Noise Pollution (Reg and Control) Rules, 2000 + Links

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTSNOTIFICATIONNew Delhi, the 14 February, 2000
S.O. 123(E).- Whereas the increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various sources, inter-alia, industrial activity, construction activity, generator sets, loud speakers, public address systems, music systems, vehicular horns and other mechanical devices have deleterious effects on human health and the psychological well being of the people, it is considered necessary to regulate and control noise producing and generating sources with the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise;
Whereas a draft of Noise Pollution (Control and Regulation) Rules, 1999 was published under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests vide number S.O. 528 (E) dated the 2e June, 1999 inviting objections and suggestions from all the persons likely to be affected thereby, before the expiry of the period of sixty days from the date on which the copies of the Gazette containing the said notification are made available to the public-,
And whereas copies of the said Gazette were made available to the public on the I" day of July, 1999.
And whereas the objections and suggestions received from the public in respect of the said draft rules have been duly considered by the Central Government-,
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 3, sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6 and section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules for the regulation and control of noise producing and generating sources, namely:
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
1 Short-title and commencement.
(1) These rules may be called the-Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) "Act" means the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(b) "area/zone" means all areas which fall in either of the four categories given in the Schedule annexed to these rules;
(c) "authority" means any authority or officer authorised by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government in accordance with the laws in force and includes a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner, or any other officer designated for the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise under any law for the time being in force;
(d) "person" in relation to any factory or premises means a person or occupier or his agent, who has control over the affairs of the factory or premises;
(e) "State Government" in relation to a Union territory means the Administrator thereof appointed under article 239 of the Constitution.
3. Ambient air guality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones.
(1) The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones shall be such as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules.
(2) The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas.
(3) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.
(4) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities while planning developmental activity or carrying out functions relating to town and country planning shall take into consideration all aspects of noise pollution as a parameter of quality of life to avoid noise menace and to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise.
(5) An area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules.
4. Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures.
(1) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise.
5. Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address s1stem.
(1) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority.
(2) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.
6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.
Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act:
(i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers,
(ii) whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either musical or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds any instrument, or
(iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature to 44raq crowds.
7. Complaints to be made to the authority.
(1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone, make a complaint to the authority.
(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other law in force.
8. Power to vrohibit etc. continuance of music sound or noise.
(1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer incharge of a police station or other information received by him that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or to any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any person for preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating:
(a) the incidence or continuance in or upon any premises of -
(i) any vocal or instrumental music,
(ii) sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable of producing or re-producing sound, or
(b) the carrying on in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attended with noise.
(2) The authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (1), either rescind, modify or alter any such order:
Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the said authority shall afford to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before it either in person or by a person representing him and showing cause against the order and shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection.
SCHEDULE(see rule 3(l) and 4(l)
Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of Noise
Area Code
Category of Area/Zone
Limits in dB(A) Leq *
Day Time
NightTime
(A)
Industrial area
75
70
(B)
Commercial area
65
55
(C)
Residential area
55
45
(D)
Silence Zone
50
40
Note
1. Day time shall mean from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.
2. Night time shall mean from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.
3. Silence zone is defined as an area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts. The silence zones are zones which are declared as such by the competent authority.
4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above mentioned categories by the competent authority.
*dB(A) Leq denotes the time weighted average of the level of sound in decibels on scale A which is relatable to human hearing.
A "decibel" is a unit in which noise is measured.
"A", in dB(A) Leq, denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement of noise and corresponds to frequency response characteristics of the human ear.
Leq : It is an energy mean of the noise level, over a specified period.
[F. No. Q-14012/l/96-CPA]VIJAI SHARMA, R. Secy.

SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL LINKS

THE MORE U KNOW -- DEALING WITH POLICE DEPT

Hello,
Thanks for your interest in this topic and I hope this is useful to you and I welcome share your thoughts and experiences here as well....

Up until two years ago, I have never stepped into a police station as such dealing with any specific issues BUT I had an idea as to how bad it is....

I moved to Hyderabad in early 2006 and picked up Prashasan Nagar Jubilee Hills hoping that would be a quiet and calm neighbourhood... few weeks after moving, I realized that I couldn't have picked up a worst place for the money than Prashasan Nagar.... contruction activities in few plots around the neighbourhood makes it lively and it was like living next to a 24x7 factory!! On top of that my next door neighbour happen to have a dog that barks ONLY in the night and their helps (maids, driver etc) live in the basement and don't sleep in the night (we live in the ground floor next door!)..... My other neighour is a BPO company with @50 people working in the nights and you know what happens when they step out for a break or a smoke or finishing up their work in the wee hours of the night!!! In addition they had 4 industrial strength AC units that made hell lot of noise in the night and also was throwing LOT of HOT air into my House!! We couldn't play or take some fresh air outside my home (within our plot)...

As you can imagine... I was faced with trouble all around...not one, not two but many issues involving several entities....mostly rich and powerful people....my neighbour happen to be a DIG and he was part of the problem as well!!

I didn't give up... I took one by one and solved them systematically.... today, you cannot run a construction activity after 6 PM without my permission in and around my house (@300+M)!!! So, you could say that I have succeeded in my attempts!! How did I do that? Not that fast!!!

I will be posting each of these issues in detail along with the experiences!!! Watch out for my posts against this topic!!!
Thanks
Raj

Complaint to Election Commission (Political Parties)

[The following is the copy of a notice I sent to Chief Election Commissioner on undemocratic rules governing most political parties'. I took 2 such parties in Tamil Nadu to start with]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Review of CEC Decisions

--------------------------------------

(1) Registration approval of DMK on 18/9/1989
(2) Registration approval of AIADMK on 25/9/1989

Dated: August 28th, 2008

From:
Rajendran Chingaravelu
Plot# 188, Road No: 21A, Prashasan Nagar
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033, AP, India

To:
The Hon’ble Chief Election Commissioner
Nirvachan SadanAshoka Road, New Delhi-110001 Tel: 011-23716552/ 23713689

Dear Honorable Chief Election Commissioner,
I am sorry to bother you with this letter. As you know Election Commission has been made responsible for taking care of the foundation of our democracy and I admire and applaud the stellar job that this fine institution has done recently. I especially like all the bold moves by the commission in enforcing democracy. I understand the preciousness of your time and I assure you that you will not feel like I have wasted your time after you finish reading this letter as I am trying to do something about a fundamental problem associated with most political parties that prevents better political participation from the educated citizens of this country.

I recently received a copy of the rules and regulations (from CEC) governing the following two political parties in Tamil Nadu:
1. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)
2. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)

Upon careful perusal of both of them, I found that they both have almost identical rules and regulations governing their operations to a large extent. They both seem to have decent process defined for electing members of administration of the party using fairly democratic process. Yet I know for a fact that the top level leadership have had no democratic penetration whatsoever in the last @40 years which is pretty much held by one person (in DMK it is Mr. Karunanithi & in AIADMK it was Mr.MGR, after his death, now Ms.Jayalalitha).

These top leaders are never replaced with another leader solely because the democratic process for the selection of President and General Secretary of the party apparently is not working, to say the least. Upon careful analysis of the entire document, I have realized that the primary reason for the failure of democratic process in the selection of top leaders of these parties is primarily due to the control they have over the selection of candidates for the State Legislature and Parliamentary elections. This I believe is the crux of the problem.

Please take a look at the Rule 29 in both parties’ Rules and Regulations (Party Constitution). All the sections under Rule 29 (Parliamentary Board) guarantees anything but democratic process; to elect the candidates for the State Legislature and Parliamentary elections. I am saddened to see that almost all processes to elect the office bearers of the party below the Headquarters seem reasonably democratic except this one! I strongly believe that this is the ONLY reason, a public funded non profit organizations/political parties such as DMK & AIADMK are being run like private organs of specific individuals or family!

As you know, people participate in political parties mostly because they have aspirations to ultimately participate in the government and thus the ability to contest elections for the State Legislature and Parliamentary elections is probably the most and the only drive that these folks have due to which they participate in the political party activities and become members and office bearers of the party. But if the selection of the candidates for State Legislature and Parliamentary elections becomes monopolized by the top echelon of the party then they all will have no option but to support whoever is at the top!

The so called ‘Parliamentary Board’ in both parties are single handedly constituted by a single office bearer of the party which is totally undemocratic and is a complete violation of Section 29A (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There are instances in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the Election Commission can cancel the registration of a political party if their operations/policies/actions are found to be in violation of the above section.

Hon’ble CEC has approved the registration of DMK on 18/9/1989 and AIADMK on 25/9/1989 as per section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. I have a copy of both decisions and have perused the same. The one page decision in each case simply states that the respected CEC has satisfied that the party has met the requirements per section 29A but unfortunately it fails to provide as to whether or not they have complied specifically with section 29A(5) &(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

It was my belief that the Hon’ble Election Commission had the authority to take actions or reject party registration should the party and their constitution (rules and regulations) does not comply with Section 29A(5) Representation of the People Act, 1951.

I request the honorable CEC to answer the following:
1. Does Rule 29 (Parliamentary Board) of Rules and Regulations of DMK and AIADMK comply with Section 29A (5)? i.e do they live up to the spirit of the democracy required per section 29 A (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? If yes then please explain how.
2. If the answer to the above question is No, then shouldn’t the honorable election commission cancel the registration of both of the above parties per section 29 A (5) & (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
3. Are political parties required to provide CEC information about the contestants and the votes secured during the party headquarters (President & General Secretary) elections?

Sincerely
sd/-
Rajendran Chingaravelu

Effectively dealing with the Police Station

Hello,
------------------It is not a legal advice ONLY a self help--------------------------------

Below are the steps you can take to ensure that the folks at the police station behave the way they are supposed to. Say you are there to file an FIR...

[Applicable only for cognizable offenses]

1. Have a written complaint ready along with its xerox or duplicate copy

2. Keep contacts and addresses of all senior offices such as inspector, DSP, SP, DCP, CP etc. You may be able to get most of these online or by calling their office.

3. Meet the writer and ask them to register a case by giving the original copy of your complaint and also explain the same.

4. If they refused to file an FR then try to meet with the senior officer /inspector or SI. If they don't fudge then you may want to politely tell him/her that you are obligated under Cr.P.C section 154(1)&(2). If would be great if you have voice or video recording capabilities in your phone. If you have one then you should capture their refusal!!!

5. If they still not registering the case then tell them that you are going to call the next higher level office right away and you should make that call if this is still not working.

6. Call the higher office and explain them the situation and ask them if you should send them the complaint per Cr.P.C section 154(3). In most cases they should take care of it on the phone itself.

7. If it doesn't work then you should post the same via registered post and ask them to send you an acknolwedgment and a copy of the F.I.R ASAP. They are supposed to per section 154(3).

8. Give them sometime... call them up and if they still don't do it then you can stop by a local magistrate's office and lodge a complaint and/or file an RTI application with the higher police office to whom you mailed the complaint.

[If there are 10 people who will the above in a month, every month, then in one year that police station would change and you should see a visible effect]

Generally, the higher up you go the respectful and courteous they are (generally!!). So, feel free to approach but you should be confident and you should know the basic laws if you want to push it hard.
Whatever you do, keep a verifiable record of everything. Concrete evidences are powerful!!
Good luck!!
Thanks
Raj

Sample RTI Application

I am not sure how many citizens read the bare acts such as RTI. I have read each and every line of it and have filed few dozens of RTI application. Here is a sample RTI Application that uses all important sections of the RTI Act while making the application.

--------------------------------Sample RTI Application--------------------------------

Requesting Infromation under RTI Act of 2005

------------------------------------------------

From: (your name, address & contact )

To: The PIO / (head of the office against which u r filing the RTI)
(Address of the Office)

Dear PIO/ (head of the office)
I here by request the following information from your office per section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005. As you know, per section 6(2) of the above act, I do not have to specify a reason for this request but suffice to say that the requested information would be of very useful for me.

1. (first information request) [also specify if you want the information in any specific format]
2. ( second information request)
3. ..................................

[Specify the information format is applicable]

I further request you to please ensure that your reply is in compliance of sections 7(1) 7(8), 7(9), 10(1) and other sections of the RTI Act of 2005. Please extend you help per section 5(3) of the RTI Act of 2005, if required to meet my information need.

Sincerely

(sign your name)
(write your name)

----------------------------------------end of sample RTI------------------------------------

An Approach to Equitable Quota System (Education)

Equitable Quota System for Education

Thank you for your interest in this topic. I hope you will read this message in its entirety and contribute positively to arrive at a decent recommendation that we can take to the Govt. of India.
Here are my views on this topic and I encourage you chime in with yours.. Currently there are broadly three camps:

1. People who support the quota system as is
2. People who are against any quota system
3. People who think that the Creamy Layer must be excluded from the current quota system.

It is my humble opinion that we ought to look at this bit differently and see if we can get an understanding of the objective(s) of a quota system and then think about ways we can accomplish those objectives.

Inequality is the primary reason that the founders of this and other nations have thought about a quota system of some kind. The following are some of the inequalities I can think of:

1. Inequality in social upbringing: The community one is brought up in, the neighborhood and the kinds of kiths and kin one interacts with during early years is very important in shaping up a person both intellectually as well as socially.
2. Economic inequality: Not everyone can afford a good school.
3. Inequality in opportunities: Many opportunities are dependent on the locality one lives in.
4. Inequality in teachers: Teachers come in all grades and many in the govt. schools has the worst teachers!
5. Inequality in resources: Not every school is funded at the same level.

So, a given student could be subjected any of the above inequalities or combinations there of. Given the existence of such inequalities, it is only fair that we as parents and citizens of this country put together a system that attempts to compensate such inequalities so that all future citizens get a fair chance to get them educated. Now you might ask why wouldn’t we create enough colleges to meet the demand and done away with the quota system? The reality is that we can’t create enough colleges since the resources are limited and the demand pattern changes over years and thus the educational system may not be able to react that fast and meet the demand on a year over year basis. In addition, even if you can create enough colleges there will still be competition due to the quality of the colleges. So, there will always be a need for a quota system so long as there exists one or more inequalities…

Any quota system that we come up with must keep, I think, the following principles/philosophies in mind:

1. System must be fair to every citizens (theoretically)
2. Practical difficulties cannot be the basis for fairness or law
3. No system (or law/policy) can be relevant forever (and thus must be revised periodically)
4. It cannot violate the fundamentals of the constitution
5. It must promote competitiveness among future citizens and NOT angst
6. A poor and/or socially backward citizen must be treated as such regardless of the caste & creed they belong to (since economic & social backwardness doesn’t discriminate and affects every citizen regardless!). Why not? Is there a caste system for collecting taxes?

I believe that the educational quota system has two distinct components to it that needs to be separated and they are:

1. "Opportunity" to educate oneself
2. "Finance" required to educate oneself (money)

Someone (say Student A) going to one of the top schools of this country already have the opportunity for better education but might still need the economic assistance(Finance) to help thru the college education but not the quota (Opportunity) while someone else (say Student B) might be able to afford the college expense(Finance) but might not have had the "Opportunity" to go to one of the better schools of this country. So, the govt. needs to help Student A with "Finance" and Student B with the "Opportunity" (quota).

Using the above reasoning it is possible to classify all of our students into ONE of the following 4 categories:

A. People who need both the Opportunity AND Financial Assistance. [ low income groups in both towns and villages living in non-urban areas]

B. People who need NEITHER the Opportunity NOR the Finance. [Like most of our kids!!}

C. People who need the Opportunity but NOT the Fiancial Assistance (example, Kids of rich farmers and businessmen who are financially sound but still socially backwarded)

D. People who need Financial Assistance but NOT the Opportunity. [low/middle income families in towns who is able to afford a good school education but
cannot afford the college education]

The above scheme will accommodate pretty much everyone’s need BUT requires that the govt. split the opportunity and the financial aspects of the education system. So everybody pays the true cost of their education and people who cannot afford it will apply to the government separately for financial assistance.

The "Opportunity" to educate will also require drastic changes in the way we evaluate our students on their educational performance. There are plenty of ways that other countries have accomplished this to make sure that students from the best schools of this country and students from the typical govt school are not put in the same bucket.... we can go into specifics later...But this is one of the inequalities that must be addressed since inequalities among schools
are not the fault of the students but of us.

In addition, a set of policy must be drawn that specifically addresses each of the inequalities, mentioned above, not addressed by just introducing the above scheme (I will address this in s separate thread). I believe that the above scheme could be valid for ever (since they are generic) but the policies & operationalization rules that we would come up with to implement this scheme and address the rest of the inequalities must be revised periodically based on data gathered over the year and refine the policy accordingly on an ongoing basis.

I hope the above scheme makes sense to you all. I would love to hear both your opinion on this scheme as well as other ideas you may have to address this issue...
Sincerely

Raj
What I say is just my view and I am sure you have one that is better!

Is the Quota System (Educational) Unconstitutional?

What is wrong with the current quota system? Here are some of the issues that I can think of with the current system.


I belong to BC and grew up in a agricultural coolie family and so did my brothers and most of them are NOT educated, backwarded and poor!, to say the least. Do you think that it is fair for their kids (who are going to govt. schools in a village) to compete with my kids who are going to international schools and are already way ahead of my brothers' kids in all aspects of schooling?


How is it fair to put my kids with my brothers' in the same BC bucket? Similar logic can be applied to many of my classmates belonging to BC and myself. Similar logic can also be applied to all caste categories.


I used to have a good friend of mine who had almost the same background as me but didn't get the help of our govt. since he was of FC category!!! Is that fair? I know personally that he hated both the government and the beneficiaries of the current scheme!! What do you think he would tell his Children?


I met a child of one of my classmate for the first time, he was 8 yrs old and out on no context he asked me if I was a brahmin!! Just like that!! My classmate is not alone. I think the majority of those who deserved the help of a quota system of some kind but did not because of the caste based system would have done this to their children!


My kids have no clue what a caste is!!


So, the caste based system must be eliminated because:

1. If is unfair to current beneficiaries (see the example above)
2. It is unfair to folks who are NOT currently being benefitted (like my friend)
3. It is against the spirit of the quota system (to help all in need of help)
4. It is divisive (segregates people)
5. It is degenerative (it is a shame that everyone wants them to be categorized as lower caste)
6. It is unconstitutional (see below as to why)
7. It is shameful (my daughters have no clue what a caste is. I would love to see our society get rid of this categorization so that the notion of caste vanishes from this earth. So far I have managed it without giving religious and caste information to my daughters and their school!! I would definiltely have hard time explaining this stupid thing to them and I hope to get rid of it at least for my family!!)
8. It is a reflection of shallow thinking of our leaders. It probably made sense to do this for one or two decades after the independence but it should have been replaced with a better system long time ago.

Why is it unconstitutional?

The current policy is completely against Article 15 (1) & (2) as well as the Directive Principles of our constitution which very clearly states that state cannot discriminate purely based on religion or caste. But unfortunately they also added Article 15(4) as an exclusion, which to me is a contradiction of 15(1) and (2)(and thus violates the basic tenets of the law!). It is this 15(4) that the governments have been misusing it for 60 years... So it is a shallow thinking from the folks who created the constitution as well as the folks who have been interpreting it for 60 years and us, the citizens... We ought to think that the citizens of 21st century can think better than their predecessors and come up with a better solution than the one with so many flaws!!!

Keep your thinking machine on and I am sure we would find better options that our future generations can be proud of!

Note: I read the Supreme Court's judgement on the quota case earlier this year (2008) and felt that the court is indeed correct and it is a shame that the lawyers representing the litigants failed to win! I think that they could have won the case if the had done their home work! I will write on this seperately!!

Thanks

Raj

What I say is just my view and I am sure you have one that is better!

Act on your thoughts! You will make a difference!

Act on your thoughts! You will make a difference!

If there is one thing we can do for our country then that must be living up to our civic responsibilities!

A Japanese proverb says: "Vision without action is a day dream. Action without vision is a nightmare"

What a powerful statement! It will absolutely make sense to any logical mind. People like me and you hate the status quo in India, the bureaucracy, the corruption, the lawlessness etc. and have tons of ideas as to how to solve them. We are very confident that if only the people or the govt. would listen to us, things would be different and we can create the ideal society of our liking. But in reality nothing happens and we shall wonder why?

We do have a decent size of the population that we call the elitists, the educated, the intellectuals, the bureaucracy etc that should have made a big difference in this country’s advancement. But apparently they make no difference to the development path of India. When I say development of India, I don’t necessarily mean the military or the budget size of India. I meant the overall quality of life, liberty and dignity of Indian citizens. We love to claim that we are the best and yet we would be hard pressed to convince someone of the same if they had taken a look at a typical neighborhood of any of our metros or have seen the way the bureaucracy treats its citizens. If not why then so many Indians are so keen to migrate to foreign countries? I am sure you will be tempted to deny that but ask yourself this: What % of our fellow Indians would apply for foreign citizenship, if YOU have the authority to issue a citizenship to all developed countries of the world? I think we should roughly know and agree on the answer. No point in denying the truth.

I think the reason the intellectuals of this nation (like you and me!) are not able to make a big difference to this country is that we are mostly day dreamers! We make not enough effort long enough to realize our dreams. We are idea mongers but unfortunately we want someone else to implement our ideas! Why would they? Wouldn’t they rather implement their own instead of ours? That is exactly what our politicians and bureaucrats are doing.

IMHO, this is the biggest hump that we, the intellectual crowds of India, must overcome if we were to be of any impact. We must find a way to live up to our civic responsibilities without giving up to lame excuses such as, “I am too busy at work”, “It won’t work in India”, “I have family commitments”, “My workplace is too far”, “I have a better idea but no one would listen” and the story goes on and on!. We must give up finding excuses and start acting on our dreams! We can transform this country in only 20 years if we can get only 10% of our citizens to live up to their civic responsibilities! I mean civic responsibilities in broader sense and include politics as it is the thing that binds us together and is integral part of our community living!

Mr. Gandhi once observed that "The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused". If you truly believe in freedom, liberty and democracy then we must help each other and live up to the expectations of Mr. Gandhi.

Raj

What I say is just my view and I am sure you have one that is better!

Purpose of this Blog!!!

Hello,
I planned to use this page to document some of my experiences in trying to live up to my responsibilities and dealing with the egoistic bureaucracy! In the process, you may learn a thing or two from my experience (good and bad!) and more importantly I wanted to show the educated folks that you can make a difference if you act on your thoughts!

Thanks
Raj