Beyond Information: Breaching the Wall of State Inaction

Beyond Information: Breaching the Wall of State

Inaction

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan

Over the last five years the Right to Information movement in Rajasthan has developed into a spearhead which has opened up the possibility of a new kind of political activism, sown the seeds of fresh political alternatives, and has become part of an emerging political ideology. The people of Rajasthan have engaged the State in a historic struggle which has begun to withdraw the power structures of Governance. It has provided a vibrant new definition to democratic functioning, especially from the point of view of the poor and the oppressed, seized the initiative in the battle against corruption, and perhaps most importantly, pointed out that the framework of citizenship and democracy can be so defined that the ordinary, oppressed and poor can be at the nerve centre of governance. At the heart of this perception have been two sets of entitlements; emphasising people’s right to information, and its corollary – insisting on accountability of structures of the State.

This paper attempts to look at the possibilities and challenges which have emerged during the struggle for these twin entitlements.

In the middle of 1994 the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, a people’s organisation in central Rajasthan, made a breakthrough in their battle to ensure payment of minimum wages and fight corruption on Government sponsored public works and employment programmes. After years of fighting for people’s legitimate rights on these works, a simple but potent demand was put forth, demanding complete access to Government records. This included details of expenditure like bills, voucher and muster rolls of public works and employment programmes.

The demand for information is not new. What this campaign has done is to show how access to information is essential, for justice, as it is for survival. It is this perception which stimulated the process for searching for newer ways in which the struggle for one’s right acquire a sharper focus. The demand to access documents of Panchayat works was conceded in July 1997. The entitlement has been used with varying degrees of success in different places in Rajasthan. Today we can say with confidence that the right to information movement in Rajasthan has spread geographically and matured conceptually. This has resulted in the transformation of the abstract concept into a live political issue. People all over the state have also begun to define essential aspects of their own struggle in terms of right to information.

In central Rajasthan, the area where the MKSS works, the right to information order providing access to Panchayat works, has been intensively put to use. It has been an extremely effective tool in the struggle against corruption and the battle to procure entitlements of the poor. The public action that followed resulted in exposing corruption, attempts to recover defalcated funds and demand action against the guilty. Innumerable cases of fraud have been identified, investigated, documented and placed forth with irrefutable proof.

The evidence has been complete: Documentary proof corroborated by people’s evidence, material proof and factual data. The government has still not acted. It is in fact not surprising that the government which accepts and takes cognizance of widespread corruption and continuously promises administrative reform, should have found the most effective means of self preservation and perpetuation of in action. For a long time government programmes have tried not to so much to deny as to conceal. Statistics have lied, blatantly. Data when made public is very often distorted. Hypocrisy has been a façade for a more diabolical attempt to destroy all public action, by engaging the people in a sustained battle of attrition.

Despite talking of a healthy corruption free administration and holding expensive seminars on good governance, the government has deliberately not acted on any of the proven cases of corruption, small or big. Inquiries are easily initiated. Committees are set up, but no action has been taken, nor will any action be taken. This realisation has emerged through the anti corruption struggles that we have engaged ourselves in, during the last decade. There is an attempt to appear as if action is being taken but no official has been punished despite evidence. An attempt in other words to tire the vocal opposition, neutralise the struggle of ordinary people and poor communities; to reinforce the traditional sense of helplessness that ordinary people feel when confronting the State; thus encouraging the traditional Indian surrender to fate.

The publice hearings held in January 98 at Kukarkheda and Surajpura brought the campaign to another watershed. There was a history of government in action on the one hand. But on the other hand their was the enormous power of social sanctions and a rising ethical consciousness when the documents presented showed the dishonesty of the Panchayat officials, that they themselves could not deny. Errant officials and public representatives were left no option but to publicly returned money. This created history in its own way. The Kukerkheda Sarpanch returned Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 was deposited at the hearing and Rs. 50,000 was to be returned in two instalments over the next two months). The Surajpura Sarpanch returned 1,14,000 and the Rawatmal Sarpanch returned 1,47,000 in the hearing itself.

This was a direct attack on the graft system within government structures. The district administration in Rajsamand responded swiftly and negatively to protect its system. The Sarpanches who returned money were threatened while the others were protected. They told the Sarpanch Kukarkheda that if she did not “cooperate” and withdraw the money that she had deposited, she would be faced with a real government enquiry. The Sarpanch Kukarkheda caved in and turned hostile and withdrew the money. The government as it had promised has given her protection. A clear message has been given to the people that struggles are not worth it and nothing can be done. Nevertheless, there are some important lessons that emerge from these events. .

We have learnt that information is indeed great power. But this power has emanated from the people, who rose to act on the basis of information received. Because of the Jansunwais, there were social sanctions, which resulted in pressure on corrupt officials and public representatives to pay up. What should be the basic political act in a democracy, giving us the final glimpse of direct political accountability?

After five years of the campaign, it is a good time to reflect and assess. Some important theoretical positions become clear. At the heart of these demands for information and accountability, lies the strong stated collective declaration that democracy is not merely the vote, and that all State Power emanates from the people. The people are therefore entitled to control, the why, the where, and the what of governance. In the context of activists and people oriented points politics, this is a shift from first, attempting to capture structures and controls of State power to redefine and re-structure the exercise of this power.

It has been represented by two popular slogans used in the movement: Yeh Sarkar hamare aap ki, nahin kisi ke baap ki and Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisab

In our reflection on the twin issues of information and accountability, it is necessary to see why the information battle has been successful, opening up innumerable possibilities. But with accountability, the campaign faces an impasse.

Once the struggle for information had breached the wall of secrecy, a mine of potent and powerful documents became accessable.

The mechanics and forms of record keeping have been carefully worked out by a system which inteneded it for the self perpetuation and protection of the ruling elite. They had no clue that it would one day have to be shared with ordinary people. Even small bits of information have exposed the lies, the contradictions, the double speak, and the hollowness of the ruling class.

In retrospect the struggle for information and the campaign have continued to gain strength, because its basic power, has come from the people. When privileged information has been placed before the people, they have shown that ethics, is still an operational principle, which will motivate people to stand up and articulate. It has also given the poor and the oppressed a chance to expose the methods of exploitation based on their ground reality.

Information with social sanction has infact reduced corruption and raised questions that threaten both the bureaucratic and political establishments. It has struck at the root of the well worked out system of graft and percentages, on the bureacratic side and the exchange of votes for patronage, corruption, and protection, on the political side.

The accountability of the system would seem to be a natural corallory to the access of information. But it is infact, far more difficult to enforece. The establishment realises that with it, the transfer of power to the people would come to stay.

The State has no intention to act. It has therefore deliberately chosen not to put in working systems of accountability and redressal. As a result, even access to the existing centres of accountability leaves the people helpless. The system promises, delays, diverts and does not deliver. The people continue to go from pillar to post until they are weary. Forums like the Jansunwais can only serve as path breakers. They lack institutional backing and can therefore always be seen as extra constitutional.

In the specific context of development works one demand could be to hand over genuine powers of social audit to the Gram Sabha, a constitutional body. This would include powers to call for explanations, order recoveries, and action against errant officials. Similar kinds or structures of direct accountability to the people need to be built up in other spheres of governance.

However, the challenge that this presents to peoples struggles are of a different texture altogether. It will involve the evolution of new structures, and working out its details. For example safe guards in judicial and quasi-judicial action. Safeguards for the protection of the interest of dalits, minorities and other groups, the means of taking decisions, when disputes arise and so on.

In the search for a political alternative, it is clear now that battles have to be fought not between one party and another. Nor is it a question of who will occupy positions of power. Meaningful political battles will now be found in the myriad struggles in this country for peoples real participation and direct control over governance.