Rights Duty Confusion & Military Mindset in RWA

Chandra Nath

October 20, 2016

buildings in the colony for which there are no approved sanction AT ALL?
So, RWA has NO RIGHT to regulate. Neither
do they have a DUTY to regulate. Had there been
a DUTY, it should have come out of a statute and
there are NO statute demanding such duty. If you
think I am wrong, please point it out. I challenge
you.
In any case, where do the RWA get their power
or authority? From WE the people. If I do not
have the DUTY to regulate, then RWA has NO
duty to regulate either.
Similarly, they do not have the POWER either, because We, the people do not have the
POWER to regulate. They do not have the AUTHORITY to regulate either. ( Authority is the
legal Power!)
Our DUTY is limited to report the violation
to the regulator. Hence, RWA may derive their
DUTY to report violation from WE the people
i.e to report the violation to the regulator!
Why this confusion in our minds? Good question. The Rulers think that they are like the Bde
Hq and the individual owners are like Regimental
officers with duty / obligations to follow the orders
/ directions of the Bde Hq. Bde Hq has DUTY to
direct the people under them.
Similar thinking is at work when it comes to
AWHO. This military mindset make them think
that AWHO is like Div Hq and Bde Hq is subordinate to Div Hq. This military mindset is responsible for inaction against AWHO. AWHO is a
different society who has taken on the responsibility to be Builder/promoter ( as per statute duly
passed by the law makers.) Builder/Promoter

s some of the Rulers have been asserting

that they have a RIGHT to regulate compliance with local body regulations, let us,
for arguments sake, accept that the RWA has the
right to regulate! In the first place, regulation
is NOT a right but a duty. Now, what is the difference? I am glad that you asked. It is very
important that we understand the difference.
A right is a negation of duty. When you say
you have a right, you are essentially saying that
you have NO duty to regulate. Unfortunately,
regulation is a DUTY and NOT a RIGHT.

A duty or a legal obligation is that which

one ought or ought not to do. Duty
and right are correlative terms. When
a right is invaded, a duty is violated. 1
If X has a right against Y that he shall
stay off the formers land, the correlative
(and equivalent) is that Y is under a duty
toward X to stay off the place. ibid
Whereas X has a right or claim that Y,
the other man, should stay off the land,
he himself has the privilege of entering
on the land; or, in equivalent words, X
does not have a duty to stay off. ibid
So, if RWA has a DUTY to regulate, what were
they doing when some of the members were violating the approved sanction? If RWA has a DUTY
to regulate, why are they sleeping when there are
nath@computer.org
1 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. Some Fundamental Legal
Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. Yale Law
Journal, 23(1):1659, Nov. 1913.

has duty towards the owners and derived duty

(through the owners) towards RWA. So the relation between RWA and AWHO is not that of Bde
Hq and Div Hq. If AWHO has a DUTY towards
RWA, it is for RWA to demand that AWHO fulfill these duties. Who dictates these DUTIES of
the Builder/Promoter towards Owners and RWA?
The statutes! When the one who owes a duty towards RWA fails in this duty, RWA is duty bound
to demand fulfillment of this duty towards the
owners. Failure to demand is failure to fulfill the
fiduciary duties towards the owners. Any owner
can take RWA to task for failing in its fiduciary
duties.
The confusion in the minds of the rulers of
RWA is what is causing them to consider the regulation of the owners as paramount right/duty
while actually forgetting or failing to demand fulfillment of the DUTY from the builder/promoter.
The whole tendency to regulate is the military
mindset problem. No statute demands such duty
from RWA. There is no rights / duty derived from
the owners either.
You may counter any of my contentions. Feel
free. Rather than feeling hurt, I would thank you
if you question it and bring out the real truth and
help RWA clarify their RIGHT / DUTY confusion!

clearer perception and livelier impression

of truth, produced by its collision with error. ibid
If any opinion is compelled to silence,
that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this
is to assume our own infallibility. ...
Though the silenced opinion be an error,
it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject
is rarely or never the whole truth, it is
only by the collision of adverse opinions
that the remainder of the truth has any
chance of being supplied ... Even if the
received opinion be not only true, but the
whole truth; unless it is suffered to be,
and actually is, vigorously and earnestly
contested, it will, by most of those who
receive it, be held in the manner of a
prejudice, with little comprehension [of ]
or feeling [for] its rational grounds. ibid
Stupidity is much the same all the world
over. A stupid persons notions and feelings may confidently be inferred from
those which prevail in the circle by which
the person is surrounded. Not so with
those whose opinions and feelings are an
emanation from their own nature and
faculties.ibid

If all mankind minus one, were of one

opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no
more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind. 2

Now, wear your thinking cap and you be the

impartial judge on the issue. We, the People, can
only quote J Scalia of US Supreme Court:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as
the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than
those who hold it. If the opinion is right,
they are deprived of the opportunity of
exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they
lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the
2 John

I respectfully, and indeed diffidently,

dissent Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M.
Martinac Co., 520 U.S. 875 (1997) (dissenting).
Chandra Nath is a veteran who currently works
in the intersection of Security, Privacy, Law, Jurisprudence and Philosophy.

Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)