Sri Lanka Anti-Corruption Program

I read a very interesting article in the ‘World Review’ supplement in The Island of 15.02.07 which published an article from Asian News Network, under the caption “Bangladesh Corrupt politicians, Civil Servants, Magnates — None will be spared. The following extracts are reproduced for the information of readers who may have missed reading that article.

Bangladesh Army Chief Lt. Gen. Moeen U Ahmed said the armed forces are assisting the government in its crusade against corruption that has eaten up the vitals of the nation.

About corruption that had bedeviled the nation, the Army Chief said “Corruption had engulfed every sphere of life. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Lashing out at dishonest Politicians without naming anyone Gen., Moeen said. “It is not possible to count the enormous wealth they have accumulated. Their irresistible lust for wealth led them to gobble up the sheets allotted by the government for distribution as relief among the poor.

Is not the action of the Army Chief of Bangladesh a lesson for us too? Let the President of this country, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the army, take action to eradicate corruption, act soon, irrespective of political alliances, personal or party loyalties and other considerations. This is possible and could be expected of President Mahinda Rajapaksa in view of his recent move to remove three ministers.

‘Fiat justitia, ruat caelum’ — Let justice be done though heavens may fall.

G. A. D. Sirimal

The Bribery Commission has a new HOTLINE for reporting instances of corruption–including bribery, nepotism, fraud, embezzlement and extortion.

DIAL 1954 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMPLAINT!
Will this result in more complaints? Will the general public have faith and trust in the hotline?

What do people think about this–comments?

If you would like the current draft Freedom of Information Bill passed into law, you can do the following:

1) Write letters of support to:

a. H.E. Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka

b. Lalith Weeratunga, Secretary to the President

c. Suhada Gamlath Secretary Ministry of Justice

d. Hon. Amarasiri Dodangoda, Minister of Justice

e. W.B. Ganegala, Secretary Ministry of Mass Media and information

f. Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Minister of Mass Media and Information

g. Members of Parliament who represent you, or whom you know personally

h. General Secretary (or other influential members) of your political party

2) Inform your friends and family about the importance of access to information. The Right to Information can:

a. Expose corruption, making government and the economy more efficient

b. Expose environmental hazards that threaten health and livelihoods

c. Reduce the danger of human rights violations

d. Increase popular participation in government and development

3) Mobilize organizations that you are associated with:

a. To pass a formal motion in favor of the Bill

b. To issue a press release stating that your organization has adopted a position in favor of the Bill.

4) Form coalitions with other organizations that are advocating for the passing of this bill into law.

5) If you are a journalist, editor, publisher etc, use the media to raise awareness about

a. The status of the draft bill

b. What people can do to support this

c. The importance of the bill

d. Similar campaigns in other countries

6) Organize petitions, and obtain signatures from interested citizens

7) Hold public meetings, and/or organize a conference or workshop on right to information.

8) Write a letter to the newspapers

9) Organize street theatre performances that deal with the Right to Information

For more information please visit www.ard-acp.com

Keynote address delivered by Mrinal Pande, Editor of the Hindustan, at a seminar on the Draft Freedom of Information Act titled “Freedom of Information: From Proposal to Law” organized by the Sri Lanka Anti-Corruption Program and the Sri Lanka Press Institute.

In India, as in the rest of the world, knowledge is power. Those who wish to keep power limited within a particular group or groups learn early on, that they must exercise a total control over information. That makes it necessary that the information available to insiders is encoded in a language not easily accessed by outsiders. There is therefore not much difference between the ancient Brahminical Gurus making their disciples promise thrice, before imparting the mysterious Tantrik knowledge in Sanskrit, the language of the Gods, that they’d keep it secret and guard it with their lives; and the Official Secrets Act Of 1923, promulgated in India by the British rulers.

It is also no accident that by using Sanskrit, then Persian and later English, the ruling elites in India, from Chankya’s time to the present day, put important information and all refined forms of wisdom out of the reach of the lower castes, the tribals and women, who were not allowed to learn the formal power languages. Any defiance of this rule was further made punishable by ostracization or death by torture.

Even after Independence, a linguistically diverse private-public funded educational system in India has continued. It has produced two clear groups: those who are proficient in English, and can therefore access all higher forms of learning; and those who have been educated in the vernacular medium and must content themselves with low visibility, low income and high risk jobs. True, our legislators are now mostly from the erstwhile lower or backward castes and speak in the vernaculars, but our Executive, as also the Judiciary and members of the small but highly influential English media, are largely minted out of the first group. As a result, most issues pertaining to the Constitution and civil rights continue to be debated, analysed and decided in English. In the sphere of higher learning, in the best colleges subjects like Journalism, Law, Medicine, Business Management, Information Technology and Engineering are still taught only in the English. This is producing highly learned and skilled, but socially monocultural professionals out of touch with groups whose rights are violated the most, but who are least equipped to protest and regain them.

As a bilingual woman journalist working in the vernacular Hindi media, while covering the various SAARC, CHOGM and NAM Meets on Human Rights and Democracy, my work has led me to witness war stories that would make you laugh out or scream, depending on which side of the Right to Information fence you stand. I found that translations of speeches by the heads of nations were routinely available in English, French, Spanish and Arabic, but not in Hindi. Given such experience of professional discrimination and denial of vital information, it was not surprising that the vernacular journalists were the most enthusiastic supporters of the Right to Information movement when it was first started by the Hind Mazdoor Kissan Sangathan in Rajasthan. The difficult passage of the Bill is revealing of how the Empire may strike back.

In 1995, the Press Council of India drew up the first blueprint for the RTI. The government, as was expected, did not take it up for notification for the next two years. It was said to be “too radical”. In 1997, the veteran consumer activist H.D. Shourie chaired a working group of ten, and created another draft. This too was not introduced in the Parliament. Eight, as it turned out, of its ten members were government servants. It was finally revoked in the Freedom of Information Bill 2000.

The Right to Information (RTI) finally came into force in October 2005 all over India, making India the 55^th country in the world to have this Act. This happened only after an intense debate during which members of public, intellectuals and journalists also took to the streets a couple of times. Since language was the master key, terminology was the single most fought over issue. Freedom of Information, it was felt by the supporters which included several retired bureaucrats, implied a mere lack of interference, easily explicable as a grand ‘hands off’ policy. The term ‘Right to Information’ put the onus for maximum disclosure on those that had denied it. Only nine states of Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Jammu and Kashmir had so far passed state acts and reports about bureaucratic stone walling and slow deliberations were frequent.

A year later this became the first Act in India whose birthday was celebrated publically. Sadly many of its guardian angels boycotted the occasion. They were dismayed by the watering down of the original proposals.

The Act gave a billion people the rights so far enjoyed by only 800 legislators. As it stands today, it is a part of the Fundamental Rights granted to all Indian citizens under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution that grants freedom of speech and expression to all, regardless of caste, creed or gender. The definition of information under RTI is any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, samples, data material, electronic or otherwise and information relating to any private body accessed by public authority under any other law. Notably, the Act confers upon the citizens, the Right to Information, and not just records or documents.

Observers still feel that the old acts such as the Official Secrets Act of 1923 and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 will need to be repealed before the new law can be evoked effectively. Traditional habits, they feel, die hard, especially when there is much to be hidden from prying eyes. They are also unhappy that the Act also excludes Cabinet papers, including records of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other government officials. This shields a lot of decision making processes from mandatory disclosure and is not explicable since the parliamentary proceedings are now being televised live. Critics like Kejriwal and Aruna Roy also point out that without a mechanism for speedy and deterrent punishments for delays or refusals in place, much of the power of the Act may get dissipated. Only 43% of the ministries, they point out have taken notice of half the cases. The Central Information Commission received some 3059 cases in one year out of which it dismissed 71% without a hearing. Each month 300 cases reach it but each hearing takes three to four months. This makes the notice period of thirty days meaningless.

Arvind Kejriwal finds three major problem areas in implementation: slowness, lack of proper records and record maintenance, and non implementation of penalties suggested. He has also noticed that the level of competence and knowledge about the Act among the Commissioners appointed varies from state to state. Their mostly being superannuated bureaucrats is also questionable.

Exemptions granted under the Act are, however, not absolute and public authority may allow access to exempted information if “public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.” This provision has immense potential, and hopefully, in time this coupled with the advances in information technology, will unlock the doors to information for all citizens. A great deal of spade work obviously needs to be done to sensitize the Commissions and implement the provisions of the Act. What is even more important at this point is that the enabling provisions be made available to all Indians in languages they understand. This, we in the vernacular media realize, is only the first step in a long struggle. And it can progress only if the ordinary citizens, those who have been denied the most, are with us all the way.

In Hindustan we started a campaign called Ghoos Ko Ghoonsa Abhiyan (Strike a Blow Against Corruption). We carried it out jointly with NGOs Parivartan and Kabir, followed by our Patna and Lucknow editions on a local basis. All information released by NGOs or the government was prominently displayed along with information on how to handle the new Act and whom to contact and how on our front pages for a whole fortnight. We also permitted readers to send short messages on the cell phone lines provided by us. The results were astounding. Queries covered areas from personal (pensions not received, bills inflated, compensations not being released etc) to serious lapses in developmental work.

RTI has been exercised in grilling the academia and has succeeded in reopening of answer sheets and revealing the abysmally low number PhDs granted by various publically funded departments. In civic areas, it has led to scrutinizing of various development works and low payments of wages to labour, and forged entries in muster rolls. Lack of departmental transparency in individuals’ efforts in obtaining ration cards, passports and similar benefits has also been thrown into focus.

Problem areas remain and they are mostly in the field of implementation and delays. Between October 2005 and April 2006, the Central Information Commission received more than 600 appeals and could take decisions on only 99 cases. The States too have been tardy in implementation and quick to put up the costs. In UP they slapped a fee of Rs 400 per application for processing. In Maharashtra they filed away 33,500 applications received under the previous State Act when the RTI came into being and declared that they want to begin on a clean slate! In Orissa, the file management system is poor and a CD of information sought costs 100 if you ask the Commission for it. It does not match the market price, so the poorer applicants are deterred.

But people are learning to use the Act collectively. In Maharashtra the strawberry farmers were able to beat back government efforts to lay water pipes on their lands by asking for documents that gave the government the right to do so. Similarly a coalition of some NGOs carried out a successful social audit of the National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme and a daily, The Indian Express, forced a leading public school to reveal data that showed how public schools were denying admissions to children from poorer families.

Despite this as awareness about the Act grows, people are using it to make their lives better. Some samples:

• Calcutta University has been directed by the Chief Information Commissioner of the state to allow an aggrieved B Com examinee to take a look at his answer sheets. This is to make his exam more transparent.
• An RTI enquiry relating to the amount of public money being spent on bureaucrats appointed by the courts to monitor land ceiling in Delhi, has revealed that some of them are drawing extremely high remunerations. They are also using high-end cars, thus claiming petrol allowances higher than their salary.
• Reports published in our paper about a dastardly serial killer who hid his victims bodies in a drain near his house for two years, led the locals to file a query under the Act to ask when and how often should the drains have been cleaned? The next day the Municipality outsourced the work to private agencies and work started on all drains in the area.

“Kindly send mailing (sic) address for Lifelong Grievance”, one of our readers messaged us.

There is life yet in the old Republic. People will live to fight another day.