Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Interviews | Aruna Roy, RTI activist interviewed by Pallavi Polanki

Aruna Roy, RTI activist interviewed by Pallavi Polanki

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jan 6, 2012   modified Modified on Feb 10, 2012

The lone Indian activist on the 2011 TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world, Aruna Roy has been more successful than most,  when it comes to getting the government’s attention. The Chennai-born former bureaucrat who was an instrumental force behind the revolutionary Right to Information Act has also been credited by the government for “incorporating strong citizen entitlements” in the ambitious National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA).

A constant on the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council, Roy has also been involved in shaping the UPA’s latest flagship programme, the Food Security Bill. She spoke to Firstpost on her experience of working with the government, the recent rise of ‘civil society’ and the National Advisory Council itself.

Excerpts from the interview:

2011 was a year when civil society took on a very publicly adversarial position to the government in order to press for a comprehensive and stringent anti-corruption law to be passed. It is, of course, a strategy very different from the one you’ve adopted in your public campaigns.

I have had about three decades of work with poor rural communities. I have been with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan (MKSS) for the last 21 years. The MKSS began in 1990 with a two-year long struggle for minimum wages, which included two hunger strikes. In 1994, the struggle for transparency began. In 1996 after the struggle for the Right to Information was defined by a forty-day dharna in Beawar (in Rajasthan), the MKSS was on continual dharnas for almost two years, mostly in Rajasthan but also in Delhi.

The attempt was always to draw in people from all sectors into the fight for public ethics across the board. In a democracy people have to work in a participatory manner, which means defining principles and even forming legislations but respecting roles that democratic institutions have to play. It may often seem a contradiction to oppose the working of a panchayat but demand that the institution stays.

The ire of corrupt sarpanches still dog our work but the necessity of the panchayat as an institution still stands. It is this delicate balance tethered on principles that helped us forge our way, with a strength born of understanding plurality and yet remaining unchanged about the ethics in public life, keeping processes of both means and ends consistent. It is in listening to people who are voiceless and faceless – to the media and to the government – that these ideas got shaped and finished. The common sense of even the final drafts of legislation was based on this dialectic.

Would you say India has an influential civil society? Do they impact policy?

India has always had an alternate political formation. There is the legacy of Gandhiji, Jai Prakash Narain and many others. There is a tradition of conscience politics which has often argued for what is right and ethical in the face of the most severe odds. What is brand new is the term ‘civil society’, which in itself is fraught with ambiguity and many interpretations. Till India went global there were more inclusive phrases like ‘people’. The phrase ‘civil society’ has served to confuse rather than define groups of people. If ‘civil society’ is all of India, except the government, it will be mayhem. Imagine Reliance and Chunni Singh, a poor peasant fighting for his rights, included in the same category!

What was most disturbing, however, was the definition of civil society as only that section of the people who were media-savvy or projected by the media. There was even a claim to the exclusive right to define the term and the needs – social, legislative and political – of one billion people. At the same time dissent about methods, legislative drafts or even substantive differences were projected as betrayal. Policy making by people can happen only if there can be greater consensus.

The rich and powerful have always influenced policy. People have impacted policy since Independence in small or large numbers. The broader interest in policy making that began with the Narmada Bachao Andolan has grown in size and complexity. Many policies before the RTI and subsequently, have come from persistent work by constituencies that saw their lives and work being affected by policies and legislations. The degree of success has been varied, and not always in proportion to the gravity of the issue or its relevance. People have now got interested in governance. But the small print and the details is where the dangers lie. It is in these small acts of commission and omission that the problems are. This could be the beginning of participatory democracy taking root.

What is your strategy when it comes to dealing with the government?

In an independent nation, the government is technically of and for the people, as it is certainly elected by the people. It is the hiatus between promise and delivery that has enraged people. The question we have had to resolve, as we represent the constituencies of the poor, is whether we could actually do without a government.

Since there is a constitution that promises protection through the mechanism of the government to the poor and marginalised, we want a government powerful enough to adhere to promises, and ethical enough to deliver. The alternative of privatisation is not acceptable; it is not transparent and accountable, and without a mandate. The intention of a private institution is profit, while that of a government is welfare.

Has it gotten easier over the years to be heard in Delhi? Or has it become more difficult?

The last sixty years have etched the history of a growing democracy, of people both fighting outside with the ‘system’, and internally with feudalism, parochialism, caste, religious prejudices and the many ills of a hierarchical society promoting injustice. The growing disconnect and discontent between the government and the people has come from the severe myopia of the ruling class to acknowledge that, with the rise in larger democratic education, people will demand inclusion in decisions that affect them.

The other stimulus to participate in pressure tactics required to push the agenda of the marginalised, has been the increase in communal politics. Many of us have understood that the space for influence and struggle was surrendered by secular political activists refusing to occupy any space close to the “centres of power”, and who were thus helpless to influence national discourse. The vacuum was filled by communal political discourse, gaining both respectability and acceptance. This pushed us to enter the spaces, which are basically partial engagements with “power structures” like the NAC.

For me, personally, it has been difficult, having been brought up on a politics that is both non-conformist and anti-establishment, to occupy these spaces. The IAS had taught me how the bureaucratic system can stall or implement pro-poor policies. But it has also taught me how political power must act constitutionally and for the poor. This was one space to push the poor and marginalised agenda.

There has also been an increase in people movements and social consciousness among citizens. There are different motivations for this, and one of them is a new kind of political activism. Citizens are certainly more vigilant and aware of their rights now. They find new ways to agitate for them. The indifferent middle class has been stimulated into action by a combination of factors in the recent agitation against corruption, stimulated by the media blitz.

A friend said as the cyclones destroyed parts of south India that, the “national media sidelined the news, for the Delhi-centric media, national news begins and ends within its confines”.

On one hand, there is much debate on the federal structure of our country and constitution, but on the other, there are still demands from ‘civil society’ for extremely centralised institutions and processes to combat ills. Thus, even while we fight to be heard in Delhi, all opportunities must be used to build decentralised structures with inbuilt transparency, checks and balances. For example, with the Lokpal, it would be ineffective without Lokayuktas in the states. Similarly, the Grievance Redress mechanism must be decentralised; it is imperative that there is a Grievance Redress Officer at the block level.

How do you view the NAC? Has its creation raised the profile of civil society activists?

In the battle for the poor to be heard and thus influence policy, the NAC offers a platform. Located as it is in Delhi with its Chair- the UPA Chairperson, it has the potential to empower the demands of the poor and give it visibility and voice. The civil society activists in the NAC represent varied movements and interests from different parts of the country. The NAC recommendations are sometimes vetoed or drowned in the labyrinths of the Government of India.

However, the NAC-I mandated by the NCMP ( National Common Minimum Programme) gave a clear road map, and was able to achieve much – the RTI, NREGA, The Forest Rights Bill, Doemstic Violence etc.

NAC-II which is only guided by the President’s address to the joint houses of Parliament, has been ambiguous on many points. I joined the first NAC after reading the NCMP promises to the people. The NAC, in general, has been able to push many legislations up in the list to be considered and passed, and put forward some important non-negotiables. In its efforts it has also irked the traditional policy makers who have sometimes used tactics of delay, diffusion and finally of burying pro-poor legislations under bureaucratese.

For some of us it is a point of debate and focus; because even if it is a curious creation, it allows at least notionally, an opportunity to the voices of the people, to place their point of view in the public domain. However, even this is selective. Because of its advisory nature, the NAC has as often succeeded as it has failed to influence policy and its quick passage in the last year. Let us not forget that it is only a “National Advisory Council”.

How would you rate the NAC’s success in lobbying for the government’s attention on development issues?

I would say we are moderately successful. Let us take the example of the National Food Security Bill recently tabled in parliament. This has come after enormous effort from many people all over the country, and saw many drafts, amendments and changes. Inspite of the research and suggestions that the NAC put forward, the current draft of the bill is woefully inadequate. Yes, it has some success, but this is modest given the political and bureaucratic pressures that override what people see as their rights, regarding health, education, food etc.
 

First Post, 6 January, 2012, http://www.firstpost.com/politics/civil-society-is-not-only-about-the-media-savvy-aruna-roy-173154.html


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close