Ask and you shall be killed

 The Right to Information (RTI) movement in our country has often been described as India’s ‘second freedom struggle.’ The first freedom movement was against the British. We got our freedom, but one of the legacies of the British Raj — the Official Secrets Act, 1923 — is still with us.

The British had imposed this law to conceal from the native population the nature and extent of their country’s exploitation by an imperial power. After independence, the Secrets Act continues to be used for much the same purpose by our politicians and bureaucrats.

The RTI Act, 2005 provides the common man a potent weapon to expose government wrongdoing. It empowers the citizen to not only obtain information just like a member of parliament can, but also to use it to as a tool to reduce corruption and encourage transparency.

It was a simple RTI application that helped expose mega scams like that involving Mumbai’s Adarsh Housing Society. There are numerous other examples of how corruption cases have been exposed by citizens using RTI.

However, in every case, somebody’s interests get hurt and when that somebody is a powerful person or a lobby and stakes are high, RTI activists feel the repercussions of exposing corruption.
Understandably, activists and crusaders feel they are suffering the same fate as revolutionaries and satyagrahis of the ‘first’ freedom struggle.

An activist who ‘beat himself up’
The attack last week on RTI activist Arun Baburao Mane, 36, is the latest example of the extreme insecurity faced by those at the frontline of the RTI movement. Mane runs a footwear shop in Talegaon, Pune district, to earn a living. He had been trying to take forward the work started by RTI activist, Satish Shetty, who was murdered in Talegaon in January 2010.

On January 2, a bloodied and hospitalised Mane with injuries to his head, chest and hand stated that he had been assaulted in his shop. The case took a bizarre turn two days later when he filed an affidavit saying that he had not been attacked but had inflicted the wounds on himself. He also withdrew two police cases against the unidentified assailants.

While Pune superintendent of police Pratap Dighavkar said Mane had “self-inflicted the wounds as he was mentally unstable”, Mane told The Mag that he had withdrawn the cases for the sake of his family’s security. “For me, my family is more important than anything else. My family is in trauma and my mother is a heart patient. Therefore, I have withdrawn the cases for her sake and for the sake of my family’s security. But the attack on me was genuine.”

Like Shetty who was murdered, Mane had been seeking information about land acquisition around the Mumbai-Pune Expressway.

His RTI application with the Lonavala police had asked three questions: a) What action have the police taken on the complaint filed by Satish Shetty? b) Had Shetty filed a criminal complaint against a person and a company related to IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd? and c) Are cases pertaining to the mentioned crimes pending in courts? If yes, then who is handling the cases? The answers Mane received were of a kind that left him in urgent need of medical attention.
Government won’t help
RTI activists find it ironic that while the government introduced the historic legislation in 2005, it is not ready to offer protection to citizens who act on the legislation. “The government pretends to take action. After an RTI activist is killed, superficial efforts are made to nab assailants,” says Shivji Raut, a teacher and one of Maharashtra’s prominent RTI activists from Satara.
A pioneer in using RTI, Raut had exposed a property scam in Mahableshwar in which stamp duty on 114 plots on 600 acres was evaded. He has many such exposes to his credit. But he feels insecure. “I have stopped my morning walks,”
he says.


Pune-based RTI activist Vivek Velankar feels that the government, most bureaucrats, and the police have a negative attitude towards RTI.
“For 60 years since independence, everything was under wraps in the government. Now, when the people are asking questions and exposing irregularities, those in the government see the RTI as a hindrance and consider RTI activists as a nuisance,” Velankar says. “So, whenever an RTI activist is attacked, assurances of action are given but no action is taken. That’s why there has not been much progress in the Satish Shetty murder case.”
After repeated attacks on RTI activists in Maharashtra, Vihar Durve, an RTI activist from Pune, had asked the home department about provisions to provide protection to RTI activists. Using the RTI Act, he had asked for the name and


designation of the officer responsible for giving protection to RTI activists who have received threats or were likely to be threatened.
The response was red tape at its vintage best. The home department transferred Durve’s application to the office of the director general of police (DGP) and the Mumbai police commissioner. The DGP cited a circular by special inspector general (IG) Rashmi Shukla of January 20, 2010, stating that if any RTI activist seeks police protection, there should be immediate inquiry and an independent review of the threat perception. A decision could then be taken “within the existing rules and policies of the government to provide protection if necessary.” And that was that.
The government circular is lifeless, says RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, adding that ultimately, activists have to pay for their own protection. Given that hiring a gunman costs Rs1,000 for eight hours, this is unaffordable for most activists. The alternatives are stark: either give up making RTI queries or be prepared for the consequences.
Public awareness is low
Kumbhar shot to fame for his public interest litigation in the Mumbai high court challenging a decision about land reservation taken by the then chief minister Manohar Joshi. The controversy related to a multi-crore property being developed in Pune by Joshi’s son-in-law Girish Vyas. Ultimately, Joshi had to resign from his post. 
As the controversy was unfolding, it was reported that Kumbhar had “a mysterious accident” in which his tooth was broken.
Speaking to The Mag, he said, “It was not an accident but an attack on me in 1999. I was going home on my scooter when two motorcyclists came from behind and pushed me. I was left lying on the ground, bleeding, till someone took me to a hospital. The police registered my complaint but no further investigation was done.”
In view of the political significance of the case, he was given police protection. But the police did nothing to investigate the attack on him, he says.
RTI crusaders lament that public awareness about the RTI and its applications is still very weak. Although the law is much talked about, it is not widely known how easy it is to file a query, and how it can be used effectively at next to no cost.
Also, there is no public outrage if an activist is attacked. Even the media coverage is episodic and activists feel they are fighting a lonely battle.
Further, the RTI movement is also hindered by complaints of misuse of the law for blackmail, and some sections of the bureaucracy have been complaining that they are over-burdened by the increasing number of RTI applications.
Leading activists, however, say that the RTI is a promise made to the citizens to bring transparency into administration. It would be as good as dead if the common people — for whom it has been designed — don’t use it.
Without widespread public participation, the RTI Act, 2005 could well end up as one more failed attempt to make government functioning transparent.

t_dinesh@dnaindia.net