Blame it on the Bandh

April 4th was a red-letter day for many of us here. Not because Greg Chappell felt that coaching kangaroos is a less stressful experience than the Indian cricket team (Though the likes of Aaj Tak, CNN-IBN and the rest of them may think that this is only thing that matters to all of us). This day is significant because this was when the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Opposition joined hands, in a rare show of unanimity, to help the poor masses of Andhra Pradesh. The Opposition called for a State wide Bandh and the Government chipped in to provide legitimate, moral backing for this wonderful event. But then, YSR was not acting in an unprecedented fashion; a couple of days back, Karunanidhi called for a total bandh in Tamil Nadu to protest the Supreme Court’s verdict on the OBC reservation tangle.

The Supreme Court in August 2003 upheld the Kerala High Court's judgment declaring bandhs as illegal and unconstitutional way of collective bargaining, whatever the cause "just or unjust". The Bench opined: "Strike as a weapon is mostly misused, which results in chaos and total maladministration. Strikers cannot hold society to ransom." The Shiv Sena and the BJP were even penalized for damaging public property and we all felt that maybe, finally, we will stop being blackmailed by unions, that too in the name of social and economic justice. But then, I guess, that was too much wishful thinking; trust the democratic polity to uphold the finest traditions of democracy by staging strikes and protests at the drop of a hat.

The state of Andhra Pradesh went on a general bandh with the state-owned APSRTC calling off its services and the result - APSRTC suffered a loss to the tune of Rs 10 crore. Social justice was achieved because it gave an opportunity for the auto drivers and six seaters to mint money at the expense of the general public. So, minimum fares shot up from 10 Rs to 25 Rs just because we had no other option. There were office- goers like us who got away merely because our employer was thoughtful enough to arrange trips through private buses to tide over the crisis. Despite 2,800 city buses remaining off the roads, city roads were as busy as any other day with commuters hiring auto-rickshaws or hitch-hiking their way to their destinations. Banks and other commercial establishments remained open though the attendance was thin.

Take a look at the estimated loss due to lockouts in the country. The Labour Bureau figures state that West Bengal contributed more than 60 per cent - the highest of any State - of all mandays lost due to strikes and lockouts in the country last year. The next two biggest contributors to mandays lost last year were Kerala, with 30.6 lakh (13.5% of the national figure) and Rajasthan, with 19.3 lakh (8.29%). For Kerala, this was an almost five-fold increase from the previous year with officials attributing it to the labour crisis in the plantation sector last year. For Rajasthan, it was a 45% increase. Clearly, all signs of Shining India!!!

Even though bandhs are illegal, I can understand the Opposition parties calling for a hartal but what happens when the ruling party, duly elected by us, decides to stop all public life. Don’t the elected representatives owe it to the people to take care of their needs? Can they violate the rights of the people in the name of spirit of democracy? Mahatma Gandhi was the pioneer of strikes and hartals but he would never have thought that a day would come when his strategy would be so counter-productively used by our leaders.

Can our leaders explain the reason for calling a strike and putting thousands of us to this kind of inconvenience? Moral support for the OBC cause could be done through more democratic means but why does it have to come through calling off work? We all know it’s a joke when we are told that it was a voluntary strike by the masses and not something done through coercion. There were a few petrol pumps and shops which were subject to stone throwing because they were open despite the call.

As stakeholders in the country, we need to question the irresponsibility of the State and Central Govt. (both are run by Congress) in causing deliberate loss to the State’s treasury by abdicating responsibilities. If the State, who has to protect its citizens, puts the lives of its people at peril, who will protect the people? We need to estimate the loss suffered by the exchequer due to this and then probably take some punitive action against the callous attitude of the government. YSR cannot do anything about the land acquisition disputes or the immovable traffic in urban areas but he can support a bandh against a Supreme Court order??? Where are the government’s priorities?

We may take pride in calling ourselves a genuine democracy but let us ask ourselves where we are headed when it becomes a play tool in the hands of spineless governments who are least bothered about public welfare . There is no point in merely sneering at Chinese and Singapore polities and accusing them of lacking in democratic institutions, when we really can’t deliver with our half- baked approaches towards governance. Freedom of expression is a very fundamental feeling we all cherish and the ability to criticize the Government may give us a high but if that’s the only thing I can do, what’s the point?

It has been only AP and Tamil Nadu till now, surely the bastion of strikes, Kerala, cannot be behind. With a fundamentally crippled economy, it lumbers ahead as communists continue to milk the state dry and leave the state to the Gulf expatriates. Even Iraq may not have called for a strike when Saddam Hussain was hanged, but my dear state went on a strike!!! West Bengal is trying to do a metamorphosis by shedding the red colour but the Kerala comrades, unmindful of the stupidity involved in its deep entrenched Trade Unionism, continue to perpetuate unemployment. God save HIS OWN STATE…

As the dialogue in Spiderman goes " With great power comes great responsibility", the leaders must realise that there are more mature ways to handle disagreements and disputes among people. A greater tolerance of individual and collective views and mutual respect for different opinions is required before we start feeling smug about ourselves. Merely criticizing others is no way ahead; we need to learn from our mistakes and the success of nations how to march ahead.

There are teething problems but I remain an optimist; without a hope or a dream, there is no survival...

Don't ignore Irom Sharmila

Identify this photo. You will not be able to do so; even if I were to give her name, you will not be able to recognize her. She has also not made it to the front cover of tabloids like the Times of India and would continue to remain this way as an example of our lack of concern for “the fringes”. Mamta Banerjee went on a hunger strike recently but called it off after 25 days after high level intervention while this frail lady has been fasting for the past six years and the only thing that has happened so far is that she has been arrested repeatedly for attempted suicide but no attempts have been made to address the main issue.

Irom Sharmila, 35, has been on a hunger strike since November 2000 protesting against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 (AFSPA) in Manipur which gives the Armed Forces draconian powers, worse than even in TADA or POTA . AFSPA is a law that can come into force in any part of India, declared as “disturbed”. The act allows anyone of any rank in the army or a paramilitary force under its operational command to shoot, arrest or search without warrant; and to kill on suspicion alone. Furthermore, there is little scope for judicial remedy. The legislation defines 'disturbed' as an area which requires the aid of the armed forces, without spelling out criteria. This has led to states being declared 'disturbed' for years — Nagaland for 46 years and Manipur (Sharmila’s state) for 24.

Her epic fast started six years back when the Army, in retaliation to an insurgent attack, went berserk and shot dead 10 civilians. From then till now, Sharmila has been observing a fast against the repeal of this act but to no avail. Instead she’s been arrested on charges of attempted suicide and put into custody repeatedly without granting bail. She has also been nose-fed forcibly to prevent her fast. Her frail 35 year old body has grown extremely weak but she continues to stand firm in the true spirit of Gandhigiri.

The Central Government had constituted a high level official panel under Justice BP Jeevan Reddy Committee to review the provisions of AFSPA. The Commission, in its 147 page report, in June 2005,stated that the protection of soldiers from legal proceedings already existed under Section 49 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (ULP Act) and unambiguously recommended repealing the law. However, the Central Government has been sitting on the report since then and the Defence Minister A K Antony recently stated that the law will not be repealed but will be made more “humane”.

This law has been in force for almost 50 years now but this has not led to any insurgency reduction in the North-East. If after all these years, the Government refuses to look at this matter as a social and political problem and tries to flex military power to address the problem, it reflects poorly on the State. This lack of progress should have spurned the Government to abandon it rather than stand by it but it stubbornly refuses to engage with the political leadership of the insurgent groups and continues with its one-dimensional thinking.

We are quite proud of our democratic setup and do not hesitate to emphasise this when we compare ourselves to China but isn't it shocking that we have such archaic laws which infringe upon our human rights. The Government is least bothered and is not willing to invest time and energy on such minor issues because it believes that there are several other pressing issues to be taken care of. The indifference is quite appalling and Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Right Committee have expressed their concern over India on its continuation of denial of democracy.

The Indian Army is too much of a holy cow to be criticized, so any excesses done are painted as “counter insurgency operations” and the people who condemn such incidents are “leftists” or “pseudo-intellectuals” who do not understand ground realities. This allegation may be true in many cases but we need to be self-critical and not always gung-ho about our systems – this is an important activity on our growth as a democracy that cares for people.

But then has the North-East ever been on the radar of either the media or the administration? It stands alienated at some corner of the country, abandoned by the State and the elite and let down by the liberals. The North-East has never meant to us anything more than maybe a Bhupen Hazarika, a Danny or a Baichung Bhutia .There have been thousands of deaths (reported and unreported) but our concern or rather lack of concern for the “fringe people” – that was what we have reduced them to- is rather shameful.

There’s a media blind spot towards issues affecting the North-East and therefore anything to the north of Bengal has become of no concern to the rest of the country. We look at it in the form of a nuisance value being created by a set of rag tag guerillas, supported by an “invisible foreign hand”, merely out to foment trouble in the country. After all, when the country is making giant strides, why would you care for people going over insignificant fasts in alien parts of the country?

Thomas Friedman refers to the world as a flat entity but as Noble Prize winner Joseph Steiglitz says in his interview to The Hindu recently, “...not only is the world not flat but in many ways it's getting less flat”. The difference between the haves and the have-nots increases, so while the Government focuses on greater economic policies, it forgets that social and economic factors must never be looked at in isolation and a lot of social problems crop up due to economic disparities. Let us not look at human rights as a dispensable commodity which can be negotiated when the time arrives; that would be a failure of the idea of a "Welfare State".

We have just welcomed the New Year with a great deal of pomp and joy but as we sit in our AC cubicles and drawing rooms, let us spare a minute for the likes of Irom Shamila and others who are waging their own lone battles against the State. The fight for basic human survival is universal and we must support it wholeheartedly.

The Fourth Estate Trials

Sometimes, real TV can be so much more thrilling and entertaining than “Reality TV”. So, forget Rakhi Sawant’s attempts to milk a bovine and watch Ram Jethmalani’s performance on CNN-IBN as he makes mincemeat of a hapless Sagarika Ghose during a Jessica Lal case interview. He raves, rants and goes berserk in a no holds barred performance which would do any octogenarian proud and get him to replace Big B as the “Angry Old Man”. Though he is known to be a controversial lawyer and a rabble-rouser, this time, his outburst attracted a fair deal of publicity, especially among the blogging and journo world (Who else would discuss?)

Ram Jethmalani, in the course of the interview, raised a few pertinent points, albeit in his own inimitable whiplash style. He pounced upon Sagarika’s lack of legal know-how and ridiculed her claim of going against public opinion. He also blasted the media for passing pro-active judgments and undermining the judiciary.

We all, probably, believe that Manu Sharma deserves to be punished but can we advocate that he does not deserve the best defence available because of our opinion. Whether he should stand for the accused or not is his prerogative and not the press’s. The strength of the Indian judicial system is in its ability to provide a free and fair trial to both the accused and the victim and not discriminate on the basis of “informed” public opinion.

The now forgotten ISRO spy scandal represents in many ways the worst example of a case that was created and sustained by an overzealous media. What started of as an innocuous arrest of a Maldivian woman, Mariam Rasheeda, went on to become the biggest spy scandal in the history of independent India. The media (especially the vernacular one) in association with the police and political class weaved a thriller script, adding dollops of sex, money and flesh to make it a scandalous affair. A few top scientists, an IPS officer and few others were implicated without any iota of evidence until the case was eventually handed over to the CBI.

After its report and the subsequent Supreme Court judgment, the matter was finally laid to rest and everyone was acquitted. But the tattered reputations and the mental agony of the people involved can never be restored. No one has ever apologized to the people whose dignity was stripped in the public and all this from the “educated free press of Kerala”.

Remember the arrest of His Holiness Jayendra Saraswathi, where the press hauled his reputation across the coals without any evidence at all to support the accusations hurled upon him. He was accused of being a womanizer, a corrupt god man and so much more that would have put any self-respecting man to shame. While the Tamil Nadu Government was vindictive about the entire affair, the scribes went all the way exhibiting their “secularism” by making a villain out of him. Can you imagine the Pope being subject to such abuse? And where’s the case now? The Andhra Pradesh High Court had remarked in its judgment that there is no prima facie evidence against the accused despite malicious attempts by the press and the Tamil Nadu Government to do so. The press continues to be silent about this.

Of course, it’s no one’s case that the Indian press plays only a “super-judicious” role in our democracy. For years the media snuggled upto the State and ignored its primary role. After the Emergency, L K Advani had famously told journalists “You were asked to bend and you chose to crawl”. But times have changed and a free global economic order has also seen the media get down and ask questions – some relevant and some which were hitherto considered as too sacred to touch.

The Jessica Lal, Priyadarshini Mattoo and Manjunath cases are there in the judicial space thanks to the active role of the media in bringing these issues to the public domain. A running democracy requires an active press that highlights issues and brings to focus all things hidden from public view. In fact, Amartya Sen says that a Free Press can play an important role in the mitigation of natural disasters by their active reporting. The RTI Act was not amended largely due to the role played by the media in highlighting the government’s intentions and attempts in sabotaging the law.

But what happens when the press decides to arrogate many of the State’s powers to itself. Many of us fed on a regular diet of news bytes do not question them and go by what is told to us by news anchors. We all know that there’s a thin line between bringing out an exclusive story and playing to the gallery. With so many channels fighting it out in the broadcasting and newsprint domain, there is always a temptation to go one up for exclusive “breaking news” at the expense of genuine news. Like various blogs, each channel carries its own subjective interpretation of facts and the casualty is the veracity of the news item. While everyone wants a well-researched story, what do you do in case it’s too tiresome to do so? Probably come up with “confidential leaks” or “reliable sources” and present it as “Flash News”.

The horrendous massacre of Dalits in Kherlanji went unreported for about a month till they took to the streets and lead massive protests in Nagpur. Is it that their stories do not carry the same shock value or they are not worth reporting? Sanjay Dutt has been accused of a very serious crime like possession of weapons but he gets a lot of sympathy in the media – recollect his visit to the Siddhi Vinayak temple and his “reformed” existence- but there are many others like Prof. Geelani (represented by Ram Jethmalani in the Supreme Court) who are subjected to the piercing eyes of media because they represent “no one”.

A vibrant democracy requires the media to act as a watchdog for the 3 legs of policy in India – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. But it is tempting for the Fourth Estate to go overboard and try to dictate terms because of the unbridled power it has. This restraint is difficult to come by because at the end of the day, it is not answerable to anyone except maybe its shareholders. In defence of the press community, it must be stressed that is not enough to be fair but also important to appear to be fair, which is where many of our journalists have failed. Journalism should not be treated as an exercise in blogging where any smart alec who has an opinion (like me) decides to express it without checking out the facts of the case.

Tail piece: The sadistic streak in me enjoyed the Ram Jethmalani interview despite his haughty behaviour. I recommend it to people to watch it and judge for themselves the “entertainment” value in it, especially those tired of “Big Boss” antics.

Also watch the video of Ram Jethmalani's interview conducted by Karan Thapar in CNBC-TV 18 posted on Nov 19th for another slice of the action. The action never stops!!!

To Hang or not to Hang???

A young lawyer from Delhi, a Kashmiri militant and an Iraqi leader – nothing in common among themselves until very recently but now their fates are linked by the Hangman’s noose and a slender ray of hope. All of them have been convicted of different kinds of crimes and sentenced to the gallows. The circumstances relating to their punishment and their crime is quite different but most people agree with the verdicts decided in all the three cases ;what is not consensual is the sentence which has been given. These sentences have once again brought into focus the debate on capital punishments.

Afzal Guru, the militant, has been sentenced to death for his role in the attack on the Indian Parliament – an attack which not only disturbed the Indo-Pak peace talks (arguably) but also struck at the centre of India’s authority. It is a crime that we all agree deserves to be punished and other than his immediate family and supporters, there are no takers on his innocence (that aspect is of course beyond the scope of this post). Afzal has himself not asked for mercy; it is only the human rights groups have asked for clemency (wrongly reported in parts of the press as seeking pardon).

Santosh Singh, currently a lawyer in Delhi, had been stalking a young girl Priyadarshini Matoo for a long time before he finally raped and killed her. He was acquitted by a Sessions Court Judge saying that though he knows he’s guilty he cannot be punished due to the lack of evidence produced by the police and prosecution. The media uproar and the subsequent public outcry lead to the case being reopened at the higher court where he has now been convicted. He has been awarded “death penalty” for a crime which does not fit into the “rarest of cases”.

Saddam Hussain faced trial for his role in the slaughter of Shiites in 1982 in Dujail, in retaliation for the failed assassination attempt on him. The case was dogged by controversies right from the beginning. Two of Saddam’s lawyers were killed while the first judge quit. He was not given enough time and space to prepare his defence. Ironically, the conviction would have been welcomed had it followed proper legal and moral protocols and been conducted under the auspices of an international tribunal. The timing of the verdict – just before the Senate polls – and the judge’s conspicuous animosity towards the accused has also raised questions on the fairness of the trial.

The vast majority of democratic countries in Europe and Latin America have abolished capital punishment over the last fifty years, but United States, most democracies in Asia, and almost all totalitarian governments retain it. As per Amnesty International's latest figures, a total of 129 countries (including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Russia, South American nations and most European nations) have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Of these, 88 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 11 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes (such as wartime crimes) and 30 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice, i.e., they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past ten years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions. Though 68 countries retain and use the death penalty, the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one-year is much smaller. In 2005, 94 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, the USA and Saudi Arabia (US and Iran on the same stage, interesting, right?)

Beyond the statistics, we need to ask ourselves what is the purpose of the death penalty?

--Is it to remove from society someone who would cause more harm?
-- Is it to remove from society someone who is incapable of rehabilitation?
-- Is it to deter others from committing murder?
-- Is it to punish the criminal?
-- Is it to take retribution on behalf of the victim?

Death is not merely a legal undertaking but has a strong social, religious and moral angle to it. It is not just priests or saints who look at birth and death as God’s handiwork; many of us also do so. There is also a strong religious notion that the act of suffering has a purifying effect on the human spirit allowing for salvation in God. The concept of death as a retribution for the sins committed is slowly losing ground. It has been argued that the person must be given an opportunity to repent for his sins and so death cannot be the way out. Is the idea behind a punishment to reform the person or to set an example in the society? Probably both and we need a more humane solution.

Death penalty supporters argue that it is a powerful deterrent to crime but there are no statistics to support this assertion. If death penalty were a proper deterrent, there would have been a reduction in crimes in such places and eventually their number would die out because the crime rate would have fallen to such an extent. On the contrary, these penalties seem to be on a rise in several countries, undermining the very rationale given for it. Death penalty sentences in India have been on the rise lately compared to the almost non-existent cases in the 60s and 70s. These are supposed to be given in the rarest of cases as per the Supreme Court ruling in 1983 but there’s a danger of the judiciary becoming “trigger free” in handing out capital punishments, especially under greater media glare (The Santosh Singh case is a clear example of that). Moreover, terrorist crimes, serial killer crimes or crimes of passion are not dictated by pure logic, so the rationale of using death as a deterrent does not work.

The next argument is one of infallibility of judgment and the irrevocability of the death sentence. The Liebman Report in 2000, concluding a 23-year study conducted by Columbia University, USA, found that 68% of all death sentences awarded were reversed due to serious legal error. In countries like India where the judiciary is over-burdened and cases drag on for years, would it be a surprise if the number of judicial errors is high. If a person is executed because of miscarriage of justice which is subsequently discovered the extinguished life cannot be restored. An innocent life lost due to callousness on the part of the law would be too heavy a price to pay.

Finally, at a slightly more emotional level, just think about the executioner who has to carry out the death penalty. It’s a profession which caries with itself the social stigma of killing someone but there are people who have to carry out this task. Leaders may take decisions but the final blood is in the hands of the executioner who has to act on behalf of the State. I strongly recommend readers to read Shashi Warrier’s soulful book “Hangman’s Journal” in which he brilliantly chronicles the agony that a hangman goes through when he has to carry out an execution. Similarly, Adoor Gopalakrishnan explores this theme in his movie “Nizhalkuthu”. In the words of Adoor, “The Hangman is conventionally considered to be one with no fine feelings. The public does not expect him to behave like a human being, the law wants him to be neutral, the State sees him just as an instrument of its operation.”

Should a civilized society use death as a tool to counter crime? It is arguable and when you consider the plight and sorrow of the victims, it is difficult to advocate the abolition of death penalty. It is an emotional issue but law must take a firm stance on this. In the Indian context, we could look at increasing the tenure of the life imprisonment since 12-14 years may seem on the lower side for extremely heinous crimes. The media must also be careful in its coverage of events. Repeatedly bombarding visuals of the crime and upping the ante for action can lead to public pressures on judiciary to hand out “populist” verdicts.

Is the Right to Life absolute? I certainly think so but then if I were to put myself in the shoes of Priyadarshini Matto’s father, would I feel the same??? Maybe yes or maybe no….

RTI : Right to Democracy

Just imagine this situation. You apply for a water connection. It probably takes about 3 weeks to get one but its more than one month and no news about it. What can you do? Normally, nothing except making rounds of sarkari offices pleading for the connection and making the necessary payments to get it done. But the Right to Information Act (RTI) promises to actually resolve this problem. Under the act, you can file an application to the concerned department asking for an explanation for the time delay, the persons involved, the current situation etc. and they have to give a reply within 30 days or face salary deduction as a penalty. Since it is easier to provide the connection than give this information and acknowledge the delay, your problem is solved.

For years, we have been subjected to the opaque and mysterious ways of the Government. Any information that is sought is tendered classified. Ever wondered what is so confidential about the progress of Govt. projects or the utilization of funds under various schemes. We have also not questioned it because somewhere deep down, there was a feeling that the Government knows better and that it has the right to take a call on all these issues. But increasing media scrutiny and penetration is changing all that and people are questioning the relevance of all this secrecy exhibited by the Government.

In late 2005, the Indian Parliament passed the Central Right to Information Act, a watershed act in the history of democracy. This bill has made waves as the most powerful Right to Information Act in the world, despite over 60 countries already having a law on Freedom of Information. Nine other states in India also have their own regional RTI Acts. Ironically, this widely touted achievement of the UPA Govt. is now being subjected to dilution in the name of improvements in the law. The bureaucracy is up in arms against this law and has put across the following fears.

It will lead to victimization of officers and possible blackmails.
This would affect only tainted officers so why the fear? The Act will help in knowing what actually happened behind closed doors and if it is being used to blackmail dishonest officers, does it matter? Misuse may happen but then the fear of misuse cannot be a strong reason for non-implementation of any law. There are adequate norms to handle “sensitive” issues within the law itself like Section 8 (dealing with a set of issues that can be exempted from this like those that constitute breach of privilege, trade secrets, cabinet purposes etc) and Section 24 (lists Govt. organizations which cannot be probed).

Lack of infrastructure to handle the huge volumes of information expected to be sought under the law.
Well, if there’s an infrastructure constraint, the government needs to gear up for this and not complaint about “over burdening” our bureaucrats. Current statistics have shown that the Delhi Govt. has received on an average 7 RTI applications per Department per month and this is expected to increase. I am sure that our poor officers are capable of handling such huge volumes every month.

A large number of frivolous applications will be filed.
The Central Information Commissioner’s (CIC) RTI application has been widely quoted as one such example of frivolous activism. The CIC, O P Kejriwal, had sought information about officers who have been allotted official accommodation since last November because there was a delay in providing him accommodation. But then who is to determine what is frivolous and what is not? My application for a pending water connection may be frivolous for any babu but it is critical for me.

Allowing access to file notings may prevent honest officers from giving their advice or may lead to bad blood between the officers.
I’m not too sure what the logic behind this criticism is. On the contrary, it will encourage them to come forth with their honest views and many officers have vouched for that. File notings contain the decision making process – it contains the procedure followed in awarding contracts, the time taken for awarding contracts, the people involved, the recommendations and overruling that has happened whereas files contain only the final decisions without capturing the process information.

The law in its current shape, however, only addresses public institutions involved with the Government. The corporate world is no holy cow and it is imperative to ensure that the next step is to bring private institutions under the purview of this act. Ofcourse, we may see intense lobbying by corporates to prevent this, under the guise of “confidential information”. It is more so relevant now as the government seeks to withdraw from various businesses and hand over all such roles to private parties. Bureaucrats have among the lowest credibility in the country and rank just next to politicians when it comes to honest indices. This Act gives an opportunity for the cadre to redeem its reputation and improve its lackadaisical image. But they seem hell bent upon making the Act a lame duck tool by citing various technicalities.

Sonia Gandhi has managed to postpone the tabling of the revised amendment of the RTI Act which seeks at addressing these fears but actually dilutes the efficacy of the law. But with the Government and the bureaucrats keen on pushing this across somehow, there’s a real danger of the law being some other footnote on the history. Infact, the Cabinet cleared the amendment in less than 20 minutes without even a formal debate on this. Hopefully, the vigilant media and activists will ensure that we do not consign this act to flames.

It’s time we use this law ourselves and start making a difference. Organisations like Parivartan and Bhumi have been working on popularising this Act among people. Interested people may check the following site for more information on RTI - http://www.ndtv.com/rti/faqs.asp .

As a start, I plan to use this law to obtain information on my income tax refund which has been pending with the Government for more than a year now.