>  b:  Take to the streets, shut the whole place down.>
>  c:  Go beat up the post-master.
>
> I would now invite the befuddled Netters to examine which of the above
> seems to be an appropriate tack?

Hi C'da: You might consider me as another befuddled one. :)

I won't say it would be appropriate, but if you go by history, there is a
possibility that some WILL consider these 2 tacks only.

> 1:  It is obvious that ONE arm of the Central govt. has failed in its duty
> of delivering the mail in the manner it has promised the people. That in
> itself is NOT a sin,or a  crime meriting a federal case. It could have
been
> an accident.  The mail truck from the PO to the airport could have been
> washed away by flood waters. THe mail-deliverer might have used it to cook
> his dinner. Whatever.

That is India - and very much Assam too, isn't it? You can't be sure of
anything!

I do have full sympathy for those kids. Hope something good (even better)
happen to each of them, and also they get a better chance to serve BHARAT
MATA, even if it is not this year, and if not through NDA....







----- Original Message -----
From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Rajib Das" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Snail Mail: Postal Department, India


> That was a very good explantaion, Amlan.
>
>
> But needs a couple of additional explanations to clear it up for our
> befuddled friends:
>
>
>
> 1:  It is obvious that ONE arm of the Central govt. has failed in its duty
> of delivering the mail in the manner it has promised the people. That in
> itself is NOT a sin,or a  crime meriting a federal case. It could have
been
> an accident.  The mail truck from the PO to the airport could have been
> washed away by flood waters. THe mail-deliverer might have used it to cook
> his dinner. Whatever.
>
> 2: But for the UPSC, another arm of the all knowing, all powerful Central
> god of the nation, to have ignored the appeal to re-consider the issue,
> even though its sibling, the postal dept. caused the problem for the
> students; is unconcionable.
>
> 3: Those who are entrusted with the powers, in this instance the many
armed
> god, OWNER of two arms involved, must be held responsible, ACCOUNTABLE. If
> that does not happen, the whole exercise is MEANINGLESS.
>
>
> Now how do the citizenry extract accountability?
>
>
>  a: By going to a reliable forum, where after a trustworthy and competent
> investigation would establish guilt or innocence and if guilty would
assess
> damages, and may either recommend redress of the grievances or award
> damages.
>
>  b:  Take to the streets, shut the whole place down.
>
>  c:  Go beat up the post-master.
>
>  d:  Call Assam Netters to judge.
>
>
> I would now invite the befuddled Netters to examine which of the above
> seems to be an appropriate tack? And if none above, perhaps something
else?
> I am not going to point out the right answer here, because if the
befuddled
> pick the right ones themselves, they would have ownership of the
> decision--and therby will be a far better means of selling the idea (
> thanks to my management seminar fundas here!)
>
> 4: I don't recall ANYONE, much less the perennial offender, yours truly;
> who has claimed in THIS instance, that it was a case of  discriminating
> against the Assamese. It is either a case of serious reading/comprehension
> deficiency or a case of some variation of bi-polar disorder causing
hearing
> of voices not sopken ( Dr. Tilok, any comments, if you are listening ?).
>
> I did however raise the possibility that the clerks-from-hell, the suck-up
> and piss down bunch, who are not only expected to be able to read the
> rule-books but also are expected to be able to exercise good judgement and
> are paid to SERVE the citizenry with their tax rupees, might have iognored
> the appeals, because the appealers were nobodies--just a bunch of losers
> from Assam. If it were a bunch of students from DElhi, I do believe the
> response might have been somewhat more thoughtful. I raise that
possibility
> because of my willingness to be observant and what I have seen.
>
>
> cm :-)
>
>
>
>
> At 5:05 PM +0800 8/30/02, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >    [ From: Rajib Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> >    [ Date: Aug 30, 2002 07:04 (-0000) ]
> >
> >    > Does the postal department in your home country take
> >    > the responsibility of ensuring delivery of your
> >    > normal mail? As in provide a GUARANTEE? A service
> >
> >An emphatic NO. The postal department of any country, in their
> >right minds, would not "guarantee" the delivery of mail.
> >Keeping that in mind that, if you had an urgent and important
> >document to be sent, what would you do ? Turn to some such
> >service which can provide a guarantee of sorts as far as the time
> >of delivery is concerned, would you not ? I would presume that
> >this is exactly why, as you mentioned, you would think of Fedex.
> >
> >And so, coming back to the case at hand, they, just as you would,
> >did send it through a service, which for all its claims, is a
> >service that can be construed to be something like Fedex.  As you
> >would think of Fedex as the first thing when you have to send
> >something urgently, some people in India can be forgiven for
> >thinking of "Speedpost" in a similar manner.  And, as far as I
> >remember (that was 10 years back), it did claim to be able to
> >deliver your mail anywhere in India within 3 working days.  And
> >you do pay a price for it - I remember paying INR 150 to
> >"Speedpost" a document (that was 10 years back).
> >
> >With that in mind, if you were to send an important document via
> >Fedex and had a similar result, what would you do ? I guess then
> >the normal thing would be for you to ask for compensation from
> >Fedex, notwithstanding the fact that Fedex would have probably
> >made you sign off on an agreement form to the effect that they
> >would only expend "all reasonable means" to deliver your document
> >on time, unless of course you have insured your document.  But,
> >your case will have some ground in a court because you can argue
> >that you have used the "Fedex-like" service and NOT the normal
> >mail primarily because of the service's claims and that in doing
> >so you have been misled, because had it not been for it's claims,
> >you would have filled up your forms way ahead of the deadline
> >knowing jolly well that normal post would take a much longer
> >time.
> >
> >Having said that, I agree with your other points and I do NOT
> >subscribe to the hypotheses that this is yet another classic case
> >of step-motherly treatment for Assam and that there is a
> >conspiracy at play.
> >
> >/amlan.
>

Reply via email to