Rajasthan’s battle to know

And if any evidence is required to establish that all governments have something to hide, at all levels, from the panchayat upwards, the response from the state’s politicians and bureaucrats, would serve admirably. Despite tall claims, the general approach has been to stall rather than facilitate this right.

It is now almost the five years since then chief minister Bhairon Singh Shekhawat promised the right to information in the State Assembly. It’s a year since the Congress, which promised it in its election manifesto, took over. A law to enforce theright is still awaited.

The campaign for the right to information, led by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) under noted social activitist Aruna Roy, is now being resumed with a jan sunvayi (public hearing) to be held on December 18 in a village under Rajsamand district near Udaipur.

Public hearings are the core of the struggle for right to information. It has been held on issues like minimum wages; compensation and rehabilitation for dam oustees and general oppression. For people living in far flung villages, the government is a remote entity. All they are told are rules and orders which they are forced to accept.

The beginning of a change was made in 1994. Public hearings held in Ajmer, Bhilwara, Rajsamand and Pali districts revealed large-scale bungling in funds meant for works to be carried out in panchayats for drought relief.

The method used to do this was simple. Payments were made on piece rate system, not on the basis of number of hours of work. This led to manipulation at every point. Themeasurement of work was always less than what was actually done. More significantly, the number of workers shown on muster rolls was always much larger than was really the case. A larger number of workers for a particular job meant a smaller share for each. The share of workers who existed only on paper was pocketed by the persons in charge, the sarpanch, panchayat secretary and contractor.

The scam was exposed when the bills, muster rolls and vouchers presented by the panchayat office were read out at the public hearings. Panchayat secretaries from then on started refusing to show the papers. “These are official documents and, therefore, secret,” they claimed. In Ajmer, they went on strike against this “harassment”.

That such “secrecy” was against the avowed public interest was evident. It was equally clear in other cases. In the case of Bisalpur Dam, built for water supply to Jaipur, the resettlement policy for displaced persons was not revealed to the affected people. Public hearings helpedmobilise these people to safeguard their interests. In Alwar, public hearing focused on state-sponsored industrialisation which has led to mindless exploitation of the already depleted groundwater reserves. There were many other instances.

By early 1995, several public hearings had been held and corruption cases lodged. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, who was the chief minister then, realised the populistappeal of the issue. On April 5, 1995, he declared in the Assembly his government’s intention to grant the right to information to the people of Rajasthan. Shekhawat declared that anyone who wanted details of development works carried out in rural areas could get it from the panchayats after paying the photocopying charges. Further, in case any irregularity is detected, appropriate action would be taken.

Having made the assurance, Shekhawat promptly forgot about it. A year later, the MKSS held a dharna at Beawar to press for the right to information. It lasted for 40 days. A dharna was also held in Jaipur aroundthe same time. The government, a day after dharna started, said it would allow the right to inspect documents but not provide a copy. The MKSS rejected this as meaningless. The dharna received tremendous reponse from the villagers.

The state government finally set up a committee under then additional chief secretary Arun Kumar to look into the issue. The MKSS lifted its dharna. The jubilation was shortlived. The committee submitted its report but the government kept it secret.

In 1997 another dharna was organised, this time near the secretariat at Jaipur. It went on for a marathon 53 days, in the height of summer. The dharna was a runaway success for the activists and an unmitigated embarrassment for the state government. Later, the government revealed that unknown to anyone, it had already issued a gazette notification granting the right to information.

The gazette notification turned out to be a farce. In Ajmer, Mazdoor Kisan Morcha, an offshoot of MKSS, approached the panchayat in Harmada 65 times,all through ’97 and ’98, but was denied any information. The agitation continued.

In December 1998, the government changed. The Congress, realising that the agitation for right to information probably had a role in the BJP’s ouster, promised effective legislation. A delegation of the State Campaign for People’s Right to Information (SCPRI) met the new chief minister Ashok Gehlot, who agreed to set up a committee under Professor Vijay Shanker Vyas, the chairman of the governing board of the Institute for Development Studies. As it turned out, he was to be the only non-official on the committee which was to be chaired by a secretary-level IAS officer, P.N. Bhandari.

Professor Vyas rejected the offer and the SCPRI lodged a protest with the CM, who requested that the committee be given a chance. The committee then came up with the view that the state had no jurisdiction to make a law granting the right to information as it was not listed in any of the Lists in the Second Schedule of the Constitution and thusfell under the Centre’s jurisdiction. This was view taken by Attorney General Soli Sorabjee who was on the Shourie committee set up by the Centre.

In response, SCPRI pointed out that the state government was only opening up its own departments and cited the Supreme Court ruling stating that the right to information was inherent in the Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression and the state government could make a law enabling its citizens to enjoy the right. The committee said it would examine their contention.

Finally, SCPRI decided that since it was people’s movement, it was best to take the matter to the people. Meetings were held in the six divisional headquarters, culminating in a meeting at Jaipur. Public opinion and informed legal opinion converged on the point that a law is absolutely necessary for the purpose.

The Bhandari Committee finally accepted the SCPRI view. It asked the organisation to prepare a draft Bill which was submitted in August. The committee examined it and gave itsown recommendations by September. More bureaucratic stalling followed. The recommendations, formulated by a committee of secretaries in the state government, was handed over to the standing committee of secretaries.

The government said that after the standing committee gives its report, it would go to th Cabinet. It may then be given to a sub-committee of the Cabinet before a Bill can be finalised.Meanwhile, the people are impatient for their right to information. The December 18 public hearing symbolises this impatience.