news details |
|
|
| Remove the information deficits | | |
It needs to be widely hailed that the Jammu and Kashmir Government has expressed its seriousness in bringing about transparency in the system. The renewed Right to Information Act which has recently got nod of the Legislature reflects seriousness of the government but it is still not without lacunae. Now it is to be seen that how much seriousness does the administrative machinery shows in sharing information with the public. So far Jammu and Kashmir has been ranked at the end of all states for compliance to the suo motu provisions of the Act. This means it was not proactive in providing information through web sites and has not taken its responsibility under the Act seriously. The small state of Nagaland was in the first place with the highest rating of 62 per cent. Central government ministries have generally done better than state government departments in responsiveness. Even states which are considered backward, like Bihar, have done better than more “developed” states like Jammu and Kashmir or Karnataka which comes at rank 16. What the survey, conducted by an organisation in Bangalore, shows is that the performance of a government does not depend on the infrastructure for dissemination of information in a state but on its willingness to share it with the people. The survey found that the degree of compliance depended on the administrative changes the state has effected to facilitate flow of information, especially in the area of e-governance. Karnataka, which claims to lead the country in information technology and to have pioneered e-governance initiatives years ago, has lagged behind other states basically because the governments it had in the recent past did not consider it necessary to share power with the people. Even without the survey it was clear that the official attitude in the state to the RTI Act was not very positive. An amendment was sought to be made which restricted enquiries under the Act. Whatever the argument in justification, it was a give-away of an attitude, and this was not in the spirit of the law. It is a lack of faith in the need for transparency and accountability that is at the root of the non-performance of many states. This actually is a democratic deficit which should be addressed as much with a change of mindset as with means and methods. As the survey noted, political and administrative commitment has been found lacking in good measure. It has also made some recommendations for improving the performance, including fixing of responsibility for implementing suo motu provisions, prioritisation of information categories and speeding up of processes, offer of incentives for pro-active disclosures and regular monitoring and supervision. The government should consider them for implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
