Pallab Bhattacharya
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invite to heads of Government and state of South Asian countries to his swearing in was premised on the assumption that New Delhi’s quest for key international player must begin in its own backyard.
Taking an equally important step towards that was the Government’s announcement of the decision to ratify an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to expand the supervision of its civilian nuclear programme.
The decision to ratify the Additional Protocol , which had been hanging fire for the last five years, is expected not only to take India closer towards integration with the world nuclear commerce but is also aimed at showing that the country was a responsible atomic power. India had committed to signing the Additional Protocol under the Indiaspecific safeguards agreement signed with IAEA in 2009 as part of efforts to unblock the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement signed five years prior to that.
The Protocol will facilitate greater oversight by IAEA inspectors of India’s 20 non-military nuclear facilities which have been thrown open to the international nuclear watchdog. This is also significant because India is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), that seeks to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, and its military nuclear programme is not subject to IAEA supervision.
Secondly, the decision to ratify the Protocol is also likely to smoothen the way for India becoming a member of an elite group of 45 nuclear power countries under the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG). Significantly, the timing of the announcement of the decision to ratify the Protocol came just days ahead of the NSG meeting in Argentina’s capital Buenos Aires. India’s joining the NSG will not give it access to sophisticated nuclear equipment but also protect its core strategic interests in the field.
But far more importantly from the point of view of larger international political scenario, the decision to approve the Protocol was intended to send signals to the United States ahead of Modi’s visit to that country in September to attend the U N General Assembly session and possibly to meet President Barack Obama.
The decision indicates Bharatiya Janata Party’s nod to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal which Modi’s predecessor Manmohan Singh had described as the most significant feat of his ten-year tenure as Prime Minister.
It will also come as a reaffirmation of India’s new Government’s commitment to the deal. After all, it was at the behest of the US that IAEA had in March, 2007 cleared the India-specific safeguards agreement and the consequent Additional Protocol for India despite New Delhi not being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which India has since long junked as “discriminatory”. The Indo- US nuclear agreement had provided that India would ratify the additional protocol with the United Nations nuclear watchdog.
The ratification of the additional protocol of IAEA once again drives home the point that India’s nuclear policy is transparent and it is a responsible nuclear power which has nothing to hide.
Agreeing to allow supervision of its civil nuclear projects and the data of its nuclear exports to IAEA oversight is the best demonstration of India’s unflinching commitment to non-proliferation and its clean in the area despite not being a signatory to NPT.
It will also answer critics of India’s nuclear programme that the pact with the IAEA fails to address concerns of proliferation as India could get its foot in the door of a club of countries which trade in nuclear materials.
The ratification of the protocol is aimed at unlocking the potential of tens billions of dollars in international investment in India’s nuclear power sector as the world’s third largest economy, guzzling conventional energy like oil, gas and coal and hydel power, looks for energy security and fight climate change.
Nuclear power is expected to be a significant component of India’s search for energy security and ratification of the protocol is expected to pave the way for nuclear technology and uranium for civilian purposes. Following the NSG’s waiver granted to India to sign the India-US civil nuclear deal, Britain, France, Russia, Argentina, South Korea, Namibia, Mongolia and Kazakhstan have over the years signed bilateral agreements with India for bilateral civil nuclear cooperation. Uranium-rich countries like Australia, Canada, Mongolia and Kazakhstan are looking at the lucrative nuclear power market in India as are the US, Japan and France eyeing to export advance nuclear power technology. Nuclear energy is one of the high priority areas which can bring about a paradigm shift in relations between Japan and India, going beyond trade and investment and encompassing strategic aspects in view the two countries’ convergence about an assertive China militarily.
However, ratifying the protocol is just one major step towards India’s full integration with the world nuclear order and recognition of a nuclear-weapon country. Hurdles in the way of India’s integration remain, particularly in the form of its Nuclear Liability Law that has raised the hackles of the multinational companies of the US, Japan and France which supply the technology. The Law puts the onus on suppliers of such technology in the event of a nuclear accident which countries like the US, France and Japan object to. So, there is a much longer journey for India beyond the protocol.

Ashok Bhan
The Jammu & Kashmir RTI Act in its current form came into existence on 20th March 2009.  It took some time for the Government to constitute the State Information Commission. After initial hype, there unfortunately has come some dimness in the sheen of this path breaking legislation. Not because it is not yielding any results but because its implementation seems to have entered into a deadlock between rival interests.
While the hurdles in transition from a mindset of secrecy in governance to transparency and accountability were not unexpected, it was thought that the conflicting interests between the various stakeholders will get harmonised with the passage of time. It has not exactly happened. It is time to take stock of the deficit between expectations and what has been achieved so that mid-course corrections are made by the stakeholders. The deadlock between rival interests must be broken.
According to a recent report by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) there are 66,000 complaints and appeals pending before just six Information Commissions information from which was available for analysis. It may be recalled that the Central Right to Information Act stepped into its 10th year of implementation on June 23, 2014.  Why so much of pendency despite time bound framework prescribed by the Act? At this rate there must be lakhs of RTI queries pending before PIOs and Controlling Officers. Can this pendency be reduced substantially if more and more information is voluntarily put in public domain?
The Government invests huge sums of money in creating infrastructure for e-governance. The purpose of this as far as it relates to RTI was threefold- to introduce efficiency in the system; to ensure digitization of record for easy retrieval; and to put in public domain as much information as is necessary once the record is available in digital form.
Sec 4(2) of the J&K RTI Act reads “it shall be the constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub section (1) to provide as much information suo motto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the Act to obtain information”.
If the spirit of this provision is faithfully met, there will be lesser and lesser need to resort to RTI. Technology has to be leveraged in a big way to make the dream of e-governance and accompanying transparency a success. Heads of Departments must be made accountable about the progress achieved in this arena and targets set for them to make available information voluntarily.
To begin with, the thumb rule can be to put in public domain all information that is repeatedly sought by the legislators’ session after session. As a collateral advantage it will allow legislators to focus on more important issues. Entire information related to services sought under Public Services Guarantee Act (PSGA) and progress in each case must be in public domain. Recruitment and admission processes can be made more transparent. Availability of information on various developmental schemes, outlay and stage of implementation can be put on websites. E-tendering and e-payments can make a substantial difference to promote transparency regime. One can go on and on.
Instead, currently a huge burden lies on the poor Public Information Officer (PIO). They have become the whipping boys of a system unwilling to change the secrecy regime into one of transparency. The PIO is not responsible for the working of the entire department. He is also not the store house of entire information about services rendered by his department. He has to depend on the concerned dealing hands that are not liable under the Act. There is no formal training program for PIOs.
The Heads of Department expect PIOs to safeguard the interests of the Department but the RTI expects him to follow a strict time frame failing which he will be punished. There is no punishment for non-cooperation from Departmental heads or dealing hands. There is no serious audit of steps taken for making e-governance a reality. There is no notice of the failure to implement Sec 4(2) of the RTI Act. The proverbial Damocles’ sword keeps hanging over the heads of PIOs alone. The situation needs to be redeemed.
It is alleged that some individuals, activists and NGOs have been misusing the provisions of the Act for their personal ambition of remaining in news and harassing the PIOs. According to sec 3 of the Act every person residing in the state shall have the right to information under the Act. Therefore, legally speaking the activists and NGOs do have a right to information. But we must not misuse this sacred right to harass the Government functionaries or jeopardize the efficient running of the Government.
Sec 23 (1) of the RTI Act which requires Government to organize educational programs to advance the understanding of the public, in particular disadvantaged communities, as to how to exercise the rights contemplated under the Act. Guidelines have to be issued in official languages and updated at regular intervals. Unless and until the public is fully educated in the use of the provisions of the RTI Act, the role of NGOs and activists will continue.
Common citizens are not aware whom to approach and how to approach for seeking information. The Government and the Information Commission may consider opening a helpline and helpdesks in each district where not only information on use of RTI Act is available but facilities for writing applications free of cost and depositing of fee is also available.
Yet the role of NGOs and activists in unearthing scams and cases of misuse of public funds will always remain and need not attract unnecessary criticism. The only caveat is that sought information must truly be in public interest and not for narrow personal interests or harassing the Public Authority.
The preamble of the Act declares in unequivocal terms that the democratic ideal of right to information is paramount. Yet it also recognizes the need for harmonising the conflicting interest between this right and other public interests including efficient operations of the Government, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Information seekers must not hold Government to ransom under the threat of RTI. Lack of harmony often leads to strains in the relationship between the three important stakeholders- the information seeker, the Information Commission and the Government. Possibly the subject is still in its infancy and developing. With passage of time precedence and judgments will help achieve the desired harmony and understanding of each other’s point of view. Meanwhile, the Government, the State Information Commission and information seekers must sit across the table to try and harmonise these conflicting interests. The sacred spirit of the legislation that ‘democratic right of information is paramount’ must not be lost in a conflict of interests between different stakeholders.
(The author is a former Vigilance Commissioner of J&K.)