Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 09:36:38 -0500
To: "office" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mr. Pandit's Argument
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
>This time I had stated it so clear that
�missed� is not the correct word and I >wonder
whether you avoided it deliberately.
** Yes indeed. I ignored the point, because it
was so without even a modicum of merit. But
since you feel that was your trump card in the
argument,allow me to respond:
>: that the strange thing is, activists have
passed a verdict against the >project BEFORE
seeing the data.
** Does that, in any shape or form, either
destroy, dilute or diminish any of the DEMERITS
that might be embedded in the scheme of IRL, so
that those who see them and oppose the scheme,
could be denied the right to examine the
exculpatory or supportive evidence,if there were
any? To examine the quality and conclusions of
the PFR's?
It just so happens, that many of the the
demerits of IRL are glaringly evident. So much
so, that it is quite amazing to hear people like
Suresh Prabhu make the outlandish claims he
did, parroted by people like Dr.Kalyanratnam.
When challenged, they cite the Prelim.
Feasibility Reports ( PFRs) as justification. So
people are demanding to see what the PFRs
contain. But there is a Catch 22 here, PFRs are
SECRET.
Is the irony here difficult to see? Is it a conundrum ?
When challenged by people like Gen. Vombatkare,
the explanation offered by Suresh Prabhu, that
he supports transparency completely, that he is
open to the disclosure of the PFR's, but is
helpless because it is the prerogative of the
states to hold them secret or release them to
the public, and that he would not stand in the
way if the states decide to release them; was so
lame, so banal, that it really degraded the
position he was holding as the IRL czar to one
of a clueless clerk,and was an affront to the
intelligence of the scores of scientists,
engineers, economists from the country's topmost
institutions who question the wisdom of this
boondoggle of IRL.
If I were in Suresh Prabhu's position, and I
were to give you Mr. Pandit, such a pitiable
excuse in response to something you, as an
engineering expert were to be seeking, what
would your reaction be? Would you feel good, to
borrow the popular and operative phrase of the
day?
> but I will avoid that temptation, lest you
again latch on to �within limits� >and respond
only to that, questioning who decides the limits
and such.
** That was very thoughtful.
cm
At 11:40 PM -0400 5/1/04, office wrote:
You missed the point again. You only latched on
to the word �self-appointed� and all the three
paragraphs of your reply respond to that only,
completely avoiding the main point : that the
strange thing is, activists have passed a
verdict against the project BEFORE seeing the
data. They are not prepared to withhold their
judgement till they see the data.
This time I had stated it so clear that
�missed� is not the correct word and I wonder
whether you avoided it deliberately.
I accept your contention �The people in a
democratic society have a right to participate
in the decision making process. . . � and all
that follows from it. I am tempted to qualify
it with �within reasonable limits�, but I will
avoid that temptation, lest you again latch on
to �within limits� and respond only to that,
questioning who decides the limits and such. So
I will accept that the people have a right
without limits.
Now, would you like to respond to the main
point : if you have already passed a verdict,
then what do you want the data for ?
Alternatively, why can�t you withhold your
judgement till you see the data ?
Chetan Pandit
Chan Mahanta writes:
Here is a strange case where the
(self-appointed) judges have decared a
person >guilty and then, AFTER having signed
the death sentence, are asking for >evidence.
There is a huge difference here between the
'self-appointed judges', without power to
enforce anything, and the 'judges' with the
power to unleash irreversible destruction
sitting on the evidence, refusing to show it
to the people whose lives will be affected for
generations to come. Evidence, real or more
than likely, fabricated, to justify a
political decision, that it is citing to
justify IRL.
The people in a democratic society have a
right to participate in the decision making
process, more so if those decisions could have
as enormous an impact on the lives,
livelihoods and environment of a nation so
dramatically, as IRL has.
Just because an administration has been
ELECTED, does not mean it has the right to act
like a dictator once installed in office.
Again more so, if the administration at the
wheels of power is not even formed by a
majority party sent to office with a mandate
to undertake IRL, but something crafted
together from strange bedfellows in an unholy
alliance, while the subject at hand, IRL, has
been forced down on the nation on a fiat by an
SC justice on his way out to the pasture.
It is one thing to play gotcha on a puerile
game of semantics, but quite another
for those entrusted with the public good to
attempt to justify the illegal ( right-to-info
act, passed by the same govt.) secrecy of the
PFR's on account of the citizen's possible
opposition to it, or its inability to
understand the technicalities and other such
patently immature, disingenuous arguments.
cm
At 11:33 AM -0400 5/1/04, office wrote:
Nothing bizzare. You missed the point.
The point is : Here is a strange case where
the (self-appointed) judges have decared a
person guilty and then, AFTER having signed
the death sentence, are asking for evidence.
If you have already madeup your mind then
what do you want to do with the evidence ?
And if you want to look at the evidence then
it must be because you want to make up your
mind depending on what the evidence says.
Then why you already started firing before
looking at the evidence ?
Chetan Pandit
Chan Mahanta writes:
While it is for the NWDA/TF to state the
reasons, I think they also must
be >thinking ���Before PFRs are released
you are criticizing the project.
After >PFRs are released you will be
criticize the project���. So why bother ?
Chetan Pandit
I have seen bizarre arguments, but this takes the trophy.
PFR's are the foundations based on which the
ILR proponents are claiming the
worthiness of this boondoggle. To weigh
ILR's viability or efficacy, it would be
essential to see how thoroughly these were
undertaken. Since Gen. Vombatakare might
criticize it,what is the point in letting
him see it? What an argument!
But it is not unexpected. My own hunch is
that it would make the engineers who put it
together look pretty bad to their peers. Or
that it would unleash a socio/political
maelstrom. Either way, it is an effort to
HIDE SOMETHING. Not a good sign at all.
cm
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/7_KplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/riverlink/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
