`Information is as volatile an issue as land'

`Information is as volatile an issue as land'
PAMELA PHILIPOSE

The phone rings incessantly. Aruna Roy is quickly realising that with the Magsaysay Award comes instant celebritydom, especially in a city like Delhi that celebrates public recognition with a rare fervour. But Roy herself has a very no-nonsense attitude to such honours. ``Just because I speak English, I may seem to be the leader. But I am not. Our small group of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathna (MKSS) volunteers pool our ideas and experiences. Whatever we have achieved is because of this. This award is not mine alone,'' she says.

In fact, Chuni Singh, a small farmer from Rajasthan, went along with Roy to receive the award in Manila a few days ago. Roy relates how he told the Asian Development Bank officials in Manila that they must insist on transparency on how every paise they give our government is spent. ``You do that and leave the rest to us,'' he told them. PAMELA PHILIPOSE interviewed Roy in Delhi. Excerpts...

Q: Why is something as simple as ``access to information'' such a loaded concept?

WHILE the city dweller is bombarded with information of all kinds, things are different for rural folk. They get their information from a newspaper here or there. There is the limited presence of television -- mostly Doordarshan. There is the radio, the BBC Hindi service is taken particularly seriously. Then there is information that trickles in through word of mouth. But crucial information that impacts directly on people's lives is just not freely available -- that is, information related to state functioning. Information, and the sharing of it, thus becomes a vested interest. For instance, something as innocuous as a list naming people below the poverty line could include many who are not supposed to figure in it. Access to such information means many remarkable things -- including the cessation of corruption.

This access also brings about a crucial change at the psychological level. It ensures the principle of equality. It is extremely difficult for most people in positions of power to accept that the man on the street is their equal. Once, I remember, we had asked for some information on some engineering feature of an anicut. The bureaucrat shot back, ``So you think you can take decisions on engineering as well.''

Information is a very volatile issue -- as volatile as land, or caste. What is not realised is the terrible thirst for it. That's why, when the MKSS started sharing information in our first public meeting in Kot Kirana, in Pali district, Rajasthan, we drew huge crowds. It was December 94.

Q: What really sparked off the MKSS's Right to Information campaign?

FOR years, ever since I've lived in Rajasthan, I've heard people, poor people, keep using the word ``famine'' in their conversations. It intrigued me, this use of an English word. Then I realised that what they were referring to were drought relief works. These government-run projects don't give people more than 30 work days a year, but they are still very important to their lives. The MKSS, which was set up in 90, started doing wage studies. The first issue we took up was minimum wages. There were two hunger strikes organised around the issue in 90-91. We are a small organisation but what we have been able to do is to identify important issues at the right time and focus on specificities.

All we were asking for then was a minimum wage of Rs 1,500 for public works. It was a pittance, but every argument was used against giving it. For instance, they said that government labour does sub-standard work. This is nonsense. It is lack of proper governmental supervision that is responsible for shoddy construction. Between 90 and 93, we had innumerable run-ins with the government. We were told that we were ignorant, biased, and liars. This provoked one MKSS ativist to comment, ``Jab tak kagaz bahar nahi nikale, hum har samay jhoote rahege (unless we have access to papers, we will be regarded as liars). It was this statement that made us aware of the issue.

Q: But don't caste and other factors create problems in accessing information?

LET me give you one instance, involving caste. There was this man called Kesar Singh, from Bagmal village, Assan panchayat. He came to our public meeting at Jawaja and explained that he himself was struggling to get his dues, amounting to some 16,000 rupees, from his own panchayat for supplying stones for a local project. We told him that we would take up the case, if we can access information on the entire project. The moment the sarpanch of his village heard about this, he said that the panchayat would pay Kesar Singh if he doesn't go to the MKSS. Simultaneously, the jati panchayat of the Rawat community summoned Kesar Singh to a meeting where he was told that brothers cannot destroy brothers. Kesar Singh asked in reply, whybrotherhood didn't work when two or three people band together to rob others in the community through their corruption. The meeting ended in chaos.

Q: Did the enactment of the Freedom of Information Bill in Rajasthan make a difference?

YES and no. Many problems remain. Now, the bureaucrats don't say no, they can't say no, but there is a provision in the Act that stipulates that information can be withheld ``in public interest''. This clause, for instance, has been evoked by a gram sevak in a village called Thana, in Bhilwara district. He has refused to give information in writing.

The problem is that there is a lot of fraud in local public works. I have even been told that the Janawat panchayat has allegedly passed a resolution that sensitive information must not be shared.

Q: Panchayats are usually perceived as pro-people. But all this seems contrary to that perception.

PANCHAYATS, as they are today, are the lowest unit in government and is therefore an important source for siphoning funds. If you look at the budget of rural development, whether of the state or Centre, you can see that at least 50 per cent (some say 80 per cent) does not reach the people it is meant for. The loot may be shared ``democratically'' or ``feudally'' but it is still loot. That's why they say that all this talk of jan pratinidhi (people's representation) works only until a man becomes sarpanch. Then ``jan'' is thrown to one side and ``pratinidhi'' to the other!

Q: What are the problems in the Freedom of Information Bill 2000 pending before Parliament?

THE Bill, drafted by the Press Council, included every person who dealt with public money, including trade unions, public and private institutions, as well as the government. Under the new Bill, only the government is required to provide information, even though it is privatising so rapidly. Secondly, we had wanted reasons to be given for decisions taken and therefore access to files detailing this. But the government was not willing to do this. Thirdly, there is no punitive action and without punitive action, we may as well not have such a Bill. We had also wanted an appellate committee outside government. Finally, I have a problem with the nomenclature. We wanted a ``Right to Information Bill''. They've made it a ``Freedom of Information Bill'' -- there is a great difference of emphasis between the two.

Q: What are the links between the right to information and the right to freedom of expression?

THEY are both linked and separate. Both are enshrined in Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. Basically, if you can have access to information and not be allowed to express it, it is of no use to anyone. Conversely, if you can express yourself but not have access to information, what good is it?

Q: You've said somewhere that the middle-class is now quite bankrupt and the country will have to look to the people for direction in governance.

THE middle cass has moved away from the larger reality of India and does not live in a day-to-day relationship with the vast majority of Indians. Then how can it speak on behalf of the people? How can we leave decision making in the hands of a small group who can't look beyond their own self-interest? The middle-class has not deepened or widened Indian democracy. It has only seen what it can take out of democracy for its own ends, and has given very little to it. The poor, in contrast, know that no matter what, they need democracy in order to survive and therefore are committed to a real, lasting, participatory democracy.