प्रजा अधीन राजा समूह | Right to Recall Group

FAQs on Right to recall and Transparent Complaint Procedure
Page 3 of 3

Author:  kmoksha [ Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: FAQs on Right to recall and Transparent Complaint Proced

Now the proposed law is NOTHING but a law that would allow to put complaints of us commons on PM's website in a way that everyone can read. Pls re-read the 3 clauses. The 3rd clause has no LEGAL value and is not a moral binding. And 2nd clause can be removed and the law still has same effect, but collector's staff will be overloaded. eg if 500000 people have a complain, and if there is only clause-1 and no clause-2, then 500000 people will be registering same affidavit, which is loss-loss situation. So clause-2 is only to reduce the burden of system and nothing else. Hence the law is just a forum to register complaints and RTI application on PM's website.
ANY affidavits can be placed, and if the contents are defamatory etc, the postor shall pay dearly and the affidavit will be taken down. And later, one can add laws that would suspend his posting rights for several years. Same as media --- media can print anything, and it is liable for what it prints. But no can in general can stop a mediamen from printing pre-facto(before the fact is committed).
The Collector can delegate the task to his clerk in Tahsils, if and when he decides and facilities are available. The facility must have a decent camera to record the person who is submitting affidavit, scan his finger prints and also scan his IDs. So it can go to village level in near future. But walking to Collector's office or Tahsil office is easier than filing PIL for which one needs to go to HCjs or SCjs and pay hefty bribes.
Now do you believe that people should be allowed to file cases in courts? Well, filing case in courts is 100 times more expensive that process I listed. So if my process is too expensive IYO, courts are also expensive. So IYO, people should be banned from filing cases in courts , right ? !! Or, if you are fine with the process of filing cases in courts, which is far more expensive than filing YES/NO, why do oppose letting commons register YES/NO.
Now internet is available to about 4% to 5% of population of India. Say 5 crores of 116 crores commons have internet. Out of these 5 crores, some 4.90 crores are kind of people, who would oppose even giving 1% of PM's servers' diskspace to commons. But some 10 lakh people in these 5 crores do care for commons. So when these 10 lakh well to do people with internet see a pro-common affidavit on web, they will try to propagate it using (i)pamphlets (ii)word of mouth (iii)newspaper ad, and thus the information will reach 5 crore to 10 crore of commons. And if the affidavit has pro-common points, then these 5 crore commons will spread the information to remaining 110 crore commons. So publicity route for pro-common affidavit is : PM's website -> 10 lakh pro-common in from top 5cr of India -> pamphlets, meetings, word of mouth -> 5 crore commons -> word of mouth -> 100 cr commons.

So the process is not restricted to those who have internet. And even if he has internet, no one can read 100s of affidavits that would come in a day. So eventually, the process is run by word of mouth only aided by pamphlets etc.
This language issue is not a flaw of the proposal. It is because India is multi lingual. And PM/CMs etc are always free to put official translation of the affidavits, which they need not do for each affidavits but can do when an affidavit gets a threshold of say 1% . And this is not a law making system, where translation would be of paramount importance. This is opinion gathering system only.
I made rough guess as follow : India's area is 3287590 sq km. Divide this by 265,000 Gram Panchayats. We get average area as 12.5 sq km, which would square of 3.5 km * 3.5 km. If Talati's office is at center, then fartherest person will be at the corner, some 3 km away. So if population is uniform and Talatis offices are uniformly spaced, then average distance from a person's home to Talati's office be 1.5 km. i.e. over 50% population will be within 1.5 km. Now population has dense clusters and the Talati's office will be in the middle of these clusters. Hence average distance is LESS than 1.5 km for at least 50% of the population.

Author:  kmoksha [ Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAQs on Right to recall and Transparent Complaint Proced

41) How will a person in a village know/choose a post of national level like PM, etc?

Today, a person in a village or small town, to know any news about a place far away from him , has to rely on newspaper, T.V or other media . But the media is paid, and it has only that news for which it gets money. So, that news is not reliable.
But when the `Citizens Voice-Transparent Complaint/Proposal procedure` comes and via that Right to recall-PM etc recall procedures come, anyone can put news about a person etc. in their affidavits to the collector and if lakhs and crores of people, who also have to verify themselves by voter id and fingerprint scan at the patwari office, support that , then that news will be reliable. In other words, these democratic procedures will by themselves become a alternative media and give reliable,verified, news.

42) Why do we need RTR over MPs and lower posts if we have RTR-PM ?

India has 700 districts and each district has 20-30 nodal head like Collector, SP, DEO, District Supply Officer etc. There is no way PM alone can manage 700*30 = 21000 heads. So PM will have to depend on a staff of supervisors between him and 21000 district heads. This staff has no glory to gain -- if they supervise well, all credit will go to PM. So these intermediate supervisors will become source of corruption as well as lethargy. Also, district heads have no glory to gain if they perform well. So they too will do only what is asked by supervisors and will stop being creative.

Where in RTR-over-all, each sees that public feedback can not just punish him, but also later promote him in more areas and at higher level. eg in RTR-DEO procedure I have proposed (see chap-30 of 301.pdf ) , if a citizens can appoint a person as DEO of upto 10 districts. Hence he has reason , motive to be creative and improve. If he works under PM with no RTR over him, he has no reason to be creative and improve beyond what is asked to do.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC + 5:30 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group