April 10, 2016 No.7
https://www.facebook.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153417011316922
https://www.facebook.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153417011316922
FBCPBA chap-4 --- How FBCPBA promotes LEGISLATIVE ACTIVISM over slogan shouting ?
.
( FBCPBA is a campaign method which I , Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta at Right to Recall Party, have invented (with a critical input from Amar Kumar Ram), to reduce inefficiencies of all activists who want to improve India by improving law-drafts. The part-1 of this article describes what FBCPBA is. The first part is at https://fb.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153344397466922 . This status post is part-4.
.
What is FBCPBA in short? --- (a) an activist / voter has to put text "please click this FB cover picture to know law-drafts I support" in his FB cover picture and (b) the description of FB cover picture must have link to his own FB note which has links to FB status posts which has the FULL law-draft-text that that activist / voter supports.
.
So FBCPBA has two parts --- cover picture with a TEXT as image, and a FB note which has all links. BOTH are important. Please note -- the FB-note is also an important part of FBCPBA. And activist can copy cover picture, but he must make FB note all by himself, NO COPY-PASTE of even one line. )
.
======
.
chap-4 --- How FBCPBA promotes LEGISLATIVE ACTIVISM over slogan shouting ?
.
I will first cite my views about activism and what common problems activism faces in India. And then I will explain why HUGE amount of INDEXED two-way communication is needed amongst activists to deal with these problems. And then I will show how IMO FBCPBA = “Facebook cover picture based activism” is least inefficient way for this intra-activist communication,
.
(4.1) My views on activists and activism, wave. And why activists MUST add activists along with adding voters to the movement?
.
(4.2) What do I mean by a “wave”?
.
(4.3) The second biggest problem in activism across world and also in India --- too many causes , and how FBCPBA enables activists to deal with problem, though does NOT solve it.
.
(4.4) Can LEGISLATIVE activists scattered over 100s of causes fully “unite” on one law-draft ? IMO, they wont. So solution?
.
(4.5) How did I get numbers like 4 hrs a week, Rs 20000 per year, 200000 activists etc etc?
.
(4.6) The two main problems restated
.
(4.7) How to convert some of the non-legislative activists into a legislative activists?
.
(4.8) How FBCPBA can be used to convert non-legislative-activists into legislative-activist for law-drafts specific to HIS causes
.
(4.9) Getting 200,000 legislative activists on one specific law-draft
.
=============
.
(4.1) My views on activists and activism, wave. And why activists MUST add activists along with adding voters to the movement?
.
I define an activist as someone who is willing to work at least 4 hours a week at the cost of his career and at cost of his social life, and also willing to spend say at least 2% to 5% or more of his OWN income for newspaper advertisements, pamphlets etc to promote his cause, and willing to take INITIATIVE on his own, EVEN IN ABSENCE OF A WAVE !!! Please note --- even in absence of a "wave". An activist has APTITUDE of searching for information and going out on his own. And an activist expects no gain of money, fame, position, power etc in return. The only “gain” he hopes to get is fulfillment of his causes.
.
An ordinary voter is generally not interested in spending time and money on any causes, except when there is a wave. And when a wave comes, the ordinary voter may give time, money etc. In fact, during a wave, an ordinary voter may become more active than an activist !!! But as long as there is no wave or when the wave goes away, the voter becomes inactive. He may only give a PASSIVE hearing at most but nothing more. Even passive hearing will be difficult to get. Also, to inform a voter, an activist has to take information to the voter. The voter will NOT go out on his own and search for information. The voter will read what paidmedia shows him, and what activists show him, but ordinary voter will NOT go out on his own. If activists don’t spend their time and money in informing voters, then voters will read ONLY what paidmedia shows him. This is a fact across world. So THIS behavior of voter is NOT the reason why India is behind USA.
.
Taking initiative to get information is important. An activist is willing to read pamphlets, travel to attend meetings and listen/read unknown persons for information. Whereas ordinary voters will read ONLY the information that is served to him, by paidmedia or by activists he personally knows. Eg An activist can be convinced to read selected FB pages everyday. But a voter will read ONLY those posts which come to on WhatsApp !!! The ordinary voter will not spend time to see those FB pages regularly.
.
A person who is an activist today may not be able to work as an activist whole his life. He may be activist today, and may give up activism after a few years due to betrayal by leaders or because getting busy in business / family or losses in business / family or hopelessness or running out of money. IMO, most activists remain activists for only 3-7 years in their lives. And many ex-activist start hating politics and activism , and the reason is “betrayal by leaders”. The ex-activists who who were not betrayed by their leaders seldom hate politics / activism. And many non-activists will become activists. And an ex-activist, who has become a non-activist, may again become an activist. So there is moving in and moving out of people between activists and non-activists ---- activists become non-activists and and non-activists may become activists.
.
So the TWO KEY differences between an activist and ordinary voter are --- (a) activist is willing to work without a wave, while ordinary voter will not work much in absence of a wave. (b) activist is willing to take initiative to search for information whereas ordinary voter will only read information that is provided to him by paidmedia or by activists
.
Once an activist-A informs an activist-B about causes and methods of activist-A, if activist-B likes them, then activist-B will be willing to read all pamphlets , magazines , FB-posts that activist-A puts on his own. IOW, activist-A does NOT have to spend time and money to communicate to activist-B. Activist-B will be willing to bear cost of communication. But if activist-A informs ordinary voter-V about his causes and plans, and even if voter-V likes them, then also activist-A has to inform voter-V everyday or every week, and activist-A has to spend some time and money everyday or every week !!!
.
So one time initial cost of acquiring activist is higher than one time initial cost of acquiring voter. But LONG TERM cost of keeping the activist connected, after one time cost, is zero !! Whereas constant expenditure is needed to connect an ordinary voter !! .’
.
So another important difference between activist and voter is --- Say some N activists are working to raise a movement ; then to add a new activist-A, these N activists will have to spend Rs X and Y hours ONE TIME , and cost of keeping that new activist-A connected is ZERO.. While cost of adding a voter to the movement is Rs P and Q minutes one time, but cost of keeping him connected is also Rs R per week and S minutes per week !!! IOW, existing activists have to work ONLY once to add an activist and later spend NOTHING to keep him connected. The new activist spends his time and his money to keep himself connected !! While to keep a voter connected to the movement, the activists have to spend their time and their money every week, every month. So in long run, an ordinary voter is more expensive to retain, though he may be cheaper to get on day one. He is cheaper because activists will ask many questions, he will have many doubts and it will be a long time becofe he joins the movement..
.
All countries in world improved ONLY due to activists and never due to paid-intellectuals or kings or sponsored leaders. USA, UK are no exception. They improved ONLY because of activists. And India too got freedom and saw improvements like land reforms, removal of emergency in 1977 etc only due to activists.
.
(Aside --- in activism, the biggest loss is spending time with a PASSIVIST --- i.e. person who has a lot of questions, has lot to say, but has no desire to spend his time and money to make law-drafts, read law-drafts, get pamphlets printed, get newspaper advertisement, campaign in elections, contest elections etc to raise any movement !!! But a real activist also has a lost of questions, and so does a passivist. So how can an activist decide the difference? IMO, FBCPBA helps. I will explain how.)
.
=====
.
(4.2) What do I mean by a “wave”?
.
So what do I mean by a wave? By “wave”, I mean a situation when crores of voters are openly expressing support for a cause, and crores of voters are insisting on promoting ONLY ONE cause, and their support has become known to a huge population of voters. During a “wave”, crores of voters will become hostile to anyone talking about any other cause at that time !!! And so all other topics get displaced out. The wave is must to either force MPs to pass a law against their will OR replace those MPs and install new ones who have shown willingness to pass those laws.
.
IMO, there are ONLY two ways to generate a wave. The wave can be generated by paidmedia OR a wave can be generated by thousands and lakhs of activists working on a cause. E.g. Janlokpal wave was created by massive paidmedia coverage between 3-apr-2011 and 7-apr-2011 paid by foreign elitemen like Fraud Foundation, and some local elitemen (Jindal etc). But the wave which forced Duratma Gandhi to demand Purna Swaraj in 1930s was created by Mahatma Bhagat Singh and 1000s of several other activists in street. Today, the so called political leaders have become incapable of generating a wave. And IMO, they never had capacity to generate a wave. They had capacity to generate wave ONLY because they were sponsored by paidmedia or they had approval amongst activists.
.
So if the activists of any group, want to create a wave, then those activists would need to spend a lot of their time and a lot of their money, and will need a method to communicate. And if the elitemen want to create a wave, then the elitemen also need to pay a lot of money to the paidmediamen. For elitemen, paying the paidmediamen to generate a wave is an investment, which may later benefit them or not. But true activists seek no personal monetary or political benefits. And so for true activists, time and money spent to generate the wave is a total loss only. The only "gain" they will get is fulfillment of their cause.
.
So lets say elitemen spend Rs 1000 crore and generate a wave. Then from that wave, they will manage to make Rs 5000 crore. And so next time, when there is a need to spend Rs 2000 crore to generate a new and stronger wave, the elitemen will have that money. But if activists spend Rs 100 crore to generate a wave, then they will gain no rupee amount. So if they need to spend Rs 100 crore again to generate a new wave, or spend Rs 200 crore to generate a bigger wave, then they may not have such money. IOW, the activists should know that they will NOT gain from waves they generate and so they have to be very miser when it comes to spending their own money.
.
So IMO activists should first note that (a) they need to create a wave to force MPs (b) and for a wave, they need support of crores of voters. (c) and informing crores of voters and connecting to crores of voters come at a “loss” of time and money. (d) and 100% of this time and money will have to come from activists only --- no elitemen funding will be there for our RRG-drafts.
.
To create wave, activists need to inform crores of voters and need to have live connections to crores of voters. And informing voters and keeping voters connected requires money and time. And till wave comes, voters will NOT contribute time and money. And once wave comes, they will. But in absence of time and money, live connection isn’t possible. And without live connections with voters, there can be no wave. And in absence of wave, voters will neither contribute money nor time.
.
So the activists are the only ones who will have to contribute time and money till the wave comes. As wave gets bigger, voters will contribute. But till the wave comes, only activists will have to contribute time and money.
.
So till a wave comes, getting more voters and not getting more activists increases per activist expenses. This is IMPORTANT , and so I will repeat --- till a wave comes, getting more voters and not getting more activists increases per activist expenses.
.
IMPORTANT ----- Eg say a movement has 1000 activists and say they have informed 40 lakh voters and the activists are also connected to these 40 lakh voters via magazine or via WhatApp or FB. To keep voters connected, the activists will need to spend Rs X per voter per year and Y minutes per voter per year. So activist will have to spend (Rs X * 10,00,000) / 1000 = 1000 * Rs X per voter. And activists will have to spend (Y * 10,00,000 / 1000 ) = 1000 * Y minutes per year. Now say activists add 10,00,000 more voters but fail to add more activists. In such case per activist expense of time and money now doubles !!! It may be slightly less than double due to scale of economy, but not significantly less. So adding voters to movement and not adding activists increases per-activist time and money burden and will not work for long. But say the 1000 activists added 10,00,000 voters to their movement and also added 20,000 activists. Then per-activist time/money burden reduces.
.
So IMO most IMPORTANT thing in a political movement is --- when activists add more activists to their movement, the movement gets more time and more money. So for any movement to grow to a size of 80 crore voters, IMO, it is necessary that start up activists work to add activists and not just voters. So IMO, they should constantly see whether their actions is adding activist or not. They feel thrilled by adding voters, and not notice that they haven’t added many activists. And in such case, the movement will not grow.
.
=====
.
(4.3) The biggest problem in India’s activism absent in West --- much higher non legislative activism
.
All countries in world improved ONLY due to activists and never due to paid-intellectuals or kings or sponsored leaders. USA, UK are no exception. They improved ONLY because of activists. And India too got freedom and saw improvements like land reforms only due to activists, who are small % of the population. IMO, about 2% of population in a country would be what I call as “activist” --- someone who is spending 4 hours a week and someone who is spending say 3% to 5% of his income for a cause.
.
Do USA / UK have more activists than India?
.
IMO, NO.
.
IMO, USA / UK etc have same 2% population working as activists as in India. So India has as many activists as USA, as 2% of population or any country.
.
India IMO has about 2 crore activists or voters willing to become activists. IMO, each activist is willing to give 4 hours per wee and some Rs 20000 per year on an average. So some 200 crore activist hours per year and some Rs 40000 crore activist-rupees per year are available for activism in India. And IMO, this time and money is sufficient to bring India at par with USA within 3 years !!! Then what are the problems with activism in India? Why is India behind USA in all fields and getting worse off and worse off day by day? The opinions will vary. Here I will cite by opinions on problems with activism in India
.
IMO, the biggest problem that India faces wrt activism and USA doesnt face is --- in India, there is a heavy emphasis on NON-LEGISLATIVE activism.
.
Organizations such as Congress, BJP, AAP, RSS, BST etc ask their activists to do neta-pooja, social work, rallying, slogan shouting and discourage their activists from reading / understanding law-drafts of various countries across world today and in past. In USA, most activists believe that the law-drafts are important and so they work to improve law-drafts of USA. In India, IMO, less than a few thousand activists as of now believe that law-drafts are important.
.
Why do activists in India have less faith in law-drafts and activists in USA have more faith in law-drafts? One reason for difference is --- USA has been having Jury System since ages and so law-drafts do get implemented in courts. So the voters and activists in USA have faith in law-drafts. In India, judges take years to give judgments and most judges are corrupt / nepotic / nexused. And so as of now, most law-drafts do NOT matter in courts --- judgments don’t come or come by nexuses. The only law-drafts that do matter in India as of now are law-drafts which make majority opinion clear to all, such as elections. And so activists have lost faith in law-drafts except elections. And so activists have less faith in changing laws. And to make matters worse, the foreign / Indian elitemen via paidmedia and leaders of Congress, BJP, AAP, RSS, BST etc also promote the thought that law-drafts are useless and activists should confine to neta-puja, social work etc. So a large number of activists confine to non-legislative activism such as social work, neta-pooja, organization building etc. This IMO is the BIGGEST problem in activism in India not seen in West.
.
We at RRG = Right to Recall Group have done pioneering work in India in convincing activists that law-drafts do matter. And so more and more activists now do believe that it is possible to reduce gap between USA and India by improving law-drafts in India. That’s why, today, we have a few hundred activists in India committed to improving law-drafts. But this is very small compared to West. And to reach 85 crore voters in India, we need at least 200,000 such legislative activists.
.
Summarizing --- (a) the biggest problem in India’s activists IMO today is that --- out of total of say 2 crore activists, very few activists are promoting law-drafts that can serve their cause. (b) solution is that we recallists need to convince lakhs of activists to end neta pooja, end non-emergency social work and instead promote law-drafts.
.
So we recallists need to CONVERT non-legislative activists into legislative activists. And I will explain how FBCPBA can help us recallists convince activists in non-legislative activism to spend time . money and efforts for legislative activism. IOW, FBCPBA can enable legislative activists to CONVERT non-legislative-activists into legislative activist !!!
.
====
.
(4.3) The second biggest problem in activism across world and also in India --- too many causes , and how FBCPBA enables activists to deal with problem, though does NOT solve it.
.
( FBCPBA is a campaign method which I , Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta at Right to Recall Party, have invented (with a critical input from Amar Kumar Ram), to reduce inefficiencies of all activists who want to improve India by improving law-drafts. The part-1 of this article describes what FBCPBA is. The first part is at https://fb.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153344397466922 . This status post is part-4.
.
What is FBCPBA in short? --- (a) an activist / voter has to put text "please click this FB cover picture to know law-drafts I support" in his FB cover picture and (b) the description of FB cover picture must have link to his own FB note which has links to FB status posts which has the FULL law-draft-text that that activist / voter supports.
.
So FBCPBA has two parts --- cover picture with a TEXT as image, and a FB note which has all links. BOTH are important. Please note -- the FB-note is also an important part of FBCPBA. And activist can copy cover picture, but he must make FB note all by himself, NO COPY-PASTE of even one line. )
.
======
.
chap-4 --- How FBCPBA promotes LEGISLATIVE ACTIVISM over slogan shouting ?
.
I will first cite my views about activism and what common problems activism faces in India. And then I will explain why HUGE amount of INDEXED two-way communication is needed amongst activists to deal with these problems. And then I will show how IMO FBCPBA = “Facebook cover picture based activism” is least inefficient way for this intra-activist communication,
.
(4.1) My views on activists and activism, wave. And why activists MUST add activists along with adding voters to the movement?
.
(4.2) What do I mean by a “wave”?
.
(4.3) The second biggest problem in activism across world and also in India --- too many causes , and how FBCPBA enables activists to deal with problem, though does NOT solve it.
.
(4.4) Can LEGISLATIVE activists scattered over 100s of causes fully “unite” on one law-draft ? IMO, they wont. So solution?
.
(4.5) How did I get numbers like 4 hrs a week, Rs 20000 per year, 200000 activists etc etc?
.
(4.6) The two main problems restated
.
(4.7) How to convert some of the non-legislative activists into a legislative activists?
.
(4.8) How FBCPBA can be used to convert non-legislative-activists into legislative-activist for law-drafts specific to HIS causes
.
(4.9) Getting 200,000 legislative activists on one specific law-draft
.
=============
.
(4.1) My views on activists and activism, wave. And why activists MUST add activists along with adding voters to the movement?
.
I define an activist as someone who is willing to work at least 4 hours a week at the cost of his career and at cost of his social life, and also willing to spend say at least 2% to 5% or more of his OWN income for newspaper advertisements, pamphlets etc to promote his cause, and willing to take INITIATIVE on his own, EVEN IN ABSENCE OF A WAVE !!! Please note --- even in absence of a "wave". An activist has APTITUDE of searching for information and going out on his own. And an activist expects no gain of money, fame, position, power etc in return. The only “gain” he hopes to get is fulfillment of his causes.
.
An ordinary voter is generally not interested in spending time and money on any causes, except when there is a wave. And when a wave comes, the ordinary voter may give time, money etc. In fact, during a wave, an ordinary voter may become more active than an activist !!! But as long as there is no wave or when the wave goes away, the voter becomes inactive. He may only give a PASSIVE hearing at most but nothing more. Even passive hearing will be difficult to get. Also, to inform a voter, an activist has to take information to the voter. The voter will NOT go out on his own and search for information. The voter will read what paidmedia shows him, and what activists show him, but ordinary voter will NOT go out on his own. If activists don’t spend their time and money in informing voters, then voters will read ONLY what paidmedia shows him. This is a fact across world. So THIS behavior of voter is NOT the reason why India is behind USA.
.
Taking initiative to get information is important. An activist is willing to read pamphlets, travel to attend meetings and listen/read unknown persons for information. Whereas ordinary voters will read ONLY the information that is served to him, by paidmedia or by activists he personally knows. Eg An activist can be convinced to read selected FB pages everyday. But a voter will read ONLY those posts which come to on WhatsApp !!! The ordinary voter will not spend time to see those FB pages regularly.
.
A person who is an activist today may not be able to work as an activist whole his life. He may be activist today, and may give up activism after a few years due to betrayal by leaders or because getting busy in business / family or losses in business / family or hopelessness or running out of money. IMO, most activists remain activists for only 3-7 years in their lives. And many ex-activist start hating politics and activism , and the reason is “betrayal by leaders”. The ex-activists who who were not betrayed by their leaders seldom hate politics / activism. And many non-activists will become activists. And an ex-activist, who has become a non-activist, may again become an activist. So there is moving in and moving out of people between activists and non-activists ---- activists become non-activists and and non-activists may become activists.
.
So the TWO KEY differences between an activist and ordinary voter are --- (a) activist is willing to work without a wave, while ordinary voter will not work much in absence of a wave. (b) activist is willing to take initiative to search for information whereas ordinary voter will only read information that is provided to him by paidmedia or by activists
.
Once an activist-A informs an activist-B about causes and methods of activist-A, if activist-B likes them, then activist-B will be willing to read all pamphlets , magazines , FB-posts that activist-A puts on his own. IOW, activist-A does NOT have to spend time and money to communicate to activist-B. Activist-B will be willing to bear cost of communication. But if activist-A informs ordinary voter-V about his causes and plans, and even if voter-V likes them, then also activist-A has to inform voter-V everyday or every week, and activist-A has to spend some time and money everyday or every week !!!
.
So one time initial cost of acquiring activist is higher than one time initial cost of acquiring voter. But LONG TERM cost of keeping the activist connected, after one time cost, is zero !! Whereas constant expenditure is needed to connect an ordinary voter !! .’
.
So another important difference between activist and voter is --- Say some N activists are working to raise a movement ; then to add a new activist-A, these N activists will have to spend Rs X and Y hours ONE TIME , and cost of keeping that new activist-A connected is ZERO.. While cost of adding a voter to the movement is Rs P and Q minutes one time, but cost of keeping him connected is also Rs R per week and S minutes per week !!! IOW, existing activists have to work ONLY once to add an activist and later spend NOTHING to keep him connected. The new activist spends his time and his money to keep himself connected !! While to keep a voter connected to the movement, the activists have to spend their time and their money every week, every month. So in long run, an ordinary voter is more expensive to retain, though he may be cheaper to get on day one. He is cheaper because activists will ask many questions, he will have many doubts and it will be a long time becofe he joins the movement..
.
All countries in world improved ONLY due to activists and never due to paid-intellectuals or kings or sponsored leaders. USA, UK are no exception. They improved ONLY because of activists. And India too got freedom and saw improvements like land reforms, removal of emergency in 1977 etc only due to activists.
.
(Aside --- in activism, the biggest loss is spending time with a PASSIVIST --- i.e. person who has a lot of questions, has lot to say, but has no desire to spend his time and money to make law-drafts, read law-drafts, get pamphlets printed, get newspaper advertisement, campaign in elections, contest elections etc to raise any movement !!! But a real activist also has a lost of questions, and so does a passivist. So how can an activist decide the difference? IMO, FBCPBA helps. I will explain how.)
.
=====
.
(4.2) What do I mean by a “wave”?
.
So what do I mean by a wave? By “wave”, I mean a situation when crores of voters are openly expressing support for a cause, and crores of voters are insisting on promoting ONLY ONE cause, and their support has become known to a huge population of voters. During a “wave”, crores of voters will become hostile to anyone talking about any other cause at that time !!! And so all other topics get displaced out. The wave is must to either force MPs to pass a law against their will OR replace those MPs and install new ones who have shown willingness to pass those laws.
.
IMO, there are ONLY two ways to generate a wave. The wave can be generated by paidmedia OR a wave can be generated by thousands and lakhs of activists working on a cause. E.g. Janlokpal wave was created by massive paidmedia coverage between 3-apr-2011 and 7-apr-2011 paid by foreign elitemen like Fraud Foundation, and some local elitemen (Jindal etc). But the wave which forced Duratma Gandhi to demand Purna Swaraj in 1930s was created by Mahatma Bhagat Singh and 1000s of several other activists in street. Today, the so called political leaders have become incapable of generating a wave. And IMO, they never had capacity to generate a wave. They had capacity to generate wave ONLY because they were sponsored by paidmedia or they had approval amongst activists.
.
So if the activists of any group, want to create a wave, then those activists would need to spend a lot of their time and a lot of their money, and will need a method to communicate. And if the elitemen want to create a wave, then the elitemen also need to pay a lot of money to the paidmediamen. For elitemen, paying the paidmediamen to generate a wave is an investment, which may later benefit them or not. But true activists seek no personal monetary or political benefits. And so for true activists, time and money spent to generate the wave is a total loss only. The only "gain" they will get is fulfillment of their cause.
.
So lets say elitemen spend Rs 1000 crore and generate a wave. Then from that wave, they will manage to make Rs 5000 crore. And so next time, when there is a need to spend Rs 2000 crore to generate a new and stronger wave, the elitemen will have that money. But if activists spend Rs 100 crore to generate a wave, then they will gain no rupee amount. So if they need to spend Rs 100 crore again to generate a new wave, or spend Rs 200 crore to generate a bigger wave, then they may not have such money. IOW, the activists should know that they will NOT gain from waves they generate and so they have to be very miser when it comes to spending their own money.
.
So IMO activists should first note that (a) they need to create a wave to force MPs (b) and for a wave, they need support of crores of voters. (c) and informing crores of voters and connecting to crores of voters come at a “loss” of time and money. (d) and 100% of this time and money will have to come from activists only --- no elitemen funding will be there for our RRG-drafts.
.
To create wave, activists need to inform crores of voters and need to have live connections to crores of voters. And informing voters and keeping voters connected requires money and time. And till wave comes, voters will NOT contribute time and money. And once wave comes, they will. But in absence of time and money, live connection isn’t possible. And without live connections with voters, there can be no wave. And in absence of wave, voters will neither contribute money nor time.
.
So the activists are the only ones who will have to contribute time and money till the wave comes. As wave gets bigger, voters will contribute. But till the wave comes, only activists will have to contribute time and money.
.
So till a wave comes, getting more voters and not getting more activists increases per activist expenses. This is IMPORTANT , and so I will repeat --- till a wave comes, getting more voters and not getting more activists increases per activist expenses.
.
IMPORTANT ----- Eg say a movement has 1000 activists and say they have informed 40 lakh voters and the activists are also connected to these 40 lakh voters via magazine or via WhatApp or FB. To keep voters connected, the activists will need to spend Rs X per voter per year and Y minutes per voter per year. So activist will have to spend (Rs X * 10,00,000) / 1000 = 1000 * Rs X per voter. And activists will have to spend (Y * 10,00,000 / 1000 ) = 1000 * Y minutes per year. Now say activists add 10,00,000 more voters but fail to add more activists. In such case per activist expense of time and money now doubles !!! It may be slightly less than double due to scale of economy, but not significantly less. So adding voters to movement and not adding activists increases per-activist time and money burden and will not work for long. But say the 1000 activists added 10,00,000 voters to their movement and also added 20,000 activists. Then per-activist time/money burden reduces.
.
So IMO most IMPORTANT thing in a political movement is --- when activists add more activists to their movement, the movement gets more time and more money. So for any movement to grow to a size of 80 crore voters, IMO, it is necessary that start up activists work to add activists and not just voters. So IMO, they should constantly see whether their actions is adding activist or not. They feel thrilled by adding voters, and not notice that they haven’t added many activists. And in such case, the movement will not grow.
.
=====
.
(4.3) The biggest problem in India’s activism absent in West --- much higher non legislative activism
.
All countries in world improved ONLY due to activists and never due to paid-intellectuals or kings or sponsored leaders. USA, UK are no exception. They improved ONLY because of activists. And India too got freedom and saw improvements like land reforms only due to activists, who are small % of the population. IMO, about 2% of population in a country would be what I call as “activist” --- someone who is spending 4 hours a week and someone who is spending say 3% to 5% of his income for a cause.
.
Do USA / UK have more activists than India?
.
IMO, NO.
.
IMO, USA / UK etc have same 2% population working as activists as in India. So India has as many activists as USA, as 2% of population or any country.
.
India IMO has about 2 crore activists or voters willing to become activists. IMO, each activist is willing to give 4 hours per wee and some Rs 20000 per year on an average. So some 200 crore activist hours per year and some Rs 40000 crore activist-rupees per year are available for activism in India. And IMO, this time and money is sufficient to bring India at par with USA within 3 years !!! Then what are the problems with activism in India? Why is India behind USA in all fields and getting worse off and worse off day by day? The opinions will vary. Here I will cite by opinions on problems with activism in India
.
IMO, the biggest problem that India faces wrt activism and USA doesnt face is --- in India, there is a heavy emphasis on NON-LEGISLATIVE activism.
.
Organizations such as Congress, BJP, AAP, RSS, BST etc ask their activists to do neta-pooja, social work, rallying, slogan shouting and discourage their activists from reading / understanding law-drafts of various countries across world today and in past. In USA, most activists believe that the law-drafts are important and so they work to improve law-drafts of USA. In India, IMO, less than a few thousand activists as of now believe that law-drafts are important.
.
Why do activists in India have less faith in law-drafts and activists in USA have more faith in law-drafts? One reason for difference is --- USA has been having Jury System since ages and so law-drafts do get implemented in courts. So the voters and activists in USA have faith in law-drafts. In India, judges take years to give judgments and most judges are corrupt / nepotic / nexused. And so as of now, most law-drafts do NOT matter in courts --- judgments don’t come or come by nexuses. The only law-drafts that do matter in India as of now are law-drafts which make majority opinion clear to all, such as elections. And so activists have lost faith in law-drafts except elections. And so activists have less faith in changing laws. And to make matters worse, the foreign / Indian elitemen via paidmedia and leaders of Congress, BJP, AAP, RSS, BST etc also promote the thought that law-drafts are useless and activists should confine to neta-puja, social work etc. So a large number of activists confine to non-legislative activism such as social work, neta-pooja, organization building etc. This IMO is the BIGGEST problem in activism in India not seen in West.
.
We at RRG = Right to Recall Group have done pioneering work in India in convincing activists that law-drafts do matter. And so more and more activists now do believe that it is possible to reduce gap between USA and India by improving law-drafts in India. That’s why, today, we have a few hundred activists in India committed to improving law-drafts. But this is very small compared to West. And to reach 85 crore voters in India, we need at least 200,000 such legislative activists.
.
Summarizing --- (a) the biggest problem in India’s activists IMO today is that --- out of total of say 2 crore activists, very few activists are promoting law-drafts that can serve their cause. (b) solution is that we recallists need to convince lakhs of activists to end neta pooja, end non-emergency social work and instead promote law-drafts.
.
So we recallists need to CONVERT non-legislative activists into legislative activists. And I will explain how FBCPBA can help us recallists convince activists in non-legislative activism to spend time . money and efforts for legislative activism. IOW, FBCPBA can enable legislative activists to CONVERT non-legislative-activists into legislative activist !!!
.
====
.
(4.3) The second biggest problem in activism across world and also in India --- too many causes , and how FBCPBA enables activists to deal with problem, though does NOT solve it.
Now there are over 100+ causes in India --- reduce poverty, reduce corruption, reduce crimes, reduce caste discrimination, reduce terrorism, improve Indian Military, improve manufacturing, control population, control population ratio across religions, end selective abortions of female child and fix gender ratio, end Bangladeshi infiltration, expel Bangladeshi infiltrators and 100 more causes. And given a cause, there are many means. So activists are scattered over causes as well as means.
.
So IMO, the SECOND BIGGEST PROBLEM in activism is ---- say there are 2 lakh activists who agree that changing law-drafts is necessary ; but each of these 2 lakh activists will be scattered over 100 causes and scattered over 100 sets of law-drafts to address their 100 causes.
.
So how can activists work and make progress even when they are scattered over 100 sets of law-drafts?
.
I will explain how FBCPBA helps.
.
============
.
(4.4) Can LEGISLATIVE activists scattered over 100s of causes fully “unite” on one law-draft ? IMO, they wont. So solution?
.
There are over 100 causes, and associated with each cause are some 1-10 law-drafts, say 5 law-drafts on an average per cause. So there are 100 sets of law-drafts, each law-draft-set associated with one cause. And there is repetition in law-drafts. And so there wont be 500 law-drafts, but say some 300 law-drafts.
.
Now only some activists will be able to work on all 100-200 causes and all 300 law-drafts. Most activists will decide to work on 1-5 causes only. Now out of 2 crore activists or potential activists we have in India, most are connected to non legislative work like social work, neta puja etc. And only very few activists are doing legislative activism – hardly a few thousand as of today, mar-2016. And even if we try hard, in near, future, we will have no more than 200,000 legislative activists. And to generate wave on ONE SPECIFIC LAW-DRAFT, we need connection with over 40 crore voters i.e. some 40 crore voters have to be informed about THAT SPECIFIC LAW-DRAFT, and for that we need 200,000 activists for THAT SPECIFIC LAW-DRAFT !!
.
But whatever very few legislative activists we have, they will be scattered over some 100 causes and some 100 law-draft-sets. So no single law-draft will get 200,000 activists and generating wave on one specific law-draft will become difficult.
.
So whats the solution?
.
So far, I do NOT have a full solution to this SPECIFIC problem that activists are scattered over law-drafts. I will repeat --- I DO NOT have a full solution to the problem that activists are scattered over law-drafts.
.
The only good part is --- activists working for cause-A for law-draft-A is NOT opposed to activist-B working on cause-B on law-draft-set-B. The law-draft-A in most cases will NOT do any damage to cause-B and law-drafts-B will NOT do any damage to cause-A. In fact, law-draft-set-A and law-draft-set-B will have some law-drafts in common, and so both will help each other.
.
To generate a wave, we need at least 200,000 activists working on one law-draft. So can these activists be convinced to work on one cause to generate a wave? IMO, NO. Because each activist has causes dear to him and he will work ONLY on causes dear to him. Activist-A will prefer a plan-A that promotes law-draft-A in MAXIMAL way and activist-B will prefer a plan-B that promotes law-draft-B in maximal way. So if anyone prepares a plan-C that has less room for plan-A, then activist-A will prefer plan-A to plan-C. IOW, activist-A will take a clan or campaign which is exclusive to law-drafts-A only.
.
Then can activists be convinced to work on A PRIMARY CAUSE which is fundamental , INDISPENSABLE and common to all causes? E.g. If one cause is such, that without that cause, no other cause can be realized, then all activists can be convinced to work on THAT primary cause. Well, IMO, there is no such primary cause !!! If anyone differs, then he can write a Facebook note citing that primary cause and explain how his cause is INDISPENSABLE to other causes. In my over 20 years of activism, I have NOT been able to find any cause which is indispensable for other causes. And even if one discovers a primary cause cause-P, then one has to create write-ups which convince activists that that cause-P is a primary cause, and his cause-A cannot be done without cause-P !! And that write-up will have to show that cause-P is primary to 100s of causes !! So that write up will be a huge write up as it will have details of all the causes. And convincing lakhs and crores of activists to read that write will be a huge task itself.
.
Now several causes may overlap. But overlap often does not make one cause fully dependent on the other cause. I will give my analysis of two causes “improve manufacturing” and “reduce poverty” to explain my point that overlap does NOT mean dependency.
.
(4.4.a) Improving manufacturing will reduce poverty ; but poverty can be reduced by distribution alone to some extent which doesn’t require improving manufacturing as the first step. Also, if manufacturing improves but income distribution worsens, then poverty will not decrease by much. And sometimes, improving manufacturing by importing robots can worsen poverty problem !!! So in general, improving manufacturing can reduce poverty. But some ways of improving manufacturing don’t reduce poverty. And poverty can reduced without improving manufacturing in short run.
.
(4.4.b) Reducing poverty increases purchasing power which will increase demand of goods which will improve manufacturing. So reducing poverty improves manufacturing. But not always. Eg say a regime reduces poverty by income re-distribution and that regime is very unfriendly to factory owners (eg Regimes in Kerala / WB) , then poverty will reduce but manufacturing will not improve. So such methods to reduce poverty can sometimes worsen manufacturing, not improve it.
.
So even though there is an overlap in “reducing poverty” and “improve manufacturing”, none is primary to other. And some methods of improving manufacturing like importing robots can go against the cause of reducing poverty. And some methods of reducing poverty like bringing CPI-like-regimes can worsen manufacturing. So no cause is primary to another. And worse, some methods good for one cause damage the other cause !!!
.
So the activist committed to reduce poverty will NOT accept the argument that "first lets improve manufacturing, then poverty will reduce automatically" !! And the activists committed to “improve manufacturing” will not accept the argument that “lets focus ONLY on reducing poverty now ; once poverty reduces, manufacturing will automatically improve” !! In fact, the activists may even oppose each other on some points and so may not even support each other.
.
So IMO, in general, consider any two causes-A and cause-B. Even if the two causes are close and related, it will rarely be the case that “cause-A cant be fulfilled partially without first fulfilling cause-B”. and vice versa. And it can also happen that some methods of fulfilling cause-A will worsen cause-B and vice versa.
.
So I will repeat --- IMO, there is no cause which is a indispensable to other causes !!! If anyone differs, and believes that there exists a indispensable cause, then I request him to write a Facebook note citing that indispensable cause and explain how his cause is indispensable and why other causes cant be realized without that cause. And how he proposes to take this information to lakhs of activists !!! In my over 20 years of activism, I have NOT been able to find any indispensable cause. And given that there is no indispensable cause, IMO no activist-A should ask other activist-B to give up cause-B causes and work on his cause-A.
.
So IMO an activist-A working on cause-A should NEVER try to convince other activist-B working on cause-B that “cause-A will automatically realize cause-B and cause-B cant be realized without cause-A and so you B should dump cause-B right now, and focus only on cause-A right now ; and when cause-A is done, your cause-B will get done right away !!” Because IMO such statements are mostly false in two ways. First, given that there are many ways to realize cause-B, cause-B can be partially fulfilled without fulfilling any cause-A. And second, many methods that fulfill cause-A may sometimes damage cause-B !! So IMO, no activist should ever try or dare to state that his cause is more primary that other causes.
.
So IMO, “unity over law-draft” or “unity over cause” amongst activists isn’t possible. And to create a wave for a law-draft, a large number of activists need to work on that law-draft. So how can such wave be generated given that unity is almost impossible?
.
I will explain how FBCPBA reduces this problem.
.
==========
.
(4.5) How did I get numbers like 4 hrs a week, Rs 20000 per year, 200000 activists etc etc?
.
The fundamental numbers in my analysis are ---
.
A= number of hours an activists will spend per year = 200
.
B = rupee amount an activist will spend per year = Rs 20000
.
C = number of activist hours needed to reach / connect to 1000 voters = 50 hours per year
.
D = activist-rupees needed to connect to 1000 voters = Rs 5000 per voter
.
E = number of voters needed to create a wave = 40 crore (about 50% of total)
.
( number of voters activists need to reach = almost ALL voters = 80 crore )
.
Now rupee amount may seem low, but that’s because IMO ordinary voters will contribute some very small amounts to activists. The number of hours may also look small, and that’s because many ordinary voters will also contribute some small amount of time.
,
And so based on these numbers, I am stating that one activist can connect to 4000 voters.
.
And based on these numbers, I am stating that number of activists needed to create a wave to force MPs to get a specific law-draft passed will be = number of activists needed to connect to 80 crore voters = 80 crore / 4000 = 200,000
.
If your values of A, B, C D and E differ, then number of activists needed as per your opinion will also differ. E.g. if you think that one activist can connect to only 1000 voters, then as per your perception, the movement will need 800,000 activists. Likewise, you can make your own scenario.
.
The essential point is --- average distance between any two activists in the group !! What is average distance? If the group size is 100, then it is possible to have minimal distance = 1 , i.e. everyone knows everyone. But if group size is 1000, then minimal distance of 1 is impossible. The minimal distance will be at least 2 to 3. If number of activists needed are say 100,000, and even if each activist knows 100 activists personally, then also distance between two activists chosen at random in network will be 3 to 4. And that would involve centralization. So designing a network with minimal centralization and minimal distance will be a huge problem of maths by itself. But distance in such network will exceed 4 i.e. if two activist A and B are chosen at random, then one will need to go via three links X, Y and Z to reach from A to B.
.
So activists in such “large” groups can advance to create a wave only if they follow a procedure code to decide which law-drafts to promote. The simplest protocol is centralization --- have a group head who decides. And in activism, IMO, this is the WORST possible protocol !!! This makes elitemen’s life easy. All they now need to do is to kill or threaten or bribe that head and the group will fall apart or worse, the group will go in wrong direction. So IMO, activists must get this deep into their head that they must not have one single leader. Another protocol is gathering i.e. all activists meet say once a month and decide by voting. But f number of activist is as large as 200,000, and not every activist knows every activist, then gathering is not possible even online. Then whom how should activists decide whether to work on a task or not?
.
Solution I have proposed is --- accept law-drafts as leaders to start with, and then let movement grow till there are too many “leaders” that elitemen can neither buy nor kill. But which law-drafts should be publicized more? FBCPBA can enable activists to decide this.
.
So essential part of my analysis is -- the number 200,000 is not important. The essential part is that we do need a LARGE number of activists --- lakhs. And so large that if two activists are chosen at random, then they will need at least 3 to 6 persons to create a link between them. In fact, a protocol or procedure code And they need a procedure to follow, so that without centralized communication and without “everyone knowing everyone”, they can work in a synchronized manner. And I will explain how FBCPBA helps.
.
So IMO, the SECOND BIGGEST PROBLEM in activism is ---- say there are 2 lakh activists who agree that changing law-drafts is necessary ; but each of these 2 lakh activists will be scattered over 100 causes and scattered over 100 sets of law-drafts to address their 100 causes.
.
So how can activists work and make progress even when they are scattered over 100 sets of law-drafts?
.
I will explain how FBCPBA helps.
.
============
.
(4.4) Can LEGISLATIVE activists scattered over 100s of causes fully “unite” on one law-draft ? IMO, they wont. So solution?
.
There are over 100 causes, and associated with each cause are some 1-10 law-drafts, say 5 law-drafts on an average per cause. So there are 100 sets of law-drafts, each law-draft-set associated with one cause. And there is repetition in law-drafts. And so there wont be 500 law-drafts, but say some 300 law-drafts.
.
Now only some activists will be able to work on all 100-200 causes and all 300 law-drafts. Most activists will decide to work on 1-5 causes only. Now out of 2 crore activists or potential activists we have in India, most are connected to non legislative work like social work, neta puja etc. And only very few activists are doing legislative activism – hardly a few thousand as of today, mar-2016. And even if we try hard, in near, future, we will have no more than 200,000 legislative activists. And to generate wave on ONE SPECIFIC LAW-DRAFT, we need connection with over 40 crore voters i.e. some 40 crore voters have to be informed about THAT SPECIFIC LAW-DRAFT, and for that we need 200,000 activists for THAT SPECIFIC LAW-DRAFT !!
.
But whatever very few legislative activists we have, they will be scattered over some 100 causes and some 100 law-draft-sets. So no single law-draft will get 200,000 activists and generating wave on one specific law-draft will become difficult.
.
So whats the solution?
.
So far, I do NOT have a full solution to this SPECIFIC problem that activists are scattered over law-drafts. I will repeat --- I DO NOT have a full solution to the problem that activists are scattered over law-drafts.
.
The only good part is --- activists working for cause-A for law-draft-A is NOT opposed to activist-B working on cause-B on law-draft-set-B. The law-draft-A in most cases will NOT do any damage to cause-B and law-drafts-B will NOT do any damage to cause-A. In fact, law-draft-set-A and law-draft-set-B will have some law-drafts in common, and so both will help each other.
.
To generate a wave, we need at least 200,000 activists working on one law-draft. So can these activists be convinced to work on one cause to generate a wave? IMO, NO. Because each activist has causes dear to him and he will work ONLY on causes dear to him. Activist-A will prefer a plan-A that promotes law-draft-A in MAXIMAL way and activist-B will prefer a plan-B that promotes law-draft-B in maximal way. So if anyone prepares a plan-C that has less room for plan-A, then activist-A will prefer plan-A to plan-C. IOW, activist-A will take a clan or campaign which is exclusive to law-drafts-A only.
.
Then can activists be convinced to work on A PRIMARY CAUSE which is fundamental , INDISPENSABLE and common to all causes? E.g. If one cause is such, that without that cause, no other cause can be realized, then all activists can be convinced to work on THAT primary cause. Well, IMO, there is no such primary cause !!! If anyone differs, then he can write a Facebook note citing that primary cause and explain how his cause is INDISPENSABLE to other causes. In my over 20 years of activism, I have NOT been able to find any cause which is indispensable for other causes. And even if one discovers a primary cause cause-P, then one has to create write-ups which convince activists that that cause-P is a primary cause, and his cause-A cannot be done without cause-P !! And that write-up will have to show that cause-P is primary to 100s of causes !! So that write up will be a huge write up as it will have details of all the causes. And convincing lakhs and crores of activists to read that write will be a huge task itself.
.
Now several causes may overlap. But overlap often does not make one cause fully dependent on the other cause. I will give my analysis of two causes “improve manufacturing” and “reduce poverty” to explain my point that overlap does NOT mean dependency.
.
(4.4.a) Improving manufacturing will reduce poverty ; but poverty can be reduced by distribution alone to some extent which doesn’t require improving manufacturing as the first step. Also, if manufacturing improves but income distribution worsens, then poverty will not decrease by much. And sometimes, improving manufacturing by importing robots can worsen poverty problem !!! So in general, improving manufacturing can reduce poverty. But some ways of improving manufacturing don’t reduce poverty. And poverty can reduced without improving manufacturing in short run.
.
(4.4.b) Reducing poverty increases purchasing power which will increase demand of goods which will improve manufacturing. So reducing poverty improves manufacturing. But not always. Eg say a regime reduces poverty by income re-distribution and that regime is very unfriendly to factory owners (eg Regimes in Kerala / WB) , then poverty will reduce but manufacturing will not improve. So such methods to reduce poverty can sometimes worsen manufacturing, not improve it.
.
So even though there is an overlap in “reducing poverty” and “improve manufacturing”, none is primary to other. And some methods of improving manufacturing like importing robots can go against the cause of reducing poverty. And some methods of reducing poverty like bringing CPI-like-regimes can worsen manufacturing. So no cause is primary to another. And worse, some methods good for one cause damage the other cause !!!
.
So the activist committed to reduce poverty will NOT accept the argument that "first lets improve manufacturing, then poverty will reduce automatically" !! And the activists committed to “improve manufacturing” will not accept the argument that “lets focus ONLY on reducing poverty now ; once poverty reduces, manufacturing will automatically improve” !! In fact, the activists may even oppose each other on some points and so may not even support each other.
.
So IMO, in general, consider any two causes-A and cause-B. Even if the two causes are close and related, it will rarely be the case that “cause-A cant be fulfilled partially without first fulfilling cause-B”. and vice versa. And it can also happen that some methods of fulfilling cause-A will worsen cause-B and vice versa.
.
So I will repeat --- IMO, there is no cause which is a indispensable to other causes !!! If anyone differs, and believes that there exists a indispensable cause, then I request him to write a Facebook note citing that indispensable cause and explain how his cause is indispensable and why other causes cant be realized without that cause. And how he proposes to take this information to lakhs of activists !!! In my over 20 years of activism, I have NOT been able to find any indispensable cause. And given that there is no indispensable cause, IMO no activist-A should ask other activist-B to give up cause-B causes and work on his cause-A.
.
So IMO an activist-A working on cause-A should NEVER try to convince other activist-B working on cause-B that “cause-A will automatically realize cause-B and cause-B cant be realized without cause-A and so you B should dump cause-B right now, and focus only on cause-A right now ; and when cause-A is done, your cause-B will get done right away !!” Because IMO such statements are mostly false in two ways. First, given that there are many ways to realize cause-B, cause-B can be partially fulfilled without fulfilling any cause-A. And second, many methods that fulfill cause-A may sometimes damage cause-B !! So IMO, no activist should ever try or dare to state that his cause is more primary that other causes.
.
So IMO, “unity over law-draft” or “unity over cause” amongst activists isn’t possible. And to create a wave for a law-draft, a large number of activists need to work on that law-draft. So how can such wave be generated given that unity is almost impossible?
.
I will explain how FBCPBA reduces this problem.
.
==========
.
(4.5) How did I get numbers like 4 hrs a week, Rs 20000 per year, 200000 activists etc etc?
.
The fundamental numbers in my analysis are ---
.
A= number of hours an activists will spend per year = 200
.
B = rupee amount an activist will spend per year = Rs 20000
.
C = number of activist hours needed to reach / connect to 1000 voters = 50 hours per year
.
D = activist-rupees needed to connect to 1000 voters = Rs 5000 per voter
.
E = number of voters needed to create a wave = 40 crore (about 50% of total)
.
( number of voters activists need to reach = almost ALL voters = 80 crore )
.
Now rupee amount may seem low, but that’s because IMO ordinary voters will contribute some very small amounts to activists. The number of hours may also look small, and that’s because many ordinary voters will also contribute some small amount of time.
,
And so based on these numbers, I am stating that one activist can connect to 4000 voters.
.
And based on these numbers, I am stating that number of activists needed to create a wave to force MPs to get a specific law-draft passed will be = number of activists needed to connect to 80 crore voters = 80 crore / 4000 = 200,000
.
If your values of A, B, C D and E differ, then number of activists needed as per your opinion will also differ. E.g. if you think that one activist can connect to only 1000 voters, then as per your perception, the movement will need 800,000 activists. Likewise, you can make your own scenario.
.
The essential point is --- average distance between any two activists in the group !! What is average distance? If the group size is 100, then it is possible to have minimal distance = 1 , i.e. everyone knows everyone. But if group size is 1000, then minimal distance of 1 is impossible. The minimal distance will be at least 2 to 3. If number of activists needed are say 100,000, and even if each activist knows 100 activists personally, then also distance between two activists chosen at random in network will be 3 to 4. And that would involve centralization. So designing a network with minimal centralization and minimal distance will be a huge problem of maths by itself. But distance in such network will exceed 4 i.e. if two activist A and B are chosen at random, then one will need to go via three links X, Y and Z to reach from A to B.
.
So activists in such “large” groups can advance to create a wave only if they follow a procedure code to decide which law-drafts to promote. The simplest protocol is centralization --- have a group head who decides. And in activism, IMO, this is the WORST possible protocol !!! This makes elitemen’s life easy. All they now need to do is to kill or threaten or bribe that head and the group will fall apart or worse, the group will go in wrong direction. So IMO, activists must get this deep into their head that they must not have one single leader. Another protocol is gathering i.e. all activists meet say once a month and decide by voting. But f number of activist is as large as 200,000, and not every activist knows every activist, then gathering is not possible even online. Then whom how should activists decide whether to work on a task or not?
.
Solution I have proposed is --- accept law-drafts as leaders to start with, and then let movement grow till there are too many “leaders” that elitemen can neither buy nor kill. But which law-drafts should be publicized more? FBCPBA can enable activists to decide this.
.
So essential part of my analysis is -- the number 200,000 is not important. The essential part is that we do need a LARGE number of activists --- lakhs. And so large that if two activists are chosen at random, then they will need at least 3 to 6 persons to create a link between them. In fact, a protocol or procedure code And they need a procedure to follow, so that without centralized communication and without “everyone knowing everyone”, they can work in a synchronized manner. And I will explain how FBCPBA helps.
========
.
(4.6) The two main problems restated
.
So I have outlined three main issues.
.
(4.6.1) Most activists in India are into NON-LEGISLATIVE activism such as social work, slogan shouting, neta pooja etc and we need to make them legislative issue.
.
(4.6.2) The few law-draft activists aka legislative activists are divided over 100 causes and 100 law-draft-sets. We don’t need all activists to work on one law-draft all the time. But we do need 200,000 activists to work on one law-draft at least 1 hour a week.
.
So solution I propose is -----
.
(4.6.A) We recallists need to convert non-legislative activists into part time or full time legislative activist
.
(4.6.B) We recallists and all legislative activists need a method by which each activist can know how many activists are supporting which causes.
.
I will explain how FBCPBA helps activists take both steps.
.
====
.
(4.7) How to convert some of the non-legislative activists into a legislative activists?
.
I have mentioned earlier that IMO, to force MPs to print a specific law-draft-A, we need to create a “wave” of crores of voters. And to inform crores of voters and connect to crores of voters, IMO we need at least 200,000 activists who are spending their own time and money publicize law-draft-A. Now most activists in India are non-legislative activists i.e. they don’t promote any law-drafts and they believe that law-drafts are useless. And they confine themselves to social work, neta pooja etc. To give an idea, IMO, there some 1 crore to 2 crore activists across India in social work, neta-puja etc. And we need to convince at least 200,000 lakh or more of them to end their social work , neta-poja, organization building etc and focus on publicizing law-drafts. IOW, we need to CONVERT them into legislative activists.
.
Can this be done? Is there any way to convert a non-legislative activist into a legislative activist? And if yes, how can we recallists convert non-legislative-activists into legislative-activists?
.
I propose a method which may not work at all, or may work in 1% cases !!! i.e. The method will enable us recallists to convert about 1% of non-legislative activists into legislative activist !! Is that sufficient? Well, even if the method works in 1% of cases, that is sufficient. There are two crore non-legislative activists. Converting 1% will give us 200,000 legislative activists and that is enough.
.
Now say legislative activist-A is working on cause-A, and is publicizing law-drafts-A. Say he meets an activist-A2 who is also interested in cause-A. Then informing activist-A2 about law-drafts-A will definitely help converting activist-A2 into legislative activist.
,
But activists are divided across 100 causes. So chances are high that when an activist-A meets activist-B, activist-B will have a different cause.
.
My proposed campaign method is --- show the law-drafts SPECIFIC to the cause that is dearest to that activist.
.
So say a legislative activist activist-A has pet cause-A and is publicizing law-drafts-A. And say activist-A meets activist-B whose pet cause is cause-B, and as of now, activist-B is slogan shouter, neta-pujak etc and NOT working on any law-drafts. Then IMO, activist-A should NOT show law-drafts-A to activist-B, but activist-A should show law-drafts-B to activist-B !!!
.
WHY?
.
Say activist-A shows law-drafts-A to non-legislative-activist-B. Now activist-B is not even interested in the cause-A. And so activist-B will not even bother to see how legislative activist can work !! But if activist-A shows law-drafts-B to activist-B, then activist-B may show some interest. And in 1% cases, he may become legislative activist for law-drafts-B.
.
Then what did activist-A gain? Goodwill. And how dies it help cause-A? I will explain.
.
Activist-A should understand that activist-B is interested in cause-B and not in cause-A. And so law-drafts-A will NOT appeal to activist-B anyway. But law-drafts-B may appeal to him.
.
And so goodwill between activist-A and activist-B will increase !!! I will repeat , because this is important ---- when activist-A shows law-drafts-B to activist-B, goodwill between activist-A and activist-B will increase.
.
And activist-B will inform many his colleagues about activist-A , cause-A and law-drafts-A !! And that will increase possibility that activist-A will be able to get more non legislative activists interested in cause-A and convert them into legislative activist for law-drafts-A !!!
.
So when activist-A informs activist-B about law-drafts-B, activist-A gains NOTHING in round one. But the goodwill between activist-A and activist-B increases and so possibility that activist-B will inform more and more activist about activist-A , cause-A and law-drafts-A increases !!!
.
And upon seeing law-drafts-B, activist-B may become legislative activist for law-drafts-B. And in such case, the concept of legislative activism becomes stronger.
.
Now if activist-A tries to push cause-A and law-drafts-A on activist-B, then activist-B will simply walk away, ignore all talks of activist-A and it is simply a timewaste for both activists !!! And there is no gain.
.
As an example, say an activist-A has pet cause “reduce corruption in policemen” and so he is working on law-drafts-A namely say Right to Recall District Police Chief, Jury System over Policemen and so on. And he meets activist-B who is interested in cause-B say “expel Bangladeshi infiltrators”. Then if activist-A confines to law-drafts-A such as RTR-District-Police-Chief etc, then activist-B will simply walk away. But if activist-A informs activist-B about proposed law-drafts-B (law-drafts-B = (a) law to compare DNA of Bangladeshi accused with known Bangladeshi blood relatives in Bangladesh / India (b) narocotests to determine whether a person is Indian or Bangladeshi, and whether he is infiltrator or refugee, and (c) expel Bangladeshi infiltrator etc) , then activist-B may reduce slogan shouting, and start promoting law-drafts-B. In the process, activist-B has become legislative activist and so concept of legislative activism became more popular. And activist-B will also inform his colleagues about activist-A and law-drafts-A. Many of his colleagues may be interested in cause-A. And so chances that activist-A will be able to get more legislative activists for law-drafts-A i.e. policemen related drafts increases !!
.
Moral of the LOOOOOONG story is ----- only way we recallists can promote legislative activism in India is FIRST becoming MULTI-CAUSAL activists !! IOW, we must FIRST ask a new activist “what problems do YOU want to reduce”? And then explain him the law-drafts which are VERY SPECIFIC to his cause !!! .
.
eg if an activist is for goraksha, then inform him first about “Right to Recall District Deputy Police Chief , Goraksha Special Police Squad” law-draft, “narcotest in public in gohatya cases” law-draft, and “Jury Trial over Goraksha cases” law-draft. And only after that, if time permits and goraksha activist shows interest, then inform him about “Right to Recall District Police Chief” law-draft and “Jury System over all cases” law-draft !!
.
So IMO there are two implications. First, we need to make 10 versions of each draft !! Eg say we have RTR-District-Police-Chief-draft. Then along with RTR-DPC-draft, we recallists need drafts like
.
--- RTR District Deputy Police Chief, Goraksha Police Squad
--- RTR District Traffic Police Chief draft
--- RTR District Deputy Police Chief, crimes against women division (Mahila Police)
Etc etc.
.
And likewise, we need “Jury System over all cases” draft . And along with that, we need,
.
--- Jury System over Abductions and Crimes against Women
--- Jury System over Gohatya cases
--- Jury System over corruption in Policemen cases
--- Jury System over Education Staff
--- Jury System over Traffic cases
Etc etc.
.
Summary ---- The toughest problem in India’s activist, not seen in West, is --- over 99.99% activists today in India are slogan shouters, social workers and NOT even aware of LEGISLATIVE activism or how law-drafts can reduce the problems.
.
Solution I propose is --- each recallist should make DRAFTS that are specific to a cause, and inform activist about the DRAFTS specific to his cause !!
.
Now in later sections, I will explain how FBCPBA helps
.
==========
.
(4.8) How FBCPBA can be used to convert non-legislative-activists into legislative-activist for law-drafts specific to HIS causes
.
Lets say a non-legislative-activist comes to profile of a recallist who is following FBCPBA. Then will click cover picture or profile picture and see the link to all law-drafts. In the notes, he will see some 100 causes. He will do cntlr-f on his cause or he will notice his cause, and so he will feel interested. He will go to sections in notes which is specific to his causes. And see the links to law-drafts, links to explanation etc etc . Now if 1000 such activists come to the profile, chances are good that 1-2 will become legislative activist for the law-drafts specific to their causes
.
Now --- why without FBCPBA , it is almost impossible for recallist to convert many non-legislative-activists into legislative-activists?
.
Say a recallist decides to distribute 10000 pamphlets of 16 pages. Then in 16 pages, he can barely cover 1-2 causes in depth. So he distributes pamphlets to 10000 voters of which only some 200 will be activists. And only 2-3 will be interested in that specific cause. And they too will not get the full matter in detail. And so number of ACTIVISTS adeed (not voter added) will be just 1-2 or may ben even 0.
.
All in all, there are many activists who are willing to READ fom FB profiles if the information is put in an easy to NAVIGATE / SEARCH way. FB has no built in indexing for posts and search is poor. In fact, FB doesn’t even allow postors to put thread heading in posts in groups or personal posts --- a feature that was there in Orkut communities. And FB makes no index of group posrs --- a feature that was there in Orkut communities and also there in FB groups till 2011 !!! Essentially, FB is designed to ensure that whatever posts that a person puts becomes less visible to all !!! And FBCPBA makes it possible for activist to ensure that his post remains accessible by NAVIGATION via coverpage -> index notes - > link in index note.
.
========
.
(4.9) Getting 200,000 legislative activists on one specific law-draft
.
In next status post, I will describe how FBCPBA will enable 200,000 activists --- spending 75% of their time on the pet DIFFERENT law-drafts --- to also ensure that each one is spending 25% of their time on one law-draft. And then ensure that each cause which has more than 20000 legislative activists will get served. I will write all that in a separate status.
.
(4.6) The two main problems restated
.
So I have outlined three main issues.
.
(4.6.1) Most activists in India are into NON-LEGISLATIVE activism such as social work, slogan shouting, neta pooja etc and we need to make them legislative issue.
.
(4.6.2) The few law-draft activists aka legislative activists are divided over 100 causes and 100 law-draft-sets. We don’t need all activists to work on one law-draft all the time. But we do need 200,000 activists to work on one law-draft at least 1 hour a week.
.
So solution I propose is -----
.
(4.6.A) We recallists need to convert non-legislative activists into part time or full time legislative activist
.
(4.6.B) We recallists and all legislative activists need a method by which each activist can know how many activists are supporting which causes.
.
I will explain how FBCPBA helps activists take both steps.
.
====
.
(4.7) How to convert some of the non-legislative activists into a legislative activists?
.
I have mentioned earlier that IMO, to force MPs to print a specific law-draft-A, we need to create a “wave” of crores of voters. And to inform crores of voters and connect to crores of voters, IMO we need at least 200,000 activists who are spending their own time and money publicize law-draft-A. Now most activists in India are non-legislative activists i.e. they don’t promote any law-drafts and they believe that law-drafts are useless. And they confine themselves to social work, neta pooja etc. To give an idea, IMO, there some 1 crore to 2 crore activists across India in social work, neta-puja etc. And we need to convince at least 200,000 lakh or more of them to end their social work , neta-poja, organization building etc and focus on publicizing law-drafts. IOW, we need to CONVERT them into legislative activists.
.
Can this be done? Is there any way to convert a non-legislative activist into a legislative activist? And if yes, how can we recallists convert non-legislative-activists into legislative-activists?
.
I propose a method which may not work at all, or may work in 1% cases !!! i.e. The method will enable us recallists to convert about 1% of non-legislative activists into legislative activist !! Is that sufficient? Well, even if the method works in 1% of cases, that is sufficient. There are two crore non-legislative activists. Converting 1% will give us 200,000 legislative activists and that is enough.
.
Now say legislative activist-A is working on cause-A, and is publicizing law-drafts-A. Say he meets an activist-A2 who is also interested in cause-A. Then informing activist-A2 about law-drafts-A will definitely help converting activist-A2 into legislative activist.
,
But activists are divided across 100 causes. So chances are high that when an activist-A meets activist-B, activist-B will have a different cause.
.
My proposed campaign method is --- show the law-drafts SPECIFIC to the cause that is dearest to that activist.
.
So say a legislative activist activist-A has pet cause-A and is publicizing law-drafts-A. And say activist-A meets activist-B whose pet cause is cause-B, and as of now, activist-B is slogan shouter, neta-pujak etc and NOT working on any law-drafts. Then IMO, activist-A should NOT show law-drafts-A to activist-B, but activist-A should show law-drafts-B to activist-B !!!
.
WHY?
.
Say activist-A shows law-drafts-A to non-legislative-activist-B. Now activist-B is not even interested in the cause-A. And so activist-B will not even bother to see how legislative activist can work !! But if activist-A shows law-drafts-B to activist-B, then activist-B may show some interest. And in 1% cases, he may become legislative activist for law-drafts-B.
.
Then what did activist-A gain? Goodwill. And how dies it help cause-A? I will explain.
.
Activist-A should understand that activist-B is interested in cause-B and not in cause-A. And so law-drafts-A will NOT appeal to activist-B anyway. But law-drafts-B may appeal to him.
.
And so goodwill between activist-A and activist-B will increase !!! I will repeat , because this is important ---- when activist-A shows law-drafts-B to activist-B, goodwill between activist-A and activist-B will increase.
.
And activist-B will inform many his colleagues about activist-A , cause-A and law-drafts-A !! And that will increase possibility that activist-A will be able to get more non legislative activists interested in cause-A and convert them into legislative activist for law-drafts-A !!!
.
So when activist-A informs activist-B about law-drafts-B, activist-A gains NOTHING in round one. But the goodwill between activist-A and activist-B increases and so possibility that activist-B will inform more and more activist about activist-A , cause-A and law-drafts-A increases !!!
.
And upon seeing law-drafts-B, activist-B may become legislative activist for law-drafts-B. And in such case, the concept of legislative activism becomes stronger.
.
Now if activist-A tries to push cause-A and law-drafts-A on activist-B, then activist-B will simply walk away, ignore all talks of activist-A and it is simply a timewaste for both activists !!! And there is no gain.
.
As an example, say an activist-A has pet cause “reduce corruption in policemen” and so he is working on law-drafts-A namely say Right to Recall District Police Chief, Jury System over Policemen and so on. And he meets activist-B who is interested in cause-B say “expel Bangladeshi infiltrators”. Then if activist-A confines to law-drafts-A such as RTR-District-Police-Chief etc, then activist-B will simply walk away. But if activist-A informs activist-B about proposed law-drafts-B (law-drafts-B = (a) law to compare DNA of Bangladeshi accused with known Bangladeshi blood relatives in Bangladesh / India (b) narocotests to determine whether a person is Indian or Bangladeshi, and whether he is infiltrator or refugee, and (c) expel Bangladeshi infiltrator etc) , then activist-B may reduce slogan shouting, and start promoting law-drafts-B. In the process, activist-B has become legislative activist and so concept of legislative activism became more popular. And activist-B will also inform his colleagues about activist-A and law-drafts-A. Many of his colleagues may be interested in cause-A. And so chances that activist-A will be able to get more legislative activists for law-drafts-A i.e. policemen related drafts increases !!
.
Moral of the LOOOOOONG story is ----- only way we recallists can promote legislative activism in India is FIRST becoming MULTI-CAUSAL activists !! IOW, we must FIRST ask a new activist “what problems do YOU want to reduce”? And then explain him the law-drafts which are VERY SPECIFIC to his cause !!! .
.
eg if an activist is for goraksha, then inform him first about “Right to Recall District Deputy Police Chief , Goraksha Special Police Squad” law-draft, “narcotest in public in gohatya cases” law-draft, and “Jury Trial over Goraksha cases” law-draft. And only after that, if time permits and goraksha activist shows interest, then inform him about “Right to Recall District Police Chief” law-draft and “Jury System over all cases” law-draft !!
.
So IMO there are two implications. First, we need to make 10 versions of each draft !! Eg say we have RTR-District-Police-Chief-draft. Then along with RTR-DPC-draft, we recallists need drafts like
.
--- RTR District Deputy Police Chief, Goraksha Police Squad
--- RTR District Traffic Police Chief draft
--- RTR District Deputy Police Chief, crimes against women division (Mahila Police)
Etc etc.
.
And likewise, we need “Jury System over all cases” draft . And along with that, we need,
.
--- Jury System over Abductions and Crimes against Women
--- Jury System over Gohatya cases
--- Jury System over corruption in Policemen cases
--- Jury System over Education Staff
--- Jury System over Traffic cases
Etc etc.
.
Summary ---- The toughest problem in India’s activist, not seen in West, is --- over 99.99% activists today in India are slogan shouters, social workers and NOT even aware of LEGISLATIVE activism or how law-drafts can reduce the problems.
.
Solution I propose is --- each recallist should make DRAFTS that are specific to a cause, and inform activist about the DRAFTS specific to his cause !!
.
Now in later sections, I will explain how FBCPBA helps
.
==========
.
(4.8) How FBCPBA can be used to convert non-legislative-activists into legislative-activist for law-drafts specific to HIS causes
.
Lets say a non-legislative-activist comes to profile of a recallist who is following FBCPBA. Then will click cover picture or profile picture and see the link to all law-drafts. In the notes, he will see some 100 causes. He will do cntlr-f on his cause or he will notice his cause, and so he will feel interested. He will go to sections in notes which is specific to his causes. And see the links to law-drafts, links to explanation etc etc . Now if 1000 such activists come to the profile, chances are good that 1-2 will become legislative activist for the law-drafts specific to their causes
.
Now --- why without FBCPBA , it is almost impossible for recallist to convert many non-legislative-activists into legislative-activists?
.
Say a recallist decides to distribute 10000 pamphlets of 16 pages. Then in 16 pages, he can barely cover 1-2 causes in depth. So he distributes pamphlets to 10000 voters of which only some 200 will be activists. And only 2-3 will be interested in that specific cause. And they too will not get the full matter in detail. And so number of ACTIVISTS adeed (not voter added) will be just 1-2 or may ben even 0.
.
All in all, there are many activists who are willing to READ fom FB profiles if the information is put in an easy to NAVIGATE / SEARCH way. FB has no built in indexing for posts and search is poor. In fact, FB doesn’t even allow postors to put thread heading in posts in groups or personal posts --- a feature that was there in Orkut communities. And FB makes no index of group posrs --- a feature that was there in Orkut communities and also there in FB groups till 2011 !!! Essentially, FB is designed to ensure that whatever posts that a person puts becomes less visible to all !!! And FBCPBA makes it possible for activist to ensure that his post remains accessible by NAVIGATION via coverpage -> index notes - > link in index note.
.
========
.
(4.9) Getting 200,000 legislative activists on one specific law-draft
.
In next status post, I will describe how FBCPBA will enable 200,000 activists --- spending 75% of their time on the pet DIFFERENT law-drafts --- to also ensure that each one is spending 25% of their time on one law-draft. And then ensure that each cause which has more than 20000 legislative activists will get served. I will write all that in a separate status.
No comments:
Post a Comment