I will speak very precisely on a few basic points concerning today's topic. A younger brother Sri Chitta Ranjan Behera, who has the reputation of producing good drafts from college days, has drafted the Proposed Bill on Orissa Right to Information. So the question doesn't arise for my disagreement with this draft. But another younger brother Sri Manmohan Praharaj has pointed out a fundamental error of inconsistency in the draft bill. The very people who habitually conceal the information from the people are now expected to disclose it. This is like entrusting the very sinners to judge the acts of sin.

Now who are the rulers of country? Certainly, the people in a democracy. In my view, even in a monarchy, the people could change their king whenever they wanted, albeit through a rebellion. In a democracy, the people can change their leaders by peaceful means. Just as the well-off people keep the servants for managing their affairs, similarly the bureaucracy is maintained out of public exchequer for managing the affairs of the public. The bureaucrats are therefore fully accountable to the public for how they manage affairs of public interest. So how come, the law of the land prohibits a common man from knowing what the bureaucrats are doing for them.

There are several Ministers in the Central Cabinet who are my friends. Sri Sarad Yadav, Nitish Kumar and George Fernandes, for instance are among them. Defence was a holy cow, which meant that nobody should discuss matters relating to Defence in public, but nowadays the defence has come under serious public criticism owing to cases of corruption surrounding difference deals.

The tendency of the officials to conceal information from the public goes against them too. If the Government doesn't provide authentic information to the media men, the latter would publish whatever they like. In such a situation, why should the Government officials criticize the media men fir publishing wrong news? Such officials harm the interest of Government.

Defence is the concern of the citizens of country, who gave the right to the Government officials to know more than the common citizens about the matters on defense.

I am a Journalist. If some miscreants kill my wife because of my writing that exposed their malpractices, and the police lodge a criminal case on the death of my wife, am I not entitled to ask the police about how far the investigation has proceeded?

Thus right to know is a Fundamental Right. As Justice Mishra said, it is not a law only but a Fundamental Right of the citizen, which underlies every other Fundamental Right including the right to speech for instance. If a judge is not appraised properly on the facts of a case, how can he issue his judgment? Similarly right to livelihood is a Fundamental Right under the right to life, but as you know the right to work couldn't be made a fundamental right under the Constitution, despite several efforts. The reason is that such rights are so comprehensive in scope, and that once these rights are guaranteed, all other rights shall be fulfilled automatically.

To illustrate my point, I will narrate a small story of a man who was poor, blind and childless. Once he went to Lord Shiv to get his blessing for an end to his sorrows. Lord Shiv asked him to pray for a single blessing only, which he would fulfill. The man agreed and prayed to Shiv to grant him that he would see his son eating from a golden plate. He knew that this single blessing would fulfill all his wants. Similarly the Right to Information is a vast and comprehensive right, which if granted would fulfill all the aspirations of the people. Once the right to information is guaranteed to the people, the people themselves would come to know about everything and would try to solve various problems on their own. So right to information, even if made into a law, should be viewed more as a fundamental right than as a specific legal right. Dr. Samant, Chairman, Press Council of India, thinks that once the right to information is guaranteed it would solve all the problems of the country.

Just as Sri Madhusudan Panda, Advocate Orissa High Court observed, you people should build social movement around right to information in stead of confining to seminars and workshops. To popularize the issue among the common people, small small booklets need be published and circulated in the simple Oriya language.

Now let me tell you my experience of how corruption is taking place around public money at Gram Panchayat level and secrecy is maintained to cover it up. In a particular Gram Panchayat in Jagatsinghpur district, the Sarpanch used to take a bribe of Rs.1,100/- against each Indira Awas Yojona that he granted. The people complained before me about this extortion of money by the Sarpanch and I organized the people to demand the return of such money. The Sarpanch was compelled return the money back to the people. After some days of this incident I had been to Parjang Gram Panchayat in Dhenkanal district. There I came across some people who were going to the polling booth on the day of Panchayat elections. I asked them, 'Is not the Sarpanch, you are going to vote for a corrupt man?' They replied, "Yes. He takes a bribe of Rs.7,000/- against each Indira Awas Yojana". I felt angry and asked myself how can the people tolerate such a situation. Later on I came to learn that both Sarpanch and the beneficiary are the malpractitioners. The beneficiary is not a BPL man but an APL man. The APL man thinks, even if the Sarapanch takes away as much as Rs.7,000/- out of Rs.20,000/- the remaining amount would be his net benefit. All this becomes possible because people are not able to know what is what? So the right to information if realized in practice would lead the way forward for solution of the rest of the problems of our society.