MGP was hoping that as a result of this type of campaign, few more dormant activists will be motivated to support the cause of saving Mysore from further deterioration. Already, few have come forward to join this campaign. The Save Mysore campaign has led to a meeting of MCC officials with some of the volunteers of the campaign. This meeting was presided over by Kumar Naik, the Deputy Commissioner and generated the usual assurances and promises to solve the city’s problems. We do not want some false promises or assurances. We want systemic changes. The vision of Save Mysore Campaign is to help the residents of Mysore to get over their apathy and demand for the implementation of 74th Amendment of the Constitution (dealing with the decentralization of power to the cities) which will lead to structural changes in the management of civic problems. Looks like our authorities. MGP is optimistic of reaching the goal of one lakh signature by September and also erecting one thousand banners. But this campaign will not stop just with these two steps. These are just the means to motivate the people to get involved. Backed by the strength of one lakh signatures, we will work with the political leaders of all parties to bring about structural changes at the city. Thus the Save Mysore Campaign has just started and will continue we reach the goal. WHAT DOES MGP STAND FOR? (Feb 27, 2005) (Is MGP for the development of Mysore or is it anti-development? Is MGP is merely obstructionist or is it constructive also? What is MGP’s philosophy?) Maj.Gen.S.G. Vombatkere (Retd.), President, MGP and Prof. S.K. Ananda Thirtha, Secretary, MGP Mysore Grahakara Parishat started as an organization dedicated to the protection of the interests of the consumers of Mysore City and its surroundings. Even though its original constitution did not explicitly include solving civic and environmental problems as part of its objectives, many of MGP’s early efforts were in these fields. People objected to MGP’s foray into these fields, saying that civic and environmental problems were not “consumer” problems, but the organization always felt that it was not bound by an unduly constricting interpretation of the word “consumer”. Civic and environmental problems arise when government officials who are paid from the taxes paid by the public are derelict in the performance of their duties and as a result the public suffer. So in a larger sense, they are certainly consumer problems. It is heartening to see that the courts are also veering towards this wider interpretation. In earlier days, they were of the opinion that one can complain against deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act only when there is direct payment for the service, but now the Supreme Court has gradually relaxed this condition and expanded the scope of the Act to include
statutory services provided by government departments and agencies. Over the last decade or so, the markets have opened up, there is more competition, merchants have become more consumer-friendly and the problems consumers faced with private providers of goods and services have become less acute. Further, with the advent of consumer courts, they can get their grievances redressed much more easily. While private businesses were becoming more people-friendly, the opposite was happening with government departments; they were getting progressively less responsive to the public and more oppressive. If one has problems with government departments, letters and appeals are not of much effect and the only way out is to approach the courts. But this solution is expensive and time-consuming. Civic and environmental problems (which are mainly caused by dereliction of duty by government agencies) were and still are very difficult to tackle individually and need the efforts and resources of an organization. Over a period, these problems overtook the traditional “consumer problems” as the major area of work for MGP. This change of focus was formalized by the General Body of MGP which duly modified the objectives of MGP to explicitly include these areas. While there are no doubts about the objectives of MGP, questions are being raised every now and then about the policy it is adopting to achieve these objectives. One specific question that has been raised is whether MGP is for the development of Mysore or whether it is anti-development. Another specific objection is that MGP is merely obstructionist and that it is not constructive. The purpose of this note is to outline the philosophy of the present executive committee in general and address these issues in particular. This note does not signal any change in philosophy of MGP but is merely a formal explication of the philosophy of previous executive committees which is being continued now. CONCERNING CONSUMER PROBLEMS In the beginning, MGP was fighting cases on behalf of consumers. This was because MGP wanted to familiarize itself with the actual operation of the Consumer Protection Act. It became clear very quickly that there is nothing complicated about the CPA and that it empowers an ordinary citizen to argue his own case without any lawyer or any other intermediary. So now MGP merely guides consumers on how to file a case before the consumer courts and how to argue, but does not appear on behalf of consumers. Unfortunately, consumer courts are slowly becoming civil courts with more and more formality, making it difficult for the consumers to file and argue cases without such guidance. It is heartening that despite the increasing red tape, many consumers have filed cases on their own before the consumer courts, argued the cases themselves and won after receiving just a cursory guidance from MGP.