Water politics:
My Def Col RWA seesm to have gone berserk, in their
latest 4 colour 8 page newsletter printed by
Neighbourhood FLASH people, they are going on and on
about Parivartan's water initiative. Also a letter in
the Express today by Kejriwal.
Where has World Bank refuted all these claims? Is what
Brig R.D,Dhawan claims true, like 84 foreign experts
getting $24,000 per month at salary disbursed from a
WB loan at 12% interest??
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I am looking at dvb privatisation in an entirely
> new
> > way in context of dmp2021 and industries
> engagement.
>
> :) thanks.
>
> > Re: peoples action + ccs - its good to see that
> all
> > these colluders - DERC - BSES - RWAs have openly
> > exposed themselves as being hand in glove.
>
> ;) now i am looking in context of RTI!
>
> -----
>
> 2 former justices and 1 former ambassador and 1
> former
> Secretary to GoI and Arundhati Roy put in special
> appearance in latest episode of 3-month old soap
> starring Aruna Roy and A Kejirwal (believed to have
> quit the IRS, but admitted in Court that he was on
> extraordinary leave after opposite counsel corned
> his
> friend and counsel Prashant Bhushan earlier this
> year). They have decided (ex-parte, as GNCTD did not
> appear) to push for:
> (1) revocation of GNCTD-WorldBank "faulty plan"
> (with
> "civil disobedience movement")
> (2) their own plan (which they will present again to
> Planning Commission on 19.10.05)
>
http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/18/stories/2005101809710400.htm
>
> The story so far is summarised at end of this post.
> These are their original demands, become in 3 short
> months ubiquitous, even though the second has
> nothing
> to do with us and may well vitiate the first. The
> alternative consultative process claim is same as in
> the million$ National Biodiversity Strategy and
> Action
> Plan now officially rejected after occupying crucial
> WTO round years. As in NBSAP, the impression is of
> some technical/scientific disagreement, even as
> alternative claims only to be consultative, with
> only
> vague references to anonymous *experts* chosen more
> irregularly than is alleged for the GNCTD-WBank
> fault.
> The following are striking:
>
> (1) On 19.10.05 they will make second presentation
> to
> Planning Commission with added weight of favourable
> verdict by former Justices at Jansunvayi. On
> 19.10.05
> are listed in High Court two cases in which the
> water
> issue is central (metroPD including in riverbed and
> illegal projects in and around J-Zone including
> ridge). These do not pray for directions to PC to
> hear
> me (planning expert also by PC's reckoning in the
> past) on my plan (DMP). Shall I amend the prayers? I
> see no point in writing techno-legalese in context
> of
> court matters to PC since members seem friends of
> Aruna Roy (and since similar writing cut no ice with
> CEC that lent itself to Shekhar Singh to overtake
> High
> Court for Aravali Biodiversity Park).
>
> (2) In the High Court matters GNCTD has not replied
> (to, in effect, questions raised since 2001 about,
> in
> effect, validity of its alternative plan). Kejriwal
> has opined that its failure to appear in durbar
> presided over by former Justices "proves that they
> have no respect for people's rights". I opine that
> appearance would have displayed disrespect for
> sitting
> Justices and no respect for our rights, as we do not
> have a right to have it summoned to sundry sunvayis.
> Disrespect for our rights is displayed by GNCTD
> illegalities and favouritism policy of bhagidaari.
> It
> was displayed also when CM expressed patently
> undemocratic willingness to listen to only NGOs *of
> repute* about DJB and Aruna Roy & Co went over to
> make
> inexpert presentation and suggest more bhagidaari.
>
>
> (3) This 3-month old affair was catapulted by a
> purported RTI *success*. By the claimants' own claim
> GNCTD has not disclosed enough on its website and
> the
> 4000 "secret documents" that Kejrival obtained via
> RTI
> to present to Aruna Roy to reveal have also not been
> revealed in any truly public manner; World Bank has
> rebutted the specific allegations made on their
> basis;
> and general inferences being drawn from them reveal
> nothing new. The *success* seems limited to
> empowering Aruna Roy & Co, lending credence to
> apprehensions about Act abuse and to reservations
> about the lady who seems not to have noticed that
> her
> RTI is now our Act and grace requires her to let go.
>
>
> (4) At the Jansunvayi reportedly "Speakers pointed
> out
> that what was needed was not foreign consultants and
> companies but to make the water utility more
> efficient
> and accountable to the people". These are not
> mutually
> exclusive and if domestic experts and government are
> driven to atrophy then foreign consultants and
> companies become efficiency and accountability
> imperatives. That is what this
> alternative-consultative-process lot seems to be
> doing
> and GATS at least seems poised to pass as a result
> largely of their untiring efforts to obfuscate
> competent and consultative.
>
> ------story so far---
>
> [The following is from (note for further information
> accompanying) my s.4(1)c request re NBSAP. I am
> using
> RTI to make requests to authorities to receive
> information (for rectification) of omissions under
> s.4(1)c. (I have not spotted anything in the Act
> that
> prevents this and I do see in what Aruna Roy & Co
> are
> showing serious possibility of s.6 being a waste of
> time for others)]
>
> A national land and water use plan is ostensibly a
> key
> recommendation of NBSAP. In Delhi the ridge and
> riverbed, Biodiversity areas, have historically
> guided
> holistic land and water use planning, with Delhi
> Master Plan and CGWA notifications now providing
> legal
> basis. This is being eroded by the view of river in
> terms of pollution and ridge in terms of forest and,
> on the other hand, delinking of utilities from Delhi
> Development Act regime (notably by converting power
> and water utilities to Boards for shoddy
> privatisation). A striking consequence is illegal
> land
> and ground water use in ridge and riverbed, usually
> at
> instance of Delhi Government (which does not bother
> to
> file replies on these even on court orders). The
> water
> crisis is a symptom of this malaise, headed to
> environmental catastrophe due to ground water
> mining.
> The Biodiversity Act that makes it a duty u/s.36(3)
> to
> "integrate the conservation, promotion and
> sustainable
> use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral
> or
> cross-sectoral plans", besides their own key
> recommendation, required NBSAP partners to support
> Master Plan and CGWA regimes. Instead, some picked
> Master Plan 2021 Public Notice period to divert
> attention from the move to transfer ground water
> control to DJB and focus it on some alleged
> interference by World Bank in appointing Price
> Waterhouse Coopers consultant for road-mapping DJB
> restructuring (in which ground water control by DJB
> is
> obviously central).
>
> In July 2005 newspapers started reporting, nearly
> exclusively, the views on Delhi water and sewage
> project of the NGO Parivartan, identified with RTI
> and
> one Arvind Kejriwal (IRS officer on extraordinary
> leave) and named in KV campaign about Biodiversity
> Rules in 2004. Parivartan demanded abandoning of
> World
> Bank plan in favour of some consultative process.
> Apart from generalities about benefit to MNCs,
> higher
> tariffs, etc, it alleged that inspection of DJB
> records under RTI indicated PwC had been hired as
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
My Def Col RWA seesm to have gone berserk, in their
latest 4 colour 8 page newsletter printed by
Neighbourhood FLASH people, they are going on and on
about Parivartan's water initiative. Also a letter in
the Express today by Kejriwal.
Where has World Bank refuted all these claims? Is what
Brig R.D,Dhawan claims true, like 84 foreign experts
getting $24,000 per month at salary disbursed from a
WB loan at 12% interest??
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I am looking at dvb privatisation in an entirely
> new
> > way in context of dmp2021 and industries
> engagement.
>
> :) thanks.
>
> > Re: peoples action + ccs - its good to see that
> all
> > these colluders - DERC - BSES - RWAs have openly
> > exposed themselves as being hand in glove.
>
> ;) now i am looking in context of RTI!
>
> -----
>
> 2 former justices and 1 former ambassador and 1
> former
> Secretary to GoI and Arundhati Roy put in special
> appearance in latest episode of 3-month old soap
> starring Aruna Roy and A Kejirwal (believed to have
> quit the IRS, but admitted in Court that he was on
> extraordinary leave after opposite counsel corned
> his
> friend and counsel Prashant Bhushan earlier this
> year). They have decided (ex-parte, as GNCTD did not
> appear) to push for:
> (1) revocation of GNCTD-WorldBank "faulty plan"
> (with
> "civil disobedience movement")
> (2) their own plan (which they will present again to
> Planning Commission on 19.10.05)
>
http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/18/stories/2005101809710400.htm
>
> The story so far is summarised at end of this post.
> These are their original demands, become in 3 short
> months ubiquitous, even though the second has
> nothing
> to do with us and may well vitiate the first. The
> alternative consultative process claim is same as in
> the million$ National Biodiversity Strategy and
> Action
> Plan now officially rejected after occupying crucial
> WTO round years. As in NBSAP, the impression is of
> some technical/scientific disagreement, even as
> alternative claims only to be consultative, with
> only
> vague references to anonymous *experts* chosen more
> irregularly than is alleged for the GNCTD-WBank
> fault.
> The following are striking:
>
> (1) On 19.10.05 they will make second presentation
> to
> Planning Commission with added weight of favourable
> verdict by former Justices at Jansunvayi. On
> 19.10.05
> are listed in High Court two cases in which the
> water
> issue is central (metroPD including in riverbed and
> illegal projects in and around J-Zone including
> ridge). These do not pray for directions to PC to
> hear
> me (planning expert also by PC's reckoning in the
> past) on my plan (DMP). Shall I amend the prayers? I
> see no point in writing techno-legalese in context
> of
> court matters to PC since members seem friends of
> Aruna Roy (and since similar writing cut no ice with
> CEC that lent itself to Shekhar Singh to overtake
> High
> Court for Aravali Biodiversity Park).
>
> (2) In the High Court matters GNCTD has not replied
> (to, in effect, questions raised since 2001 about,
> in
> effect, validity of its alternative plan). Kejriwal
> has opined that its failure to appear in durbar
> presided over by former Justices "proves that they
> have no respect for people's rights". I opine that
> appearance would have displayed disrespect for
> sitting
> Justices and no respect for our rights, as we do not
> have a right to have it summoned to sundry sunvayis.
> Disrespect for our rights is displayed by GNCTD
> illegalities and favouritism policy of bhagidaari.
> It
> was displayed also when CM expressed patently
> undemocratic willingness to listen to only NGOs *of
> repute* about DJB and Aruna Roy & Co went over to
> make
> inexpert presentation and suggest more bhagidaari.
>
>
> (3) This 3-month old affair was catapulted by a
> purported RTI *success*. By the claimants' own claim
> GNCTD has not disclosed enough on its website and
> the
> 4000 "secret documents" that Kejrival obtained via
> RTI
> to present to Aruna Roy to reveal have also not been
> revealed in any truly public manner; World Bank has
> rebutted the specific allegations made on their
> basis;
> and general inferences being drawn from them reveal
> nothing new. The *success* seems limited to
> empowering Aruna Roy & Co, lending credence to
> apprehensions about Act abuse and to reservations
> about the lady who seems not to have noticed that
> her
> RTI is now our Act and grace requires her to let go.
>
>
> (4) At the Jansunvayi reportedly "Speakers pointed
> out
> that what was needed was not foreign consultants and
> companies but to make the water utility more
> efficient
> and accountable to the people". These are not
> mutually
> exclusive and if domestic experts and government are
> driven to atrophy then foreign consultants and
> companies become efficiency and accountability
> imperatives. That is what this
> alternative-consultative-process lot seems to be
> doing
> and GATS at least seems poised to pass as a result
> largely of their untiring efforts to obfuscate
> competent and consultative.
>
> ------story so far---
>
> [The following is from (note for further information
> accompanying) my s.4(1)c request re NBSAP. I am
> using
> RTI to make requests to authorities to receive
> information (for rectification) of omissions under
> s.4(1)c. (I have not spotted anything in the Act
> that
> prevents this and I do see in what Aruna Roy & Co
> are
> showing serious possibility of s.6 being a waste of
> time for others)]
>
> A national land and water use plan is ostensibly a
> key
> recommendation of NBSAP. In Delhi the ridge and
> riverbed, Biodiversity areas, have historically
> guided
> holistic land and water use planning, with Delhi
> Master Plan and CGWA notifications now providing
> legal
> basis. This is being eroded by the view of river in
> terms of pollution and ridge in terms of forest and,
> on the other hand, delinking of utilities from Delhi
> Development Act regime (notably by converting power
> and water utilities to Boards for shoddy
> privatisation). A striking consequence is illegal
> land
> and ground water use in ridge and riverbed, usually
> at
> instance of Delhi Government (which does not bother
> to
> file replies on these even on court orders). The
> water
> crisis is a symptom of this malaise, headed to
> environmental catastrophe due to ground water
> mining.
> The Biodiversity Act that makes it a duty u/s.36(3)
> to
> "integrate the conservation, promotion and
> sustainable
> use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral
> or
> cross-sectoral plans", besides their own key
> recommendation, required NBSAP partners to support
> Master Plan and CGWA regimes. Instead, some picked
> Master Plan 2021 Public Notice period to divert
> attention from the move to transfer ground water
> control to DJB and focus it on some alleged
> interference by World Bank in appointing Price
> Waterhouse Coopers consultant for road-mapping DJB
> restructuring (in which ground water control by DJB
> is
> obviously central).
>
> In July 2005 newspapers started reporting, nearly
> exclusively, the views on Delhi water and sewage
> project of the NGO Parivartan, identified with RTI
> and
> one Arvind Kejriwal (IRS officer on extraordinary
> leave) and named in KV campaign about Biodiversity
> Rules in 2004. Parivartan demanded abandoning of
> World
> Bank plan in favour of some consultative process.
> Apart from generalities about benefit to MNCs,
> higher
> tariffs, etc, it alleged that inspection of DJB
> records under RTI indicated PwC had been hired as
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com