Craig, Well put, and thanks for touching on the political dimension on rights. Though it has increasingly become fashionable in India to talk about right to Water and sanitation, as a practitioner, I am more wary of the political dimension of the same. As P.B Anand's, in his assessment of right to water in select countries articulate very clearly "mechanisms of governance may be more important in improving access to water than a formal articulation of a right to water". Right to water (i am keeping sanitation out of this as of now), as always been problematic, as it has acted as a double edged sword. It has emerged as a tool for justifying ecologically damaging mega dam projects, where the need to satisfy drinking water demands have been acknowledged over and above forced evictions of people and species. Rights open up new avenues for political economy gains. Failure of governance systems to ensure right to water pressurizes them to outsource supply. Privatization of service delivery follows naturally. There is very little one can hold private suppliers to, in a weak legal framework. The severe groundwater abstraction in urban peripheries by private water suppliers have not come under legal sanction. Right to water does not spell out the responsibility of the service delivery mechanisms to ecosystems and livelihoods. I can drain an aquifer and make farmers lose their livelihoods in order to provide drinking water to others, and that's totally justifiable, especially when drinking water is a right and water for livelihoods is not. That economics will be delinked from human rights discourses is a given. In the case of sanitation, this will further push investments, much to the happiness of contractors and corrupt officials who have made a killing out of these projects. And please, lets stop using example of how there are more mobile phones than toilets. Its a classic apples to peaches comparison. Mobile services have enabled livelihoods gains, hence their popularity with the poor. People prioritize their investments on tangible gains, and not on intangible benefits which accrue from using a toilet. It is strange that we will need to find scope in a RTS to create space for communities to voice their concerns in political processes. There are several other rights in India which are much more fundamental such as food, health, education where we have not seen a clear case of communities articulating for rights. Even in health! What makes us think that RTS will be transformative? And by stating that poor do not have voice in political processes is complete misreading of development issues, which denies them agency. The poor engage with politics with much more enthusiasm and vigor than the rich, as their survival is politics and access through political means. It is sad that in this rush to get RTS, we have not probed the crises in governance that has made previous attempts around right to health, food etc fall flat on its face.