inflicted with the nonsense that 'activists" (RTI / Social
>> / 498A / environmental .. etc ) keep inconsiderately posting to this
>> group.
>>
>> So who exact are the other moderators of this list lets hear this same
> thing from them as well.
>
> Let the debate be public on this list, i would like, being interested in the
> politics of the decision to know who stands for what.
>
> Kindly define Responsible RTI Stakeholder.
>
> Because in colloquil it may mean one thing but this much misused word, from
> gambling, means nothing to do with what we are talking about (see end of
> mail for meaning)
>
> RTI is not only the technicalities of getting information, which should have
> been ours by right, it is also about the politics of information and without
> the politics the information it is at best data. Unfortunate , as this is
> the state of this current RTI beast.
>
> It wasn't unactivist people who managed to make RTI happen it happened
> because of a lot of concerned, active, activist people involved them selves
> in the politics of information. People who were interested in things other
> than those accruing directly to them.
>
> On this list there has been the constant bashing of activists and often
> social, environmental activists have received fairly bad will here. I wonder
> why. I am a nature conservationist and some times (often enough) it means
> standing up to some very very big bullies. The kind of bullies one does not
> want to meet in broad daylight even in front of a Million People. For us RTI
> is a tool, a weapon, a method to get information that such bullies and
> theeir boorocratic (use sic when quoting if you need to ) friends. There are
> many wars and battles being fought and the powers that be are using evvery
> single unfair, dastardly, cowardly, criminal method possible to make sure
> that only their writ runs (many times it runs a riot as well) .
>
> In this madness to not use RTI is criminal and to think of accessing RTI as
> only information and not politcal is quite stupid.
>
> Why is it that filing an RTI (for the simpler things in life) makes some
> sections of the Government Machinery Perform. Simply because they hold them
> selves accountable to no one and at present the only accountability that we,
> as common people, can get, is to use a mechanism that was not designed so
> but has become so. Why is it that information being accessed under / through
> RTI makes accountable people very jittery and scared enough to take drastic
> steps. Where is accountability in the system, no where, RTI is as yet one of
> the very very few tools we have for that as much as we would like it to be
> otherwise.
>
> Accordingly we have resolved that the new primary purpose of this
>> group is to facilitate information exchange between the stakeholders
>> in RTI process, so that responsible citizen users get maximum
>> information in RTI without delay, and that PIOs and FAAs deny maximum
>> information to irresponsible applicants / appellants without fear of
>> penalty.
>>
>> Accepted , however will the moderators consider turning down their vitriol
> against others whose true interest they may not know and if they do then to
> expose them.
>
>
>> The secondary (but equally important) purpose is to expose all the
>> 'harami' RTI activists, and Information Commissioners who are killing
>> the RTI movement to the detriment of responsible RTI users.
>>
>>
> Kindly define what Harami activists are, it might make it clearer who
> exactly we are speaking about.
>
> ram
>
> Meaning of the word stakeholder, which people should consider not using and
> rather use interested / beneficiary parties.
>
> **
> Stakeholder Stake"hold`er (-h[=o]ld`[~e]r), n.
> The holder of a stake; one with whom the bets are deposited
> when a wager is laid.
> [1913 Webster]
>
No comments:
Post a Comment