December 1999 Edition
Perspectives and Analysis from the Indian subcontinent
Since the sudden and unexpected demise of the Soviet Union,
traditional ideas about political dissent and social change have
undergone a rapid change. No longer is it important to ponder
over root causes and systemic issues that inflict societies. No
longer is it essential to consider
idealogical approaches to social change. And most important,
amongst activists and intellectuals who hail from professional 'middle-class'
backgrounds, there is a growing tendency to
reject political organizations and government as potential
instruments of positive social change.
As a result, NGOs and volunteer organizations have mushroomed not
only in India, but all over the world. While some are merely tax-shelters
and sophisticated social swindles, there are a few that are doing
good work, and their volunteers are genuine and sincere in their
desire to bring about social change. What is particularly
remarkable is how so many Indians in the Silicon Valley and
elsewhere in the US have taken so enthusiastically to
volunteering for the
"good of India".
Yet, there is a common thread to many of these well-meaning
and sometimes very hard-working social organizations. A majority
of these volunteer organizations focus on very specific issues,
such as child education, literacy development, rural healthcare,
empowering women, affordable technologies for rural areas and so
on. Diligent and disciplined in implementing their plans,
they are excellent examples of volunteerism and personal
sacrifice. Yet, they invariably shy away from probing too
deeply into the issues. And some are almost hostile to the idea
of political analysis and real mass movements that could bring
about radical social change.
Even those who aim to be different and attempt to be more than
specific-issue organizations but representative of a wider social
movement, resist the type of social analysis that would be
required in bringing about real social change in India.
Balaji Sampath, who has had experience as a volunteer
and organizer in the US recently wrote a critique noting
these tendencies. In his critique, he tried to analyze why
certain ideas "catch-on" in these types of social
undertakings and what they imply and lead to. In broader terms,
he argued that individuals by themselves do not shape events.
Ideas, ideologies and
social conditions do. He observed how in some organizations
volunteers may have engaged in heated debates when issues
like nuclear weapons, communalism or the Narmada Bachao Andolan
were raised. In all those cases a lot of passions were raised,
many people would stand up against these issues being brought up
at all. "The organization is becoming political", they
would say and "these issues are not within the mandate".
"We need a lot more in-depth study before coming to a
conclusion", they would argue.
But in other cases, he found that there were almost no such major debates, no disagreements. There were groups that bemoaned the lack of participation in Indian elections, they were concerned about the lack of cleanliness in Indian cities, and were frustrated that more Indians did not volunteer for "good causes". Yet, they were very perturbed by the idea of 'controversial social and political debates'. Why? How was it possible to mobilize so many people for a cause, yet avoid disagreement and debate? What does such an exercise mean? What would it lead to? Why didn't people feel that they needed any in-depth study in this case?
What is a movement ?
A movement is not just a mass of people. Then we should say that
every bus, train or
cinema theatre generates a movement !! A movement for social
change is a consensus amongst people about the nature of society,
its problems and possible ways to work towards this change.
Every society has a particular organizational structure and a set of dominant ideas. These ideas and the structures build on certain basic assumptions. And if the society has certain privileged classes who have differential access to wealth and power, these assumptions may quietly reinforce the power and privilege that some exercise over others. Even if the privileged class were in a minority, the assumptions favoring such a minority could be framed in a manner that may seem to be generally or universally applicable.
These assumptions could be so strongly internalized that hardly anyone may even recognize them, let alone question them. Societies that exploit cannot advertise their basic assumptions. They try to hide their exploitative nature with false statements of good intentions and plans. They may say things like education for all, employment for all, health care for all, development for all, etc. These "goals" of course will not be achieved. No real effort would have gone into achieving the goals in the first place and any lame excuse for not achieving them would be used to justify it. For example, in India "population explosion" is used as a convenient excuse to cover-up the "failures". But the point is that the dominant India has not failed - it has succeeded very well. These "goals" were anyway never really intended to be reached.
Schools world over, people say, are failing. They have not achieved what they set out to do. Study them carefully. Look at their history. Look at the structure and the beliefs that moulded schools. School was never meant to "educate". It was meant to sift the "top" students from the "bottom" students. It was meant to rank children and provide them with white or blue collars so that they could enter the unequal "adult" society without disturbing it or asking questions. That was is their unstated goal and they have fulfilled it exceptionally well. In fact they have not only maintained the inequality in society, they have given it very nice-sounding reasons - "these people are poor because they are uneducated", "these children fail, because they are lazy or they are dumb". Earlier, inequality was at least in view, now it is hidden and seems natural.
Of course, in India - those who attend privileged schools end up with privileged jobs, even when the don't do as well in class. But the ranking and the grading is all meant to foster an illusion of fairness: that society really rewards merit, and correctly prevents the incompetent from taking jobs and holding positions of responsibility.
This is why few in these volunteer movements can truly
question inherited privileges of caste and class. Many harbour
very hostile ideas about affirmative action and become easy prey
to
blaming all the ills of Indian society on all kinds of
symptomatic factors, and secondary and tertiary factors rather
than examine the deeply ingrained and built-in inequalities in
Indian and other societies.
Most people believe these "dominant" lies about
society, its goals, its problems and its explanations. Of course,
everyone sees that the stated goals have not been achieved.
People, who take the stated goals for the real, assume that the
problem lies with the implementation. The ideas are all correct,
the implementation is corrupt, or, is inefficient, or lacks
strong leadership. The solution therefore lies in pushing this
idea more and more. That it is all in the implementation. Some
even begin to think that it is a problem of "democracy"
and that an
authoritarian and dictatorial solution is required.
Many of these people are very unsatisfied with the government's efforts. They therefore get together and push the ideas themselves.Since most other people agree with them (whether they are themselves involved in "action" or not), everybody tells them "you are doing a good job", "society needs people like you". They don't get into conflict situations and even succeed in mobilizing quite a few people.
But in spite of their best efforts, these people and their
organizations are not really changing society - they may believe
that to be the case but they may sometimes be doing just the
opposite.
By accepting lies for truth and by doing exactly what society has
been doing, they legitimize an unequal society and its
assumptions. They have not changed or critically looked at their
"ideas"; they feel they have the right answers (the
answers which an untruthful society put into their heads). The
only "difference" between them and others in society is
that they have
formed an "organized" effort under a name or a banner
to do exactly what they (and others in society) were doing
earlier. That is why with so many NGOs and "social-change"
organizations and so-called "movements", there is so
little real change.
All such activists and volunteers believe that the problems of society are in its implementation. The problem arises because "we - the people" do not act. "We believe it is important to act on our beliefs". "Everyone wants to help and participate in social change, but they don't act on their ideas". This group of people differs from the rest of society not because of what they believe, but because they put their ideas into "action". Of course, they have no time, or mental inclination to question these "ideas" themselves.
The focus is so much "action" that the belief underlying the action is not even questioned. Some rare times when the question is raised, it is pushed under the carpet with "let's first do some action instead of discussions". It is true that there is a problem with discussions that lead nowhere. Discuss, discuss and never get anywhere. Such discussions are very general and random. They happen and happen all the time. But there is an aversion even to talking more about focussed scientific discussions (with reading involved) with specific points being debated and arriving at meaningful conclusions. This is what does not happen.
In direct contrast to this almost universal trend, there are a few people who look at the "stated" goals of society critically. They look at the stated explanations for problems and their own (socially borrowed) ideas about the problems very critically. They question the fundamental nature of society and its actual purpose. They usually end up providing "alternate" ideas and counter-explanations. Their first struggle may be with themselves - their own ideas. Later, their struggle may be with friends, co-activists, other volunteers and beyond. To them, the problems of society are not just in implementation. They recognize that the problems are much deeper - at the level of ideas.
And some of them also recognize that these ideas arise from
special social and historical conditions, that ideas may
represent different social interests, and different (and
sometimes very contradictory) goals and principles. But even the
most justifiable goals will not be achieved by just pushing
harder and harder on the "stated" solutions. The
solutions and the way problems are framed in the first place may
need to be questioned. Hence, these people disturb everyone else.
People don't like to change their ideas. Questioning ideas,
values and beliefs throws everything into disarray. Since these
people end up questioning very strongly held ideas, they end up
in a lot of conflict. No one says to them "You are doing a
good job". All they get to hear is
"All that is very political and gets into conflict - let's
have some action here". Arguing and convincing people takes
up a lot of time - it raises a lot of passions. These movements
may find it difficult to get volunteers, may find it difficult to
organize - that's why it is a struggle. But if they succeed, they
have managed something very important - a real change in approach
and a real effort to reach the goal.
Therefore, "movements" which do not generate any passions, which do not generate a strong ideological opposition, which do not have to struggle against opposing viewpoints are not movements for social change. They are movements for justifying social status quo. In fact, the movement lies in the struggle to win acceptance for the alternate idea.
Examples of Dominant Ideas in Society
For instance, a dominant idea amongst many in the Indian middle
class is that India is dirty (some people may make concessions
for villages). Particularly, slums are dirty. The
reason for this is the apathy of the people. We need to push
("action", "action") to get this done. Let's
mobilize people for this. The questions conveniently left unasked
(and therefore unanswered) - In whose perception is cleanliness a
problem? Is this really a problem in
slums? Why are slums so unclean?
Could it be that the rich are "clean" because they have access to running water, clean toilets, plenty of changes of clothing, washing machines or maids to keep their clothes clean and that slum-dwellers have none of this. Could it be that slum-dwellers live in slums not because they want to but because they have no better choice? Could it be that most slum-swellers would prefer the conveniences and comforts, and yes, even the cleanliness of modern homes (or apartments) with decent plumbing and sewage facilities but simply cannot afford them?
If so, how can the problem of cleanliness be address without
worrying about more fundamental issues of affordable housing and
minimum wages for service workers and industrial workers? How
many instead believe that the poor (in slums) are the reason for
the dirtiness?
Stalin (Madras Corporation Chief) has been working furiously on
the "Beautiful Chennai" idea. One big part of this mega
proposal is the cleaning up of Madras waterways. The Coovum and
Adyar rivers are to be cleaned up. The claim being made is that
the slum dwellers living on
the banks dirty the rivers and so they are going to be shifted.
The road will be widened and some parks and hotels will be
constructed on the area. Slum-dwellers shifted out of city-limits.
Part of a slum eviction programme. These are people who have come
from far off in
search of jobs - many work as maid-servants in houses in the area.
Take them away and they are not only hutless and slumless, they
are also jobless. The city elite who enjoy the comfort of hiring
maid-servants do not care to think about their accommodation.
People may sympathize with the oustees, but almost no one will
deny that they are responsible for the dirtiness.
The fact is that the Madras corporation dumps part of its drainage into the rivers - the waste and garbage of about 7 million people - and it claims that these poor people are dirtying the river. How did they get everyone to keep quiet about this injustice? By drilling into people's heads that the poor are dirty by nature, by habit, Indians (particularly the Indian poor) throw things everywhere and don't keep their place clean etc.
This is the dominant view of cleanliness and some social movements end up taking the side of the dominant view. Similiarly, there is a dominant view on corruption. That all politicians are corrupt.
Corruption in India
But every act of corruption requires the participation of other
forces in society as well. It involves corrupt industrialists and
corporate CEOs - agents of foreign and local
businesses. It
may involve Harvard or Cambridge educated top government
bureaucrats. Why is it that most people's anger is exclusively
focused on politicians?
For instance, last year, there was a news report about SONY India dodging taxes. It was one of the largest corporate tax defaulters in India. Considering how SONY is one of the richest corporations in the world, it puzzles me as to why there hasn't been a huge outcry against this corrupt MNC. Would people get as worked up over SONY or the corrupt practices of other MNCs? Union Carbide ( the MNC responsible for the Bhopal Gas Leak) had a special office in Delhi whose sole job was to influence India's laws and to bribe and corrupt top officials in the industry ministry. It is common knowledge that courses in international business in the US have special courses on "handling corruption". Students are not taught that bribing and influencing government officials or politicians is wrong. No. They are simply taught how to actually engage in such practices without being caught, and without jeopardizing the reputation of the company.
Yet, many of these same people whose blood boils at corruption in India see the US as a paragon of "fairness" and "equal opportunity". Recently, the top Cellular companies got a special break where they are now allowed NOT to pay the license fees they had legally promised to pay. These international Cellular companies hired lobbyists that worked overtime in getting this sweet-heart deal passed. Indian taxpayers are going to lose tens of thousands of crores as a result of this giveaway. Prior to this giveaway to the Cellular MNCs and their Indian collaborators, the Indian people were stuck with a huge jump in their ordinary telephone bill.
This has generated little controversy because the media has
made no attempts to portray it as a case of serious corruption.
On the other hand, there has been a steady stream of stories
about
"Lalloo's corruption". There have been innuendoes about
Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayavati.
An Indian has even created a web-site where someone could go
"punch" Lalloo. The media has cynically branded Lalloo
as India's first (and it seems, most dangerous) villain,
and many have been taken in.
To have picked on Lalloo as the sole embodiment of what ails
India is a reflection of how the dominant ideas of society create
popular reflexes. Lalloo has been singled out for corruption in
India - but there were several reports - (now conveniently
suppressed and forgotten) that Howard educated - "erudite
and urbane" - Chidambaram had been far more corrupt than
Lalloo. Moreover, since Chidambaram was finance minister, and his
corruption affected India's top financial institutions - his role
was far more detrimental to the national interest. As a
persistently vocal spokesperson for several foreign interests in
India, Chidambaram did more to hurt the interests of the Indian
people than did Lallu.
On the other hand, Lalloo had been at least something of a symbol for the justifiable assertiveness of the oppressed castes. And unlike some rich well-connected politician's son or relative who could enter politics based on someone else's reputation, Lalloo had to work his way to the top through some hard work. He had joined politics as an activist in the Jay Prakash Narayan campaign, and became popular because of the work he had done amongst some of Bihar's oppressed castes. Chidambaram couldn't even claim to any such social following, or mass social base. But it is typical of the anglophile Indian media to bash a rustic politician like Lalloo but conveniently ignore the pro-Western, upper-caste, city-bred crooks that find ample room to flourish in India's major political parties.
Caste oppression and caste inequality remain amongst the most
serious problems affecting India - and this type of social
bigotry prevents India from developing into a modern nation. But
votaries of volunteerism see this almost as a non-issue. They are
rarely able to see the selectivism of the Indian media when it
picks scape-goats for India's problems.
Very recently, there have been reports that the BJP-led
government hastily sold shares in GAIL at below market prices to
foreign investors like Enron and a major British oil company.
But Yashwant Sinha whose ministry was responsible for this
sell-out has been spared the kind of bashing one might expect for
having betrayed national interests in this manner.
Avoiding Conflict and "Controversy"
Since serious discussions about inequality in India invariably
lead to very uncomfortable conclusions, most volunteers in such
movements do everything to avoid conflict and "controversy".
The dominant view of society tries to hide the existence of inequalities and basic conflicts in society. Right from our very early days, we learn that "conflict" is bad. We try to avoid them - so much so that we refuse to acknowledge that real conflicts do exist in society. But the rampant poverty and inequality cannot be hidden. So, explanations have to be given. The most fundamental explanation given (in more and less refined forms) is that people are poor because they are incapable (lazy, dumb, unclean, have bad habits, drink, are biologically inferior etc). This does several things in one shot: makes inequality and poverty natural and blames the poor for it so that the poor do not ask questions. It removes the blame from the rich and well to do who need not feel guilty anymore. It takes the focus away from structures that create and sustain inequality and shifts the focus on individuals. Since "poverty "happens" in the first place because of incapacity of the poor, it is obvious that they cannot solve the problem themselves. They need the "better off" to help them. (Of course more refined people may talk in terms of people participating in their upliftment, development, etc.) But it makes the relatively privileged indispensable, and makes them feel good and "necessary".
Ideas that contradict this fundamental explanation become
problematic. Ideas that fit in well with the standard
explanations are accepted and reinforced in several
different ways. But
people and movements who talk about conflicts, injustice, and
taking stands, are viewed as threatening or distasteful. Efforts,
which are not led by educated "professionals" are
mocked and discounted. For instance, it is commonly believed that
in the Lalloo years, Bihar made "no progress".
But during one of the previous elections (96), the Deccan
Herald carried a rare positive story about progress in
Bihar. The reporter brought out how for the first time
since
independence, some small towns and villages had been connected by
new bridges - and provided new infrastructure (like markets,
grain storage facilities etc). For the first time, some
communities were building pukka houses. Such gains may seem
trivial and inconsequential to those who have never experienced
such want - but these must have made a difference to the
supporters of the RJD.
Consider too, how from 1991 to 97, Bihar's literacy has grown
from 38.5% to 49% - a 10.5%
increase in 6 years. This compares favorably with the 6.7%
literacy growth in Gujarat - 61.3 - 68% - 6.7% and
outstrips the 2% growth in Karnataka (56 -58%) or Orissa (49-51%).
In these six years, the literacy growth in Bihar matched
Andhra's and exceeded Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and of course, Gujarat,
Karnataka and Orissa.
(Details available at http://www.infoindia.net/nlm/nsso.htm)
Since literacy growth is ususally accompanied by similiar improvements in infant mortality, health care, and minimum wages - this can be a relatively useful indicator of social progress.Yet, the myth that the "Lalloo years" were a complete disaster for Bihar prevails. This is not to say that Lalloo Prasad Yadav was an ideal social leader or that the RJD was a perfect political formation - (that it has been losing it's edge, and losing it's grass-roots appeal is quite evident). However, the hostility that Lalloo Yadav and the RJD have generated is quite remarkable - and causes one to wonder why no upper-caste politician has ever been singled out for such venom and hatred?
Limits to Volunteerism without Idealogy
Social movements that do not challenge deep-seated prejudices
amongst their volunteers rarely go too far. In the best
scenario, they will create a lot of enthusiasm. A number of
people will join and may even come to a consensus on what to do.
(A consensus not built of a critical
look at their own ideas but a consensus built from common myths
and prejudices). They will implement programmes, which will be
very similar to what the government or many other NGOs do. They
will of course claim a higher degree of efficiency for their
programmes. They
may even mobilize a few of the poor, especially those
aiming to enter the middle classes as quickly as possible. But
most poor people will keep a safe distance away and their lack of
"enthusiasm" will become another reason for their
continuing poverty. The fundamental issues of poverty, health,
education, and quality of life will of course
continue to remain the way they were before.
When this point is brought up, some argue that it is better to mobilize people first. "After we get the people, we will have an audience, and then we can start looking at issues critically" - they say. But it should be clear that the reason one is able to mobilize so many people in the first place is because the simple uncomplicated approach matches people's own ideas. These ideas then become future foundation. One cannot construct a building on one foundation and later shift the building itself to a different foundation. The building is closely linked to the foundation. So it is with social movements. The underlying ideas determine where the social movement will eventually lead.
Sometimes debates do take place, and there is even a momentary
shift in consciousness.
But suddenly the debates cease - some sort of agreement is
reached on a controversial issue,
and there is even agreement that the group should take stands on
"controversial"
issues as they arise, but it is also decided that the group will
simultaneously continue to do "non-controversial"
development projects in education, health, etc. Why is health or
education non-controversial? Are they so by nature, or are some
refusing to see the controversies in them? And are they the only
important issues to take up? Can improvements in education and
health take place in isolation of everything else in society?
These are critical questions, and if thoroughly broached, the conclusions can be discomforting. For example, there can be literacy camps for slum-children, there can even be volunteer clinics that cater to the needs of slums dwellers as an example. But the literacy camps and volunteer clinics alone will not end the misery of the slum-dweller. The Indian slum-dweller is symptomatic of a much deeper problem. The problem is that even those who are willing to work for a living - (and work fairly long hours at that) are simply unable to afford more dignified housing, and hence live a more dignified life.
The inability of Indian society to create an economy where
even the most basic conditions of human life cannot be met is the
real problem. This problem has historical roots in terms of the
terrible legacy of colonial rule that
we have inherited; it has external roots in that the world
economic system is an unfair and exploitative system in which the
former colonial powers continue to exercise their hegemony in all
international affairs of any significance; and, it has it's
internal roots in the highly unequal ownership and distribution
of wealth and productive assets within India.
Why is it that the poor must migrate to find "jobs" rather than industrial production take place where people are available to work, and land is available for housing for all? These are decisions taken by India's rich industrialists without care or concern for the people who huddle in the slums of our "great" cities. And when a few genuine politicians attempt to regulate or direct the investment strategies of big business, there is a hue and cry and the majority of India's professionals and intellectuals fall in line, and agree that nothing should be done to hamper the activities of private industry.
But the conflict between private interests - especially unbridled private commercial interests and public good is, and will remain, a real one. Rejecting politics, and rejecting idealogy will not mitigate this contradiction. It will continue to wreak havoc by creating production possibilities where living is impossible. It will continue to create social conflicts when there are islands of wealth amidst a sea of neglect and misery.
That Indians volunteer as much as they do is remarkable and commendable. Yet, volunteerism without sympathy for the oppressed, without social awareness and critical observation, without in-depth education, without analysis, and without a political idealogy is doomed to isolated and limited successes. A nation of almost a billion people, with millions surviving on the very brink of society, requires much much more.
(Adapted from a critique of NGOs and contemporary Social Movements by Balaji Sampath)
Back to South Asian Voice's Front Page
Click here to contact South Asian Voice