Title: Fwd: Re: [riverlink] People's (informed)
wish
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:08:02 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "S.G. Vombatkere"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M.Gopalakrishnan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "C C Patel(Dr)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "V.B. Patel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [riverlink] People's (informed) wish
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Dear Mr. Pandit:
I won't get into the middle of your
attempt to trap Gen. Vombatkare
on semantics here . But I think he is
absolutely right on the issues he raises.
I am one of the people who raised the
question in this forum several months back about where the edict by
the SC to undertake the 'riverlinking ( ILR)' project by the given
deadline came from.
As I understood it the SC ordered the
executive branch to undertake ILR. Question was, where did the SC get
its authority to order the exec. branch to undertake it?
I argued that had the Lok Sabha passed a
law authorizing ILR, appropriating funds there for, and the executive
branch dilly-dallied on it, then the SC could have intervened (when
approached by the public interest petitioners) and directed the exec.
branch to get off its rear end and get going.
But the Lok Sabha never debated the
merits ( at least that is what I have been told) of the undertaking.
No funds were appropriated for it. I saw the report of the other day
where the SC apparently is demanding to know why the Lok Sabha haws
not passed a law yet authorizing ILR.
I am no constitutional lawyer, but the
whole thing looks like the tail wagging the dog. The SC orders ILR to
be undertaken ( from what authority it is unclear) and expedited, and
then orders the Lok Sabha to pass a law to rubber-stamp its edict, is
how it looks. Is this how Indian democracy works?
I was under the impression that the SC,
the apex body of the judiciary, is a co-equal branch of Indian
democracy's three wings, the other two being the legislative wing (
Lok Sabha), representing the people and the executive
branch.
Lawmaking is the sole domain of the Lok
Sabha representing the people. The exec branch can request a law to be
passed--but cannot order it. The SC interprets the constitution, the
laws of the land, and in the process sometimes enacts new laws as a
corollary or in clarification of existing laws. It has no authority to
order the Lok Sabha around.Certainly not on issue of as enormous
social, political, economic,ecological and scientific /technical
implications as ILR is.
If it does, if it oversteps its
boundaries, then an INFORMED Lok Sabha- the people- ought to fight any
attempts at usurping its prerogatives by the other two branches, in
order to safeguard democracy.
Someone's commented in this forum that
the SC has closed the door on the debate on the legitimacy of the
undertaking. But I argued that it could not be so, that it should be
challenged on constitutional grounds for a breach of separation of
powers, and that it would very interesting to see what the outcome of
a Lok Sabha debate on the issue might be. Apparently the SC already
realized it had no right to DICTATE the undertaking of ILR, just the
news media thought it unimportant to report ( I have never seen any
reference to the SC ordering the Lok Sabha to enact an ILR law
before).
Finally, EVEN if the Lok Sabha's majority
railroads a law through authorizing the apallingly foolish ILR without
giving the related issues adequate hearing or on the basis of faulty
or exaggerated claims of the
scientific/economic/technological/sociological issues, it still could
be challenged for constitutionality.
But that is not all. The rights of the
constituents of the FEDERAL democratic republic of India -- the
states ( actually often they act more like PROVINCES) still will
have to be contended with. They have the final say over their water
resources.
If Assam and the NE refuse to be a part
of this scam and would not allow its lifeline to be dammed and its
heartland dug up and cut up to allow a 30 meter wide canal to take
waters out of a slowly drying up Brahmaputra river thru territories
riven by over 40 insurgency groups fighting for political/economic
rights, while they are represented by 24 members in a house of 400,
that would be yet another issue to contend with.
So, regardless of whether you have
cornered Gen Vombatkatre on semantics or not
the fat lady has not yet sung to signal
the end of this soap-opera yet. One does not even have to go
into the merits of the poll results reported by Dr. Kalyanraman--that
one is far too infantile.
Best,
Chandan Mahanta
St. Louis, USA
At 4:18 PM +0530 4/28/04, IWRS wrote:
Dear Shri Vombatkere,
Your response to Shri Kalyanraman�s
mail raises several important issues. But I will restrict to only two,
so as not to lose the focus.
You have written �What purpose do the
Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabhas . . . serve if we are going to accept
a lean sample survey of people who are NOT WELL-INFORMED on the
subject. . . �
1: I fully agree with you that it
is the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabhas � and not the sample surveys
- that formally represent the people�s wish. This is how the
democracy operates. Therefore, it follows that if the Lok Sabha/
concerned Vidhan Sabhas support a particular view point then we all
have to accept it as �this is what the people want�.
Please confirm whether you stand by this.
The doubt is : whether you are invoking the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan
Sabha merely as a convenient argument to reject the opinion poll for
the time being, or whether you stand firm in your faith in the
supremacy of Lok Sabha/ Vidhan Sabha.
2: Towards the end of your statement
reproduced above, you have not only stated but you have emphasized, by
using capital letters, that an opinion is meaningful only if it comes
from a person who is WELL INFORMED. Again, I fully agree with
you on this too.
Please confirm whether you stand by this.
Here the question is : when you reject an opinion on the grounds it is
�not well informed� is the rejection also based on what the
opinion is, or is it irrespective of what the opinion is.
In both cases, the question is same, do
you stand firm by what you have written ? This is a rare occasion
where a career water manager is in full agreement with an activist.
But I will withold the celebrations till I receive a clear
and NON-EVASIVE confirmation from you.
yours sincerely
Chetan Pandit
----- Original Message -----
From: S.G.
Vombatkere
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 7:25 PM
Subject: [riverlink] Citizens reject river
linking
26.4.2004
Dear Mr.Kalyanaraman,
# How can you assume that such polls are the
"people's mandate"? What purpose do the Lok Sabha and the
Vidhan Sabhas, which we maintain at enormous expense, serve if we are
going to accept a lean sample survey of people who are NOT
WELL-INFORMED on the subject as "people's mandate"? WHY IS
GOVERNMENT (ILR TF) NOT GIVING INFORMATION EVEN WHEN WE ASK FOR IT ON
THEIR WEBSITE (as I have done), BUT USING THIS METHOD OF OPINION
POLLING? If you ask anyone whether he/she wants more water, do you
expect any "NO!" for an answer? Come on, please be
reasonable!!
# I also noted with dismay that, a few days ago, when the
Supreme Court refused to stop the raising of Narmada dam to 110
metres, you sent the news item by e-mail to this e-group with a
certain amount of ill-concealed glee that does not become a mature
citizen, especially when the lives and livelihoods of thousands of
dispossessed and disempowered people are affected critically - for
them, India is certainly not shining.You are entitled to feel good for
yourself, but PLEASE DO NOT feel good at the misfortunes of
others.
# Perhaps you also subscribe to the view that India is
shining. I shall hope that India will continue to shine for you and
yours, but I regret that I am unable to join in your view. Please open
the ATTACHMENT in this connection, and read the article authored by
several people.
Best wishes.
Maj Gen (Retd) S.G.Vombatkere
----- Original Message -----
From: S.Kalyanaraman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 1:02 AM
Subject: [riverlink] 78% of people support river
linking
The river linking concept is finding the acceptance of
the majority
of the people in the country as a positive step
towards achieving the
agriculture growth. The recent ` AAJ TAK � DAINIK BHASKAR -
INDIA
TODAY - ORG � MARG SURVEY' opinion poll published in the `INDIA
TODAY' weekly magazine dated April 19, 2004 points to the mood of
the
nation on the river linking concept and the positive thrust given
by
the present NDA government at Centre. 78 percent of respondents
of
the poll backed the initiatives taken by the Hon'ble Prime
Minister
on river linking. They felt that the river linking would have
a
positive impact on agriculture in the country. This kind of
support
from the people despite little work seen on ground will boost the
confidence of the planners and policy makers decisively in
executing
this idea for the benefit of the future generations. This kind
of
result from any opinion poll can be ascribed as people's mandate.
http://riverlinks.nic.in/viewnewsletter.asp?nid==8
Yahoo! Groups Links
_______________________________________________
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
