December 17, 2011
https://www.facebook.com/notes/rahul-chimanbhai-mehta-rrg/301017-dear-activist-aandolan-will-take-less-time-than-election-winning/10150423295806922
301.017 : Dear activist, aandolan will take LESS time than election-winning
https://www.facebook.com/notes/rahul-chimanbhai-mehta-rrg/301017-dear-activist-aandolan-will-take-less-time-than-election-winning/10150423295806922
(for downloading complete PDF , containing 50 chapters on full law-drafts needed to reduce MNC-domination, nepotism in courts, corruption in police/courts/education, improve education, improve Military, reduce cow slaughter, see http://rahulmehta.com/301.htm )
(For index, see notes #301.Index at http://facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150422423416922 )
17.1 Purpose of this chapter
A mass-movement is where activists are asking citizens to force existing PM/CMs and Mayors to make some changes in Government without waiting for elections to come. The purpose of this chapter is to convince the junior activists that mass-movement for RTI2 will take less time from you activists than time you will need to spend on getting 300 MPs or even 50 MPs elected for your Party. Many activist leaders insists on an election-only approach i.e. they ask their volunteers to focus on election-only methods and don’t ask their volunteers to work towards raising a mass-movement. The activist leaders try convince junior activists that mass-movement is too time consuming and that citizens are all lazy and so mass-movement is waste of time. Here, I will show that mass-movement will take LESS time for junior activists , more time for common citizens and lesser time duration for nation. The only flip side is activist-leaders stand to gain nothing from mass movement.
One serious and valid point against “mass-movement for law-drafts” is : we need 100-200 law drafts to improve India and 100-200 of mass-movements are not viable for citizens. So one mass-movement for one proposed law-draft is not viable. But my proposed RTI2 innovation solves this problem completely. Without RTI2, one may say that election approach is less time consuming than 100 mass movements. But RTI2 make 100 mass-movements less expensive than one election. I have explained this later in this chapter.
====
17.2 Plus points of Aandolan aka Mass-Movement over election-only method
The mass-movement based method is far superior than election-only method. The following comparison will explain this
Election-only method “Mass movement for law-draft” method
Definition : When a junior activist asks his leader “how shall we change the drafts of the laws in India”?, the senior leader says “we will contest elections only, convince citizens to vote for us, we will win elections and with MPs, MLAs, etc we will change the law-drafts.” This method is election-only method. When a junior activist asks his leader “how shall we change the drafts of the laws”? The senior leader says “we will convince citizens to force existing PM, CMs, and Mayors to sign 2-3 specific law-drafts.” This method is what I call as “mass-movement for law-drafts”.
==
1. Similarity :
Election is also a mass-movement where-in activists have to convince citizens to vote for Party-X. In “mass-movement for RTI2”, activists have to convince citizens to force PM, CM to sign RTI2 law.
The activists will need to approach crores of citizens to convince them to vote for Party-X. The activists will need to approach crores of citizens for mass-movement for RTI2
---
2. Back stabbing :
In election-only method, the winning candidates may or rather almost always become corrupt after then win elections, and so no effective system change will come. IOW, election-only method is prone to back-stabbing, to the extent that I have no faith in election-only method.
In mass-movement, active ingredients are citizens and they are crores in numbers. And they have no motive to flip sides, and so there is no back stabbing in mass movement.
----
3. Wait for 5 years :
In election-only method, the biggest drawback is “wait for election” and this means “miseries will go on till election comes”.
In mass-movement method, the demand is to end the miseries as soon as possible.
----
4. One step forward, two step backwards :
In election-only approach, there is always a possibility that your party may not get enough MPs to push the agenda. In that case, it is five years of “muddat”. So election only methods will keep throwing date five year “muddat” after every failure.
In mass-movement, you inching every day and once critical mass is reached, there is near –possibility of failure.
----
5. Clone negative
In election-only approach, the good persons affiliated with different parties will end up working against each other. IOW, election-only method is divisive and clone negative.
In mass-movement, all individuals committed to improve India will support that movement, across their party lines. Thus mass-movement is clone positive.
-------
6. Voter’s fear that worse guy may benefit
In election, it is rational for a voter to vote for a winnable candidate who can defeat the winnable candidate he fears most. So a new party has to wait for long and wait for luck before it can get even one MP. So if a new party has good plans, but no perception of winnability, then it may need to wait for too many elections before it becomes successful.
In mass-movement, citizens don’t look for winnability. So there is a good hope that a good law-draft will get attention of citizens.
----
7. Difference for junior activists:
Election only method is more time consuming.
Mass movements are less time consuming. I will explain later how.
-------
8. Difference for activist leaders
Election only method gives them a leverage to sell out and control. Mass-movements gives them no leverage and no opportunity to sell out.
Difference for citizens Election-only method take less time for citizens – only 30 minutes in 5 years. But they gain almost nothing. But citizens have to wait for 5 years after 5 years after 5 years to make change. Mass movements more time – several days per citizens per mass-movement. But they stand to gain the most. And they don’t need to wait for 5 years or even 5 days.
-----
9. Difference for nation
Post election, the new comers sell out and so change is minimal. Every election may just mean 5 more years wastes.
In mass-movements, citizens and junior activists don’t need to wait for 5 years. They can work through out the period without waiting at all.
=====
17.3 Why mass-movement is LESS time consuming than election method for activists?
The election vs. mass-movement has following peculiar relative feature : One mass-movement needs junior activists to spend far LESS time than election. The mass-movement will require citizens to spend days and days while election needs citizens to spend only 30 minutes. But activists needs to spend less time to generate mass-movement.
Why is it so? How would a mass-movement for law-draft take less activists’ time, given that citizens need to spend lot more time?
Because convincing citizens to support a law-draft, such as RTI2 or MRCM or RTR is easier than convincing citizens to vote for a candidate XYZ. So why is getting support for a law-draft is easier that getting support for a candidate? Because say in election there are two big candidates A and B. Now say a much better new candidate X comes. The voters of A will fear that voting for X will only help B and the voters of B will think other way. So unless the new party convinces voters that X will surely win, getting vote for X is difficult. There is no rational way to project that X will win when X is a first timer and is not backed by any dominant party. So junior activists need to spend a huge amount of time in rallies, in meetings, in sloganeering, in motivating other activists to create a perception of winnability. As an example, it took 45 years for RSS/BJP to get 180 seats in Loksabha. Why? Because in each election, they had to create perception of winnability to get even 15% votes and creating such perception needs more time than one has in his life. Whereas in creating support for law-draft, the activists don’t need to create perception of winnability – the activists only need to convince the citizens that the proposed law-draft will improve the nation and themselves. This is biggest time saver. A junior activist may not realize at this point. But creating perception of winnability is the most time consuming activity. It takes hours and hours of drum beating to create perception of winnability. If the law-drafts are actually in the immediate and prime interest of the citizens, then it is swimming along the stream, not against the stream.
Also, most citizens rightly believe that most new MPs will become as corrupt as existing ones after they get elected. Hence, an activist will have to spend hours and hours convincing citizens that his candidate Mr. X is “different” from the rest. An act of convincing a irrational and unprovable assertion always takes many more hours than an act of convincing the right idea and much of the hours will still go waste as citizens are not fools that they will accept the wrong idea.
Further note that in mass-movement for law-drafts (such as RTI2, RTR draft), the junior activists are spending time in explaining laws like RTI2, MRCM, RTR etc to citizens and fellow activists. It improves intellectual ability of activists and citizens to think. This information exchange improves the intellectual levels of activists as well as citizens. Whereas rallies, attending meetings with same repetitious talks, sloganeering etc is a waste of time and money. So in creating perception of winnability, the junior activists will end up wasting hours and hours and days and days in mindless activities like rallies, slogans etc.
Now in election-only method, citizens have to spend less time – only 30 minutes needed to cast vote. While in mass-movement, citizens will need to spend several hours and even days a week. But then mass movement also gives several times more benefits than election-only. Hence the fact that mass-movements are more time consuming for citizens is ethically balanced.
==============
17.4 Time needed to pass 100 law-drafts is also less than winning one election
The “mass-movement for law-drafts” will require less time for activists. It requires more time on part of citizens which is fair equation as citizens stand to gain lot more. But to improve nation, we need 100s of laws and so shall we have 100s of mass-movements for each of these 100s of law-drafts? If one mass movement needs citizens to spend 10 days of their lives, then 100 mass-movements will need 1000 days, which is unviable as people need to work and make a living.
Here is where proposed law RTI2 is game-changer. RTI2 looks like a petty modification. But once PM is forced to sign on it, RTI2 reduces the time needed for mass movement from 100 hours per citizen to mere 10 minutes per citizen and cost from several hundred rupees per citizen to mere Rs 3 per citizen. Hence in the RRG plan I am proposing, the time needed to enact 200 law-draft is not (200 drafts * 100 hours drafts) = 20000 hours per citizen. The time for mass movement for RTI2 is 100 hours per citizen but time needed for next 200 laws is mere 200*5 = 1000 minutes = less than 1 day per citizen. And the material cost for mass-movement for RTI2 may be several hundreds of rupees per citizen, but cost for next 200 law-drafts is only Rs 3 per citizen per law or even less.
The election-only method at first glance looks even more efficient. It appears as if once elections are won, the MPs will pass all the good 200 laws within few days and so citizens wont need to spend even a minute. But this a pipe dream – the MPs after elections will sell out and so none of the RTR etc laws will pass in absence of mass-movement. So once again, we need mass-movements and so we need low-cost ways to run mass movements. And we are back to RTI2 --- RTI2 is the least expensive way to conduct a mass movement.
======
17.5 Then also why do leaders insist on “wait till elections”?
Now a junior activist may notice that many activist leaders insist on election-only methods. They would insist to their workers that till election comes, the workers should only gather more members and/or collect donations, but must not ask citizens to support any mass movement to enact any law. All these things should done after elections only. I have shown that election-only method is deeply flawed as there is near total possibility that after elections, elected MPs, MLAs etc will sell out, change sides and even become pro-corruption. So why do leaders insist on election only approach?
The most important reason why activist leaders prefer election only to mass-movement for law-drafts is that mass-movement gives no control to leaders, while election-only method gives control to the leaders. In election-only method, the leaders have control before as well after election, and they can sell out and make profits. Where as mass-movement can be only created by leaders, leaders cannot stop or even control its direction. So most “practical” leaders oppose mass movements for law-drafts.
=======
17.6 Does your leader ask you NOT to spread information on RTR?
(This para is being written in Nov-2011)
By Dec-2010, RTR-PM-draft, RTR-SCCj, RTR District Education Drafts etc had become no. 1 item amongst non-80G-activists. Not just number-one, most non-80G-activists had rightly started believing that RTR-drafts are the only way out to reduce MNCs’ rising dominance and its ill effects. RTR-drafts were known in too many common citizens as mediamen were paid or forced to stay silent on RTR-drafts. There is difference between how non-80G-activists communicate and ordinary citizens. The citizens exclusively depend on TV-channels and newspapers. But non-80G-activists attend meetings of political groups, also spend time in reading leaflets of political groups and also communicate about various political proposals via phone or internet. This is very powerful active filter --- the forward the proposals they like and do not forward the proposals they dislike. There have no personal motive in deciding what to forward and what not to forward and so all good and only good proposals get forwarded.
So RTR-drafts were advancing in the non-80G-activists’ circuit.
However, a major disturbance has come since feb-2011. A large number of activists leaders, such as The Anna, who are backed by MNC-paid TV-channels, have come and are asking non-80G-activists not to spread information on RTR-drafts !! And sadly for us recallists, many non-80G-activists, due to hyper-faith TV-channels have created in them for these activist leaders are getting influenced by their appeal, and are giving less time in spreading information about RTR-PM-drafts, RTR-SCCj-drafts etc.
All these leaders have given them alternate agenda to keep their non-80G-activists busy. Eg The Anna has asked all his non-80G-activists not to spread information on RTR-PM-draft, RTR-SCCj-draft but to spread information on MNC-pal (aka Janlokpal) only. Some activist leaders are asking their activists to work only on getting members and donations, and so forth.
All in all, we Recallists need to convince all non-80G-activists not to disregard “don’t spread information on RTR-drafts” instruction their leaders are giving. This is a major obstacle for us Recallists, as the non-80G-activists have immense faith in their leaders, thanks to constant coverage given by TV-channels. Nevertheless, the drafts have plus points and so we recallists are making some progress, though the rate has decreased in past 2-4 months. Lets see how things go in future.
======
17.7 Finally, who support RTR drafts
=====
17.8 A short quiz
I would ask you following questions. Please answer as “fully and strongly agree” or “do not agree strongly “ as you would disclose if asked in public . IOW, assume that each and every friend, client, colleague, relative etc were to know your answers on the following questions. Then what would be your answers : “Fully and strongly agree” or “do not fully and strongly agree” ?
======
17.9 Summary of last 3 chapters
The last 3 chapters were dialogue with all junior (non-leader) activists. My goal is to convince the junior activists that they should spend at least 10% of activist time in convincing citizens to force PM, CMs, Mayors to pass RTI2, MRCM, RTR laws. So if an activist is spending 10 hours a week in today, I request him to cut down the work to 9 hours and spend the 1 hour saved in campaigning for RTR, RTI2 etc. Because social work is grossly insufficient as it creates no changes in law-drafts. And election etc is insufficient as well as clone negative. Worse, the “win election and change laws” approach will require junior activists to spend hundreds of hours in convincing the impossible that new person will not become corrupt after he wins election. And hundreds of hours will be spent in creating perception of winnability. Hundreds of hours will be spent in mindless activities like rallies, sloganeering, attending meetings with same repetitious talks, attending meetings deal with organizational and planning issues only etc. Whereas if the junior activist chooses to spend time in campaigning for RTI2, MRCM, RTR etc laws, this will improve the intellectual level of activists as well as citizens. And above all, “the mass movement for RTI2 law draft” is clone positive and so every moment spend on it adds towards the goal.
(For index, see notes #301.Index at http://facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150422423416922 )
17.1 Purpose of this chapter
A mass-movement is where activists are asking citizens to force existing PM/CMs and Mayors to make some changes in Government without waiting for elections to come. The purpose of this chapter is to convince the junior activists that mass-movement for RTI2 will take less time from you activists than time you will need to spend on getting 300 MPs or even 50 MPs elected for your Party. Many activist leaders insists on an election-only approach i.e. they ask their volunteers to focus on election-only methods and don’t ask their volunteers to work towards raising a mass-movement. The activist leaders try convince junior activists that mass-movement is too time consuming and that citizens are all lazy and so mass-movement is waste of time. Here, I will show that mass-movement will take LESS time for junior activists , more time for common citizens and lesser time duration for nation. The only flip side is activist-leaders stand to gain nothing from mass movement.
One serious and valid point against “mass-movement for law-drafts” is : we need 100-200 law drafts to improve India and 100-200 of mass-movements are not viable for citizens. So one mass-movement for one proposed law-draft is not viable. But my proposed RTI2 innovation solves this problem completely. Without RTI2, one may say that election approach is less time consuming than 100 mass movements. But RTI2 make 100 mass-movements less expensive than one election. I have explained this later in this chapter.
====
17.2 Plus points of Aandolan aka Mass-Movement over election-only method
The mass-movement based method is far superior than election-only method. The following comparison will explain this
Election-only method “Mass movement for law-draft” method
Definition : When a junior activist asks his leader “how shall we change the drafts of the laws in India”?, the senior leader says “we will contest elections only, convince citizens to vote for us, we will win elections and with MPs, MLAs, etc we will change the law-drafts.” This method is election-only method. When a junior activist asks his leader “how shall we change the drafts of the laws”? The senior leader says “we will convince citizens to force existing PM, CMs, and Mayors to sign 2-3 specific law-drafts.” This method is what I call as “mass-movement for law-drafts”.
==
1. Similarity :
Election is also a mass-movement where-in activists have to convince citizens to vote for Party-X. In “mass-movement for RTI2”, activists have to convince citizens to force PM, CM to sign RTI2 law.
The activists will need to approach crores of citizens to convince them to vote for Party-X. The activists will need to approach crores of citizens for mass-movement for RTI2
---
2. Back stabbing :
In election-only method, the winning candidates may or rather almost always become corrupt after then win elections, and so no effective system change will come. IOW, election-only method is prone to back-stabbing, to the extent that I have no faith in election-only method.
In mass-movement, active ingredients are citizens and they are crores in numbers. And they have no motive to flip sides, and so there is no back stabbing in mass movement.
----
3. Wait for 5 years :
In election-only method, the biggest drawback is “wait for election” and this means “miseries will go on till election comes”.
In mass-movement method, the demand is to end the miseries as soon as possible.
----
4. One step forward, two step backwards :
In election-only approach, there is always a possibility that your party may not get enough MPs to push the agenda. In that case, it is five years of “muddat”. So election only methods will keep throwing date five year “muddat” after every failure.
In mass-movement, you inching every day and once critical mass is reached, there is near –possibility of failure.
----
5. Clone negative
In election-only approach, the good persons affiliated with different parties will end up working against each other. IOW, election-only method is divisive and clone negative.
In mass-movement, all individuals committed to improve India will support that movement, across their party lines. Thus mass-movement is clone positive.
-------
6. Voter’s fear that worse guy may benefit
In election, it is rational for a voter to vote for a winnable candidate who can defeat the winnable candidate he fears most. So a new party has to wait for long and wait for luck before it can get even one MP. So if a new party has good plans, but no perception of winnability, then it may need to wait for too many elections before it becomes successful.
In mass-movement, citizens don’t look for winnability. So there is a good hope that a good law-draft will get attention of citizens.
----
7. Difference for junior activists:
Election only method is more time consuming.
Mass movements are less time consuming. I will explain later how.
-------
8. Difference for activist leaders
Election only method gives them a leverage to sell out and control. Mass-movements gives them no leverage and no opportunity to sell out.
Difference for citizens Election-only method take less time for citizens – only 30 minutes in 5 years. But they gain almost nothing. But citizens have to wait for 5 years after 5 years after 5 years to make change. Mass movements more time – several days per citizens per mass-movement. But they stand to gain the most. And they don’t need to wait for 5 years or even 5 days.
-----
9. Difference for nation
Post election, the new comers sell out and so change is minimal. Every election may just mean 5 more years wastes.
In mass-movements, citizens and junior activists don’t need to wait for 5 years. They can work through out the period without waiting at all.
=====
17.3 Why mass-movement is LESS time consuming than election method for activists?
The election vs. mass-movement has following peculiar relative feature : One mass-movement needs junior activists to spend far LESS time than election. The mass-movement will require citizens to spend days and days while election needs citizens to spend only 30 minutes. But activists needs to spend less time to generate mass-movement.
Why is it so? How would a mass-movement for law-draft take less activists’ time, given that citizens need to spend lot more time?
Because convincing citizens to support a law-draft, such as RTI2 or MRCM or RTR is easier than convincing citizens to vote for a candidate XYZ. So why is getting support for a law-draft is easier that getting support for a candidate? Because say in election there are two big candidates A and B. Now say a much better new candidate X comes. The voters of A will fear that voting for X will only help B and the voters of B will think other way. So unless the new party convinces voters that X will surely win, getting vote for X is difficult. There is no rational way to project that X will win when X is a first timer and is not backed by any dominant party. So junior activists need to spend a huge amount of time in rallies, in meetings, in sloganeering, in motivating other activists to create a perception of winnability. As an example, it took 45 years for RSS/BJP to get 180 seats in Loksabha. Why? Because in each election, they had to create perception of winnability to get even 15% votes and creating such perception needs more time than one has in his life. Whereas in creating support for law-draft, the activists don’t need to create perception of winnability – the activists only need to convince the citizens that the proposed law-draft will improve the nation and themselves. This is biggest time saver. A junior activist may not realize at this point. But creating perception of winnability is the most time consuming activity. It takes hours and hours of drum beating to create perception of winnability. If the law-drafts are actually in the immediate and prime interest of the citizens, then it is swimming along the stream, not against the stream.
Also, most citizens rightly believe that most new MPs will become as corrupt as existing ones after they get elected. Hence, an activist will have to spend hours and hours convincing citizens that his candidate Mr. X is “different” from the rest. An act of convincing a irrational and unprovable assertion always takes many more hours than an act of convincing the right idea and much of the hours will still go waste as citizens are not fools that they will accept the wrong idea.
Further note that in mass-movement for law-drafts (such as RTI2, RTR draft), the junior activists are spending time in explaining laws like RTI2, MRCM, RTR etc to citizens and fellow activists. It improves intellectual ability of activists and citizens to think. This information exchange improves the intellectual levels of activists as well as citizens. Whereas rallies, attending meetings with same repetitious talks, sloganeering etc is a waste of time and money. So in creating perception of winnability, the junior activists will end up wasting hours and hours and days and days in mindless activities like rallies, slogans etc.
Now in election-only method, citizens have to spend less time – only 30 minutes needed to cast vote. While in mass-movement, citizens will need to spend several hours and even days a week. But then mass movement also gives several times more benefits than election-only. Hence the fact that mass-movements are more time consuming for citizens is ethically balanced.
==============
17.4 Time needed to pass 100 law-drafts is also less than winning one election
The “mass-movement for law-drafts” will require less time for activists. It requires more time on part of citizens which is fair equation as citizens stand to gain lot more. But to improve nation, we need 100s of laws and so shall we have 100s of mass-movements for each of these 100s of law-drafts? If one mass movement needs citizens to spend 10 days of their lives, then 100 mass-movements will need 1000 days, which is unviable as people need to work and make a living.
Here is where proposed law RTI2 is game-changer. RTI2 looks like a petty modification. But once PM is forced to sign on it, RTI2 reduces the time needed for mass movement from 100 hours per citizen to mere 10 minutes per citizen and cost from several hundred rupees per citizen to mere Rs 3 per citizen. Hence in the RRG plan I am proposing, the time needed to enact 200 law-draft is not (200 drafts * 100 hours drafts) = 20000 hours per citizen. The time for mass movement for RTI2 is 100 hours per citizen but time needed for next 200 laws is mere 200*5 = 1000 minutes = less than 1 day per citizen. And the material cost for mass-movement for RTI2 may be several hundreds of rupees per citizen, but cost for next 200 law-drafts is only Rs 3 per citizen per law or even less.
The election-only method at first glance looks even more efficient. It appears as if once elections are won, the MPs will pass all the good 200 laws within few days and so citizens wont need to spend even a minute. But this a pipe dream – the MPs after elections will sell out and so none of the RTR etc laws will pass in absence of mass-movement. So once again, we need mass-movements and so we need low-cost ways to run mass movements. And we are back to RTI2 --- RTI2 is the least expensive way to conduct a mass movement.
======
17.5 Then also why do leaders insist on “wait till elections”?
Now a junior activist may notice that many activist leaders insist on election-only methods. They would insist to their workers that till election comes, the workers should only gather more members and/or collect donations, but must not ask citizens to support any mass movement to enact any law. All these things should done after elections only. I have shown that election-only method is deeply flawed as there is near total possibility that after elections, elected MPs, MLAs etc will sell out, change sides and even become pro-corruption. So why do leaders insist on election only approach?
The most important reason why activist leaders prefer election only to mass-movement for law-drafts is that mass-movement gives no control to leaders, while election-only method gives control to the leaders. In election-only method, the leaders have control before as well after election, and they can sell out and make profits. Where as mass-movement can be only created by leaders, leaders cannot stop or even control its direction. So most “practical” leaders oppose mass movements for law-drafts.
=======
17.6 Does your leader ask you NOT to spread information on RTR?
(This para is being written in Nov-2011)
By Dec-2010, RTR-PM-draft, RTR-SCCj, RTR District Education Drafts etc had become no. 1 item amongst non-80G-activists. Not just number-one, most non-80G-activists had rightly started believing that RTR-drafts are the only way out to reduce MNCs’ rising dominance and its ill effects. RTR-drafts were known in too many common citizens as mediamen were paid or forced to stay silent on RTR-drafts. There is difference between how non-80G-activists communicate and ordinary citizens. The citizens exclusively depend on TV-channels and newspapers. But non-80G-activists attend meetings of political groups, also spend time in reading leaflets of political groups and also communicate about various political proposals via phone or internet. This is very powerful active filter --- the forward the proposals they like and do not forward the proposals they dislike. There have no personal motive in deciding what to forward and what not to forward and so all good and only good proposals get forwarded.
So RTR-drafts were advancing in the non-80G-activists’ circuit.
However, a major disturbance has come since feb-2011. A large number of activists leaders, such as The Anna, who are backed by MNC-paid TV-channels, have come and are asking non-80G-activists not to spread information on RTR-drafts !! And sadly for us recallists, many non-80G-activists, due to hyper-faith TV-channels have created in them for these activist leaders are getting influenced by their appeal, and are giving less time in spreading information about RTR-PM-drafts, RTR-SCCj-drafts etc.
All these leaders have given them alternate agenda to keep their non-80G-activists busy. Eg The Anna has asked all his non-80G-activists not to spread information on RTR-PM-draft, RTR-SCCj-draft but to spread information on MNC-pal (aka Janlokpal) only. Some activist leaders are asking their activists to work only on getting members and donations, and so forth.
All in all, we Recallists need to convince all non-80G-activists not to disregard “don’t spread information on RTR-drafts” instruction their leaders are giving. This is a major obstacle for us Recallists, as the non-80G-activists have immense faith in their leaders, thanks to constant coverage given by TV-channels. Nevertheless, the drafts have plus points and so we recallists are making some progress, though the rate has decreased in past 2-4 months. Lets see how things go in future.
======
17.7 Finally, who support RTR drafts
- If you are interested in teaching “moral values” and “national character” to us commons or changing the attitudes of commons then RRG is NOT for you. The RRG drafts follow the axiom that we commons are no more ethical and no less ethical than Ministers, IAS, judges, elitemen and intellectuals. We commons NOT need lectures on moral values and national character. The commons only need information on what drafts needs to be printed in the Gazette to improve India.
- If you are interested in “awakening” us commons then RRG law drafts are NOT for you. The RRG law drafts tacitly presume that we commons are as awake as Ministers, IAS, judges, elitemen and intellectuals.
- A large chunk of people in top 2 cr Indians believe that commons of India lack morals, lack national character, are irrational, are sentimental (read : temperamental nutcases) and commons have bad attitudes etc. And they also believe that elitemen and intellectuals, who are honest and knights in shining armors, should be in complete charge. They love to insult us commons and take pride by saying that commons in India are cowards, void of courage, lazy, dhimmies etc. If you believe in all this anti-common pro-elite nonsense, then the RRG law drafts are not for you.
- People see “hidden plus points” in corruption such as it gets the work done are unlikely to RRG law drafts
- One of my observation has been that so called “people persons” seldom liked my RRG law-drafts. The so called “people persons” who are social, networking and those who claim to understand “human nature” and understand culture never ever like RRG draft. Heck, they hate very idea that a political party should disclose all law-drafts. They only insist that a Political Party should have only vague policy statements. Of the very few people with whom I have interacted often, the technical and accounting people and common laborers are far more likely to like RRG drafts.
- If you are interested in reducing the poverty of commons and reducing the atrocities they face, RRG’s law drafts are for you.
- Pro-Military people more likely to like RRG law-drafts than anti-Military people.
- Many see that corruption is due to nature of people of India and so no attempt should be made to cut powers of judges, IAS, IPS, Ministers but only people should be reformed. Such persons too will hate RRG law-drafts.
- Of the very few people with whom I have interacted often, the technical and accounting people and common laborers are far more likely to like RRG drafts.
- Most of all, there are people who believe that judges in Supreme Court and High Courts never practice nepotism. These people too will hate MRCM-Recall agenda as agenda assumes nepotism as prevalent.
- And if your goal is to win election, or come become close friend of someone who is MP or MLA, you must never ever join MRCM-Recall Party. The Party’s basic and fundamental goal is to force CMs, PM to sign the first two proposed GNs. The election contesting is only to give propaganda to these proposed GNs.
=====
17.8 A short quiz
I would ask you following questions. Please answer as “fully and strongly agree” or “do not agree strongly “ as you would disclose if asked in public . IOW, assume that each and every friend, client, colleague, relative etc were to know your answers on the following questions. Then what would be your answers : “Fully and strongly agree” or “do not fully and strongly agree” ?
- Citizens’ complaints, suggestions sent to PM should come on PM’s website for a fee
- Citizens should be allowed to register YES/NO on suggestions people have proposed for a fee
- Citizens should be allowed to register YES/NO on laws MPs, MLAs have passed for a fee
- Citizens should get land rent from IIMA , JNU plo
- Citizens should get land rent from Airport plots
- Citizens should get land rent from Mines
- Citizens must have procedures to replace PM
- Over 90% of the judges would tend to favor relative lawyers
- Every citizen should be taught law
- The judges should be selected by written exams or elections; there should be no interviews
- Citizens must have procedures to replace Supreme Court Chief judge
- We must increase our Military funding using wealth tax and inheritance tax
- I support inheritance tax over VAT and excise
- I oppose taxes on tobacco to fund Military, Police and Courts
- Soldiers’ salaries as of now are very low and should be at least doubled
- India must attain parity with China in nuclear tests and nuclear weapon built up
- Citizens’ must have procedures to replace RBI Chiefs
- Every citizen should be taught weapon use
- Every citizen should be required to possess guns
- Citizens must have procedures to replace District Police Chiefs
- IAS, IPS, judges etc should be required to disclose their wealth on internet
- To fund Military/Police I support wealth tax over sales tax
- Tax exemption given to trusts should end
- Tax exemptions give to SEZs should end.
- 498A , DVA should be abolished
- The intellectuals, judges etc are as unethical as commons
- The intellectuals, judges etc are as nepotic and corruption-prone as commons
======
17.9 Summary of last 3 chapters
The last 3 chapters were dialogue with all junior (non-leader) activists. My goal is to convince the junior activists that they should spend at least 10% of activist time in convincing citizens to force PM, CMs, Mayors to pass RTI2, MRCM, RTR laws. So if an activist is spending 10 hours a week in today, I request him to cut down the work to 9 hours and spend the 1 hour saved in campaigning for RTR, RTI2 etc. Because social work is grossly insufficient as it creates no changes in law-drafts. And election etc is insufficient as well as clone negative. Worse, the “win election and change laws” approach will require junior activists to spend hundreds of hours in convincing the impossible that new person will not become corrupt after he wins election. And hundreds of hours will be spent in creating perception of winnability. Hundreds of hours will be spent in mindless activities like rallies, sloganeering, attending meetings with same repetitious talks, attending meetings deal with organizational and planning issues only etc. Whereas if the junior activist chooses to spend time in campaigning for RTI2, MRCM, RTR etc laws, this will improve the intellectual level of activists as well as citizens. And above all, “the mass movement for RTI2 law draft” is clone positive and so every moment spend on it adds towards the goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment