Whispers Forum

President Trump’s suggestion to PM Modi: “I leave Bangladesh to PM Modi”, is welcome. As per US media reports, some leaked files confirm US’s covert hand in destabilizing Bangladesh and overthrowing ex-PM Sheikh Hasina. The problem was created by Biden, who was supposedly close to Md. Yunus. Trump’s suggestion could, however, be a blessing-in-disguise for India to ward off China’s threat. Let me be more specific. The ruling dispensation in Bangladesh is an unelected, interim government, cosying up to China and Pakistan and receiving covert support from the ISI. China’s motive is to disturb the balance of power in the region by creating unrest in India. There is utter chaos in Bangladesh. It has lately hinted at even scrapping the “uneven” international border fencing deal with India struck by Sheikh Hasina. The Hindu and other religious minorities are being tortured and their places of worship vandalized. This could not be possible without the covert and overt support of the interim government. Sheikh Hasina is on extended stay in India. Restoring the status quo ante by her safe return to power is important. The question is : Should India intervene militarily to create conditions conducive for holding general elections in Bangladesh? Diplomatic efforts alone may not suffice amid escalating violence and growing radicalism. The army is divided into several sections owing allegiance to different political parties. Trump’s advice comes in handy. To follow up his offer to India to handle Bangladesh on its own, concrete action is needed. China has its eyes set on the Siliguri corridor (Chicken’s neck),a crucial link between the North-east and the rest of India. It is strategically important and sensitive. India faces the perennial danger of untrustworthy China cutting off the chicken’s neck. To neutralise the threat, India must consider annexing northern-most territory of Bangladesh bordering Siliguri corridor and convert chicken’s neck into an elephant’s neck. China took over Tibet. No country except India protested. President Trump advocates taking control of Panama canal, Canada and Greenland. Then, why should India lag behind in neutralizing the threat perception from China?
A K Saxena (Former civil servant)

The applicant submitted that after serving the chargesheet to certain officials, nothing has been beard so far and it is not known as to what happened to the chargesheets. He sought to know whether some major or minor penalty has been imposed or not and whether the embezzled amount in connivance with each other and on account of serious lapse on their part the loss caused to the State exchequer has been recovered. The PIO replied that the charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings, professional records etc. are all personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant appealed claiming that it related to a massive scam and records have been sought for in larger public interest. Upon being asked by the CIC as to whether the appellant was the informer/complainant based on which action initiated against the delinquent officials, he answered in negative. Considering the issue flagged by the appellant and in the light of larger public interest and a natural public expectations to know the broad outcome of a case which was in the public domain, the Respondent was directed by the CIC to inform the broad outcome of the final order passed on the chargesheet issued to the officials as also the final outcome of departmental disciplinary appeal as mentioned in the RTI application.
Comments
The copy of chargesheet and its outcome has often been sought by applicants. It has been debated whether it is a personal information and whether the same should be made available to the complainant or any other person.
Citation: Ram Lal Arora v. Executive Engineer (HQ), O/o Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Administration, CIC/ENGDP/A/2024/611452; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The opposition is trying to make an issue out of deportation of illegal immigrants by the USA to India and their handcuffing and shackling. Their logic is: shackling and handcuffing Indians who were illegal entrants to the USA is inhuman and a national humiliation. This is a misplaced argument. The USA is handcuffing and shackling the male passengers since they are in large numbers and there could be a worst case scenario wherein some of them may try to make desperate or violent attempts to overpower the crew while airborne at thousands of feet. It is to prevent such a possibility that the USA's law enforcement agencies are shackling the illegal migrants and handcuffing them. Seen from a purely security point of view, it makes sense because any such misguided attempt, if at all made, may endanger the life of the rest of the deportees, security personnel, pilots and crew and others.
V K Reddy

The RTI applicant had applied online on the Parivahan website (parivahan.gov.in) for issuing an NOC. On not getting a response, he filed an application under the RTI Act requesting to provide two duly stamped hardcopies of the NOC through post. The PIO replied that the NOC is approved today and the applicant can download the NOC from the website. The CIC observed that the appropriate reply has been furnished by the PIO. Noting that the PIO had abstained from the hearing despite being served the notice, the CIC admonished the conduct of the CPIO for remaining absent during the hearing.
Comments
It is a typical case where a citizen has used the power of RTI Act to make a government official perform a specific function beyond seeking information.
Citation :Keshav Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, CIC/STAUT/A/2023/649724; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com