The London School of Economics and Political Science the Right To
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science The Right to Information Act in India: The Turbid World of Transparency Reforms Prashant Sharma A thesis submitted to the Department of International Development of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London, October 2012 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 107,259 words. Prashant Sharma London, 29 October 2012 Contact: [email protected] and [email protected] This thesis was submitted for examination to the Research Degrees Unit of the London School of Economics and Political Science on 29 October 2012. The viva examination (oral) was carried out on 12 February 2013 in London. The examination committee passed the thesis without any revisions. 2 For Ma and Pa 3 Contents Abstract ................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements .................................................................................... 6 List of Tables .................................................................................... 8 List of Figures .................................................................................... 9 List of Acronyms .................................................................................... 10 Prologue ................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 1: Democratic Deepening and the Right to Information ......... 16 Chapter 2: A Question of Method ................................................ 57 Chapter 3: The Dominant Narrative ................................................ 84 Chapter 4: Digging Up the Grassroots ................................................ 118 Chapter 5: Opening Up the Government ................................................ 170 Chapter 6: The Foreign Hand ............................................................ 238 Chapter 7: How Deep is My Democracy? .................................... 293 Bibliography .................................................................................... 315 Annexures .................................................................................... 344 4 Abstract The enactment of the national Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2005 has been produced, consumed and celebrated as an important event of democratic deepening in India both in terms of the process that led to its enactment (arising from a grassroots movement) as well as its outcome (fundamentally altering the citizen-state relationship). This thesis problematises this narrative and proposes that the explanatory factors underlying this event may be more complex than thus far imagined. First, the leadership of the grassroots movement was embedded within the ruling elite and possessed the necessary resources as well as unparalleled access to spaces of power for the movement to be successful. Second, the democratisation of the higher bureaucracy along with the launch of the economic liberalisation project meant that the urban, educated, high-caste, upper-middle-class elite that provided critical support to the demand for an RTI Act was no longer vested in the state and had moved to the private sector. Mirroring this shift, the framing of the RTI Act during the 1990s saw its ambit reduced to the government, even as there was a concomitant push to privatise public goods and services. Third, the thesis locates the Indian RTI Act within the global explosion of freedom of information laws over the last two decades, and shows how international pressures, embedded within a reimagining of the role of the state vis-à-vis the market, had a direct and causal impact both on its content, as well as the timing of its enactment. Taking the production of the RTI Act as a lens, the thesis finally argues that while there is much to celebrate in the consolidation of procedural democracy in India over the last six decades, existing economic, social and political structures may limit the extent and forms of democratic deepening occurring in the near future. 5 Acknowledgements As much of an individual process that a PhD is, one cannot conceive of it as anything but a project that can be carried out only with the support of numerous individuals. In the case of this thesis, I find myself overwhelmed by the limitless, unflinching and untiring generosity of not just family, friends and collaborators, but also of people that I interacted with only fleetingly. In this sense (and above all), the experience of conducting this research has essentially been a humbling one. While it is impossible to individually document the contribution of each of these individuals, I can only hope to indicate the depth of my gratitude by mentioning their names here. Those who have wished to remain anonymous must remain unacknowledged in name, and I hope that this thesis has done at least some measure of justice to their contributions. I will take the ‘democratic’ route and place the names of all those who have contributed in different ways to this thesis in alphabetical order. Christopher Adam, Yamini Aiyar, Ted Allen, J. Gabriel Campbell, J. Mijin Cha, Anuradha Chagti, Vikram Chand, Maya Ram and Seema Chaurasia, Andrew Colvin, Angela Cuda, Ritanjan Das, Ankur Datta, Vinita Deshmukh, Juan Carlos Diaz Santos, Andrew Fischer, Shailesh Gandhi, Shohini Ghosh, Sudipto Ghosh, R.K. Girdhar, Tom Goodfellow, Sarah Holsen, Stephen Hughes, Chris Humphrey, P. Vaidyanathan Iyer, Neha Khanna, Miloon Kothari, Sarah McMillan, Anil and Rajeshree Mehta, Geraldine Miric, Premila Nazareth, Kumar Nilotpal, Taeko Ohyama, Praveen Priyadarshi, Mukesh Puri, Sushil Raj, Charmaine Ramos, Jeannine Relly, Dennis Rodgers, Indrajit Roy, Ryan Schlief, Abhishek Singh, Janaki Srinivasan, Sripriya Sudhakar, Jayaraj Sundaresan, Avaneesh Trivedi, Manisha Verma and Borge Wietzke - your support and encouragement has been invaluable and I cannot thank each of you enough. There are, of course, some individuals, who bore the brunt of the process to a much larger extent. For them, simply expressing gratitude will not suffice. Giuseppe Caruso, Radhika Gupta, Himanshu, and Dipa Sinha – you will not be spared. You are now condemned to read the final thesis as well! This research, of course, could not have been carried out without the generosity of all the respondents that form the bedrock of this thesis. B.S. Baswan, Anjali Bhardwaj, Ajit Bhattacharjea, T.N. Chaturvedi, Nikhil Dey, Shailesh Gandhi, Anil Heble, Rajni Kothari, Aruna Roy, Arun Shourie, Sanjay Shirodkar, Lal Singh, Shankar Singh, Shekhar Singh, N.C. Saxena, P.B. Sawant and Arvind Varma are only some from whom I have learnt much, and not merely in terms of the research. I extend my deep gratitude to them, as well as to the many other respondents who wished to remain anonymous. Without your generous contributions, this thesis would not have seen the light of day. At the Department of International Development, LSE, I cannot imagine having come this far without the support of Drucilla Daley, Susan Hoult, Sue Redgrave, and most of all, Stephanie Davies. Without their support, this research would simply not have been possible. The wonderfully efficient team at the Research Degrees Unit of the LSE must also be acknowledged here. Critical financial support came from the LSE Research Fellowship, the Asia Research Centre (through the Modi-Narayanan Fellowship) at the LSE, the Newby Trust, and the Coffin Trust (Central Research Fund of the University of London), without which I could not have completed this research. 6 In this long and demanding process, the support I have received from my family has been essential to this endeavour. My parents-in-law, Berenice and Ekkehart Muller-Rappard, and my sisters-in-law, Alix and Christa Muller-Rappard have been untiring sources of encouragement and positive energy. My brother and sister-in-law Pranjal and Sanchita Sharma, despite the physical distance, have been pillars of support throughout the process. And finally my parents, Saryu and Seva Ram Sharma, who have given me unquestioned affection, understanding, belief and encouragement as only parents can. I offer my deep gratitude to each of you. Living and working in Kathmandu, I was ruminating about doing a PhD when I had a serendipitous meeting with the person who has been central to this research, my supervisor, Prof. Stuart Corbridge. Simply said, there is no one else I can imagine having done this research with, not merely for the intellectual direction that I have received from him, but more so for having had an opportunity to grow in the best way possible – under a gentle, responsive and caring hand that guided, but never pushed. I can only wish that all PhD students have the good fortune of finding a supervisor like him. Guruji, I cannot thank you enough. Finally, I can only attempt to put down in words what is essentially an impossible