1) Do all citizens in India have internet to use this law?

This is the most common wrong question we get on proposed TCP-GN. We call it wrong question, because the proposed Gazette 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 proposal application. And whether he has internet or not, he must visit Talati’s (Lekhpal, Patwari, Village Officer, VO) (lowest official beneath tehsildar, usually one amongst 4-5 villages and one amongst 4-5 wards, who keep land records ) 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. And even if a person has internet, it would make no difference. So the law can be used by all citizen-voters of India. If he / she has internet connection, he / she can read the affidavits with ease. But then so can someone without internet --- he / she only needs to ask someone who has internet connection.

2) We already have the system to handle complaint and grievances of public and in the last court but the problem is lack of awareness of the citizens.

The diagnosis is very wrong. You are blaming victims. Essentially, you say that "victims lack awareness and so problems exist". This is like saying that women get raped and reason is lack of awareness in women, and so women are guilty. I strongly oppose these "blame the victim" logic. The reason why courts etc have failed is rampant corruption in judges and rampant nepotism in judges. We see that Supreme Court Chief justice Khare gave bail to convicted pedophiles and enabled them to escape out of India. And we saw that Justice Ahmedi reduced charges against accused in Bhopal cases. These cases are NOT due to lack of awareness as you say, but only due to rampant bribery in Honorable Supreme Court Justices. And the judges are rampantly taking bribes because we citizens dont have procedures to expel judges and we citizens dont have procedures to execute judges using majority vote. I have proposed 100% Constitutionally valid procedures using which we citizens can expel, imprison or even execute (corrupt) Ministers, IAS, IPS and judges using majority vote . Now question is how can these procedures be enacted? CITIZENS VOICE is easy tool to get these procedures enacted. Thats where power of TCP is. TCP is a tool to get several laws enacted.

3) How will the complaint spread and how much time it will take to spread ?

It depends on how beneficial the complaint/proposal is to the common people and masses. A complaint which is of lakhs of people like Beating of sleeping people at Ramlila maidan on June 4,2011 if filed with demand of removal of police commissioner will spread like fire and lakhs of people will come to add their names at patwari (Village Officer) office.

Now internet is available to about 4% to 5% of population of India. Say 5 crores of 116 crores commons have internet. Out of these 5 crores, some 4.90 crores are kind of people, who would oppose even giving 1% of PM's servers' diskspace to commons. But some 10 lakh people in these 5 crores do care for commons. So when these 10 lakh well to do people with internet see a pro-common affidavit on web, they will try to propagate it using (i)pamphlets (ii)word of mouth (iii)newspaper ad, and thus the information will reach 5 crore to 10 crore of commons. And if the affidavit has pro-common points, then these 5 crore commons will spread the information to remaining 110 crore commons. So publicity route for pro-common affidavit is : PM's website -> 10 lakh pro-common in from top 5cr of India -> pamphlets, meetings, word of mouth -> 5 crore commons -> word of mouth -> 100 cr commons.

So the process is not restricted to those who have internet. And even if he has internet, no one can read 100s of affidavits that would come in a day. So eventually, the process is run by word of mouth only aided by pamphlets etc.

4) Is this law unconstitutional?

This law is not unconstitutional as it is not binding on the Lokpal chairperson,etc., to resign if there are crores of persons supporting another lokpal chairperson although no one can stand such public pressure. So this law does not go against any law of the constitution. If you think RTR is unconstitutional, which clause is of RTR violates which article of Constitution in your opinion?

5) The PM cannot pass this law just by notification without any legislation. If it does not require any legislation then why not will any forthcoming PM/CM remove or amend it by a new notification or signature? How will you introduce a draft as PM when 90% of MPs are corrupt? Will they not oppose any draft of public interest and remove the PM?

The PM and 2-8 top leaders using anti-defection law can change any law within hours, and NO MP would oppose. eg just before May-2009 election, PM and top leaders forced MPs to pass about 12 legislations in one day !! And PM (Cabinet) has powers to declare emergency and set aside every law and whole of Constitution. It happened once and can happen again. At the end of the day, support to a law-draft comes from -- do people find it useful? . If people find a law immensely useful, then PM will realize that cost of cancelling that law-draft will be open invitation to violent actions from citizens. This is one reason why I want mass-movement to enact RTR. If a law comes via agitation from citizens, it will become more difficult for any PM to cancel it.

6) 40-50% people do not come out to votes. Then, how will this system work?

In 2004, some 60% people voted. And in 2009, voting % was round about the same. And people dont vote much because they see all winnable candidates alike - equally good or equally bad. That was in one day. If your see the procedures of recall, it is different from the voting procedure. The approvals can be given any day. Voting is done in one day . And considering the fact that 5-10%, people in list are either away from their constituency or dead, actual approvals in RTR procedures can be upto 90 % , that is more than in voting procedures. And in recall, threat of recall alone is sufficient to reduce corruption.

And the percentage of approvals will also depend on whether the affidavit is directly beneficial for the people or not. Example, if someone puts a affidavit saying to make me PM, then maybe no one will support that but if it is written in affidavit that Narendra Modi (or some well known person doing good public work) should be made PM, then the number of approvals will be in crores.

7) What is meaning of term "may"? What is the meaning of "PM may resign"?

If 50 cr citizens register YES on a draft, and if PM decides not sign that draft and not to resign, that it will be the last PM who takes such decision. The resulting events will ensure that no PM in future will defy citizens. eg in 1650 British King defied Parliament which represented only 4% of citizens. Due to events which followed, no King in UK has dared to defy Parliament since then.

The word "may" is ensure that the clauses are constitutionally valid !! It is to ensure that Constitution-bhagats, who might claim that proposed law is unconstitutional, can be easily asked to shut up. Otherwise, the words "37 cr " carry a force more potent than nukes.

Basically, I have figured out a way of establishing increasing democractic-ness in India without any change in any law and any change in Constitution. And that way is to draft the phrase as "if over 37 cr voters approve then officer may or need not ....". Hell, if 37 cr voters approve, the officer in clause will obey , or else the next officer who will take the place of the deceased one will obey. I wont worry about possibility of officer such as PM not obeying 37 cr citizens. I would let him worry about it. All in all, possibility that MPs will use "may" against wish of 37 cr commons is academic=useless in nature

8) What about those issues where interests of the people clash with the interests of the nation ?

We have not come across even one hypothetical law-draft which people at large will support and it goes against interest of nation. After all, nation is people. Can you cite a law-draft which you think 52% will register YES and goes against interest of nation? Why would citizens under-pay officers? If so how many employers offer Rs 0 salary to employees? Why not? Because every employer knows than no one can work for below market rates.

If there is any issue or law of the district or state which clashes with the interests of the nation, then the citizens of the nation, can remove that issue or law a majority approval using TCP.

9) Do you know what is the literacy in US and how much is in India?

You are forgetting that US people get a lot better health care, education, other infrastructure. They have access to Internet, telephones better than we have access to food and shelter. You cant get a bunch of US people bribed with tea and snacks to vote against someone because they are well aware and well developed unlike people here.

Above is a senseless question asked 10s of time. The recall procedures in US have been in since 1830s when literacy was below 5% in voters. In most US states, even as late as 1900s, most US voters had low literacy and awareness. The recall works on trivial principles --- commons tolerate minor irregularities (like police chief taking bribes from some gambling den) and react furiously against major crime (like police chief supporting career criminal). And so despite low literacy in past, recall ensured low corruption police chiefs throughout US history.

US has lot of education etc because corruption has been low in US since 1760s, and corruption has been low mainly because of RTR (and JurySys, a similar concept). And bribery is common in US where RTR doesnt exist. eg US doesnt have RTR over Senators, and so most Senators in US are corrupt.

The citizens will approve some alternate candidate ONLY if and when

1. Existing PM is utterly hopeless.

2. Alternative is far far superior.

And most people will approve someone who has proved himself as district/state level. E.g. Majority of UPites know that Mayawati is corrupt and should be expelled ASAP. If they had replacement procedures, most UPites would approve some IAS, IPS or Mayor who has proved himself at District level.

10) Will language not be a barrier for spreading of the complaint/proposal?

This language issue is not a flaw of the proposal. It is because India is multi lingual. And PM/CMs etc are always free to put official translation of the affidavits, which they need not do for each affidavit but can do when an affidavit gets a threshold of say 1% . And this is not a law making system, where translation would be of paramount importance. This is opinion gathering system only.