‘RTI will have calming effect in Kashmir’

Wajahat Habibullah has stepped down as Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) of India. He will now don the role of Jammu & Kashmir’s first information commissioner, and possibly the key interlocutor in talks between New Delhi and Kashmiri separatists. In a freewheeling chat with Javed M Ansari & Josy Joseph, Habibullah fields questions on a range of issues.

Stepping down as the country’s CIC to become the information commissioner of J&K was a surprise move. Please explain.
Chief minister Omar (Abdullah) had asked me to help him improve the situation in J&K. I had helped them (the J&K government) draft the new RTI 2009. Moreover, as the CIC, I have done whatever I could and I hope I have laid a strong foundation. Instead of doing more of the same thing, it would be better if I help set up a new information commissioner. It is badly needed in J&K. People there are emerging from trauma and society is highly unstable. This (RTI) will have a calming effect.

You have always been very passionate about peace in J&K. Would you be involved in the negotiations between New Delhi and separatists?
If the government of India wants to use my services I would be willing. I have given advice in think tank circles and at policy levels whenever it has been sought. In J&K, more needs to be done. One (important) thing is to give people a sense of partnership in governance. This is what I hope to do with RTI there. It is important to make people feel part of an open, diverse democracy, which India is.

Shouldn’t militants be part of the peace talks?
The government has to decide how widespread the contact with the political spectrum should be. Of course, all elements of  society have to be on board if you are looking for lasting peace. But you cannot talk to them if they are shooting at you.

Who can bring them on board?
If you are doing that (bringing militants to peace talks) the so called separatist leaders arebetter placed to do that. We have to bring them into the body politic.


We had the Supreme Court judges disclosing their assets a couple of days back. The legislators do it. Isn’t it time for the bureaucrats to do that now?
They can. It probably is a good idea. In his order justice Ravinder Bhat (of Delhi High Court) had said that the statement on property is private information, the disclosure of which is not mandated by the law. It has to be disclosed if asked for, he had said. Whether government officials should disclose is an open question. CIC members have all filed their assets, but we have deliberately not placed it on the website. But we would give it to anybody who asks for it. There are concerns about misuse of such details.


Isn’t the commission getting too populated with bureaucrats? Is it good for RTI?
I agree that initially we were heavily in favour of babus. It was because we were talking about access to government information. We didn’t want to get a person who had no clue of the government. UP’s information commission did not have even a single bureaucrat until recently, was it the best in the country? But yes, the state committees (for appointing commissioners) should think of going beyond bureaucrats and bring in people who command public respect.

Even when orders are passed by commissioners most officials are reluctant to implement them. How are you addressing it?
We have set up a special cell which follows compliance. If a failure of compliance is found, then it is registered as a complaint and action can be taken against the person concerned.

Despite push for more transparency, the process of declassification of documents is still disappointing.
Yes, it is. The law says that all documents more than 20 years old should be declassified. However, all sorts of appeals (for disclosures) from people come to us. It is better if the government at the highest level takes a decision on it, and not leave the process to some under secretary. There is an obvious need for better privacy and declassification laws in the country.