CORRUPTION FREE INDIA

Future of INDIA needs Good Governance and Right to Information,

Archive for the ‘Office of Profit’ Category

Office of Profit – Better India Petition

Posted by egovindia on August 4, 2006

Office of Profit – Better India Petition

 

Friends,

Indianthinkers would like add to NRI Coalition petition that representation in Indian Parliament is a great honor for any Indian citizen.

 

1. National political parties must ensure that only people best in integrity and brightest in caliber are nominated to contest the elections.

 

Ø                  Political parties voluntarily put up lists of their prominent members along with their bio date and personnel assets at least a year before elections. In the due course the Election Commission may make it mandatory.

 

2. Government must ensure that any office appointment is through open selection process with a view to select best and the brightest that may devote full time to the job.

 

3. In the case of Mrs. Jaya Bhachan she was not doing justice to both her public assignments which are in addition to her private businesses and responsibilities.  

 

4. In the case of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi we find that NAC she was heading is “Parallel and Duplicate Organization To Union Cabinet” where she is in superior position than the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers which is illogical in any government.

 

Ø                  More over NAC has no constitutional sanction and no selection process defined.

 

Ravinder Singh

 

Betterindia@aol.com ——–

 

Dear Friends,

We have been requesting all our well wishers to request the U.P.A government not to legalize the Offices of profit. We have requested all our lawmakers to please stop the dislodging battles and consider our alternative.

 

It is high time that our lawmakers be requested to attend to Parliament business, and very critical issues like farmers’ suicides, terrorism, poverty etc They shall sacrifice extra offices of income and prestige, so that they get time to go deep into the issues and solve our problems.

 

More and more lawmakers are talking bravely on issues rather than just being yes men. Office of profit is one such issue on which they shall talk openly.

Within next 2 days, government will again push the bill that was returned by the President.

 

Please read our views given below and join us in asking the government “not to legalize the offices of profit.”

 

Ranjit Singh.

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

N.R.I COALITION

For

SOCIAL JUSTICE

NEW YORK

nricoalition@yahoo.com

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A request to

Honorable Members of the Lok Sabha

Through

Honorable Speaker, Sh. Somnath Chatterjee.

 

SUBJECT: Oppose Government’s move to legalize “Office of Profit.”

 

Please refer to the ongoing controversy on the issue of “Office of Profit” and the Central Government’s move to protect these offices from the punitive clause of the 1959-law that pertains to it by making the law redundant.

 

We, sincerely, hope that you will consider our arguments given below and oppose the government’s move and let them not kill a good law. We are aware that the party system in India does not give you freedom to take initiatives against your high commands but certain critical moments require actions and one such critical juncture is there, right now.

 

We, all, know that the basis of this controversy is a 1959-law, The Prevention of Disqualification Act, which was invoked by a Congress litigant and caused the disqualification of Mrs. Jaya Bachan from the Rajya Sabha, compelled Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to resign her Lok Sabha seat and to re-occupy the same seat, which she left.

 

During all this time, the nation witnessed an exercise which might have been some political importance to some politicians but which had no national importance, at all. And at the end of the day, the U.P.A government thought of only one solution. According to news reports, the government is determined to protect most of the state-funded offices of profit from the punitive effects of the 1959-law that according to the Supreme Court verdict deserve disqualification as a parliamentarian. In other words, the Union Government, without amending the law, intends to free most such offices, thereby making the 1959-law redundant.

 

We have our arguments against this move by the government and we present them for your kind and careful perusal.

 

OUR ARGUMENTS

 

1)      We do believe that it is not money that tempts our lawmakers towards the offices of profit. Mrs. Jay Bachan told the Supreme Court that she was not drawing any salary as the Chairperson of the U.P. Film Promotion Board, the job that caused her exit from the Rajya Sabha. The Congress Party also made it known that the Office of the N.A.C, which Mrs. Sonia Gandhi held as the Chairperson was not remunerative in nature. Still, there was a fear of adverse action by the election commission and the President of India. Common sense tells us that there are two motives behind the political parties desire to honor their lawmakers with offices of profit.

 

Firstly: parties desire to give additional public image to those of their lawmakers who are prominent but could not be accommodated in the cabinets

 

Secondly: the political parties desire to use their popularity and prestige of their office of profit to influence certain section(s) of society in their favor

 

Unfortunately, the motives, though visibly genuine, hurt their mother organizations and the nation as a whole.

 

2)      Overloading lawmakers with more and more jobs and offices means depriving their organizational colleagues of opportunities to prove their worth and usefulness to their mother organizations. The political parties shall rethink to conclude that “one man one-post” formula shall be revived and put into practice to spread opportunities and widen inner party democracy. There is no denying the fact that these are the more influential among the parties that grab these offices. The trend needs to be reversed. To be a parliamentarian is by itself means holding a very dignifies job and for one person one is enough.

 

3)    Whereas by shedding the office of profit, a lawmaker provides a much-needed politico-administrative space for his/her organizational colleagues, but by sticking to such an office, he/she hurts the interests on the nation.

 

We, the voters, send our lawmakers to Parliament to help make good laws, monitor their implementation and finally to analyze if a particular law is serving its desired objective. I am sure, I am not wrong if I say that most of our lawmakers fail in their duties.

 

Nation expects that the Parliament imposes on its members a discipline to be present at least 95%, if not 100% of their time in the Parliament as long as it is in session. They are required to take active part in the debates on issues and legislations. But the scenario is not what nation would like to watch. In fact, any time devoted to any other activity means stealing the time which lawfully belongs to the Parliament, and the office of profit is one such activity.

 

Not sitting in Parliament and attend to other business private or public means doing injustice to the mandate of the voters.

 

4)      We are sure that as lawmakers, you are aware of the fact that the nation does not see with respect the doctors and teachers who shirk their assigned works, they are paid for, but give more importance to their private works to earn extra money. Office of profit is nothing but a second job done at the cost of the efficiency of the first one, which is lawmaking.

 

5)      Last but not the least, we would request our lawmakers who are bent upon protecting their offices of profit and hence supporting the government move, to not to challenge the wisdom of our forefathers who drafted and incorporated that law pertaining to offices of profit. They definitely had a point and that point would surely have been to force lawmakers to concentrate on their most honest duty of lawmaking, monitoring their implementation and analyzing their impacts on the life of the nation.

 

FINAL WORD

 

We want to make it clear that we are not asking for a disqualification drive, which, of course, is the natural outcome of the use of the 1959-law. We, therefore, suggest that the Parliament, by a unanimous vote, shall exonerate all those lawmakers who have been holding such offices provided they relinquish their offices.

 

Honorable Parliamentarians, shall we expect that you will consider our views and oppose the government move to protect these offices.

 

With regards,

Sincerely yours,

Office bearers of NRI Coalition for Social Justice,

 

PRESIDENT :

Ranjit Singh. Ph: 718-359-3660 Fax: 718-463-3507  betterindia@aol.com

VICE PRESIDENT(administration):

George Abraham Ph: 917-544-4137  Inocny@hotmail.com

Vice President ( REACH-OUT)

Sheikh Tayeb Poonawala. Ph: 347-248-1296  Tpoonawal@aol.com

Vice President: (Fianance):

Saeed Patel   Saeed325@aol.com

Vice President: ( MEDIA & PUBLICITY) 

Ajay Batra Ph: 646-436-5626  Ajaybatra@ivstv.com

Vice President (LEGAL Affairs) :

Attorney-at-Law Anand Ahuja: Ph: 718-850-1952  Attorneyanand@aol.com

Vice President (Public Relations)

Krishan K. Arora Karora1348@yahoo.com

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Open attachment to learn about the basis of our request.

 

Request your lawmakers, you know and forward it to

 

1) Honorable  Prime Minister : Manmohan@sansad.nic.in

2) Honorable Speaker, Sh. Somnath Chatterjee  Somnath@sansad.nic.in

 3) Honorable Minister Parliamentary Affairs, Sh. Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi    Fax at 011-91-11-24653727

Advertisements

Posted in Office of Profit | 1 Comment »