Daily Mail: UK: Saturday, June 17, 2017.
A social
scientist, as witness and analyst, often confronts the fact that progress and
irony blend together in Indian democracy.
As spectators
and citizens, we have witnessed major institutional reforms and yet watched
with distress when the mentality required to energise these reforms lags years
behind.
In that
sense, one of the greatest achievements of modern Indian democracy is the
passing of the RTI Bill (Right to Information Act, 2005). Yet one of its
greatest ironies have been the sentencing of Nikhil Dey for pushing through the
same ideas.
Most papers
gave the sentencing of Nikhil Dey a few lines. They probably saw it as non-news
referring to a case which was 19 years old.
It is true
that as cynics say a week might be a long time in politics, but in law 19
years, given the gestation period of our cases, might sound like yesterday.
Poignancy
The poignancy
of the news and the surprise and consternation it caused was manifold. First,
it dealt with a case that had almost been forgotten.
Second, it
deals unfairly with a man who was one of the main protagonists behind the RTI
Bill.
Nikhil Dey is
probably the most civilised activist in India. Gentle, a perfect listener,
ready to see the humour in any situation, Dey lacks a sense of hysteria,
rhetoric or ideological fundamentalism which we associate with many activists
today.
His
gentleness is deceptive because his commitment to democracy and to truth is
rigorously impressive.
To accuse
such a person of violence and assault is not only surreal but also creates a
sense of hypocrisy as a response around the RTI cases.
The facts of
the case are simple. Remember today we take RTI for granted, proud of it as a
fact of life, grateful that such a guarantee exists for the Indian citizen.
But go back
19 years and imagine the situation on May 6, 1998, Dey and six other activists
confronted a local sarpanch.
As a
community they wanted clarity and information about the sarpanch's activities.
The sarpanch,
who ironically yet predictably turns out to be the local liquor contractor, had
a whole string of allegations confronting him.
These
included the usual cases of corruption and inefficiency, including labour
payments for development activities, payments for toilets, and Indira Awas
houses.
Since the
office of sarpanch was predictably closed during working hours, the activists
visited him at home. The sarpanch and his cohorts assaulted the group.
The case is
classic because RTI as a ritual involves talking truth to power and extracting
truth from power. Even more impressive is the rituals of dialogue, and
persuasion the activists adhere to.
They adhere
to all the norms and rules of dialogue and display a patience, an openness
which is classic.
Despite the
assault, De decides not to file an FIR or indulge in force, because the spirit
of RTI demanded it.
Strange
It was a
strange case of a gentleman activist confronting a corrupt sarpanch committed
to bully boy tactics, convinced of power of might over the right to
information.
The case is
typical of how entrenched power at the local level reacted to citizens seeking
a normative frame of accountability. The sarpanch retaliates by filing a string
of false cases against the activists.
His contempt
for them is also obvious in the slurs he casts against the woman present. It is
a typical act of sarpanch machismo against the gentle but insistent demands of
activists pursuing a vision of RTI.
I confess 19
years ago RTI must have sounded like a vision from Mars. It took Roy, Dey and
MKSS decades of struggle to make it part of the letter and even the spirit of
the law.
Today when
RTI is almost every day in its impact, the old cases come back like a bad
dream. Oddly, the case was closed on June 30, 1998, and strangely reviewed in
2001.
It is a clear
case that the powerful neither forget nor forgive those who assert their
democratic rights.
The sarpanch,
out of his magic hat of corruption, produces a string of false witnesses and
the case drags for two decades. The Damocles Sword of revenge and corruption is
something activists have to be perpetually sensitive and alert to.
Verdict
The verdict
is devastating, even ironic, returning to plague MKSS. The perpetrator of
violence pretends to be victim and, worse, wins a verdict.
The sentence
has been suspended, pending an appeal by four activists in the court of
Kisenganj.
The case
becomes a Kafkaesque fable of the travails of idealism and activism in India.
Power,
especially local power, never seems to forget or forgive an act of resistance
or affrontery.
Worse as a
resident group, it has the resources to fight battles for long periods of time,
realising that goodness has its limits, boundaries beyond which it cannot go,
norms of decency it has internalised and which it will uphold at all cost.
Nikhil Dey
and Aruna Roy are exemplars of such a way of politics. They also represent the
stamina and the quiet courage of the MKSS as it battles local forces of
authoritarianism and corruption.
Their track
record is impressive but one can sense their desperation and despair as their
struggle almost becomes a ceaseless epic.
I think it is
time civil society across India responds to the implications of such a case.
First, one is astonished at the meek way in which media reports it as if the
case was from yesterday's newspaper.
One needs
publicity and storytelling for while the law unravels its viscous self,
democracy at least asserts its faith and pride in the integrity of these
activists and the remarkable life-giving institutions they have introduced.
(The writer
is social science nomad)