Articless

..The Silent Man in Blue Turban..

“The contesting knights do fall in a fatal, not those who doesn’t fight.” Obviously, we criticize those whom we expect. It’s the day when 13^th Head of State has taken oath to be loyal to the constitution of India. No one knows whether Dada would be the best President for this Nation but what would be his criteria for being the best??                                       One man whose criticism has shaped to the worst is still not provoked. From being a ‘puppet’ to being ‘Dhritrashtra’ & ‘speaking Doll’ everything has been his apostle for him but he is still silent. There are two turbanators who plans for this long-processed transforming economy. Which blue turban am I talking about? Of course not the yowling one but one who doesn’t clamor.  Mr. Prime Minister………                                                                                   Possessing the office of Head of Government on the simple quench & push say choice of UPA chairperson, Dr. Manmohan Singh, the 13^th Prime Minister of India & the first PM in 57 years history of post who doesn’t have the letter ‘R’ in his name. Everyone expected that this chap who once changed the face of Indian Economy would revolutionize the developments in nation. He entered in style & many revolutionary bills were accented to be the act. Then in 2008, whether it was the Nuclear Deal with USA or fighting with the depression of world economy, along with his best two knights at both front he fought like a warrior & then triumphed too. He burnt the midnight oils in solving the problems of coalition which was nothing less than cracking the iron nuts. But success doesn’t resist for long. The next parliamentary elections, UPA continued its tenure again the white beard as the leader. Here onwards starts the bad time for the synonym of synonyms. Today, we see the time when a globally Popular leader is being globally criticized. He is designated as ‘the Under achiever’ by a US magazine. One who takes it as a conquer for the PM is wrong as someone is recited Under achiever if he was expected to perform more but he fails to deliver at that level, it doesn’t mean a total loss. There are plenty of areas where our PM is compelled; he is not just a head of government but of a Coalition Government. It has its own coercions, properties & conducts. UPA is the alliance of various regional parties with their own area of interests & motives. From allocation of Ministries & departments to execution or implementation of new acts, he has to face contradictions from their own cohorts. Here, he under achieves the faith of cohorts, yes, here he stands out as the under achiever as he cannot control the sovereign status of regional parties, he becomes an underachiever when it comes to the point esteem among the crowd, everyone know that he is a versatile leader but every talent needs to be proved. Until he re-accumulates his calibers & prove it, he will be an underachiever. So often he quotes “Rahul may possess my ministry, or I’m always ready to be preceded by him.” Who is Rahul? What gives him power to do so? What has he achieved till date? Mr. Singh, you are the king, king of this Indian Realm. Rahul is a promising but you are an achiever at many fronts. Who frightens you? Who could do so? Even his rivals respect him & his abilities. He is an underachiever because the world expected a lot from him, not because he is sitting silent at 7, RCR. He stands silent in public, he doesn’t change his expressions but it doesn’t mean he is a dumb. His style of execution speaks & we are waiting for that, must wait…..

Articless

Someone listening?

                                                                                                      --- Ankit Jha

The political dilemma! Again puppets are crying. As the race for the India’s no 1 has been completed but results are yet awaited. As that is being awaited, I would like to acquire you all to the 1 week  past .salman  khurshid , hon’ble cabinet minister for law & order ,inan encounter with the national news paper questioned on the role of royal prince & chief secretary congress rahul Gandhi in the active politics . he hinted for the active participation for him in national politics & also the party is going directionless. This truth reformed to a pungent pinch in the congress parts of body. Almost whole of congress society criticized the statement & asked khurshid to clarify his states the opposition took it as the sweetest dessert of the year & washed their hands in flowing river. The very next day Mr. khurshid , one of the soft speaking political leader of India analyzed the role of media & proved it a wrong way of journalism ,Blaming media for the misinterpretation of his words. He clarified that his party is neither Directionless nor the P.M.is underachiever

                                                                                        It was Khurshid’s chapter & there were many questions arose from here, in the same way like rises from ‘Trigonometry’ of mathematics. Someone needed to answer it all, then there’s come Most speaking Political Brat of India, also the acting guardian of Rahul Gandhi, Digvijay Singh,, who answered with an optimism of introducing Rahul to the active & influenced politics with many reforms. He assured everyone saying that after the Presidential election, Rahul shall be launched again some added features & responsibilities. It was well signed by the HOD of puppets & chairperson of UPA, also mother of Rahul in a public conference.                                                                                                                                                                                                       Now the whole of expert society is busy in the analysis of the statement. What would be the apt role for Baba? The million dollar question… “Acting chief of Party, Minister in the central cabinet or Prime Minister? What would be Rahul’s new & so called active & influenced role? As per me he should be a responsibility which could allow him to visit the doorsteps of the Indian beings. This is the role that suits him most, to his deep roots. Neither a P.M., a party chief nor a cabinet minister can do it, so what role would he be rewarded with for his outstanding performance in UP & Bihar legislative elections. Wasn’t that outstanding, where he stood outside only after the thrashening of his party & his personality was sprawled. He stood nicely out of the defeats in Goa, Punjab & Mumbai. It is proved that when he achieves something it looks like a Prodigy & also the Bright future of Young India but when he faces a setback it’s not counted as his fault. It means he owns both ‘Head’ & ‘Tail’ of his performance. So he should be made an NSSO worker or something like that where is performance is not questionable & always applauded. Rajesh Khanna hated Tears & Rahul hates Allegations Pushpa!!!!.

                                                                Someone’s listening or not? Rahul is back again… the time good spoken & almost silent leader is all set to be floored on Congress stage. Huge round of Applause to Rahul Gandhi, as he is coming out atleast.

Know about it-

The Right To Information Act 2005

The Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI) is an Act of the Parliament of India "to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens." The Act applies to all States and Union Territories of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir has its own act called Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009. Under the provisions of the Act, any citizen may request information from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerize their records for wide dissemination and to pro-actively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally. This law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005. Information disclosure in India was hitherto restricted by the Official Secrets Act 1923 and various other special laws, which the new RTI Act now relaxes.

Disclosure of State information in British India was (and is) governed from 1889 by the Official Secrets Act. This law secures information related to security of the State, sovereignty of the country and friendly relations with foreign states, and contains provisions which prohibit disclosure of non-classified information. Civil Service conduct rules and the Indian Evidence Act impose further restrictions on government officials' powers to disclose information to the public.

Freedom of Information Act 2002-

Passage of a national level law, however, proved to be a difficult task. Given the experience of state governments in passing practicable legislation, the Central Government appointed a working group under H. D. Shourie and assigned it the task of drafting legislation. The Shourie draft, in an extremely diluted form, was the basis for the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 which eventually became law under the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. In late 2002 the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) asked for scrutiny of the proposed bill by the Supreme Court to determine whether the bill gave citizens sufficient power to find out about governance. The government had been reluctant to recognize that the people had a right to know, and after the CPIL filing it rushed through the bill without correcting known defects. This Act was severely criticized for permitting too many exemptions, not only under the standard grounds of national security and sovereignty, but also for requests that would involve "disproportionate diversion of the resources of a public authority". There was no upper limit on the charges that could be levied. There were no penalties for not complying with a request for information. This Act, consequently, never came into effective force.

State Level Laws

The RTI Laws were first successfully enacted by the state governments of — Karnataka (2000), Goa (1997), Rajasthan (2000), Tamil Nadu (1997), Delhi (2001), Maharashtra (2002), Assam (2002), Madhya Pradesh (2003), and Jammu and Kashmir (2004). The Maharashtra and Delhi State level enactments are considered to have been the most widely used. The Delhi RTI Act is still in force. Jammu & Kashmir, has its own Right to Information Act of 2009, the successor to the repealed J&K Right to Information Act, 2004 and its 2008 amendments

Right to Information movement

In early 1990s Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana began a movement to− bring in transparency in village accounts. Initially, MKSS lobbied government to obtain information such as master rolls (employment and payment records) and bills and vouchers relating to purchase and transportation of materials. This information was then crosschecked at Jan Sunwais (public hearings) against actual testimonies of workers. The public hearings were incredibly successful in drawing attention to corruption and exposing leakages in the system. Success of MKSS became a source of inspiration for activists in India and led to the genesis of a broader discourse on the right to information in India. In 1993, a first draft RTI law was proposed by the Consumer Education and Research Council, Ahmedabad (CERC). In 1996, the Press Council of India headed by Justice P B Sawant presented a draft model law on the right to information to the Government of India. The draft model law was later updated and renamed the PCI-NIRD Freedom of Information Bill 1997. MKSS's advocacy gave rise to the National Campaign on People's Right to Information (NCPRI), which was formed to advocate for the right to information at the national level. In 1997 efforts to legislate for the right to information, at both the State and National level, quickened. A working group under the chairmanship of Mr. H D Shourie (the Shourie Committee) was set up by the Central Government and given the mandate to prepare draft legislation on freedom of information. The Shourie Committee's Report and draft law were published in 1997. The Shourie Committee draft law was passed through two successive governments, but was never introduced in Parliament. In 1999 NDA minister Mr Ram Jethmalani, then Union Minister for Urban Development, issued an administrative order enabling citizens to inspect and receive photocopies of files. Shourie Committee draft law was reworked into the Freedom of Information Bill 2000. It was passed in December 2002 and received Presidential asset on January 2003, as the Freedom of Information Act 2002. In 1998, during the Rajasthan State elections the Congress Party promised in its election manifesto to enact a law on right to information if it came to power. Following their election, the Party appointed a committee of bureaucrats to draft a bill on the right to information. As the Committee was comprised only bureaucrats, strong objections were raised by civil society organisations, following which the members of MKSS and National Campaign for People Right to Information were invited to assist in drafting the bill. MKSS and NCPRI conducted a host of consultations in each divisional headquarters of the State. Drawing on the input from these consultations, a draft civil society Right to Information Bill was prepared, which was then submitted to the Committee. The Committee drew on the citizens draft Bill for its recommendations, but refused to accept the Bill in toto. The Rajasthan Right to Information Act 2000 was eventually passed on 11 May 2000. The Act in its final form retained many of the suggestions of the RTI movement, but diluted others. In the early 2000s Anna Hazare led a movement in Maharashtra state which forced the state government to pass a stronger Maharashtra Right to Information Act. This Act was later considered as the base document for the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI), enacted by the Union Government. It also ensured that the President of India assented to this new Act. Law professor Alasdair Scott Roberts said:

The state of Maharashtra – home to one of the world's largest cities, Mumbai, adopted a Right to Information Act in 2003, prodded by the hunger strike of prominent activist, Anna Hazare. ("All corruption can end only if there is freedom of information," said Hazare, who resumed his strike in February 2004 to push for better enforcement of the Act).

In 2004, under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, the Congress party won the national elections and formed the central government. Aruna Roy was inducted into the National Advisory Committee (NAC), an extremely powerful but extra-constitutional quasi-governmental body headed by Sonia Gandhi which effectively supervises the working of the common minimum program of UPA II . Aruna Roy submitted a paper recommending amendments to the 2002 Freedom of Information Act to the NAC which in turn sent by it to the Prime Minister's Office. The Right to Information Bill 2004 (RTI Bill 2004) was tabled on 23 December during the winter session of the Lok Sabha. The RTI Bill 2004 was based largely on recommendations submitted to the Government by the NAC which was passed by the Indian parliament in 2005. On 20 July 2006 the Union Cabinet amended the Right to Information Act 2005 to exclude the file noting by the government officials from its purview. Hazare began his fast unto death on 9 August 2006 in Alandi against the proposed amendment. He ended his fast on 19 August 2006, after the government agreed to change its earlier decision.

Scope-

The Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, where J&K Right to Information Act is in force. It is applicable to all constitutional authorities, including the executive, legislature and judiciary; any institution or body established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. It is also defined in the Act that bodies or authorities established or constituted by order or notification of appropriate government including bodies "owned, controlled or substantially financed" by government, or non-Government organizations "substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds" provided by the government are also covered in it.

Private bodies

Private bodies are not within the Act's ambit directly. In a landmark decision of 30-Nov-2006 ('Sarbajit Roy versus DERC') the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that privatized public utility companies continue to be within the RTI Act- their privatization not withstanding.

Process-

Under the Act, all the authorities covered must appoint their Public Information Officer (PIO). Any person may submit a request to the PIO for information in writing. It is the PIO's obligation to provide information to citizens of India who request information under the Act. If the request pertains to another public authority (in whole or part), it is the PIO's responsibility to transfer/forward the concerned portions of the request to a PIO of the other within 5 working days. In addition, every public authority is required to designate Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) to receive RTI requests and appeals for forwarding to the PIOs of their public authority. The applicant is not required to disclose any information or reasons other than his name and contact particulars to seek the information. "Rtination"  are the online system which facilitates the filing of RTI (Right To Information Act, India) applications online. It aims primarily at minimizing the time taken and effort required in filing an application. The Act specifies time limits for replying to the request.

• If the request has been made to the PIO, the reply is to be given within 30 days of receipt.
• If the request has been made to an APIO, the reply is to be given within 35 days of receipt.
• If the PIO transfers the request to another public authority (better concerned with the information requested), the time allowed to reply is 30 days but computed from the day after it is received by the PIO of the transferred authority.
• Information concerning corruption and Human Rights violations by scheduled Security agencies (those listed in the Second Schedule to the Act) is to be provided within 45 days but with the prior approval of the Central Information Commission.
• However, if life or liberty of any person is involved, the PIO is expected to reply within 48 hours.

Since the information is to be paid for, the reply of the PIO is necessarily limited to either denying the request (in whole or part) and/or providing a computation of "further fees". The time between the reply of the PIO and the time taken to deposit the further fees for information is excluded from the time allowed. If information is not provided within this period, it is treated as deemed refusal. Refusal with or without reasons may be ground for appeal or complaint. Further, information not provided in the times prescribed is to b e provided free of charge. For Central Departments as of 2006, there is a fee of 10 for filing the request, 2 per page of information and 5 for each hour of inspection after the first hour. If the applicant is a Below Poverty Line Card holder(BPL), then no fee shall apply. Such BPL Card holders have to provide a copy of their BPL card along with their application to the Public Authority. States Government and High Courts fix their own rules.

Partial disclosure

The Act allows those part(s) of the record which are not exempt from disclosure and which can reasonably be severed from parts containing exempt information to be provided.

Exclusion-

Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule like IB, Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, RAW, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar, The Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police. Agencies specified by the State Governments through a Notification will also be excluded. The exclusion, however, is not absolute and these organizations have an obligation to provide information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Further, information relating to allegations of human rights violation could be given but only with the approval of the Central or State Information Commission.

Information Exclusions-

The following is exempt from disclosure [(S.8)]

• Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, "strategic, scientific or economic" interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offense;
• Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
• Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
• Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
• Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
• Information received in confidence from foreign Government;
• Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
• Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
• Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;
• Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual (but it is also provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied by this exemption);
• Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (NB: This provision is qualified by the proviso to sub-section 11(1) of the Act which exempts disclosure of "trade or commercial secrets protected by law" under this clause when read along with 8(1)(d))

Articlessss

Nirwastra Hoti Dharohar-2

‘Public samaan dekhati hai dukaan nahin, aur jab sharafat ke kapde utarte hain toh sabse jyada majaa bhi sharifon ko hi aata hai.’ Yeh samwaad pichhale saal pradarshit hui film ‘The Dirty Picture’ se hai. Iski nirmata Ekta Kapoor ka kehna hai ki 50 scenes kaatne ke baad bhi pata nahin kyon ise T.V. channels par pradsarshit nahin kiya jaa rahe hai. Sonchane ki baat hai, yadi 50 scenes kaatne ke baad bhi film pradarshit hone layak nahin toh use pahle kya hoga? Is lekh ke pichhale ank mein humne sangit ke malin hone ki vyatha suni thi, is ank mein hum apni us dharohar ke nagn wa nirwastra hone ki vyatha katha sunenge jise 1913 mein aayi film Raja Harishchandra’ se lekar 1932 ki ‘Alam Ara’ aura b pichali release Maximum tak sabhi filmon ne apnaya hai, Title, Plot Aur Dialogues… Parde par Kamottej kai varshon se chala aa raha hai, uske liye Censor Board ne alag grade tay kar diya hai. Ek samay tha jab koi bhi pratisthit aur bada sitara aisi filmon mein kaam nahin karna chahta tha, us grade ko Bollywood ka sharm kaha jata tha. Parantu aaj badalte yug ke sath bade-bade sitaare bhi is tarah ki filmon mein hath aajmate hain. Aaj ke darshakon ko kya chahiye? Har shukrawar ko kuch nya. Kuch naye ke sath kuch accha. Kahte hain Bhartiya darshak bhi ab Hollywood darshkon ki tarah paripakwa ho gaye hain wa The Reader jaisi filmon ka intezaar kar rahe hain. Paripakwa dimaag va chahat hamaari sanskriti ko badal nahin sakti aur nahi hamaare rishton ke samajh ko. Taaza udaharan lete hain- humne apne ghar mein Saas-Bahu ko ya toh Maa-beti ki tarah dekha hai ya toh phir do dushmanon ki tarah. Fir ‘Vicky Donor’ mein donon ka sath baithkar sharab pita dekhna achambhit hi karta hai. Humaare filmon ke naam bhi ab Hollywood ke filmon ke titles ko takkar deti hai. Jahaan Hollywood mein ‘Sex & the city’ hai toh humaare yahan bhi ‘Kaminey, The Dirty Picture’ jaise naam chalet hain. ‘Jism’ toh thik tha, ‘Jism2’ bhi aa rahi hain. Kya hamari sanskriti itni majboor ho gayi hai ki videshi gand ko bhartiya mehmaan baji ada ki jaa rahi hai. Videshi mudde, videshi kalakaar aur videshi bewkoofiyan jise humour ka naam dekar bhartiya darshakon ko ek film parosa jaa raha hai aur hum uska khoob lutf utha rahen hain. Antarjaal se lekar Mobile Phone aur T.V. se lekar Cinema gharon tak. Kya Bandini banane wale Roy sahib ne socha hoga ki bharat mein kabhi ‘Ragini MMS’ naam ki bhi fim banegi aur ‘Love Story’ banana wale Jubilee Kumar ne socha hoga ki  ‘Hate Story’ bhi banegi.Mahilaon par atyachar aur unke utthan ki dastan koi naya plot nahin hai par iske liye ‘The Dirty Picture’ aur ‘ Diary of a Butterfly’ ki jarurat nahin. Pichle varsh ek film mein ‘Male Prostitution’ arthat ‘purush vaishya’ ka mudda utha tha, iske poorva ‘samalaingikta’ aur ‘pre-marital relationships’ par bhi dheron filmein ban chuki hai. Hamaari 100 varshon ki dharohar nirantar nirvastra hoti jaa rahi hai. Yeh ek satya hai ki Ramayan va Puranon par har film nahin banyi jaa sakti par banana ke lliye deshnmein kai mudde taktaki lagaye dekh rahe hain taaki ek baar toh unka bhi uddhar ho jaye. E baar toh koi rangmanch ka rukh kare kain mudde milenge. Desh ke pustakalayon mein jaakar Gurudev, Premchand aur Sharatchand ko dhundho toh Othelo, Merchant of Venice shariken kai kritiyaan milengi. Poori deshi aur apni sanskriti ki maryaadon ke sath….