Interview with Shailesh Gandhi

Cinematographer: zoom

Duration: 01:26:04; Aspect Ratio: 1.778:1; Hue: 62.415; Saturation: 0.016; Lightness: 0.487; Volume: 0.124; Cuts per Minute: 18.134; Words per Minute: 137.850

SS: Weclome Shaileshji. Thank you for agreeing to this interview. As I mentioned to you, we were interested to talk about your specific-
SG: We want to talk in English or Hindi?
SS: Mix. As in... Ashok?
SG: Mix, okay fine.

AS: I think it's nice to mix it... because we have no compulsions as such. We are going to transcribe maybe some of it anyway. Where subtitles are needed.
SG: Okay.

AS: Keep it majority English. If there's need for Hindi, if you feel something is coming across better, toh...

SG: Fine.

SS: As I'd mentioned to you, we were interested to know more about one of your specific RTI interventions, about the leased lands, the work you did around it. And also your proposal of- speculation about how housing can be provided.
SS: But immediately going into that, I would request you, if you can, to tell in brief about yourself and also how you started into RTI movement. It's interesting bit of information because...

SG: Okay, I started by a complete accident. I had sold my business because I wanted to do something socially relevant in 2003. And in September 2003 at Sucheta Dalal's house, there was a meeting called of about 20 different people who were slightly doing activism. And there I heard Y.P. Singh, who was there on his way out from the police, saying that somebody should ask about police transfers and influence in police transfers. And Mr. Kewal Semlani was there he said right to information is a very good law that has come in that it was just introduced in Maharashtra at that time. As in, somebody can ask for RTI. I had never heard of right to information. But I asked Mr. Semlani, he told me in one or two minutes and said aap ...kanoon ka le aana, Charni Road printing press se.

SG: So next day, I sent somebody to get a copy of the law and the rules and filed my first RTI application to Bombay police commissionerate. Asking about names of MPs, ministers and others who had recommended police transfers in the last two years. They rejected it and it kind of built up. But I began to realise the potential of this law. Ultimately, six months later, we did get the list, that became a very big news in that time for RTI. It was something of a big revelation and some 140 officers, police officers were reprimanded officially and it was on record that they had been reprimanded.

SG: But this taught me that this was a huge potential for change. And therefore, I started getting deeper into RTI. Somewhere around that time, 2004 or 05, 2004 most probably, I asked about the status of leased lands of government, I heard somewhere some things. In fact, it started with RWITC. RWITC, had been given the lease, with the Bombay Municipal Corporation that got finished some 20 years or 15 years back, and they renewed that lease. And immediately, RWITC was giving it to somebody - a small place for much more than the annual lease rent of the property. So that got me thinking ki yeh kya ho raha hai I mean, aise kaise ho sakta hai people own the land, they get a small pittance, and somebody who takes the land on lease gets a huge profit. So that's why I started on the lease issues.

SG: And in 2004 or 05 it was perhaps, 2004 or 05, I got a list of leased lands given by Bombay Collectorate. And to my horror, I discovered that a fair number of them the leases had expired and they were paying nominal rent. To give some examples, people occupying 2000 square metres or 1000 square metres of property right in the middle of the Bombay city are paying one rupee or 50 rupees or 100 rupees per year as lease rent. This came as a shock to me. I said here is a state and a nation which has got so many poor people, people are dying of hunger because the government cannot provide them food. On the other hand, we subsidise it therefore, I realise that what is given to the poor is called a subsidy. What is given to the rich is called an incentive.

leased lands

SG: Shabdon ka yeh maayajaal hai, aur koi pharak nahin hai
(It's just a play of words, nothing else.)

SG: So then I wrote a letter- letters to the ministry at that time, I met the chief secretary, explained to him I said, Look, there's a huge public loss of money, if at all, you want to give the same land to the same people renew the lease at whatever the appropriate rate. So he said yes, yes, you're saying something very important, but nothing really came out of it. I kept trying to write letters and so on. And I went deeper into this getting details of Bombay collectors... suburban collector getting details from Municipal Corporation of Bombay, and so on. And realise that very rich people - to give you just one or two names - Sun and Sand hotel, Shahrukh Khan's bungalow, Shapoorji Pallonji. These are some names, these are not the only names, all of them, the leases had expired. And everybody started telling me when I approached them, they said "Lease matlab ownership" (Lease means ownership).

This was officially being told to me by people, Chief Secretary of Maharashtra and others, and I just could not believe that. I went into records and realised that in British times, the leases for lands were given for different periods of time. There were leases given in perpetuity, leases given for 999 years, leases given for 99 years, 50 years, variety of different... And they mentioned a specific reason for leasing. I've seen one case where a lease was given for a brothel, or a barber shop, I mean, it was so specific. The purpose was given, the rent was given, the period was given.

SG: So, I started thinking all this is there, this cannot be just arbitrary. The whole purpose behind it from my perspective was that the state felt certain activities are useful and therefore they should be undertaken. Around that time the Mill Lands issue [...] very hot. At least 30% of the leased lands, their leases had expired. So, there's no reason to continue the lease with the same lease holder since the mills also did not exist. They were saying they're not going to have mills. So my argument was if they are going to have mills, why should the state renew the lease, or continue to...? They should say please both(?), we'll do whatever we want. It could have been used for a variety of purposes. But unfortunately, despite a lot of effort I tried to make at that time, maybe I was ineffective. I was not able to sell the argument to make it a major argument for Mill Lands. Because I said 30% I mean, I got a call for some TV shows and some press coverage but it led to zero, the end result was nothing.

SG: Then by a fluke chance, I was made a Central Information Commissioner in 2008. So this took a backseat and I went to Delhi and I was doing my work there. When I came back in 2012 I again asked for list of leases, and believe it or not in 2005 or thereabouts the Bombay Collector and Suburban Collector had given me computerised lists - you know - printout from a computer. In 2012 they said we don't have this record. I said but you gave it to me on a computer they said woh computer band ho gaya because uska vendor(?) chala gaya toh humare paas password nahin hai. So, ultimately anyway, they gave me some lists etc. I put this together and did some simple calculation by buying the ready reckoner.

leased lands

SG: I said supposing the rent was as per the ready reckoner for the lands, what would the loss of revenue be? And the figure came to about 2,700 to 3,000 crores on a very conservative side just for Mumbai two collectors. Without taking BMC into account without taking Bombay Port Trust into account. Everywhere this is true, this has got very many places - BMC leases lands... Taj Hotel at Gateway, part of it is leased land again from BMC, where lease has expired. Times of India building lease has expired. So I put the figures together and approached Mihir Desai and said look, will you please take this as a PIL?

SG: There is one... Now, during this period, I realised that there was one Bombay High Court judgement, which said, in increasing leases where Bombay Port Trust was involved- Bombay Port Trust had tried to increase the lease rent to expired leases. And the Bombay High Court said no, no, you can't do this. You can't act like a profiteer and a landlord, you got to look at their needs, to have a relationship with them. And I couldn't understand this argument at all. On the other hand, I also discovered one Bombay High Court judgement, in the Puna case, will said that even if land is to be given for 15 days for a Ganeshutsav to somebody, it must be auctioned. An auction is the only way government land can be given to anybody. So I put all this together and approached Mihir Desai who agreed to do this work pro bono for me. But one hearing, two hearings - every time a hearing would occur, I was expected to go to town, brief Mihir about it because he has hundreds of cases.

SG: And some days the case would not come up. So after about five or six such pilgrimages(?) I gave up, I said I no longer have the... I'm an old man. I no longer have this patience to come to High Court specifically for this- waste your whole day and do nothing else. I mean, it's just not on. So I told Mihir, I said I'm not- I'm getting out of this case. If you feel like, you pursue or don't pursue. I think Mihir also dropped out of the case since I lost interest. And just Today, before this talk, I opened the Bombay High Court website and discovered that my PIL is still continuing. 26 hearings have been held in the High Court, which hearings have, zero value, zero. The orders are one page two page 4-5 page. It's more a list of... because when we filed this, a lot of people who were affected also joined in that. So 2013 to 2020 you have no progress in the case. But I concede that I don't have the patience to continue with this case.

SG: And I thought, in fact, I tried to I tried to meet the state government, I met the chief minister also at that time, I tried to explain to him that look, why are you fighting me? The state is the respondent. So I said, it is your job that I'm doing. I don't own any land, I have no interest in owning any land or leasing any land. I have no personal interest. So the state should in fact, tell the court that we agree with Mr. Gandhi let the court give a decision. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And this farce continued.

SG: During this thinking, somewhere around 2013 or 14, after I filed a PIL, a thought came to me about... I had earlier been involved in a SRA system, where I had filed my own case and appeared on myself in 2006-07. So, it occurred to me- what is the problem with the SRA? And meeting people like you and me, and Medhaji and others, I realised that there was a serious problem, the poor were not getting houses or shelters, genuinely, in a significant number of cases. There may be a few exceptions, but by and large, it seemed to me to be a fraud, I had not done a detailed investigation, but that was the impression I got. I started thinking can we not do something about housing in Mumbai? And my thinking led me to realise that what actually is a right, is a right to shelter. A right to food is a right. A right to land is not a right, in my opinion.

SG: What is happening with SRA from my analysis was something like this. Those who had been in a slum until a particular what they call 'cutoff time', would get a flat of 20 lakhs to two crores depending on the area where it was for doing nothing except being there. And these cutoff dates are completely stupid. Because... can we say... and we cannot say that, that people must not come to Mumbai after a particular year. And those who come after that year, have no right to shelter. I mean, I found that a completely ridiculous argument. If right to shelter is a basic right, it must be given to everybody. So can there be another way of looking at it?

SG: And then I realised that because of this crazy way in which the SRA scheme was built, most of the times, builders and mafia were operating. There's a lot of illegality, because in the SRA case that I had filed a lot of SRA people also came and approached me and said Mr. Gandhi do something and I had no authority nothing that I could do. But the thought came to me - yes, right to shelter is given, Why don't we have shelter for about one crore people? Estimate was that at that time, about four or five years back that they will not be more than one crore people in the slums and even if it was, it is possible. And then I need a working at FSI of 2. The total land requirement for the slums in Mumbai assuming one crore people to be housed, would be about 5% of the total land of Mumbai.

SG: Estimates were that over 10% of the land is occupied by slums. My guess is it's far higher. So land exists. And land exists in different places. It's not that you say you will give you a shelter 50 kilometres from where you are working, wherever they are staying may not be that specific location but within two or five kilometres of that arrangement(?) could be done. And these houses I believed should be such of 21 square metres or whatever had been fixed. Where it would be stated that they cannot- they don't own it, they are on rental. These houses should be so constructed that the upwardly aspiring people should not be willing to stay there. So, concept was of a chawl. A toilet is a necessary part of every aspiring person who's rising in life. That should be common, like in chawls. Chawls have existed in Mumbai since long time.

SG: And combination of two - one is tenements. And for about seven and a half lakh people, dormitories. People come for five days, 10 days, 20 days or even for two months, are single. They cannot go into such places, so for them dormitories. And dormitories exist in many advanced countries, including the United States of America, where people come in at night, sleep there, take a bath and get out. And I did the working and it seemed to be feasible. I again, tried to sell the idea as I call it to various people, I went to some architecture colleges and gave lectures there. But nothing really came out of that.

SG: So in sum and substance, the journey into lease lands issue and dreaming of a slum free Mumbai, both ended up in zilch. And that is what is important. But I was hoping that society would take this up. Unfortunately, I have not found much support for that. And I have no organisation to be able to do anything. I think that was a mouthful, you had hoped to stop me but once you had me started, it was difficult to forget.
SS: No, no.

SS: Yeah, no, in the sense like, the way you have ended... Like in city like Mumbai, where like at one level everyone says there's no land and land is so precious and there are so many pressures on land. Also, there's this sort of a contradiction there that at one level one, like even an inch of land means so much for everyone for the state, for the people. And here, we had lists of which is not talking about, like a square metre or 100 square metre, it's more like 600 acres in cities. It's another 600 in the suburbs. So even at that time, I think even now, like even in the whole case of Mill Lands, as you have very rightly pointed out, like someone is dealing or trading or imagining a future about a piece of land which they don't own, which they have no claim - legal claim - over. And how it is that the society as a whole, it doesn't object or it doesn't contradict to that imagination. And this simple question...

SG: I just don't know, I have no answer to that. I had imagined that I'd get a lot of support. It was probably my failure. There are a few people who are blessed with being able to launch movements. I wasn't one of them. I don't have the capability probably. My friend who had that ability has become Chief Minister of Delhi. Medhaji has that, but I mean, she was aware of what I was talking of. She did support me. But she did not take up the cause as such. You know, if somebody like Medhaji had taken it up maybe? Because in my opinion, the real argument is very strong. Agar lease mein liyaa hai... I've asked people who say no, no, lease means ownership. I said, supposing a man has one kholi, band kamra, and he gives it for 11 months to somebody. After 11 months, what will he do? He will take it back or he will say revise my rent. Or if he's given it for five years, at the end of five years, he'll say either revise my rent, or please leave. I may give you a discount of 5% or 10%.

SG: What is happening is there is- because of my PIL, government came out with a GR saying new policy for leases that have expired. In which - it's laughable- they said we'll take 25% of the rateable value and charge 1% rate on that for the whole year. Which is a discount of I don't know what percentage. And the point I stress and am horrified with is the fact that these government lands are owned by the poorest man in Vidarbha who could be dying and committing suicide or dying of hunger, which is something which our biggest system just doesn't understand. Our society doesn't understand this. We talk about it. If we give them something we say it's a subsidy. Why should it be a subsidy? People of India own sufficient assets, it is just that these assets are being transferred in the pockets of some rich people, whoever has influence, which is sinful, in my opinion.

SS: Ashok you want to ask something?

AS: I just wanted to go back to the original point ki... Did you imagine, other than the general point, which is, of course, very valid that this is belonging to the people, right. I mean, there's a state government land, they have been leased. So, what do you think is the- could have been or was a constituency of people who would be making a claim to this, right? So, I mean, the simple point is that, there are so many people here who are both paying exorbitant rent because of the land value escalation, you know, so, one would imagine that there are lots of constituencies jahan pe (where) people would demand that these kinds of lands be made available. I mean, because it makes sense for their interest. Were there specific- or even Simpreet, could not there have been some specific constituencies who were within these lands, who had an interest in this kind of argument?

SG: In my opinion, a lot of slum dwellers should have taken interest. Medhaji once did ask me to address a public meeting at Azad Maidan. She said Mr. Gandhi, you say this. I explained the concept to them ki bhai bhaare pe milega, ghar aapka nahin hoga (you'll get it on rent, not ownership). And on that day, there were about 150-200 people, they were enthusiastic, they said yes, yes, good idea. So I did go to two or three meetings with Medhaji. Actually I must concede, I was not willing to devote my entire time to this nor, do I have the ability... I was hoping somebody else would take it up.

SG: To me, the slum dwellers who do not get housing and who keep getting cheated on various counts should be the natural constituency. And if it had been taken up legally, I think it was a very strong point instead of me if those people who work with slums had taken it up. [...] slum dwellers and who say slum dwellers must get a decent housing - all slum dwellers, whether he came to Mumbai in the year 2000 or the year 2020. He deserves dignity, he deserves a shelter and that is easily possible.

SG: And according to me, as I said about 2700 to 3000 crores of revenues is lost just by the collectors of Mumbai just at a very conservative estimate. Whole of Maharashtra, the total amount is likely to be 25 to 30,000 crores, which could finance all the construction for slums, for this slum housing that I'm talking of. Some of these lands can be taken- even if you don't take back any of these lands and revise the lease rents, let me concede that okay, let's say you may say not market rent, 10% discount, fair enough. Paisa toh hai na. At the time when I started at that time Maharashtra had a debt of if I recall correctly about 80,000 crores. Now, I believe that debt is about two lakh crores.

SG: Who is the debtor? I am a debtor, you are a debtor, the poorest man in Maharashtra is a debtor. And in spite of having an asset that he owns - he owns that asset - the leased land belongs to him - as much as it belongs to me. To me it may not make much difference, but to the poor man I think it makes a huge difference. And then I'm sure there are lots of other things like this... because we're not focusing on these things is my... unfortunate thing. And I look at it as my failure to be able to persuade people. I had a very good argument, media would write about it, TV would do shows but that doesn't lead to anything.

AS: But there were two parts to the argument, right, at least. One was that... Aap pehle argument kar rahe the ki yeh jo land hai yeh unka hai hi nahin, right? This is expired lease. So therefore it belongs to the state and we must account for it in some way. And then there was a second part which was the sort of housing solution type of thing.

SG: These are two different things but they, to me [...] you're right, these were two completely- even today, the leased lands are not... issue is not touched, which should be in my opinion. And I can see no legal argument to counter this, nobody's been able to give me a valid argument except to say "Lease matlab ownership" (lease = ownership). Arre, yeh kaise bakwaas hai! (Utter nonsense!) I have come across an agreement in British times, where a party took half the property on lease and half on ownership. And it was written there that within five years, if the owner wanted, he could take the other property... he could pay a certain premium and take the other property. So the concept of lease and ownership is very clearly different in law. I'm horrified that the state doesn't see something as simple as this. I'm horrified that the people do not see something as simple as this.

SG: Yeh toh sabki jagah hai, meri toh nahin hai And that case is still going on. I'm hoping somebody, even today maybe through you, take some discourse, and says we want to intervene and do something about it. Some leading lawyers have told me they said 'Sailesh you should've attended'. I find it absolutely absurd to keep going to attend such hearings. I find it insulting to human dignity. Just as much as living in a slum is an insult to human dignity, going and waiting in courts like this endlessly is an insult to human dignity.

AS: So Simpreet I wanted to ask you, did you have another view on this? When this happened and you all got to know, was there a certain view on this...? What you guys thought about the argument and so on.

SG: No, as in, there was no different view. Now while Shaileshji was talking about all this, I remember about a press conference we had done in Press Club. And Shaileshji had addressed the media and as he said, there are a lot of interest about it. And I think we had said... people like... we are proposing for how 50 lakh houses can be built. And that sort of...
SG: One crore, one crore

SS: One crore, ya. As in, dormitories and houses. So I think like what... and we had started a campaign also where people were signing letters and submitting to the government officials, saying that under this renewing of the lease, we should also be given land or we should be given housing. But I think where it misses out is... is about like when one has like this, big ideas or big proposals. I think it sort of becomes incomprehensible for our brains to actually imagine. Because I remember even there were some discussions with like Neera Adarker and few others, architects also, because they criticised it, saying it is... in the sense like this, even this proposal was not very thrashed out in the sense like this whole thing about sharing of toilets. Because there were arguments saying that who you are as someone to decide that okay, a family cannot have a common toilet, have a... individual toilet per household.

SS: But... at that time, our position was that okay as and when this argument goes ahead, these things can be thrashed out. And it's not for like, one particular organisation or one individual to sort of take it ahead. But it's an... at one level its a city wide thing where everyone will have a stake because it's in a way going to transform the whole landscape of housing if something like this has to be pushed up. But I think like, when you have like these big ideas somewhere as an individual, they seem to be crazy or in the sense like one is not able to put a whole force into it. In a sense, it remains as individual ideas and not as a collective. Like there's no collective force behind it.

SS: In the sense like for the racecourse. That's also like a very like an unethical ownership of land that is happening - to have a Racecourse within the centre of the city where you don't have land for housing or hospitals or for other such public things. But somewhere I think as a collective society we fail, which includes everyone, and I think that's what sort of stops. But at that time like at GBGB we were for it. But yes, it couldn't be made as a single point agenda of a campaign or intervention.

AS: No no, I was asking also in relation to, like if you see in this list, there are all these you know, known sort of... So... means was there somebody like Shapoor Pallonji... in Mazagaon and in simplex Mills and in Prithvi Mills, etc, were there people - obviously living in these lands, right, whose...

SS: Yes, yes they're still there. Like say, Times of India, I remember like, Times of India at times, some of the journalists they used to do anti-slum stories, and some of them were not friends, but there were other common friends. And then I remember, like, once I'd gone in Times of India building and I had taken RTI, like Shaileshji's RTI. I said, you do these stories, and like, how do you deal with this contradiction that your whole building is on expired lease, and you are now writing a story about like, 50 houses? So that's there, but then, in the sense, like, somewhere, like, people don't see this contradiction, which is there. And also, then, if one goes deep into it, like actually, one has to deal with a particular case, then yes, even though the lease has expired, but then yes, they have a claim that they...

SG: No, how do they have a claim? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Simpreet, I beg to disagree. Paanch saal ke liye kissi ko diya ho kuch, toh uske baad aap kahenge commercial do bhai, 10% discount le lo, aise thodi ki 100% discount lenge!

SS: No no... Claim in the sense that if that is to be renewed, in the sense like,...

SG: They have no claim, I'm sorry, unless it is mentioned in the contract, they have no claim. That is the whole basis of law. Why is a slum dweller removed from a land? - because they say you don't own the land. You have no right- legal right to this. If you have no legal right the day your lease ends, your legal right ends.

SS: The claim is there, no. That's how you're able to...

SG: No! Then the slum dweller has a claim to wherever he stays, then he should be allowed to stay. Let's stop talking of removing slums. Jo bhi jahan bhi rehta hai, woh theek hai. Phir toh, jhopda jahan pe bana diya woh meri zameen ho gayi. You can't have it both ways.

SS: No no, I mean to say that claim in the sense like if it's about renewal, the case where it is about the lease is to be renewed.

SG: Renewal give first chance, but you don't have to give a 99% discount.

SS: Yeah, yeah, I totally agree with that.

SG: And what is not understood by courts also is that this belongs to the poorest man that has never been addressed. When the court says government must not act like a landlord, they imagine as if some zamindar is there. It's not a zamindar, they should put the poorest man in Maharashtra in front of them and then give orders like this.

AS: What is your understanding - how, why is this happening? We understand that you've fought this in court, but from the state's point of view, they are losing x amounts of money. So what is the mechanism? It can't be that you know these people are all our friends and you know it's that kind of corruption.

SG: No, it is not that. It's... just a certain lethargy. I have found, to change anything- and in most- I've tried other things also - change is very difficult. Khopdiyon mein ghusta nahin hai. Wiring badalna padta hai(It doesn't sink in. People are hard wired.) (People are not willing to change their hard wired thinking.) That is all that's required. I'm not saying everybody has a vested interest in it. Certainly not. I don't feel that is the real cause. The real cause is that those who are affected are not taking this up seriously. And they were two different- These are two different things. They were linked in a way but the land is not supposed to be the land where the- this land is supposed to be - the point was to build a 4 storey building on the same land where a slum is now.

SG: Whole idea was... because people said first when I came up with this idea ki yeh rent pe dena hai, people said, woh toh phir khaali nahin karega. Woh toh zindagi bhar owner hi ban jayega. That is when I said that you may have common toilet so that- because let's also realise, we value the concept of money, whether we like it or not. Okay? And think of a young man who may not belong to a rich family, he comes to Mumbai, he stays in a rented place, he sweats his whole life to own one house, one small flat. And because somebody is willing to stay in a slum, he gets a flat free. I mean, this just doesn't work out, I believe. It's neither capitalism nor communism, it's stupidism.

AS: Simpreet... you can continue, but just one last thing, ki itne saalon mein, (In all these years) there must have been some cases of renewals of lease or jaise aapne bola ki yeh jo 1% rule ke baad... (As you mentioned, after the 1% rule). So has that happened at a large scale that these older leases have...

SG: What it appears is that, you see, as I said, govt brought out GR, which would have resulted in some small increase in the lease rent, small, very small. They would- as I said, they were talking of 25% of the market, the rateable value, and 1% per year of that. But that also is being contested by some of those people in the- in my PIL, because they got themselves interveners. Since the government came up with the GR which would have led to some increase in the lease rent, all these people said we don't want to pay any higher rent, we have a stake or claim on this. And we cannot pay more. So they are fighting the case, govt is- I don't know they're fighting or what is happening. But as I said 26 orders I've seen saying nothing. So this has become a game for the courts to keep playing.

AS: No, but those who had expired they have to renew no

SG: No nothing's been renewed. It goes on for years, even upto 25 years without renewal. Bhagwaan ka zameen hai sab. I discovered in fact, it's so casual an approach, which I discovered in this journey. Phoenix Mills was given land in 1950 for constructing a mill and workers housing- that was specific purpose written the lease agreement. That- Sorry, my apologies, the lease agreement was not made. On a piece of paper this was supposed to be in the lease agreement was not made until I started asking for lease agreements. And they made the agreement in 2000 when no mill land existed, no workers housing existed, saying given for the purpose in 1950 for making workers housing and mills. It's a farce.

AS: You had asked when?

SG: 2007 or 2008, somewhere around then

AS: after this redevelopment of the Phoenix?

SG: Yes. There was no mill at the time. Mall or whatever is there now. But when they discovered there was no lease, and I asked for the Phoenix lease, they made the lease deed of 1950 in 2000.

AS: Because of course the argument for even the first sort of bowling alleys and all ki yeh workers ka hai. (for the workers). We are making canteen and we are making all these things. You know, that was the sort of logic.

SG: We are allowing those who are rich to make a joke out of our laws.

AS: Yeah. Sorry, Simpreet carry on.

SG: I hold myself equally responsible, Ashok. I don't say I'm not to blame. In fact, my slogan at the end of every email, my signature is Mera Bharat mahaan nahin hai, par yeh dosh mera hai (My India is not great, but the fault is mine).

AS: I've seen Yeah.

SG: So I hold myself responsible. I don't say I'm not responsible.

AS: But it's not only an individual thing, we're just trying to sort of also see what has happened, and you know,...

SG: Even now, you know the slum thing and this both can be taken up. If somebody is willing to take it up. My PIL, if somebody- I'm willing to authorise somebody alternatively, somebody can intervene also independently.

AS: The PIL is still alive?

SG: The PIL is alive. Alive as in... what sort of life even I don't understand. [Murde ko leke khada karke chadate hain] But if somebody takes it up seriously, I think there is a very strong legal argument which does not appear to have been refuted by anybody. Similarly, the slum housing thing is also in my opinion, completely practical. From what I even now understand I don't do much work with slums. I do no work, in fact, much work nahin. But from what I understand, most slum dwellers are not getting housing. Is that right Simpreet?

SS: Yes, there's a potential in that and also because...

SG: So both things can still be pursued, I wish someone like- a younger person like Simpreet would take it up.

SS: Yes, at some point of time, like there was this whole thing about land and that you know how this can be allowed, how it is going.

SG: And sometimes I feel the best is often the enemy of the good. Like those who said no no toilet should be there- they may have no home, but toilet is a must. I agree, a toilet is a must, but it can be common. People have lived like this for many years in Bombay. Compared back to staying in completely unhygienic places where they are dependent on the local mafia boss and corrupt police and corrupt municipal officers. This would give them a decent place to stay. It wouldn't be a palace, I agree. But maybe my idea of common toilet- that maybe rubbed a lot of my socialist friends the wrong way.

SS: I had this one question, which is specific to this RTI also, because in a way you were dealing with, say, like, I'm gonna not one... RTI application maybe one or more than one, but there will be like,

SG: NO, it's more.

SS: Okay. But like just the following up of these cases. And also, in the sense like, I've also gone through, when you actually get to know of this information, it's incomprehensible in the sense because it doesn't make sense. To know that Taj hotel's lease expired or, Shahrukh Khan's bungalow's lease is expired. At a personal level it affects you. In the sense, not like frustrating but also, firstly, it takes time to to tell yourself that okay, this is a fact. And, and then only because people don't believe and because in the beginning, it's difficult for oneself to believe. What has been that journey? And also, in the sense that, I think that that was or is the potential of RTI, that still...

SG: It is true. However I must concede that the first 5-6 years of the RTI after the Act was made was the honeymoon period, where it was relatively easy to get information. It's getting worse now. And we have a famous quote by the Supreme Court of India, which has done so much damage to RTI it's not funny any longer. It has said it should not be used to damage the peace, harmony and integrity of India.

SG: And that is now becoming the- that's not the only thing, overall Supreme Court and the Commissions are also not performing. Most commissioners take it as a sinecure- post retirement post. Which is unfortunate. In my opinion, we as civil society have failed to monitor our regulators effectively. There are those some like me who just do office work and get figures and analysis etc. There are others who work in the field but none of us monitors the working of these regulators. We had a huge movement, people's movement for Lokpal. Today the Lokpal is an expense head sitting in Delhi, running up a bill of maybe one or two crore rupees every month and doing nothing, zero. We have a Lokayukta in Maharashtra doing zero. We are Information Commissioners who are actually instead of - since they are taking two years and three years to give decisions, I'm saying it's slowly going to become a right to history rather than right to information. Which is sad, which is very sad. We need to do something. I'm hoping some young person who may not want to become Chief Minister will take it up.

SS: Ashok, this one question like what Ashok had asked earlier, which is about like the sort of the modus operandi of like, how in case of leased land, because all these, like say case of mill land or other cases, because you are also going to the banks, you are taking loans to do the constructions and you might be putting the land on mortgage, which means that this is coming out that okay, this is not a freehold land, but somehow still...

SG: No, I just don't know, to be honest, I have no answer to that. I have no answer to that. But the whole truth is that it's been accepted that lease by a private party is lease. Usko kanoonan follow karna hai. Lease by government is baap ka maal. This is if I were to put it very crudely, I think this has been accepted by everybody.

SG: I have (?) lawyers and I'm trying to argue with them that British sarkar would issue lease deeds for different periods, not randomly. There was a thinking behind it. They felt, perhaps I'm guessing that some activities need to be encouraged, let's say a mill needed to be encouraged and therefore they gave a lease for a particular period. Say, isko stability chahiye (this needs stability) <isko barber shop banana hai isko stability ki zaroorat nahin hai isko yeh bhara ek saal, do saal, dus saal ke baad iska badhega toh revenue badhega</i>. (A barber's shop didn't require so much stability, after 1 / 2/ 10 years rent would increase, revenue would increase). I think there was a lot of deep thinking into it. It wasn't a very arbitrary exercise. Whereas today, we are not thinking of- the Britishers were more concerned about the government than we are apparently. Nowadays most leases are 30 years by some law. But of what good is that? Nothing. Lots of such expired leases in (?) too. Everywhere.

AS: Just an unrelated questions, sorry I'm taking it slightly different, because we were very interested in your argument around... this continuing the RTI thing that the argument or the question what is privacy? And in some ways these things are related, (what can you ask, how?) what is the mechanism just say up as a citizen you are able to understand your own condition. So could you just see also right now, how do you see it, because obviously this situation with Aadhar(?) and all is changing.

SG: In principle, my view is, whatever belongs to the government belongs to me. Me means every citizen of this country, he owns that. Democracy is defined as rule of the people for the people by the people therefore, the people are the rulers and owners of government. Everything belonging to government belongs to me. In one place, I was talking like this and one college student got up and said Mr. Gandhi, supposing there is a government car, can I take it home? I said no, he said then you speak an untruth. You claim I have ownership. I said it's a partnership of 130 crore people.

SG: But and this is important to understand the information in the government, the records of the government also belong to me. The default mode is everything belongs to me except the exemptions which have been carved out by Parliament, and which have to be justified by the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) gives me Right to Information, gives me right to publish, right to speak, right to sing, whatever. Now, therefore, Article 19(2) defines On what grounds some reasonable restrictions can be put. In that there are only two words that relate to privacy: decency or morality. Otherwise no other word relates to privacy.

SG: Okay, let me go back to the law. The Indian law says information which is personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which is invasive of privacy, subject to a proviso provided information that shall not be denied to Parliament or state legislature shall not be denied to any person. What the Supreme Court has done is they've said all personal information comes under A-21(?), which I think is absolute nonsense. It neither follows the constitution requirement of 19-2 nor does it follow the law.

SG: What is public activity? Everything on public record is by and large public activity, except a few exceptions, which would... What is privacy? Now Puttaswamy judgement, which runs into a few hundreds of pages, 9 judges sat down. They have given theories, philosophies, everything. But not they've told you what is privacy. [bhai yeh privacy hai.] 'What transpires in the bedroom is privacy'. They should've said something. Earlier Supreme Court judgments in the Kharak Singh case and the Rajgopal case, category- Rajgopal case in particular, categorically states that everything in public records cannot claim privacy. My contention is, and one more contention I'd add together with this: Does government have the right to invade my privacy? I want your answer. Does government have a right to invade my privacy in a routine manner?

AS: Sorry, you're asking?

SG: I'm asking you Ashok.

AS: no no.

SG: No, okay, fine. Therefore, my contention is information that the government collects routinely, routinely, not under exceptional circumstances- Terrorism Act, etc is different. Routinely information that the government collects is not an invasion on privacy and therefore, it cannot deny the citizen's right to that information.

SG: You speak of Aadhar... But today, I genuinely feel those privacy advocates are really harming the cause of fighting corruption, fighting- right to information and citizens monitoring the government. Because today everything is being called as personal information. Privacy and personal have got mixed up. And one of the reasons is, my own perception is- I could be wrong in this, that perhaps in India at this stage of our evolution, privacy is not that important. Is there a word for privacy in Hindi? The world used is Nijita, nijita is personal. Everything. niji is not private. You give your name to someone you may meet. You don't say it's your privacy. But we are taking a US and a Western concept and posting it in India, thereby ruining the RTI act. Largely because of the RTI act this whole concept of privacy has taken root now, because people feel their information- and it affects everyone.

SG: Sabko (?) doosre ke liye achhi lagti hai, apne liye nahin

AS: We see this with leaks too, when it suits you, you will use leaks but you know,

SG: It's the same with citizens too. I know quite a few fairly respected RTI users and activists who say not to ask for information on themselves. Govt officials information - yes. My privacy is privacy. Why? Some Bombay High Court judgement says RTI application should not contain applicant's name and address. Voters' list contains all this information. There's no issue of privacy there. But now with RTI it's a privacy issue.

AS: I think it was just one of the ways in which there was a sort of constitutional or whatever legal defence against the state right. I mean, it was just one of the sort of foundational legal concepts,... there is something that you do which is not subject to the state's sort of view on you.

SG: I completely agree with that. My point is that when you give the state information in a routine manner, then why can't another citizen see this (information)? The state has it, and we all know a small amount will easily buy the information. But officially you will not recognise my right to that information. And the law does not say this, and the law is given a proviso provided info shall have the right to Parliament or state legislature shall not be denied to any person. Without this proviso the law has been amended. Supreme Court judgments, Commission's judgements, ... everyone's finished it. Free for all. Law has been amended. If govt wants to amend the law, we oppose it.

SG: But we've amended the law so badly, And this is now resulting in a denial of information for lots of things.

AS: Can you give some examples.
SG: MLA funds disbursal - personal information. It relates to a natural person.

SG: I asked DOPT how many IAS officers' annual confidential reports have not been received for 1 - 2 - 3 -4 years. I asked for no names. They said personal information. - Not completely wrong, it relates to natural persons. False degree certificates, false caste certificates, false subsidy claims, false passport applications - all this - everything is personal.

SG: The law had never stated this, but samvidhan (constitution) states this. People who talk big of samvidhan (constitution), they don't want to look at the constitution for RTI. Yes, I concede, if you feel some information should not be routinely given to the state, fight that battle. I'm not fighting that battle. But I am ambivalent in that.

AS: No... just the sense is that in the.. the state of the system is very data hungry and routinely extends what it sort of, you know, collects.

SG: Ashokji, years back when we all decided to participate on internet, we gave up that. We are being very foolish. Today we are only denying information to other citizens. Either Facebook or Google or Gmail, we don't feel they're doing charity. It was a business proposition. Whatsapp is a business proposition. Zoom is a business proposition. They will make money from it. We can't stop this...

SG: I recently told someone in a discussion, what is privacy? They said 'my right to be left alone'. I said if you want to be alone then go to the Himalayas, please don't venture on the internet. All of Zoom can see our 3 faces. Whether they want to see or not is another story, but they can. And we understand this. So, I have no issues with Zoom seeing my face, but other citizens shouldn't see, without my permission.

AS: No. Yeah, I mean, I think the way that we were, well, this is going in another direction... but basically the point was that, ...like in your RTI world, when you got this information, when it was available, in those cases of the leased land, we weren't necessarily able to deploy it, right. This has also been the history of your experience with it.
SG: I concede, I concede.

AS: So we are facing a very data hungry sort of state, where... for eg. the Radia tapes, it was intimate, privacy, Ratan Tata's case... and then yet in one sense, we could say that we weren't able to make use of these things as we still aren't without the whole other media sort of support and all kinds of other things. Right, related to that. So the point with that kind of thing was that - What is your sort of idea of this information?...

SG: Let me give you a few concrete examples... [...] bogus ration cards have been unearthed,... When I was in Delhi as a commissioner, somebody had asked for degree certificates of doctors and medical government hospitals. And I'd ordered that to be given and people discovered that some of them were from fake universities, unregistered universities, unrecognised universities.

SG: I give you just one example of transparency. I had given lots of orders asking for revelation of a lot of information. Government hospitals in Delhi, a lot of them had got land at near free cost, or one rupee rent or something like that, with an agreement that 20% of the beds will be reserved for the poor, and they were not doing it. And this matter came before me through an RTI application. I ordered that every evening, the government hospitals must put up on the web number of beds for EWS as per the allocation, the number of beds occupied.

SG: After a few months, they started putting that because I used to be strict enforcer of my orders. I was given complaints that wealthy people were there but being put down as EWS. So then I ordered, I said names of people in EWS beds will be given. And that will also in- and I believe that led to slightly better allocation of beds for the poor. There's many such cases. Where we live, telling a lie is not a sin. There's many reasons for it, forgotten too. In a society like this, if information is available to everybody you have a much better chance. I'm not saying every single deed. What I was talking of was of big changes.

SG: Today Jan Soochna portal in Rajasthan, has information of every rationing card holder - whether they got rations or not. Then that too should be shut down, no? On grounds of privacy? Supreme Court has handed out a very strange decision- Aadhar can be used for those who take subsidies or rations etc, but not for others. Then it seems that the rich have 'privacy', but no such thing for the poor?! Justify it. Privacy is a sexy concept- "I'm special". "Not others". We need to get out of this. We're following the West in all matters. This privacy issue... Yes, and I would again concede - If you say the state shouldn't take (information) then RTI too shouldn't. But that information which the state takes routinely, that should routinely be available to citizens.

SS: I think there are many dimensions to this.
SG: Pray tell...
SS: No no, in the sense, I'm not arguing or I'm not like opposing what you are saying. But I think there are many ways of approaching. So it depends upon from what- with what intentions or what objective you approach. From the point of view that services should be available to the people, and one method of that is transparency. Then accordingly that is justifiable. But if someone approaches from like the privacy approach and says, I gave this information to the government from a government agency for a specific purpose and...

SG: Wait a minute... where did you make such a declaration, that the information was handed over only for a specific purpose? Where have you stated this?

SG: Either...
SS: No...
SG: This is then free for all my friend. (manmarzi / whatever one desires)
AS: No no but...
SG: Your name and address is widely available in voters' lists. So why then when it comes to RTI does it become an issue of privacy?

SG: This is completely unconsistent (sic).

SS: But this has made people aware of...
SG: It has not made people aware. It's only made the elite aware of this. The poor man still has no relation with 'privacy'. In fact the word doesn't even exist in the Hindi language.

AS: Like vehicle registration data was sold, for example. So in that case... you wouldn't call it privacy?
SG: No I absolutely wouldn't call it that.
AS: But still, it feels like a new link has formed which i didn't consent to. I just bought a car or a bike, now all my information is sold to insurance companies, etc...
SG: You participated in a public activity. Selling that (information) is right or wrong - I'm not getting into that. That's a different argument. But should RTI be made available? - In my opinion yes.

SG: You participate in a public activity, and then if you were to generate 100 licences for the same vehicle, perform defraud - licence a stolen vehicle under the same number - As far as I understand our state system is incapable of catching all this. But janata pakadegi (the people will catch on). Janata is your best monitor for corruption. To lessen corruption, allow the people (janata) to monitor. In all matters.

AS: But how did this get defined 'public activity'? I bought something privately.
SG: No no... you bought a vehicle privately from me, that's a private transaction between you and me. No one will question you about that. When you got a registration number for it - it's a public activity. Why does the govt keep those records? Doesn't the state work on my behalf? The job of giving you a registration number is mine. "Me" as in, every citizen of India.

AS: At that point you consent to sort of being...

SG: No no... that's the owner. The state owns everything. How can you deny / refuse it? If by law it's not allowed then fair enough, I would concede with the legal argument. But there's no such thing by law, to deny everything on grounds of 'privacy'. Transfer of officers - they say private information. Everything has become 'privacy'.

SG: And now a new one has come up. I was at a discussion where they said the matter is not about privacy Mr. Gandhi, you're right we're not objecting on grounds of privacy, but the data is private. Now 'data' is this new word. This is a complete eyewash (dhakosla) of the elite/rich. Rich as in, relatively elite. You, me, Simpreet, we all fall in the elite category of this nation. Ask a poor man about privacy. He'll say as long as you give me a home to live in, food to eat, etc, display my name wherever you like, I have no problem.

SG: I am saying, as well as the Supreme Court, open all their information - all those who avail subsidy.

AS: Any...
SG: Sorry I come off very strongly on this privacy thing, but...
AS: No no no...
SG: But I genuinely believe RTI has been gravely damaged because of this privacy drama.

AS: No one is Yeah, we were hoping to hear some specific examples which you gave.

SG: There are many examples. False Caste certificate, those with low scores get selected and those with higher scores don't get selected. Corruption is extensive in our country. There's many many things like this. Like the false registration certificate for a vehicle - if that was displayed, then it can be caught. If a rationing list is displayed, if someone hasn't got their ration they can go and complain. There have been many such cases. If someone makes a false declaration in income tax return - it's very common - Here, a person wanting to be a public servant, to stand in election, must declare his assets. But these assets are not matched even with his income tax return. So we've made a joke of it.

SG: Whereas if this was displayed publicly, income tax return, I'd asked to fight this Supreme Court judgement I had gone, but again, I've had many failures, this is one more failure. I had asked for the income tax returns of Ajit Pawar to verify them. They refused.

SG: Well, but the point is privacy is- the concept of privacy and taking it away from RTI is damaging TRI tremendously. It is... 50% of the rejections based on exemptions are based on 8(1)(j) which is privacy. (Nothing else) At least if rejecting on grounds of privacy it should be stated- 'I would not give this information to Parliament' - if my privacy is invaded then the Parliament should not receive my information either. At least state that. And like I mentioned 19(2) mentions the words 'decency' and 'morality' - If something violates decency or morality, it should not be given to Parliament, should not be given to anybody - and that is an issue of privacy.

SG: To put it simply, i don't disclose in govt records, that which I do at home... One minute, I'll have to open the door.
AS: Yeah

SG: Someone had asked me once- will they ask me what I 'eat' at home? I said no, but if they ask, you'll have to reply. Agar sarkar ko hum dete hain to (?) ko dena padega. Sarkar ko nahin dete toh koi problem nahin hai.
(If we offer to the govt then we must offer to (?) as well)
SG: RTI ...what information... Sorry?

AS: Sarkar ko dete hain toh... matlab sarkar kheenchta hai na. That is the thing.
(Regardless of 'giving', the state seems to pull/suck/yank/gather information)

SG: But there's a reason for yanking/gathering information... Or fight it. If what you've "eaten" is in govt list then certainly sarkar paid for it, 99%. But by stating it's personal information now everyone refuses. Anything becomes personal information. And relating to natural person. And I'll tell you this too, whether in the US or Sri Lanka, equivalent exemption to 8(1)(j) - that says all personal information not to be given, unless there's a larger public interest. That's the law. If people say we should do the same then why do we have Parliament. I have a law that is far better tuned for Indian conditions. But I remit that law "illegal" and rip it apart(?). (dhajjiya udda raha hoon uska)

AS: How do you see - maybe a few final questions. How do you see - the information landscape, leaks here, leaks there, you leaked, someone else leaked, information on various scams - what sort of action do you think - so talking about now future moves. How do you see it being possible to act upon these kinds of informations?

SG: Ultimately public opinion should be made. People like me - some can work, some not. People like Medha Patkar can organise people into movements. Similarly people like Arvind Kejriwal too can organise brilliantly. There will be people like that. It's not necessary that the person who leaks (divulges / informs) is the one who must act, others will. But at least let the information find a way out. These days it's very (?). Information one doesn't want to divulge is refused. Information one is willing to give is doled out as though to beggars.

SG: And to my mind, more than the information and more than corruption etc. It is respect for the individual citizen of this country. A person handing over information to you as an RTI applicant, recognises and respects you - If real information is being handed over in real time. That to me is the major advantage or gain or characteristic of RTI, which is not happening today. Give what you want, not what you don't want, going to the commission takes 2-3 years. Then it becomes history. We've got one of the best laws in the world, but are misusing it, the exemptions so badly, that we've now amended the law.

AS: In Kejriwal's example for example, there is a lot of push towards things like I mean, even from the beginning, there was a push for people's reporting on events, CCTV in schools in 1000s of you know, all these... So these kinds of things are, would you support them? Because they are obviously tricky from my point of view,

SG: I would support them, I would certainly support them, but I am not too sure - I'm not in Delhi - but I've asked some friends n Delhi, most of them say that regarding RTI, he's doing no better than the others. Which is sad. He built his career on RTI. But I've been told that Delhi government overall, is not any more transparent than any of the other governments. They are as good or as bad. I'm not saying it's terrible either. But on transparency, they've not set a standard. Very/He's(?) unfortunate.

AS: But even in the original sort of movement and after that the public participation thing was very prominent. So did that not affect policy, generally on the...

SG: I'm not too sure. See... I feel they've changed. Maybe he believes that is required. I mean, he and I worked together and I used to have a lot of love and respect for him, and so also he used to have for me. But I get the feeling that he is a changed man and his priorities are different. Maybe he thinks differently.

AS: Simpreet any final thoughts on the leased land scam?
AS: Your's is off...

SS: yeah, for leased land, I think that's the thing that... amidst other things there's this thing of shock value that information... And I think like, the whole what RTI information did was also to sort of shake everyone. And I think it's at some level people have got so used to it that we've become numb to initial the shock value. And also there's this aspect of... when Ashok asked why does this continue? Is it like bribe that is happening or is it corruption or are there some sort of dealings happening between the clerk or the bureaucrat or the lazy? That's something which needs to be... I think that's still opaque. Yes. We have the lease agreement with us which says lease has expired, but how it is still continuing for 20 years? What is that that's happening? Because everything is not on paper, everything is not being reported on paper. And that might be... yes there might be some case studies which as a specific case, if you can talk about. Not all 600 cases, but one or two cases where you got to know more than what was written on the paper.

SG: Simpreet, tell Medhaji to take this battle to court and pursue it.
SS: Maybe yes, that can be talked about...

AS: Will the whole thing have to be taken or can an item be taken from it? As in even as a story.

SG: No no, my PIL is there in court. Someone else can be an intervener. I would authorise someone to argue on my behalf. That is the leased land thing. This slum thing is slightly different. That would need... in fact, once Medhaji had taken me to Mantralaya - at the time Ramanand Tiwari was the Urban (Development) Secretary - and he was also very impressed. He said this is a very good idea, we should do this as a trial. My contention was that it would fail as a trial. Because it's the same thing again - whose turn will it be next. Whereas if you commit to 1 crore in 5 years then aage peechhe ka itna problem nahin rehta. If you made a commitment then stick by that. If you provide houses for one crore people, there will be no corruption, no fights. (maaramaari). But if you do it on a small scale - 10,000 - 20,000 - then we're back in the path of corruption. Those who can afford to pay, or those who have contacts or networking will get.

SG: But at that time Ramanand Tiwari as Urban Secretary had accepted that the idea is worth trying. I mean, even if I said, I don't know what'll happen. But for it to work it has to be a full commitment of the government. And Bombay can change. And not just Mumbai, lots of other cities can take this as a lesson and change.

AS: I'm good. But there's an obvious call to take on certain things but also we heard the story in some detail though. I think we are good. In your list of questions, we are done?

SS: No. Most of the things are covered.

SS: Thanks...
AS: Thanks for watching.
SG: Thank you very much.
AS: We will be in touch. We remember the bottom of your email. We also consider ourselves part of that.

SG: I can sense that. Simpreet I know for many years. You I met first time thanks to Simpreet.

AS: We will be in touch. Thanks for your for your work and also for this afternoon

SG: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about it. If my words are heard then it at least feels like some usefullness was attained. I'm hoping Simpreet will go an convince Medhaji.

SS: I'll try.

AS: Meet Shaina briefly. She is also part of the group and she was in a...

SA: Hi, Hi, good evening. Nice to meet you. I had another class.
SG: Your face is familiar.
SA: Yeah, we may have met.
SG: Possibly, yeah.

SA: Yes, yes. No, maybe you'll have covered this. But this is directly related to our housing, you know, narrative that we were working on. And in so briefly, I'm sure they've told you it's three episodes. So somewhere in Episode Two, we focus on the work of Mrinal Tai Gore and Prabhurao Samant, P.B. Samant, and of course how they go for it and you know, get Nagri Nivara Parishad, get their 73 acres of land, get it under ULCRA. And after much struggle it's a project seen through. You know, Shirish Patel and Neera Adarker as architects don't falter. You know, unlike many failed ones where they got the land but... like the P.K. Das ones and Nivara Hakk ones, then they become SRA's. This is really when you enter NNP also, it's a victory of sorts. You know, it's been designed with care, there's pride, the community spaces are maintained, the schools are there. And they were given a essentially a dugout quarry.
SG: Right.
SA: Basically that land they were given, you know, in, in Dindoshi. In that sort of excavating Nagri Nivara Parishad, we found a beautiful film that was made in which a doddering old P.B. Samant is saying even both of us me and Mrinal with our walking sticks and crutches will ensure ULCRA is not repealed. And then he does another kind of fantastical set of statistics into how much land the government can buy back, and keep. And then when they sell it back at a fair price in the market, how much money can be generated and from that, and then he trips off to not just housing problem solved in Bombay, but Vidarbha's backlog too solved.

SG: P.B. Samant is a... He's a visionary. There's no question about it.

SA: Yeah, no, so those fantastical but also highly improbable vision there. And when Simpreet showed us this table, it's so clear, the vision, that it's possible. But if only... So, you know, so these were the two in Episode Three, there's this focus on all the RTI's that you and GBGB and Y.P. Singh and Simpreet... and then we wanted to unpack this, but I think y'all would have spoken.

AS: We didn't specifically go there but we have Shaileshji's version of it in some detail.

SG: And if you need any further details, I'd be delighted to share them with you.

AS: We'll be in touch.

SG: Okay, goodbye. Take care. Thank you. Thanks a lot.

SS: Thank you. Thank

Pad.ma requires JavaScript.