Dear Mr. Pandit:
Sounds like you took offense with my speculation here. It was not meant to be personal criticism or casting of aspersions on your integrity. I made it clear that I was not holding you personally responsible for things you told us that you have no control over.
Having said that, I would submit that a reasonable person would agree that YOU sir, did NOTHING to :
* Explain why my suspicions/speculations could not be valid.
* Allay similar fears of others by explaining WHY the PFR's ought to
remain secret.
* Furnish some plausible explanation of this policy of secrecy
pursued by the NWDA which, at the very least, is in clear
violation of the spirit of the "Right to Information" act
passed by the Lok Sabha, if not the letter, because the Govt.
has chosen not to enact it yet as law, in defiance of the popular
will as well as a Supreme Court directive.I know you don't run NWDA, but what is YOUR own view of this secrecy? Do you support it? And if you do, why so?
I realize I am p---ing against the ocean here, knowing full well that you will not answer the questions. That is your prerogative, and like I declared to Kalyanraman once that I cannot exile you to vanavaas for your
evasiveness.
But I can assert, once more, that suspicions of so many, like yours truly,
are not because we were born to mistrust like you try so laughably to establish, but because of the actions of those in power and with authority who flagrantly violate their responsibilities as servants of the people.
By tacitly, if not overtly condoning such, you Mr. Pandit, bring shame and disrepute to Indian democracy and your profession.
I am not surprised that you have earlier also gotten yourself into situations where eventually you had to "eat crow".
That was a low blow Mr. Pandit. You are kicking me when I lay myself down, by volunteering that I am a mere mortal, not above making mistakes or committing errors of judgement.
But still I shall remain optimistic, and break chhapati with a thaali of tandoori crow in broad daylight for all to see, should YOU ever be able to rise to the occasion of levelling with your fellow men, instead of levelling your own credibility with the kind of arguments you proffer.
Regards,
c
At 10:24 AM +0530 1/6/05, IWRS wrote:
> My suspicion is that there never really was any PFR worth the silt of Ganga tobegin with,
You are absolutely right. They are now hurriedly creating a computer program that will select words from English dictionary and -using Artificial Intelligence- synthesize sentences that are grammatically correct, weave these sentences in to chapters; generate bogus numeric data using random number generation algorithms; and create phony maps using a computerized kaleidoscope software, and thus within a month create 500+ pages documents - without any real surveys or analysis of course - documents that look so real that it will fool almost every one except you, into believing that these are FRs created after 2200 engineer-years (22 years X 100 engineers) of work.
At least you would give them the credit for their ability to write such a software that generates so authentic looking reports that they fool every one, (except one) ?
But I will stand corrected, do an about face, eat crow--whatever ( BTW they could be made palatable with the right spices, I have eaten it a few times), . . . .
I am not surprised that you have earlier also gotten yourself into situations where eventually you had to "eat crow".
Chetan Pandit
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:14 PM Subject: Re: DISBANDING OF ILR TASK FORCE
> spoke in the same tone, it will be a profoundly boring forum. Can youHi Mr. Pandit:
Again thanks for the prompt response. And thanks even more for the compliments--means a lot; even though I don't buy the idea that somehow I am cut from a superior cloth than some of the others who have different styles of communicating. I would submit that if we alltheimagine the drone that would be generated?
I will try not take up too much of your time this time with too much verbiage and will attempt to be to the point:
** I don't mean to use your persona as a substitute punching bag for the custodians of the state-secret-PFRs. In fact I am elated that at least I am speaking with someone who can get to a spitting distance of the powers-that-be. I count my blessings.
>Having said that, I am unable to understand why do you think FR will not >contain what you are looking for. I think FR would contain every thing>PFRs contain, and some more. Eventually there was going to be a clamorfor>FRs as well. (and then for DPR as well). For a change it seems what isgoing>to be supplied is one step ahead of the demand. So I am surprised at your> >reaction.to
** Good question indeed. But I had a very good reason also. I too am one of the suspicious lot you would have little use for. My suspicion is that there never really was any PFR worth the silt of Ganga>begin with, based on which the political slogans in support of riverlinking suddenly erupted. Oh, there might have been something decorated with the term PFR, but it probably was little more than some bureaucratic blather or sycophant's soothsaying, that would not stand up to ordinary scrutiny, let alone a superior kind.
Why else would they be withheld, without any barely credible explanation while the same powers-that-be, past or present go frothing in the mouth with protestations of their commitments to transparency and accountability or their every intent to do no harm without the advice and consent of the people?
It defies ordinary logic, Mr. Pandit. I am quite sure you know that too. But I also understand that you are in a very difficult position. To be candid about the glaring inconsistency would require you to go step on your friends' or superiors' credibility. Not a good position to be in. Some powerful people either lied or misled, leaving in their wakes a lot of excreta that some poor staffers are now left with cleaning up with the real-mcCoys, the FR's.
That might not be all that sinful, except that there would be enormous pressures on the professional staff now to find ways to invent justification, to cook the data to fit the desired conclusion. More so, when the President himself is breathing down their necks. Shades of Dick Cheney at the CIA looking for evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
The harm has already been done Mr. Pandit!
** The above also would serve as ONE explanation ( of many many more) for the suspicions that abound and which irk you so. I would not hold you personally responsible. Could not if I wished. But unfortunately you too are in the thick of of it, like it or not. You have no escape of the pervasive system that has spread its tentacles in all spheres of Indian governance.whyBut I will stand corrected, do an about face, eat crow--whatever ( BTW they could be made palatable with the right spices, I have eaten it a few times), should you or someone else in the know would present an explanation of why the PFRs are held as state secrets -- (in my case about the Brahmaputra and Manas links), without insulting the intelligence of ordinary viewers.
Finally, I am a pretty informal kind of person, not used to being addressed as Mr. and other such terms of formality. So you are most welcome to call me Chandan.
Best,
c
PS: Next time I will address your explanation of why you believe an executive summary of the fatherless or motherless, and thus a kind of 'swayambhu', FRs on the Internet would not do.
At 1:30 PM +0530 1/4/05, IWRS wrote: >Dear Mr. Mahanta, > > > >It is always a pleasure to interact with you. I can not capture in words>so, but the best I can do is : even though you disagree with me as muchas>others do, your mails have the flavor of "debate" whereas mails frommost>others, and some in particular, have the flavor of "murdabaad,murdabaad".the>Also you have your sense of humor intact and that again is rare in this >domain. Do keep it up. > > > >You can not get argumentative with me, for the simple reason who am I to >argue with ? If you do not like FRs and want only PFRs, that is a problem >between you and the Government, I have nothing to do with it. > > >Having said that, I am unable to understand why do you think FR will not >contain what you are looking for. I think FR would contain every thing>PFRs contain, and some more. Eventually there was going to be a clamorfor>FRs as well. (and then for DPR as well). For a change it seems what isgoing> >>to be supplied is one step ahead of the demand. So I am surprised at your >reaction. >that> >>Did I detect in your note that the PFRs remain private and protected >> property of the govt.? > > > >I said nothing of the kind. And your comment is entirely unexpected and >unwarranted. Suppose you asked for a pocket dictionary, and were instead >given more exhaustive desktop dictionary, would it be correct to sayreasonable>"pocket dictionary remains private and protected property. . . ." ? > > > >> But an executive summary with salient information could be abe> >> substitute, . . . wouldn't you think? That should quiet the vocal >troublemakers > seeking the data, . . . > > > >No, I wouldn't think so. The harsh truth is : if a 500 page report was toperson>condensed into a 499 page summary, the "vocal troublemaker" tribe (as you >describe them) would claim that the one page less comprised of something >sinister that the Government wants to hide. > > > >This is a well known conundrum when faced with the task of seeking some >"truth". The person you are questioning may tell whole truth, but the>doing the questioning has no way of knowing whether what has been told isoris>is not, the whole truth. So the questioning continues. > > > >See Mr. Mahanta, the problem is : as long as you are convinced that there>an intention to hide something, you will never have peace of mind. Forthatyour>you will have to assume that there is no intention to hide, and see where >that leads you to. At any time you have the option of rejecting the >assumption and returning to where you started. But so long as you keep>boat firmly tied to the pier of "there is something to hide", your boatis>only going to keep bumping against that pier, and you sure aren't goingto>get anywhere. > > > >Chetan Pandit
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu 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
