An adapted version of the article can be found on http://india_resource.tripod.com/NGOs.html
Most people will not agree with what I am saying. I am not worried about that. In fact, that is why I am saying it. If everyone agreed with it, then there would be no reason to say it.
Introduction
This article is a critique of the Rejuvenate India Movement (RIM) that has just been started in the USA. Dr.Parameswara Rao from BCT (an NGO in Andhra) gave a number talks and organized a large number of NRIs to form this RIM. The idea was mobilizing the NRI community to look at social issues in India. As such the idea is good. There are already a number of good organizations like AID, Asha, ILP, etc doing this in some measure. RIM aims to be different - it claims not the status of an organization, but that of a movement. "Organizations and projects cannot address the problems in India". RIM has generated a lot of enthusiasm amongst a large number of people and they held several discussions and meetings. The ideas that came out of these discussions - A campaign to encourage people to vote, a Clean India campaign and a movement to generate "stimulated volunteerism".
I have been an observer on the RIM scene right from the start - even before Dr. Rao landed in the US. In fact, I was the person who first invited Dr. Rao for this US visit and sent out emails to different chapters to arrange for his visit. This critique is not about Dr. Rao (for whom I have great regard). This note tries to analyze why certain ideas "catch-on" and what they imply and lead to. In broader terms, individuals by themselves do not shape events. Ideas, ideologies and conditions do. Therefore, this critique is about ideas and ideologies. Also, this critique is not just about RIM - it is about RIM tendencies in us (including me) and in organizations like AID, Asha, ILP, etc in the US and in NGOs in India.
Questions that need to be addressed
With the same set of volunteers I have seen hot debates when issues like Nuclear weapons, Communalism and 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. 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.
In the case of RIM - there were almost no such major debates, no disagreements. Why? How is it possible to mobilize so many people on something like "Clean-India" or RIM? What does this whole exercise mean? What will it lead to? Why didn't people feel that they need any in-depth study in this case? In this note, I will look at some of these questions. I may not be able to answer them, but I hope to at least put these questions on the agenda. Finally, I will look at an alternative to RIM that does not sound or seem so glorious, so massive, but which I feel confronts basic issues head-on.
What is a movement?
RIM calls itself a movement (presumably for social change). 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. These assumptions are so strongly internalized that hardly anyone even recognizes them, let alone questions them. Societies that exploit cannot advertise their basic assumptions. They try to hide their exploitative nature with false statements of good intention 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. 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 can enter the unequal "adult" society without disturbing it or asking questions. This is their job and they have done it exceptionally well. If you think they were meant to do something else and are pointing out they have not done it - then you are a fool. 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.
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, is inefficient and is not strong enough. The solution therefore lies in pushing the idea more and more. Some of these people are not satisfied 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. These people and their organizations are not changing society - they may believe that to be the case but they are doing just the opposite. By accepting lies for truth and by doing exactly what society has been doing, they justify society and its assumptions. They have not changed or critically looked at their "ideas", they feel they have the right answers (the answers which a lying 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 the above people are those who believe that the problems of society are in its implementation. The problem arises because we 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 or person 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 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". I understand the problems 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. I am talking more about focussed scientific discussions (with reading involved) with specific points being debated and arriving at conclusions. This is what does not happen.
In direct contrast to this almost universal trend, 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 is with themselves - their own ideas. To them, the problems of society are not just in implementation. They recognize that the problems are much deeper - at the level of ideas. The goals will not be achieved by just pushing harder and harder on the "stated" solutions. The solutions and the problems have to be questioned. 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, I present that "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.
My basic problem with RIM is that it is not a movement for social change. It is at least so far, only a movement to justify social status quo. There are no ideological conflicts, no struggle for acceptance of an alternate idea. A dominant idea 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? If they are not bothered about cleanliness, why are we so worried? Is cleanliness and the disease it spreads to the rich of the city a way for the slum-dwellers to express their anger over current unequal arrangements? If so, can we hope to address it without worrying about the basic issues? How many of us deep within ourselves 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 which needs maid-servants does 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 shit 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 the RIM is taking the side of the dominant view. Has the RIM looked at the cleanliness issue critically? It is looking for action items to implement. It is not looking at how our ideas on cleanliness came to be formed. It is not looking at what could be wrong with our ideas of cleanliness. It is not asking, "Are poor dirty and if so why". It is saying, "Poor are dirty. Let's clean them up".
The question to ask is "Why did RIM take up clean-up campaign as its first agenda". Jocularly one might say, "Because RIM sounds like a cross between VIM and RIN - two cleaning agents popular in India". On a more serious note, I submit that it was because this would not lead to conflicts, it is the dominant understanding and the focus is "action" on existing beliefs and not questioning the beliefs and acting on the questions.
Why does RIM draw so much enthusiasm and why does a Parameswara Rao seem so attractive?
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 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, bad habits, drinking, biologically inferior etc). This does several things in one shot:
1.. Makes inequality and poverty natural and blames the poor for it so that the poor do not ask questions.
2.. Removes the blame from the rich and well to do who need not feel guilty anymore.
3.. Takes the focus away from structures that create and sustain inequality and makes us focus on individuals.
4.. Since the poverty "happens" in the first place because of incapacity of the poor, it is obvious that they cannot solve the problem themselves. They need "us" to help them. (Of course more refined people may talk in terms of people participating in their upliftment, development, etc.) This makes "us" indispensable and makes us feel good and "necessary". We can pride ourselves on having to carry the "rich-man's burden". We don't like ideas that contradict this fundamental explanation. We like ideas that fit in well with this explanation and reinforce it in different ways. That's why we don't like people and movements who talk about conflicts, injustice, taking stands etc. We also don't like efforts, which are not led by "us" or people like "us". Such efforts question "our" necessity and usefulness. That's why we are very uncomfortable with movements, which refuse to take our help (monetarily or otherwise). That's why we would rather focus on efforts led by people like "us". If it involves a "hero" who sacrifices, then even better. It justifies that the poor are incapable and that they have to wait for the "sacrificing hero". It shows how "we", if we sacrifice, can make great changes - makes us all feel very good. The story of exploitation on the other hand makes us all feel very bad. Also, one doesn't not have to think very much - everything is the same as we know- it is just committed people and sacrifice that will do the magic?
Personalities take over the problems of a system, of ideas and ideologies. I can continue to have all my ideas intact and still admire a Parameswara Rao. If in addition to all this, such a hero asks for our help, does not want us to fight our perceptions or come to terms with inequality and conflict and just wants us to "act" and "create" a movement for social change and uplift others, why won't we all fall in line?
This is why RIM "caught-on". It made people feel good. It reinforced already existing ideas about social problems. It had the inspiration of a "sacrificing hero". And it did not ask people to unclog their brains.
And the lack of all this is why a leaderless movement by ordinary oppressed people generates less inspiration and more fear. Fear of going astray and turning violent... "it needs a strong charismatic leader to control it"... the poor cannot be trusted. That's why a person who asks people to question their own ideas and values receives a less warm response.
What will this whole exercise lead to?
In the best scenario: It 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. 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 mobilize a few of the poor, especially those at the top aiming to enter the middle classes. But most poor people will keep a safe distance away and their lack of "enthusiasm" will become another reason for their continuing poverty. The issues of poverty, health, education etc will of course continue to remain the way they were before the RIM. RIM itself may continue to grow without affecting the problems in any significant way.
When I was discussing this point with a friend, he told me that RIM is a way to mobilize people first. After we get the people, we will have audience and then we can start looking at issues critically. But it should be clear from the above that the reason one is able to mobilize so many people is because it matches people's ideas. These ideas become your foundation. You 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. If you try, you will fail or else the building will collapse. People won't come if you talk about conflict, changing perceptions, etc ! How can you then change ideas?
Why should one start with "so many people". There is one - you. The first person to start with is yourself. AS you grapple with your ideas and they become clear, you can start convincing a few others. The questions they ask will make you clarify your position more and more. Then you will have the intellectual ammunition to struggle with many more and this will expand into a movement slowly. It is not possible to talk to a large number at the start and expect them to start thinking critically. This happens slowly - very slowly. And there are dangers all the way.
It is easy to think you have convinced people and feel happy when actually they have (without conscious effort) given you some concessions and subverted the larger agenda. In AID, there was a serious and passionate debate at one time about the Narmada Issue. The Narmada Bachao Movement raised several questions - about our own life-styles, about the role of multi-nationals, about the nature of development, etc. The very fact that there were heated debates led one to think about how people's ideas are formed, the role of media in forming "common sense" and "public opinion". Another question that almost asked itself - if so many people can be fooled into thinking that "Dams are good", then how can we be sure that we are not being fooled about many other issues?
How are we sure that "doctors are good", "schools are good",...
But suddenly the debates ceased - some sort of agreement was reached that the Dam was bad and that we should take stands on "controversial" issues like this and should simultaneously do "non-controversial" development projects in education, health, etc.
Why is health or education non-controversial? Are they by nature so or are we refusing to see the controversies in them? The best way to suppress a conflict is to not even recognize its existence. Why did the wonderful debate on the Dam cease?
Why did it not diversify and ask the obvious questions? Isn't it a betrayal of the struggle for NBA in AID-minds, to just limit it to sending faxes and letters to the CMs and PMs and not ask critical questions about our life-styles, professions, or even our other projects. It is so much easier to hear the distant cries of the adivasis. It is far more difficult to hear the cries that our own professions, lives and "social-work" projects create. It has all these dangers and a lot of hard thinking and work, but this is still the only way to a sensible and useful movement.
A few other related issues that I would like to problematize.
"Let's be 90% selfish" or "We work for ourselves most of the time, let's all at least give 1 hr for society."
I have a fundamental problem with the ideas these statements espouse. It sounds like a nice call - something which does not make very difficult demands. In fact I have myself asked people to spare whatever time they can and try to see if they can help within their time constraints. But these statements as a tactic are ok. But when they become our understanding, then there is a problem. It hides the nature of exploitation, it makes us blind to the fact that the 90% selfishness creates the problem in the first place. It prevents us from asking the more important question "what do you do in the other 23 hours?" This understanding prevents us from progressing towards a more critical understanding of our lives as a whole and where we create the problems.
Our 23 hours and 90% selfish lives shape our thinking and this is reflected in the 1 hr of "service time". Therefore whatever we do is also a continuing (in a slightly different form) of what we are doing in the 23 hours. As a statement of tactic you would say, "please at least spend 1 hr to do this".
You wouldn't make this sound like a sufficient condition for solving the problems. You would think of ways in which people can spend 1 hr, but you wouldn't be afraid to point out the problems with their (our) 23 hrs.
On the question of elections.
RIM has obviously had a lot of discussions on elections. A view which seems to be the norm is that the problems of politics is because the middle classes are not voting. If the educated don't vote, then bad people get into power. But the real fact is that the government reflects the views of the educated, of the middle classes. That's why "Beautiful Chennai" is on the agenda. That's why "liberalization" is on the agenda. And that is why these agendas get implemented. Of course, they will have to take into consideration the "masses" also - that is why health, education, and poverty-alleviation are on the agenda. But this agenda does not get implemented. RIM wants to make people aware of the electoral process and ask people to vote. For whom?
For what ideologies? Just vote? Don't people already know that? Is there an understanding about how elections on the ground happen? Whom people vote for and why? How local caste and class problems and differences get reflected on the larger political platform? How many RIM members have participated in election-campaigns or talked to people in various parties? What is the role of money? How does a well-projected possibility of winning change the actual prospects? What are the issues on which elections are fought? Who decides which issues are important and which are not? How to focus election agendas on relevant issues? Why is health not an issue in an election? How to make it an issue? Elections involve all these questions - it is fundamentally a struggle for power.
When Dalits in Tamilnadu or UP organize, they change electoral alliances. They break existing alliances. They are expressing politically their fight with the upper and other backward castes. The apparent lack of stability in government is a result of this ongoing struggle in society. One cannot forget this and expect to understand or change the electoral process by awareness generation or giving it a "push". One major problem with this idea is that it has come out of a desire to develop a common action item that everyone can do to generate some sort of powerful unity all over India. Common action items that can be done all over India.
The first problem is that this is a wrong way of going about things. Searching for items that everyone can do, instead of looking at problems, analyzing them and coming up with action-items to address these problems. The former will lead to action items which are meaningless by themselves (therefore will not get done or may end up doing a lot of harm like collecting bricks from every village for the Ayodhya temple). The action items need to be meaningful even if only one person does them.
This idea of common action by lots of people everywhere is a very catchy one. The example of Gandhiji's Dandi March and the consequent Salt Satyagraha is often given. This I feel is a serious mis-reading of events. Before Gandhi, and much before the salt satyagraha, the work had begun to build a national consciousness. Activists were critically analyzing social problems, questioning the answers given by the British, looking at the economic backbone of the British rule, generating an alternate theory of poverty and bondage - a theory of exploitation which explained how British rule was bad for India. Unlike what most people think, the British were not easily identifiable villians of the story. They had to be dug out and analyzed and made into villians.
This alternate theory was then spread and slowly entered the consciousness of people. Along with the analysis of the problem were proposed alternatives - Self Rule, Independence and Democracy. Then slowly techniques to achieve this were developed - satyagraha, etc. It was only after a national consensus was built around the issue, that large-scale action became meaningful. The action of course was in line with the consensus and only because of the previous consensus the action became meaningful.
If a Dandi march had been done without such a consensus, it would have totally flopped with most people unable to make sense of the strategy. It made sense only in context. Search for large-scale action items without a context is a meaningless and futile exercise. Even the RSS brick-collection exercise for the Ayodhya temple had done enough groundwork, spread its ideology, created the scene for the action and then only launched on the actual action-item. You cannot jump steps like this. Each step is necessary and unless that is done, you cannot move to the next step. Being in a hurry and not doing our home-work will lead us nowhere and will often end in doing more harm than good.
All this critique is fine. So, does that mean that we can do nothing?
I have a suggestion for an alternate action plan for RIM. Stop trying to Rejuvenate India. Start Rejuvenating Indians in the US, for a change. Start with yourself. Take up one or two specific topics and issues in India. Form small discussion and reading groups.
Interact with social activists in India and in the US working in the area you have chosen. I can suggest some books on education, health, caste and class issues, communalism, culture and exploitation, etc. Read these books. Discuss the ideas with others.
Form an email group (I will soon start one on education and health - you can also join that) to discuss the ideas in the book. Write up your ideas as a coherent picture and let different people critique it.
In the process, you will develop a coherent understanding of your stand. This stand should get reflected in the projects you do. Slowly, you will develop a complete view on one topic - with all issues (practical and ideological) involved in it. You would also have developed a team with a similar understanding - you can then focus on expanding this team. Then you can develop action-items which corresponds with your understanding and try to get a larger group involved (making it a movement). The larger group will also mean a continued struggle for youralternative in their minds. This struggle is the movement. The action-items help place the alternative perspective in front of people to stimulate the debate. If the alternate idea wins consent (without itself being subverted), the movement has become a success.
Not many in RIM may do this. Numbers do not matter. One person doing this sincerely will create much more social change than a 100 people trying to "Rejuvenate India".
~~ by AID Jeevansaathi Balaji Sampath
Read more...
