Can anyone put the following paragraphs into different words still making sense?

What are your suggestions for this law draft which i have proposed for reducing corruption in 3-4 months (only for India)?

• Proposed 3 line law can reduce poverty, corruption, MNC domination in 4 months(A four page version of this chapter written for easy distribution is athttp://rahulmehta.com/001.pdf . and Chap-3 of this book has more details on this proposed 3 line law. ) (To see chapter on Facebook, pls see note titled as 301.001 onhttp://facebook.com/mehtarahulc or clickhttp://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150422433266922 ) Download this chapter 1 : http://www.righttorecall.info/301.pdf 1.1 So is this some joke? The intellectuals of India have claimed that MNC-owners’ domination in India, poverty, corruption in police, nepotism in judges, corruption in education, Bangladeshi infiltration etc are so difficult problems, that it would take at least decades of Herculean efforts to reduce these problems. The intellectuals have categorically said that no six-month solution exists. And here comes Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta (myself), and boldly claims that a mere three line proposed Gazette Notification – can reduce MNC domination, poverty, corruption, nepotism, Bangladeshi problem etc and that too all within mere 4 months !!! I call this proposed Gazette Notification as Transparent Complain Filing Procedure aka TCP for short. And I further boast that the proposed TCP-GN-draft (GN = Gazette Notification = order issued by Ministers) has no negative side effects, the proposed TCP-GN-draft is 100% Constitutional and in synch with all the existing laws. And it doesn’t need a legislation from MPsMLAs – a Gazette Notification will suffice as proposed TCP-GN-draft already come under existing powers of PM, CM etc. So now can such a short GN draft so powerful even exist? Most intellectuals of India have refused to accept that such a trivial short law-draft can reduce poverty, corruption etc even by 1%. Either these intellectuals are all wrong or I am a 200% liar and also a 400% insane joker.                                                   You, the reader, can decide, whether the intellectuals are wrong or I am a liar-cum-joker, before or after you decide to read this chapter and next 3 chapters, and have read the intellectuals’ rebuttals against my proposed TCP Gazette Notification draft. And I will add more to my claim – the 3 line TCP Gazette Notification that I have proposed will do lot more than reducing poverty and corruption in policecourtseducation. Within 4-8 months, TCP-GN will improve Military, ration card system (public distribution system) and ALL depts in Govt and will also bring down home prices !! And proposed TCP has no negative side effect. If these claims ever turn out to be true, it would be an extremely shameful event for all intellectuals of India. So finally, what is this three line proposed TCP GN, and how can this TCP GN do these tasks and that too within mere 4-8 months? And one more question comes : how do I propose to mobilize activists and citizens to “convince” PM to print TCP draft in the Gazette? On this, I make a much taller claim. If as small as200,000 anti-corruption pro-poor anti-MNC anti-Bangladeshi activists in India spend 6 hours a weekon the list of 30-40 tiny actionsI have mentioned in chap-13, then in less than a year, their actions will create a non-violent Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singhcentric mass-movement that will “convince” PM to print TCP-draft in the Gazette (Mahatma Udham Singh is central to RRP campaign, and is explained in detail in section-13.16). So the number of activist-hours needed as per my suggested list of activities is less than 5% of what most activist-leader demand. 1.2 What is a Gazette Notification? One of the most important goal of my RTR Movement is to explain all activists and all citizens of India (1)what is Gazette Notification and (2)how easy but important it is to print a page in Gazette and thus bring change in Govt. (3)how using Udham Singh centric mass-movement, citizens can “convince” PM to print necessary drafts in the Gazette. Once activists and citizens have information on Gazette Notification printing process, they will see that changing system is as easy as playing with toys. Gazette Notification aka GN aka Rajpatra is a booklet published by Ministers of Central Govt and Ministers of State Govts every month or whenever needed. The Gazette contains orders given by Ministers to Dept Secretaries, District Collectors etc. (Below are two pages of a Gazette Notification shown as a sample example). The Gazette will have orders issued by Ministers and also orders issued by Dept Secretaries to implement orders issued by Ministers. The Collectors etc will do as per what Ministers have written in the Gazette and not what Ministers say in press or public. Eg say Minister says in public, press and also in party manifesto that “every family will get 20 liters of kerosene”. But in the Gazette, the Minister prints “10 liters of kerosene”. Then the Collector will give only 10 liters. Because the Collector has to go by what Ministers print in the Gazette and not by press statements Ministers have made.                                               If he disobeys Gazette, he may lose his job, may lose pension and may also face prison. If you see the Government as a computer, then the Gazette is the executable code on which it works. If you see Govt officers as construction workers, then Gazette is the construction’s blue print. So if activists want any change in Govt officer’s activities, they must first ask Ministers to print the proposed drafts in next month’s Gazette Notification. And the activists need not do anything else but demand print a page in the Gazette. When the proposed drafts come in Gazette, then and then only changes in Govt officers will come. If an activist-leader is talking about change in Govt without detailing Gazette Notification drafts needed, he is only wasting away citizens’ time and he may be doing so deliberately. So I request all activists to focus on the Gazette Notification drafts for the changes activist-leaders demands). Most activists leaders insist that their junior activists must not talk or know about Gazette Notifications. These activist leaders’ aim is to waste away time of junior activists. Sadly very few junior activists in India know importance of these print-outs named as Gazette Notifications and one goal of mine is to ensure that maximal number of activists and citizens understand importance of GN. The goal goes against motives of activist-leaders and intellectuals. The activist-leaders and intellectuals want junior activists to know least about the entity called GN and its importance. http://rtrrecommendations.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image.png Picture-1.1 (a) Sample of Gazette Notifications. GN is order issued by Ministers etc to officers, and orders issued by officers based on Ministers’ orders. http://rtrrecommendations.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image1.png Picture-1.1 (b) A Gazette Notifications’ scanned copy. GN is order issued by Ministers etc to officers, and orders issued by officers based on Ministers’ orders 1.3 The draft of proposed TCP Gazette Notification at National level The proposed TCP (Transparent Complain Filing) GN (Gazette Notification) has only 3 clauses. Please note that 3rd clause is a mere declaration. So as such, the proposed TCP GN has only 2 operational clauses. I request all citizens of India to ask PM to print following in Gazette next month. clauseno.OfficerProcedure1Collector(or his clerk)The President hereby orders Collector that : if a woman voter or dalit voter or senior citizen voter or poor voter or farmer voter or ANY citizen-voter in his district submits a Right to Information application or complaint against corruption or any affidavit to the Collector and requests to be put on the website of Prime Minister, the Collector or his designated clerk will issue a serial number and put that affidavit on the website of the Prime Minister for a fee of Rs 20 per page.2Talati, Patwari, Village Officer(or his clerk)The President orders Patwari that:  (2.1) if any citizen-voter comes with voter ID, and specifies Yes-No on an RTI application, complaint or any affidavit submitted in above cluase-1, the Patwari will enter his Yes-No on the PM’s website with his voter-ID and give a printed receipt for Rs 3 fee.(2.2) The Patwari will also allow citizen to change his Yes-No for Rs 3 fee.(2.3) The fee will be Re 1 for BPL card holder(2.4) The Collector may create system of sending SMS feedback to voters (2.5) The Collector may create a system of taking finger-print and picture of the voter and putting it on the receipt. (2.6) The PM may create a system where by citizens can register YES/NO via ATM using ATM-cards. (2.7) PM may add means to enable citizens to register YES/NO via SMS 3[To all Citizens, Officers, Ministers …](3.1) This TCP GN is not a referendum procedure. The Yes-No count will not be a binding on PM, CMs, officers, judges etc. If over 37 crore women voters, dalit voters, senior citizen voters, poor voters, farmer voters or ANY 37 crore citizen-voters register Yes on a given affidavit, then the PM may or need not take necessary action on the affidavit ; may print it in Gazette or the PM may or need notresign. PM’s decision will be final.(3.2) Further, the Collector may design and propose a system to collect Yes-No in clause-2 over SMS, and implement after approval of PM. I summarize the TCP law-draft as o If a citizen wants, then by visiting DC’s office, he can put an affidavit on PM’s website. o If a citizen supports an affidavit filed, then by visiting Talati’s (Patwari etc) office, that citizen can register his support to that affidavit on PM’s website for a Rs 3/- fee or later via ATM/SMS This 3 line proposed TCP law-draft can reduce poverty and corruption in 4 months ! Text version of the proposed TCP Gazette Notification drafts Many activists etc have to post the draft on web, and the above tabular write-up is inconvenient. So here is text write-up for them. The draft of proposed Transparent Complaint Filing Gazette Notification 1. [order to Collector (or his clerk)] The President hereby orders Collector that : if a woman voter or dalit voter or senior citizen voter or poor voter or farmer voter or ANY citizen-voter in his district submits a Right to Information application or complaint against corruption or any affidavit to the Collector and requests to be put on the website of Prime Minister, the Collector or his designated clerk will issue a serial number and put that affidavit on the website of the Prime Minister for a fee of Rs 20 per page. 2. [order to Talati, Patwari, Village Officer(or his clerk)] The President orders Patwari that : (2.1) if a woman voter or a dalit voter or a senior citizen voter or a poor voter or a farmer voter or ANY citizen-voter comes with voter ID, and specifies Yes-No on an RTI application, complaint or any affidavit submitted in cluase-1, the Patwari will enter his Yes-No on the PM’s website with his voter-ID and give a printed receipt for Rs 3 fee. (2.2) The Patwari will also allow citizen to change his Yes-No for Rs 3 fee. (2.3) The fee will be Re 1 for BPL card holder (2.4) The Collector may create a system of sending SMS feedback to the voter’ (2.5) The Collector may create a system of taking finger-print and picture of the voter and putting it on the receipt (2.6) The PM may create a system where by citizens can register YES/NO via ATM using ATM-cards (2.7) PM may add means to enable citizens to register YES/NO via SMS 3. [note to all Citizens, Officers, Ministers, judges] (3.1) This TCP Gazette Notification is not a referendum procedure. The Yes-No count will not be a binding on PM, CMs, officers, judges etc. If over 37 crore women voters, dalit voters, senior citizen voters, poor voters, farmer voters or ANY 37 crore citizen-voters register Yes on a given affidavit, then the PM may or need not take necessary action on the RTI application affidavit ; or the PM may or need not resign. PM’s decision will be final. (3.2) Further, the Collector may design and propose a system to collect Yes-No in clause-2 over secured SMS, and implement that system after approval of PM. 1.4 Do all citizens in India have internet to use this GN? And other questions Question-1 : Do all citizens have internet to use this proposed TCP GN? Answer : This is the most common wrong question I get on proposed TCP-GN. I call it wrong question, because the proposed GN does not at all require the citizens to have an internet connection to begin with. Whether the citizen has internet or not, he must visit the Collector’s office in person to submit his complaint or RTI application. And whether he has internet or not, he must visit Talati’s (Lekhpal, Patwari, Village Officer, VO) office in person to register YES on a complaint or affidavit. So internet is not at all required for a citizen to use this law-draft. And even if a person has internet, it would make no difference. So the law-draft can be used by all citizen-voters of India. If he has internet connection, he can read the affidavits with ease. But then so can someone without internet — he only needs to ask someone who has internet connection. Question-2 : Wont elitemen purchase the votes? Answer : Pls glance at clause-2.1. The clause-2.1 of proposed Gazette Notification TCP says that any citizen can register YES/NO and it will come on PM’s website and SMS. Now can an elitemen shell out Rs 100 cr and ask 1 cr citizens to register YES? Well, please also glance at clause-2.2. The citizen can change his YES/NO any day. So if an eliteman pays Rs 100 to crores of citizens to file YES , then the next day, nothing stops the citizens from asking for Rs 100 again and Rs 100 next to next day again, or threaten to change YES to NO. Now no eliteman can control crores citizens for even a week even with full army. If elitemen decide to pay Rs 100 every day to crores of citizens, they will run out of money. IOW, clause-2.2 ensures that approvals are unaffordable in TCP-GN. Question-3 : What is the cost of TCP? Answer : There are two parts – cost borne by private individuals and cost borne by the Government. Eg at the time voting in general elections, some cost is borne by candidates, some by the voter (eg expense to travel from home to booth to home) and some by Govt. As per election commission, the voting expense is about Rs 20 per voter, on an average. In TCP, the expense on Govt is zero, as the person pays Rs 3 fees to register his YES/NO. On one day, a clerk can register YES/NO of over 250 citizens, which will create collection of Rs 750 which is more than enough that pay his salary and all other expenses. So if all 75 crore voters register YES/NO by visit office of Talati, then costs citizens will need to bear will be Rs 225 crores. And when the system comes on SMS and ATM, the cost per YES/NO citizen has to pay reduces to few paise. So even if 75 crore citizens were to file YES using ATM or SMS, the costs will be below few crore rupees only. The cost on Govt is zero because citizen has to pay a small fee to file Yes/No. Question-4 : why did I put words ‘may or need not’ and not use word such ‘will’ or ‘shall’ or ‘must’ in clause-3 of TCP? Answers : 1. Now as seen clearly, I have put words ‘may or need not’. And there is no hiding here. The words are in bold and there is later statement which makes it further clear ‘PM’s decision will be final’. Now if anyone proposes a new draft with word ‘must’ instead of ‘may or need not’ I will fully support it, but I will not spend time in defending constitutional validity of ‘must’. For that matter the original draft I had has the word ‘shall’ and too much time got wasted away in debating against those who said that “TCP was unconstitutional, because Constitution doesn’t allow PM to sign a notification makes citizens’ dictat a binding on him” !! 2. Say TCP-GN with word ‘shall’ is printed today, and say a proposal is filed and 40 crore citizens register YES on it. And say PM decides not to work on proposal. Then no law stops PM from canceling TCP next day. So all in word, ‘shall’ does not give extra insurance over the word ‘may or need not’. 3. And finally, the power of TCP does not increase even by 1% by converting ‘may’ into ‘shall’. If 40 crores out of 75 crore adult voters have registered YES and if PM refuses to address the proposal given under clause-1, then we are now talking about “People vs PM” case. And when we are talking of cases of “People vs PM” , the words in clauses don’t matter any way — it is only raw strength of force which matter. In such case, saying that PM will openly defy explicit opinion of 40 crore citizen shows gross over-estimation of PM’s basic strength and gross-underestimation citizens’ strength. If PM defies 40 crore citizens openly, then citizens will not sit idle, and even if 400 citizens decide to become Ahmisamurti, PM will leave India. So fear that “what if PM will disobey 40 crore citizens is unfounded. If PM is powerful, then MPs can ban the elections and become permanent MPs themselves. And that may happen, when citizens become very weak, and elite becomes too string. But thankfully, that is not the case today. Today, PM and MPs are not strong enough to defy 40 crore citizens. 4. So all in all, using the word ‘may’ does not reduce strength of the law by even 1%. And using word ‘shall’ will an opportunity to those who hate TCP to create a time-pass debate on constitutional invalidity. Putting word “shall” gives excuse to PM to delay by saying “let me ask experts and Supreme Court judges about its Constitutional validity” . 5. Nevertheless, as I said, I will support a draft with word “shall” instead of “may or need not”. For more FAQs , pls see chap-3. 1.5 A one line summary of TCP One line summary of TCP is : if a citizen wants, Collector’s clerk will put citizen’s complaint on the website of the Prime Minister for a fee. The words “RTI application, complaints against corruption, any affidavit” only re-state the word complaint. And allowing citizen to file YES on complaints is only so that if 10000 citizens have same complaint then all 10000 need not go to Collector’s office and pay Rs 20 per page – only one person needs to go to Collector’s office and rest can submit same complaint by paying mere Rs 3 to local Talati or Patwari’s office. So clause-2 is a re-statement of clause-1. 1.6 More about clause-1 of TCP The clause-1 of TCP reads as “The President hereby orders Collector that : if a woman voter or dalit voter or senior citizen voter or poor voter or farmer voter or ANY citizen-voter in his district submits a complaint ….“ – Why write woman voter, dalit voter, poor voter when just writing any voter would have sufficed? Because if anyone opposes clause-1, then an TCP supporter can rightly portray him as anti-woman, anti-dalit, anti-poor, anti-farmer etc . And a large number of activist leaders in India have specialized as saviors of women, dalits, tribal, poors etc. and these if these activist leaders oppose clause-1 of TCP, then pro-TCP supporter can label then as anti-woman, anti-dalit etc. This will enable TCP supporters to debate against them if and when needed. 1.7 Is that all? Yes, that’s all about TCP. Nothing more. So now the question is : how can such a mere 3 line law-draft solve daunting problem of poverty? How can it solve equally tough problems like corruption in policemen/judges? And many problems as I claim? 1.8 So how does TCP GN reduce poverty within mere 4 months? When I said that three line law-draft can reduce poverty, corruption and MNC-domination in 4 months, you must have taken it as a lie and a joke and I wont blame you. And now after reading these three lines, you must be more puzzled that how can such innocent looking three lines bring any change? After all, all TCP says is – let people put their complain on the website of Prime Minister if they want. What change can complaint posting alone can bring? I will elaborate. The day PM prints this TCP clauses in Gazette, I or someone else will submit about 200 affidavits. The drafts of all these affidavits are on my website http://rahulmehta.com/ and drafts and brief description of some of the affidavits is given in this manifesto. The first affidavit is what I call as MRCM – Mineral Royalties for Citizens and Military. MRCM is a 7-8 page proposed Gazette Notification listed in chap-5 titled as “Mineral Royalties for Citizens”. The MRCM draft creates an administrative system by which each citizen of India directly gets mineral royalties and land rents from GoI plots. E.g. Say in jan-2013, the mineral royalties and land rent from GoI plots was Rs 60000 cr. Then as per the proposed MRCM law-draft, Rs 20000 cr will go towards Military. And from rest Rs 40000 cr, each citizen will get about Rs 400 deposited in his local post office account orlocal SBI account. Is distributing cash to 75 cr citizen-voters too complicated? No, it is not. If each of the adult citizen of India visits bank or post office once a month to withdraw the cash, only about 100,000 clerks will be needed. Is 100,000 clerk a too big a number? No. Existing SBI has staff of over 300,000 and all PSU banks together have staff of over 600,000. So the staff needed to support MRCM-draft is not very large. The proposed MRCM Gazette Notification has Right to Recall Chief Officer built into it to ensure least corruption. Each and every detail is given the 7-8 page draft mentioned later in chapter-5. Now I will ask some questions to the reader. Please read rest of the chapter only after answering these question as they come. Background information for the questions is as follows : 1. Say activists and citizens have already forced PM to print TCP draft in Gazette 2. Say someone submitted MRCM affidavit which says that mineral royalties and land rent should directly go to citizens 3. Now in a later chapter, I have explained how 75 crores citizens of India will come to know about the proposed MRCM affidavit within one month. 4. Of the 75 crore adult citizens of India, for the purpose of this question, please consider the economically bottom 80% i.e. economically bottom 55 crore adult citizens of India, who barely make Rs 50 per day My first question to you the reader is : how many crores citizens of these 55 crore citizen-voters who barely make Rs 50 per day will say – “I do not want this Rs 400 per person per monthor whatever may be the amount and let this money remain in GoI account”? Please read further ONLY after answering the above question. I will re-ask the question : How many of these 55 crore citizen-voters who barely make Rs 50 per day will say – I do not want this Rs 400 per person per month or whatever may be the amount and let this money go into GoI account? My answer is – less than 2% will say that he does not want this Rs 400 per person per month. So most of the citizens in bottom 55 crores of the 75 crore adult citizens will have one main thought - 3 More on TCP – the proposed three lined GN(A detailed version of this chapter in notes #301.003 onhttp://facebook.com/mehtarahulc ) Download this chapter 3 : http://www.righttorecall.info/301.pdf 1.1 Later additions to TCP GN to make it as secure as banking Within 3 months after TCP Gazette Notification is issued, following clauses can be added to GN. These features are to reduce “bogus voting” and also to counter the argument that “there will be bogus voting and so this procedure must never ever exist” 1. A person will be able to register Yes-No by ATM – he has to register his ATM card in Voter List Dept in Collector’s office and after verification, he will be able to register YES-NO via ATM 2. A person will be able to register Yes-No by SMS– he has to register his mobile phone number in the Voter List Dept in Collector’s office and after verification, he will be able to register YES-NO via SMS 3. The citizen’s finger print will be in computer so that computer can verify the voter using finger-print identification. 4. A camera will be connected to Patwari’s computer so that it will scan the picture of the citizen and finger print and store it as well as put it on the receipt of his Yes-No. This way a person is registering too many Yes-No, it would become possible to track and arrest him. 5. The citizen will be given a passbook that will have list of all Yes-No he has registered. So if anyone else has registered Yes-No by impostering him, he will come to know about it 6. Every citizen will get a statement every month showing list of Yes-No he registered in past six months. So if any imposter has registered Yes/No, he will come to know about it 7. If the citizen wishes, he can register his mobile phone number and he will get SMS when he registers Yes-No. So if anyone has registered Yes-No by impostering him, he will come to know about it immediately. 8. If the citizen wishes, he can register his email address and he will get email when he registers Yes/No. So if anyone has registered Yes-No by impostering him, he will come to know about it immediately.                           This will make Yes-No registration more secure than banking. With these safe-guards, bogus voter will be caught by 5th or 6th try and this will reduce the number of bogus filers. Now “1% of Yes-No may be bogus and so all 75 cr voters must not be allowed to register Yes-No” is a frivolous argument. 1.2 Will citizens be filing Yes-No 1000s of times? The proposed TCP Gazette Notification does not require or even expect citizens to register Yes-No on every affidavit or every proposed law-draft? Nor does it mean that MPs , MLAs cannot make any more laws — they may as they do now. The TCP-GN only means that if a citizen wants to register Yes/No on some of the laws on Govt website , Govt shall not block him and Govt shall register his Yes-No on the Govt website. Now out of 1000s of laws we have, not all will register Yes-No on all laws. But x% may register Yes-No on some 100-200 laws, and x% may be very high for laws such as DVA, 498A etc. This x% YESes or NOs can create a powerful movement for/against that law-draft.                                The TCP-GN simply creates an additional option. The citizens may depend on MLAs, MPs for most laws and demand to cancel the laws. But there are times when MPs, MLAs refuse to listen. eg Majority of citizens want 498A and DVA to be canceled, but MPs, MLAs insist on keeping this law-draft as this law-draft fetches huge bribes to policemen (and MLAs, MPs get part of these bribes via the IPS).                                                   Likewise, almost all commons I met agree that interviews during recruitments of judges, professors, policemen, IIMs students etc should be banned but all MPs, MLAs and intellectuals insist on laws that promote interviews. They support interviews because it enables them to collect bribes, put their relatives and filter out meritorious but “ideologically inconvenient” people. These are the times when if citizens have procedure to register YES/NO on laws, they may be able to use it. 1.3           TCP and caste-based Reservation in jobs I have been campaigning this proposal, that allow citizens to write on Govt website, for a few years. One valid question I get from many upper caste youth is : wont TCP result into increase in reservation? Wont SC, ST and OBCs demand more reservation using this GN? The answer is : NO. In fact, it will reduce the reservation, as the poor Dalits, the poor STs and the poor OBCs will support the law-draft “Economic Choice vs. Reservation” that I have proposed in the chapter “RRP stand on Reservation issue”. As per the law-draft, any Dalit, ST, OBC will have option to get Rs 600\year instead of reservation. So if say 80% SC, ST and OBC opt for economic choice, then total reservation will decrease from 50% to 10%. The law-draft proposed in that chapter will get support from over 80% of Dalits, STs and OBCs who are poor and cant even reach class-12. And this will reduce total caste based reservation. So if one is worried that TCP will increase the reservation, he is mistaken. Thus, TCP will lead to “Economic Choice vs. Reservation” which will reduce reservation. 1.4               Wont the rich be able to buy out citizens? One question I often face is : wont the rich be able to buy out the citizens? Answer is NO. Consider an example. Say I propose an GN – Abolish SEZ Act 2005. Say there are 72 cr voters in India. So for the proposed GN to succeed, it would need YES from about 37 cr citizen-voters. Obviously, pro-SEZ elitemen might decide to spend 100s of crores of rupees to ensure that the proposal does not get 37 cr YESes. Will their money help?   1. Now if proposal fails to reach the ears of 38 cr citizens, it failed but NOT because of money of pro-SEZ elitemen. 2. If the proposal reached 10s of crores of voters and the refused to register YES, then the failure was not due to money of pro-SEZ elitemen. 3. Say some proposal did reach ears of 50 cr to 70 cr voters. Say some 45 cr voters decided to register YES i.e. cancel SEZ Act 2005. 4. Now will it be possible for pro-SEZ elitemen to pay say Rs 50 or Rs 1000 or anything so that some 4 cr voters do not register YES? Lets say that pro-SEZ elitemen see that some 40 cr citizens are likely to register YES on “abolish SEZ” proposal. Say elitemen decide to bribe out say 5 crore voters and ask them not to register YES. Say they offer Rs 100 per voter.                        If the do, every citizen would demand Rs 100 and so elitemen will have to give Rs 100 to all 75 cr citizens and so they will end up spending Rs 7200 cr. But will that be end of the story? No. Say elitemen pay Rs 7200 cr and manage to stop commons from registering YES on the proposal. Then all I need to do is to ask one of my friends to submit same “abolish SEZ Act 2005” proposal with a few words different,. Now thats a different proposal. So voters will ask elitemen again to cough up Rs 100 or they would threaten to register YES on this new proposal.                           After all, it is a different proposal – the money paid for the previous proposal in past doesn’t count. So elitemen will have to cough up another Rs 7200 cr again. If that also happens, I can again ask my another friend to submit a third proposal with few words different. Now either citizens will register YES on that third proposal or demand another Rs 100 from pro-SEZ elitemen. Within months, elitemen would run out their all their generations of savings and assets. All wealth of elitemen in India add to no more than Rs 100,00,000 crores. If they decide to stall a pro-common anti-elitemen proposal using Rs 100 per voter, the cost would be Rs 7200 cr per such proposal.                          And by filing 2000 such proposals within 6 months, which would cost me and my friend only Rs 20000/- all the money of elitemen would evaporate within 6-12 months. And the elitemen are rational — they would not waste their money like this and attain nothing. IOW, TCP will ensure that bribe given to citizen is burning away money and results into no gains. So making claims that TCP is something that elitemen can buy away only shows that person is hopelessly unaware of real life calculation. TCP is immune to money power as it gives option to citizens to file same proposal again and again and again and thus collect money again and again and again. This is simply unviable. 1.5       Why do all eminent intellectuals oppose this TCP GN I demand? This GN I demand does not require allocation of hundreds of crores of rupees, does not require allocation of 1000s of staff, does not require 1000s of buildings or roads. And as per our Constitution as interpreted by the Citizens, PM\CM do not need approval of MPs\MLAs to enact this change. Yet each and every eminent intellectual is hostile to this proposed Gazette Notification. All parties’ leaders have hated this proposal and their CMs and PM have sworn not to print this TCP GN we demand. Alleminent intellectuals of India have opposed this TCP-GN and have asked CMs and PM not print this TCP GN. Why? Pls ask them. 1.6      How powerful is TCP —- the RRP claim A pro-common change starts not just when crores of citizens have agreed, but when crores of citizens have agreed and crores of citizens know that crores of citizens have agreed. Let me repeat this sentence, as the sentence covers theme of all major changes that citizens brought in past 3000 years. A pro-common change starts not just when crores of citizens have agreed, but when crores of citizens have agreed and crores of citizens know that crores of citizens have agreed. The “crores of citizens know that crores of citizens have agreed” is what I call as “the Zero of Political Arithmetic”. That’s where and when the pro-common change begins. The intellectuals and mediamen always try to convince each of the common that he is all alone and rest of the crores of commons are unaware. TCP not only enables citizen to file YES/NO on a proposed change, but if crores of citizens have agreed for a change, then all crores of citizens come to know that crores of citizens do want this change. It does not allow media-owners to create an image that “people don’t care” on an issue. TCP reduces the power of media-owners in twisting images on priorities of the crores of citizens. TCP is central to our RRP’s political movement to improve the Indian administration. And our RRP-claim is : My TCP claim : Once citizens manage to force PM to put TCP in the Gazette Notification, poverty will vanish in 4 months, MNC domination will reduce in 4 months, and corruption in India’s police, courts and education will become near zero in 4 month, and within 10 years, India will be at par with West in terms of technology, economy and weapon manufacturing. I would repeat my claim in a box : My RRP claim : Once citizens manage to force PM to put TCP in the Gazette Notification, poverty will vanish in 4 months, MNC domination will reduce in 4 months, and corruption in India’s police, courts and education will become near zero in 4 month, and within 10 years, India will be at par with West in terms of technology, economy and weapon manufacturing. 1.7 Why do I demand a tiny change like TCP as first step? My eventual goals are giving mine royalties to citizens, giving procedure to replace SCjs to citizens and so forth. But my first demand is tiny — letting us commons register YES/NO and that too the YES/NO counts have no legal weight. So while there are other administrative changes in our agenda, the first change I propose is tiny. Why do I ask citizens to ask for such a tiny change ?                      Because if we citizens ask for a large change, we would end up giving years of time to CMs, PM and intellectuals. If the commons ask for large change, like employment or complete eradication of poverty or so forth, then that would automatically give the neta an excuse to ask for months and years of time. In this long years, CMs, intellectuals would do nothing and we would lose that long time. Also, when a leader denies a small change, it is easy for activists to mobilize movement against him. By asking leaders not for a big change, but for small change, and when the leader/intellectuals refuse to implement that small change, it would become possible for commons and pro-commons to convince the selfless activists that leaders, elitemen and intellectuals are corrupt. 1.8 Our request to all non-80G-activists and citizens We request all non-80G-activists and citizens to taken following steps 1. please take time to read every word of the TCP draft I have proposed 2. if you hate TCP, then bye-bye, I have nothing for you – all my proposals are based on TCP. 3. if you like TCP draft, then. ° if you are BJP supporter then I request you to ask BJP CMs to print TCP draft in Gazette ° if you are Congress supporter then I request you to ask Congress PM\CMs to print TCP-draft ° if you are CPM supporter then I request you to ask CPM CMs to print TCP-draft in Gazette ° if you are BSP then I request you to ask BSP CMs to print TCP-draft in Gazette ° etc etc 4. if you like TCP draft, then pls ask Anna Hazare to print TCP clauses in the Jan Lokpal draft 5. if they all refuse to print TCP, then I request to you to raise mass movement on your own to force PM\CMs to print TCP-draft in the Gazette. 1.9 Stand of politicians and activist-leaders on TCP All MPs in Congress, BJP, CPM, CPI have opposed TCP. Even opposition MPs such as Subramanian Swamy has opposed TCP. These politicians oppose TCP because these politicians depend heavily on MNC-owners and Missionaries for media support i.e. MNC-owners and Missionaries pay mediamen to support these leaders. The MNC-owners and Missionaries do not want TCP in India, and so these leaders oppose TCP. The activist leader such as The Anna has opposed the proposal to print TCP clauses in the Janlokpal draft. Each of the Chhote Anne have also opposed TCP clauses. They also ask activist to oppose TCP. They oppose TCP because they heavily depend on MNC-owners and Missionaries for media coverage. The MNC-owners and Missionaries are paying TV-channel-owners to cover them. And they all know All in all, all MPs, MLAs, intellectuals and activist leaders oppose RTR because they rightly fear that elitemen and Missionaries will stop supporting them if they were to support RTR. 1.10 How can YOU help in bringing TCP draft in India’s Gazette? Please read chap-13 of this book http://rahulmehta.com/301.htm . It has several steps where-in you can spend 6 hours a week and help to bring TCP drafts in Gazette in India. The steps involve distributing pamphlets, informing citizens on motives of leaders who oppose TCP, giving newspaper ads, contesting elections on RTR plank etc. 1. Please translate this chapter into your native language

• Answer:

  I applaud the detail and thought you have put into this proposal. A few thoughts came to mind when reading your TCP proposal and I hope you will give these consideration: Problems of Volume: As you say, the Collector is legally bound to file all affidavits brought to him, and make them publicly visible on the PM's website. On an average day each District Collector can expect anywhere between 0-100 affidavits. Spread out over all the districts in India, this number can reach more than a million affidavits per day. This is an incredible amount of data, and it is likely that some worthy claims will be lost amongst hundreds of bogus claims. We can analogize this with answers posted on Quora - there are thousands of answers posted everyday, yet a number of these answers are bogus and spammy, and it is often difficult to find the answers truly worth backing among these. I think your proposed YES/NO system will, in the long run, give more visibility to the most worthy affidavits. Yet there will still be some worthy claims falling by the wayside (think of how many quality Quora answers you see that just don't get enough upvotes to be visible to the masses). I think a more efficient way, is to decentralize the database of affidavits, so that it is not posted just on the Prime Minister's website, but on several state-level and district-level forums as well. Hence it is possible for citizens to see the affidavits most relevant to them, rather than being inundated with irrelevant information. Accountability and Anonymity: Firstly for an affidavit or a YES/NO vote to bear any credence at all, there must be a name and a citizen ID attached to it. This is crucial to maintain accountability. Suppose your YES/NO voting scheme is implemented over SMS. Then there must be some institutional check against a rich man purchasing 1000+ SIM cards and spuriously voting YES/NO on the affidavit of his choice. On an individual level, the system must not be biased towards people who can return day after day and vote YES/NO even after their original vote has been cast. In other words, we should be able to track every single vote to a single citizen - otherwise the cloak of anonymity will spoil the system. BUT one other thing you have to consider - certain individuals may wish to remain anonymous because of the sensitive nature of their affidavit, or because they are under some threat if their name becomes public.  For these citizens, the government must be able to retain their personal information themselves, but restrict it from entering the public forum. And the government must set standards for when it allows a claimant to remain anonymous and when it doesn't. You must show awareness of these subtleties in your proposal and offer a balanced solution. Informational Asymmetry: You rightly say that a rural citizen does not need access to the internet at all in order to file an affidavit or register a YES/NO. But you must still be wary of an asymmetry developing in who has access to the publicly filed affidavits. If only a select few individuals in a district have access to the website of the PM, these people are in an advantageous position to shape the behavior of every voter in the district. They can rally for votes on a certain affidavit, and misguide the populace who do not have direct access to what the affidavit says. Sure these misguided people can change their votes if they realize they have been fooled, but who will bring them to this realization if they cannot read the affidavits themselves? Do you propose a Gazette Notification type system, where the list of all affidavits are distributed to individuals in their native language, so that they may form opinions on it themselves? Even though this would be a considerable overhead cost, I think your proposal necessitates it. It is not so simple, for someone in rural India to just "ask someone who has internet" in order to read the affidavits. You must propose more nuanced institutional checks to prevent lobbying for votes by elite citizens These are just some suggestions that I think you should keep in mind as you refine your proposal. I see some amount of potential in your proposal and I certainly hope to see it implemented someday, in some form. All the best!