Politics Morality Identity An Intimate Quest by SADED BOOKS CORNER

Contents

Editorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Note Growing Up As a Socialist

Kulshresht:The Quest of a Young Dalit*

Politics, the Non-Party Political Process and Morality: Some Reflections

Some Reflections on Funding and Voluntarism

Combating the Twin Phenomena: Curruption and Communalism

A Minimalist Perspective Making Institutions Compatible with Southern Movement Aspirations for a Democratic Order

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: A Global Alliance for Comprehensive Democracy in the Era of Globalisation

Editorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Note The

articles

contained

this

volume

cover

wide

range

issues

that confronted a person keen on engaging with his times. Inspired by leaders like Gandhi and Lohia, these write-ups are candid reflections on the issues of democracy and socialism from the perspective of an activist thinker. The autobiographical pieces bring out the depth and intensity of an idealist who believes in the possibility of justice and dignity, equity, non-violence and democracy in the world. The ideological articles give an exposition on the grand vision of a comprehensive democracy captured in the phrase Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. In essence this book is an intimate journey on the path to a better world that cherishes the ideals of democracy and socialism. These articles have been written at different times and in varying contexts. At places, these may seem to address an issue that is specific to the period in which it was written. But they continue to be relevant for our times and contain deep insights from both practical and ideological viewpoints. The thrust of the articles is more to the practical than academic, inclusive than polemical, open and frank than circumspect and cautious. Some of the articles have been co-authored with leading thinkers and social activists. Away from the rhetorical, it embraces the intensely honest expression of personal experience as its stylistic hallmark. The simplicity and directness of approach immediately strikes a chord with the dreamer and the activist, in fact, it abolishes this duality quite effectively. This volume will, no doubt, serve as a conscientious companion to all those who are moved by the urge for social-change and believe that a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;better world is possibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Rajesh K. Jha

New Delhi 10th January, 2004

Growing Up As a Socialist Sometime

1968

young,

impressive

economics

lecturer

the school of correspondence in Delhi University, Vinod Prasad Singh, gave an impassioned speech to a group of youngsters to plunge into revolutionary socialist politics. As a member of that rapt audience. I clearly recall one of his central points: ‘If you want to do any good in society then joining politics is the only way followed logically by his next exhortation: ‘Socialist politics is the only option’. I was then a student of class X, an avid reader of newspapers and saw myself as a sensitive soul, a patriot who wanted to work for the good of society but with no idea of how to serve the motherland. I often visited a classmate. Anmol Ratan, whose father was a cardholder of the Communist party of India. Although I was deeply impressed by his father’s commitment to the idea of revolution and to the poor, what disturbed me was the way he viewed nationalism, non-violence and democracy as depicting a ‘false consciousness. While still in school my parents, particularly my mother, had instilled in me a tremendous respect for Gandhiji. My father was then a goods clerk in the railways, who got a ‘neat’ cuton all goods hooked at the station which was then distributed among all employees according to certain ‘principles’. My father used to deny himself ‘his’ share. Our family gurus were the Bedis, the clan to which Guru Nanak belonged. We called ourselves Sahajdhari Sikhs - those who follow the teachings of Sikhism. They were also dedicated Arya Samajists, who in spite of losing several close relatives during the partition riots, actively defended the ideal of religious tolerance.

Once, when in class V, I saw a group of youngsters, all of them in khaki shorts and sitting in a circle, listening to a senior. I looked at them curiously, whereupon the senior invited me to join in. He was explaining that nationalism is the greatest value and that Jawaharlal Nehru was not adequately nationalistic. To substantiate his argument, he narrated the parliamentary debate between Mahaveer Tyagi and Nehru regarding Indian land under Chinese occupation. My mind did not question the veracity of the story and found the idea of propagating nationalism interesting although I was quite uncomfortable at the absoluteness with which Nehru’s patriotism was being questioned. When my father discovered where I had gone, he forbade me from going there again. Thus, although my family imbued me with a sense of patriotism it did not let me get metamorphosed to the narrow communist idea of Hindutva. Looking back, the values and world-view my parents bred in me had foreclosed most political options, except that of joining the democratic socialist movement. Neither could I accept the idea of a communist revolution. Even those communists who were honest and sincere in their personal lives believed that the ‘ends justified the means’, whereas what I had learnt was that what is ideal is also practical. These were the virtues I found in my new-found socialist mentors, the most important of whom wereBanwari Vinod Prasad Singh. Since class V. I was a regular reader of Hindi newspapers, had fairly developed political interests and used to be an impressive public speaker. But 1 had no political contacts. I owe a sense of gratitude to a close school friend, Rama Shankar, later an important leader in Madhya Pradesh politics, who introduced me to my socialist teachers. Later, when I came into contact with Vinod Prasad Singh, ‘visiting professor’ of socialism on the faculty of Samajvadi Yuvajan Sabha (a youth organisation of the socialist movement) and

Banwari my ‘resident tutor’ of socialism, I found them sincere and persuasive. They still are sincere and Vinod Prasad Singh continues to believe in everything that he said in the backyard of that small room which Banwari had sub-let from a class IV railway employee. This room functioned as an informal recruitment and training centre for young socialists. Banwari, who in 1985 was in the founder editorial team of Jansatta, worked as a booking clerk in the Railway, pursued his studies in philosophy and spend a considerable amount of tune in explaining to me and others the need, importance and urgency of pursuing socialist politics to build a society based on the principles of equality, yet still democratic. I was fascinated by all this. Today the democratic socialist movement faces a grave crisis in this country. The whole organisation of the Lohia sub-stream of the movement has evaporated into nothingness. Legendary figures of the movement appear now tired and fatigued. Yet, despite this, there are thousands of workers, regardless of when they were recruited — whether in the ’42 revolution, the J.P. movement or the Emergency — who are proud, like me, to be known as socialists. The socialist ideology and organisation. A careful looking back makes one feel that the organisational make-up of the Lohiyasocialist movement was such that you either belonged to it or you did not. Everyone was expected to be an iconoclast and a leader in his own right in his or her milieu. Baptism to socialist movement required going to jail through protest action— satyagraha. The Congress party, in the heyday of Lohia’s non-Congressism, was viewed as the source of every social evil — whether communalism, corruption, poverty, exploitation or the apathy of the people. If you were recruited at a young age, as I was, then you were

deprived of other perspectives because the principal source of one’s learning was the political peer group. One’s perception of the Congress of the mid-’ 60s was overwhelmingly coloured by the Lohiaite political line of that time. The saving grace was that the commitment to Truth was absolute with the proviso that grasping it was the ideal. As Truth was multidimensional, Socialists were expected to strive for Truth, not the truth of the socialist idea or organisation. In fact, the organisation was a dispensable instrument if it hindered the pursuit of Truth. A famous Lohia slogan was: ‘Follow the principles and not the leader’. (Neta ke nahin neeti ke peechhe chalo) The Lohiaite neeti (policy) package was both comprehensive and rigorous. All workers had to be atheists, active campaigners for the abolition of caste, behave in a secular manner irrespective of personal origin of birth, abjure the use of English in public activities, educate their children in common/government schools, adopt an austere lifestyle, advocate gender equality, demolishing the image of Savitri as an ideal of Indian womanhood and instead propound the intellectual, moral and political qualities of Draupadi as a replacement, and so on. Each of us was not only expected to practise these ideals but to become individual satyagrahis, so that our presence became a source of discomfort and fear for the social and political establishment of the time. This gave Lohiaite socialists a distinctive personality. They knew no fear; their body reflexes prepared for defiance as soon as they smelt status quoist authority asserting its ‘anti-people’ existence. This need to defy was not restricted to the authority of the state alone. Satyagraha in any walk of life or institution was used to remind the apathetic masses or morally indulgent rulers of the Lohia package of Total Revolution.

All this naturally made socialists a breed apart and different from the other political workers. Ironically, this distinctiveness and ‘strength’ also became the Single most important cause of the demise of the socialist organisation. All those who came in contact with the socialist proselytizers were baptised in a manner that they were unable to relate to the ordinary, common and frail human beings around them, to their families or anyone in the larger society. I dare to go even further and state that many of us were so conditioned that we could not relate to the ordinary, fearful, lustful or cowardly even within us. I don’t believe that all socialists are supermen or women, yet they behaved as superhuman beings. The degree of super-humanness varied according to the degree to which one followed the Lohia policy package in the eyes of the peer group. The feeling of distinctiveness was always accompanied with a kind of contempt for the ordinary and the ability to appreciate and assess other people generously declined. Using sharply defined moralistic-political codes inherent in the Lohia package in an absolutist manner did not easily allow us, the bhaktas, followers of Lohia, to see another perspective. The Lohiaite mind-set believed in the unique ‘historical’ role which each one of us had to play: this made it very difficult to work with equals. Even those who were/are close personal friends, more often than not, have secret contempt and a lurking distrust of each other. So, the first stage was to ‘achieve’ alienation from society at large: the second was to get alienated from friends within the movement itself. I can recount a list of exceptionally warm people, often close friends, who do not consider it necessary to consult each other on important political decisions: none of us is trained to own each other’s work or take joint initiatives. We can be good followers of a

leader of charismatic qualities or can mobilise a small team of younger people around our personal initiatives, which we believe are very strategic to the larger good of the movement. But this strategic and larger good is not defined through a collective organisational process. It may be of interest to know how socialist leaders relate to each other. In 1977, when the Janata Party was in power I was nominated president of Delhi’s unit of the Yuva Janata. The Janata Party’s organisation had no disciplining role and we were our own masters. In the socialist movement, as mentioned earlier, we are answerable to ‘principles and policies’ and not leaders. The socialist assumption was that younger people and youth organisations must act as a check against the possible compromises of the leaders. I found that this notion of self-discipline through the ideological code had degenerated to a situation where every Yuva Janata office-bearer became identified with one or the other national leader of the Janata Party. Since the Yuva Janata was supposed to act as a moral check on the older generation, this principle was misused to issue critical public statements against leaders of the opposing faction. I was uncomfortable in a situation where a principle of moral control was. being misused for petty factional struggles. One way to check it was to form an informal collective highcommand of the socialists in the Janata Party who would monitor our adherence to the socialistic principles and allocate work among socialist workers. So I approached Kishan Patnaik, (a close associate of Lohia and an articulate member of the Lok Sabha from 1962 to 67), Raj Narayan, (who defeated Indira Gandhi in the 1977 Lok Sabha polls and was responsible for creating the political crisis on 12 June ’75 through a successful election petition against Indira Gandhi), Madhu Limaye (a freedom fighter, hero of the

struggle for Goaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s independence and also the man who was among the only two who resigned their Lok Sabha seats in 1976 during the Emergency when its term extended by Indira Gandhi for her own benefit), George Fernandes (fire-brand hero of the resistance against the Emergency and whom Indira Gandhi dreaded most), Karpoori Thakur (a respected and popular leader of Bihar) and Surendra Mohan (socialite idealogue, who led the media campaign of the Janata Party during the â&#x20AC;&#x2122;77 elections, the only election held under internal emergency in the socialist movement. As a worker, I was very proud of my leadership and still believe that I had good reasons to feel that way. This is because, since independence, there has not been even one issue regarding how to build this nation when our leadership had to eat their words or feel sorry about a stand. They were the first group of leftists who understood that the Stalinist Leninist version of Marxism was a faulty understanding of the process of revolution. The inseparability of means with ends, the role of satyagraha in a democracy, decentralisation of Indian state, issues of annihilation of caste including reservation for OBC castes, issues of gender equality, English language as a tool of exploitation of Indian masses, lowering the voting age to 18, irrelevance of cold-warist camps, aggressive pursuit of third world solidarity movement and issues of finding/developing technologies which could counter or be an alternative to the capitalistic-imperialistic technologies, are some issues which the socialist movement vigorously raised. The Indian left, right or centre initially sneered at them. But today, everyone has come around to the positions which the socialist leadership formulated in the mid-â&#x20AC;&#x2122; 60s. Once a comprehensive view was evolved under the leadership of Lohia, there was an impatience to acquire power to implement that understanding. Although the

understanding of the process of revolution was non-statist, Lohia-followers got stuck on issues of power centred around the Indian state. No other institutions of popular power were built. Even the political party was not built in any substantial way. It remained an instrument of perpetual protest. The socialist movement was a cadre party till 1950 and was changed to a mass party after a fierce debate. Getting 10% votes at the general elections was far below the expectations of the socialist leadership. At this juncture, Lohia wrote and gave several landmark speeches on ‘Organising for Revolution’. But his impatience with poverty, exploitation and misery was so intense that he could not inspire the workers to do the donkey work necessary for building an organisation. Ceaseless agitation was an exciting idea and he transferred his impatience with exploitation and militancy and urge to struggle for change to his followers. Lohia’s impatience with the slow and arduous course of revolution made him part company with a majority of his colleagues such as Ashok Mehta, Acharya Narendra Dev, N.G. Gore, Prem Bhasin and S.M. Joshi who were some of the tallest leaders of the socialist movement, as well as with some of the present stalwarts like Madhu Dandavate, Chandra Shekhar and Surendra Mohan. By 1955, Lohia was left leading a small band of extremely dedicated but relatively young workers. The smallness in terms of size and numbers and the need to compete with the other faction of the socialist movement forced Lohia to translate his impatience for egalitarian transformation into a distinctive radical politics. In terms of freshness and insight into the complex process of holistic revolution through democratic means, 19551967 was the most creative time in Lohia’ s life and resulted in a major breakthrough in

1967, when non-Congress governments were formed in nine states. But, paradoxically, 1955-67 was also the period when the seeds of a deep anarchist mind-set were sown. This was the milieu and context in 1977, when I started lobbying for the informal high command of the socialist galaxy. All of them rejected the idea. Some even sneered at it. But three honest and straight—forward rejections are worth analysing. Kishan Patnaik was no longer confident of the socialist commitment of the other national leaders. To be fair to him, he had taken this stance since 1971 when he had founded a separate ideological club called Lohia Vichar Manch. Madlhu Limaye’ s response amounted to saying that idealism was in abeyance since the time of adopting non—Congressism as the tactical line of the socialist movement, and a socialist high command cannot be created without socialist idealism. What remarkable similarity in the responses of two nationally acknowledged idealists of the socialist movement! Another of the reflective and brutally honest answers was given by George Fernandes. According to him, the names I had mentioned did not constitute a group that could work together. His response was frightening as far as saving or reviving the collective identity of the socialist movement was concerned. He stated that while we could have frank bilateral discussions, we could never be sure why anyone among us was taking a particular line in a group situation. The first conversation on this aspect took place sometime in the last week of August 1977. In September 1977, I pursued this issue of bringing the socialist leaders closer with suggestions like writing an open letter to all socialists regarding the challenge and experience of using state power for social change or convening a convention of the socialist workers or at least organising a ‘business’ dinner of a small group of senior

leaders on the death anniversary of Ram Manohar Lohia. However, George Fernandes rejected these suggestions on the ground that anything of the sort would be misunderstood. And that we must not behave like a faction within the Janata Party. The entire spectrum of Indian political parties had come to a dead end when the Emergency was clamped. A veteran freedom fighter from Delhi, Deshraj Chaudhury of the Congress (O) told me during his detention in Tihar hospital, that the Congress (0) was unable to mobilize their quota of volunteers for courting arrest in the pre-emergency days. The BJS (Bharatiya Jan Sangh) was unable to make headway among the scheduled and other backward castes and in rural areas. The communists were also in a similar state of disarray. Once students and workers from such parties joined hands with the J.P. movement, they tried to capture power. All competing organisations were seen as usurpers of the credit of building and participating in the J.P. movement. Many a time it appeared as if the agenda or the joint struggle committees of students and people was not to regenerate the polity, but only to regenerate oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own political stream and prevent rivals from appropriating the credit for the J.P. movement. The dead end faced by the entire spectrum of Indian political parties had not forced them to honestly reconsider their ideological problems, organizational limitations or exhaustion of political morality. In short, many of them participated in the J.P. movement driven by their subjective crisis, not by a search for larger politico-moral principles of social reconstruction. All mass movements have two intrinsic functions. One, they replace the older, fatigued leadership with younger people and second, usher in new ideas. During the J.P. movement, the processes of renewal were given an added boost by the Emergency.

Detention gave many of us time to rethink our own political tradition and interact with other political ideologies, ranging from Marxist-Leninist to the RSS and Sarvodaya. Before my detention, I honestly believed that socialists have an open mind. This myth was exploded as, to my embarrassment, 1 realised that we all had a part which belonged to the realm of faith, even sacrosanct faith. The critical faculties of our mind did not have access to that part of our belief system. To reach it, one had to use human bonds and emotions, not reason. The bhakta/faithful in us can be approached only if we have a deep trust or a strong human bond with the person who questions the basics of our faith. But this human dimension of political work is ignored when a rationalist-fundamentalism is consciously practised. Despite Lohiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts to publicly raise these issues, I observed a hesitation among Lohia socialists in discussing the human aspect of our individual and collective self. This was regarded as exposing oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s weaknesses, fatal in a revolutionary organisation. I have earlier described how a Lohiaite socialist becomes increasingly incapable of relating to the ordinary human life. A belief in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s courage, bravery and unique historical role gives one a different kind of self-image. I do not remember even a single case of a socialist who did not enjoy jail detention thoroughly or who was demoralized by it. On the other hand, the RSS had many workers who were demoralized in jail and others attempted to avoid it by giving public statements in praise of Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi and their fascist programs. Yet what then appeared to be the weakness of the RSS, was also its strength. What we socialists did not recognise was that despite their ambivalent commitment to the J.P. movement, a number of RSS workers courted arrest and bore detention with dignity. That they had so many scared people in jail was not only

their weakness but also proof of the fact that they had structures which could mobilise so many ordinary middle class people. That our charismatic socialist leaders were unable to create structures for mobilisation of ordinary people, despite their goodwill among the masses, did not lead them to reconsider their o)organizational style. George Fernandes, who led an extensive network of trade unions, used this for militant resistance against the Emergency. Rather than building an extensive network of ordinary citizens, willing to come forward for Satyagraha, this created a select group of popular heroes in 1977. Some socialists, however, reacted against this radical elitism of socialist action and its anarchism. Soon after the Emergency, the socialists were clearly divided into various strands. Those. who thought that a greater share of state power to socialist radicals would deliver results to match revolutionary expectations sought unquestioning support from all socialists in their struggle for power vis-Ă -vis other constituent factions of the Janata Party. Any criticism o r questioning by other socialists of the tactics of the front-rant leaders was seen as part of sub-factional intra-socialist power struggle.. This absolutist expectation of solidarity was reciprocated by another group of socialists with an absolutist moralistic critique of the socialist leaders in power. Such critiques attempted to analyse every â&#x20AC;&#x201C;thing in terms of the personal failings of those wielding power. A comprehensive socialist view on organisation, building systemic power of the organisation and ideas on how to use state-power, however partial, effectively were never developed. In fact those making a moralistic critique did not appreciate the essence of non-Congressism which was a counter-strategy on behalf of the oppressed majority to

defeat the designs of the ruling classes who had converted the Congress into a powerful status-quoist agent. The Lohiaites, instead of carrying further the debate of the Lohia tradition, sought to destroy each other, because none appeared as pure as they ‘ought to have been’. There was an absence of political sagacity to take the struggle forward in a politically prudent fashion. Kishan Patnaik, Keshav .Iadhava and Indumati Kelkar, widely respected purists, were in the forefront of criticising senior socialists like Karpoori Thakur, George Fernandes, Madhu Limaye and Raj Narayan for not fulfilling the expectations of the Lohiaite policy package. Such action gave an upper hand to the Status—quoist and communal forces. Apart from the responses to the fascination of power and fear of power, there were other responses to the limitations of the socialist movement. But this self—reflection and search for new direction was not through the collective instrument of the organization. Some socialists took up the issues of cultural and social empowerment, caste annihilation, dignity of the socialist movement. Lohia’s position of simultaneity of social revolution with was modified to the primacy of social revolution over political revolution. Narendra Dhabolkar and Baba Adhava are examples of this strand. Others like them ale working in close cooperation with the Ambedkarite movement. Still others focussed their energies on ‘decolonising’ the Indian consciousness through issues of science, technology and development. Another group of socialists formed voluntary organisations or movement groups with Sarvodayaites and other quasi-political or anti-political single-issue organisations. In 1985, a federation of such groups called Sampoorna Kranti Manch (Forum for Total

Revolution) was formed but its vigorous form lasted only for five years. Some joined other political parties, ranging from the BJP to Marxistâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Leninist groups, depending on their newly acquired ideological inclination and reading of the available political spaces. Today, no one can deny the tremendous explosion of democratic energies at the grassroots. An acceptance of the Mandal recommendations have significantly contributed to this new awakening. Neither can one deny the total fragmentation of the Lohiasocialist movement. Paradoxically, the socialist movement had a strategic contribution in shaping the democratic awakening. The failure was at the level of consolidation of popular energies. The existing leadership and organisation cannot revive the socialist movement today. The only way is to accept this setback with humility, which may force us to re-frame our organizational vision and innovate ways and means of regenerating the democratic-socialist movement. The biggest failure of the socialist movement was its inability to resolve its dilemma regarding the relative importance of constructive work and ability to relate to the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ordinaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; person. This could have been a reaction to the other faction of the socialist movement. Lohia was not a native internationalist. He was acutely aware how European communists and socialists had used the idea of international solidarity of the working class for protecting the interests of the ruling classes in Europe. He was also not enthusiastic about the idea of western funding of the constructive work in India whereas J.P. played an important role in linking the Sarvodaya movement with European radicals. Thus what appeared to be a clear formulation at the level of ideas (constructive work being an integral part of socialist politics), did not translate itself into praxis because of

unresolved dilemmas, depriving it of constructive workers as a moderating influence over those sections who were pursuing the goal of state-power. Until the beginning of the 1980s, it was possible to keep some semblance of togetherness among the other two dimensions of socialist tasks—peaceful militant struggles and participation in elections. Today elections have virtually succeeded in driving out or marginalising ideologically oriented politicians from their respective parties and a schism between elections and ideologies is nearly complete. In order to save democracy the two must again be made compatible. The various Constituents of our marginalised society — scheduled castes, QBCs, minorities, women and peripheral identities of Kashmir and the North East — must form the principal components of this progressive alliance. Many gods of my youth have died or gone astray. Yet I have a sense of great satisfaction at having grown up as a socialist. Sadness, bitterness, breaking down and sorrows are an essential part of the human predicament and are as important and integral as a sense of joy, happiness, meaningfulness and a feeling of fulfillment in one’s life. But ideologies and beliefs, whether they are religious, cultural or political, give one a framework to see oneself in perspective. I am a socialist because to me it is simultaneously a dream and a reality. [The article was published in SEMINAR, April, 96]

Kulshresht:The Quest of a Young Dalit* This

the

story

young

Dalit

who

aspires

for

role

democratic politics which ensures people’s rights and empowers them. He thus begins to search for a suitable political party which he could join. But each avenue which he explores leads to a dead-end. The story does not claim to be representative of the Dalit existence, but Kulshresht’s urge for an active and central role in people’s politics and the despair of not finding ways to do this - is a condition shared by many young people. Various dimensions of Kulshresht’s quest demand our active involvement. The story is based on experiences of friends. I hope that those who recognise themselves will forgive me. Kulshresht has vivid memories of his years at the Brij Kishore Smriti Vidyalaya in his kasba. In particular, he remembered the stern looking Lal Singh, who taught him mathematics from class 6th to 8th. No student ever dared to go to class without solving the problems Lal Singh had given the day before. As a young student, Kulshresht had heard that every year on Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s birthday, Lal Singh invited the students of the 8th class to his village for a community meal and a ‘caste abolition sammelan’. Kulshresht had looked forward to this day for years. Finally when he reached the 8th class he too went to Lal Singh’s village on Ambedkar’s birthday. Except for the teacher’s elder daughter and a few of her friends, there were few girls present. Kulshresht quietly slipped into one of the small groups of boys, who were standing about chatting, and listened to them. One boy was asking, rhetorically, what would have happened to them if it had not been for Baba Saheb Ambedkar? Another boy said: “You can’t go on and on about this, there

is so much still to be done, we must think about that.” Another boy added: “What good does it do to think of our problems as an oppressed caste, I am already worried about finding a job and getting my sister married. My father can’t work any more. He suffers from T.B……….” The conversation drifted along in this vein. Kulshresht moved to another little group where a more heated discussion was going on. One side was arguing that the only decisive offensive against the caste system had been launched by Ambedkar, while others and especially Gandhi, had only flung obstacles in the way. The other side was arguing that without Gandhi’s work any effort to wash away this blot against humanity would have been unimaginable. It is not as though there were no earlier attempts to shake the hold of casteism. The period of the Bhakti movement is a saga of just such a struggle. But it was Gandhi who most significantly contributed to awakening the consciousness of the so-called upper castes and, to some extent, reducing the barbarity inherent in their relationship with the lower castes. “Absolutely not”, shouted the other boy. “It was a conspiracy to protect the privileges and hold of the upper castes. He gave us the name Hari-jan and worked to blunt our anger.” “That’s alright” said another boy, “but Gandhi did evoke an anger among the upper castes against untouchability and thus the stirring to abolish it. After all, those who regard Moksha as the ultimate objective in life are also told that moksha can be earned through service of the poorest, the last person. For Gandhi the criteria for determining right and wrong in life was the welbeing of the last person.” Kulshresht was excited by this debate, but unhappy with its sharpness and anger. Having heard the viewpoints being expressed there, he decided for himself that Gandhi and Ambedkar had been two different individuals who worked in their own way — according

to what they thought were the best methods — to remove untouchabllity and to expand the limits of the possible for all people. Kulshresht was still pondering over this debate when they were all called for the meal. Being a quiet reticent boy who did not easily make friends, he sat down to eat with others and yet kept to himself. But that day an irrepressibly spirited boy named Rashid was sitting next to him. Rashid soon had Kulshresht laughing and chattering. By the time they finished eating, the two boys were talking as though they had known each other for years. Later as everyone was assembling in the ‘pandal’ set up for the meeting, a hush settled over the gathering. The former Chief Minister of Bihar, Karpoori Thakur, had suddenly arrived, without invitation or intimation. Karpoori wore a brownish kurta and a yellowing white dhoti. “I was passing nearby and heard that there was a caste abolition meeting here so I came along,” he explained. Kulshresht stared at the man he knew of as the people’s leader of Bihar. He was excited about hearing Karpoori speak. Soon enough Karpoori was led up to the stage and the meeting began, inaugurated by Dalpat Ram, an old freedom fighter from that village. In his introductory speech Guruji, Lal Singh, explained the objectives of this annual event, which had been held regularly for the last 13 years. Finally it was Karpoori’s turn to speak. Karpoori spoke briefly but his words had a magical effect on Kulshresht. Years later he could still recall every word Karpooi spoke: ‘The arrogance of our caste sensibility has to be seen to be believed – a sensibility which regards all existence, living and non-living, as a part of the supreme reality (Brhama) but discriminates so viciously between human beings. Unless Indian society struggles determinedly for the values of equality, our place

in the family of nations will always be that of shudras. In the United Nations only the suvarna have a veto power, all the rest are shudras. When students of our so-called upper castes go abroad they willingly even wash the dirty utensils of the white people, to earn a living, and take any means of escape from doing hard work in their own country. The new India will not have two communities — one of those who labour and the other of those who loot. For the new India will support struggles for equality anywhere in the world and actively struggle against all injustices.’ On his way back, Kulshresht went to Rashid’s home. The foundation of a deep bond of friendship was slowly being laid. Years later, when Kulshresht was in the second year at college, news came that his old Guru Lal Singh has been murdered. It was 1977 and Karpoori Thakur was the Chief Minister once again. Lal Singh had been killed by some goondas who belonged to the same caste as the old math teacher. Lal Singh had continued to criticise, cajole and convince members of his own caste to change their attitude. Against all odds Lal Singh had persisted all his life in trying to mediate in the conflict between the privileged and deprived castes. On hearing the news, Kulshresht immediately contacted Rashid and together they set out for Guru ji’s village. By the time they reached there, Lal Singh had already been cremated two days earlier. On the way back, Kulshresht told Rashid that he wanted to devote his life to the struggle against casteism. But he had also to earn a living and pay for the education of his younger brothers. Soon, Rashid and Kulshresht agreed upon a plan. Rashid would set up a loom to weave bed covers and durries, while Kulshresht would travel to the surrounding villages and mandis (markets) to sell these. Simultaneously, he would work to set up ‘anti-caste’ forums in these areas.

When their studies were complete Rashid and Kulshresht took a loan under a selfemployment scheme and started the business. Within two years their durries and bed covers were selling at every big ‘Hat’ (weekly market) of the district. Gradually Kulshresht’s younger brothers finished their studies. One of them got a job as a clerk and the other as an assistant. Then Kulshresht got married. Later, when his third brother became a homeopathic doctor, Kulshresht began planning to buy him a shop. He was still thinking about this when the government suddenly announced a new textile policy and their weaving business began to slide into heavy losses. Rashid and Kuishresht’s durries and bed covers could not compete with the textile mills under the new policy. They lived in one of the poorest districts of Bihar and so could not afford to raise prices. Meanwhile, the ‘anti-caste’ forums initiated by Kulshresht had spread

all over the

district. Invitations to meetings began to come from other areas. One year the KabirLohia Vichar Manch had called Kulshresht to the Sonpur mela to inaugurate an exhibition on the hypocrisy and shame of casteism. There Kulshresht had met Shripat, an activist of the Chattra Yuva Sangharsh Vahini from Bodhgaya. Kulshresht was very excited by Shripat’s account of the landless labourers’ struggle for land against the Bodhgaya Math. Kuishresht now longed to devote all his time to such activities and he discussed this with his brothers. He was surprised by their enthusiasm for the idea. They said: “We also feel that you should now regard the whole of society as your family and we will take responsibility for the material needs of our small family.” This was a big event in Kulshresht’s life. He began to think afresh about his role as a political and social activist, for he always felt that what he had done so far was

Inadequate. Involving people In meetings, processions or fund collection drives somehow did not give him a sense of progression and satisfaction. From time to time, Kulshresht had read reports in the newspapers about the Sampoona Kranti Manch. Once a youth leader of the Manch, Ripudaman, had come to Kulshresht’s area and spoken about the Manch’s commitment to democratic values and people’s participation. The Congress party during the independence struggle, Ripudaman said, has been a social cultural movement. Political independence had been only one of several important objectives. However, today money-power completely controlled politics. Political parties no longer mirrored the needs and views of the people and had degenerated into power grabbing groups. Ripudaman then said that to ensure people’s participation, there was need to build a political instrument and during elections there will have to be unity against corruption and against those who promote booth capturing, casteism and communalism. Otherwise, he asserted, democracy will not survive. Ripudaman’s words struck Kulshresht with great force. Suddenly questions that he had never even considered began to bother him deeply: If genuine political parties do not survive then the electoral process will not function and the voice of the ordinary person will be buried. What will happen to us then? He recalled an incident related at the Sonpur mela by Rajendra, a representative from Rajasthan. Rajendra had told of how after the 1977 election, when the Janata Party came to power, landlords in many areas thought that their estates would now be returned to them. In some villages there were efforts to build separate water sources for Harijans. In 1980, the Harijans in these areas did not vote for the Janata Party, even though they had

economically gained under that government: â&#x20AC;&#x153;In the absence of dignity what good are a few material gains.â&#x20AC;? If the system of political parties and elections collapses then what will happen? This question began to haunt Kulshresht, and kept him awake for two nights. On the third day, he resolved to join an opposition party, and work within it to build a party of the kind that the Congress was during the freedom movement. He would devote all his energies to changing the face of the party. Kulshresht did not have any elaborate criteria by which he would choose a party he could join. He had some fundamental principles which were the minimum requirement for choosing an acceptable party, for example, that the Dalits must be able to live with basic human dignity â&#x20AC;&#x201D; which demands that casteism must loosen its grip on society. Which leader or party would satisfy this simple demand? However, even if he put aside the struggle against casteism and looked for a leader who would not use caste as a political weapon, it was difficult to find one. Any Indian who cares to can imagine what despair the growing force of AJGAR (AhirJat-Gujar-Rajput) must have caused this Dalit youth. But having decided that political parties were essential for saving democracy, Kulshresht persevered in his search for a party. Kulshresht had a distinct Dalit identity but the injuries of caste discrimination had not embittered him nor filled him with a hatred for mainstream society. He had never given much thought to the roots of caste and untouchability, or who was responsible for this blemish. He had lived it through long years of hurtful experiences. He had also watched the reports of burning and killing of Harijans or on the burning of young brides, being

dismissed by most people in their casual chatter. But over the years he had ceased to be just sad about this, he had grown to derive strength for his vision of a new society free of caste barriers and discrimination. He would not align with any kind of casteism. There is hopefully no room here for the query that given the excitement generated by the Bahujan Samaj Party why doesn’t Kulshresht join that party. This question would make Kulshresht very angry. Why should he begin his political life with the defeat of joining a party which practises a reverse form of casteism, instead of fighting casteism itself. Instead of having a principled leader who openly and consistently defines which of the other parties are friends and which are foes, why should he be forced to accept a leader who functions through ‘deals’ and keeps all his options open in the hope of striking the most opportunistic ‘deal’. No, this was entirely unacceptable to Kulshresht. Kulshresht then began to explore a variety of Dalit groups and organisations, which are part of a wider social and cultural movement. But he did not find them potent means for making democratic politics healthier. Most of these organisations are held together by the devotion and hard work of an individual or a group of friends but not through the strength of direct involvement of ordinary Dalits. Kulshresht some times felt that there was no dream or resolve behind these groups and they were just discussion clubs for a few Dalits. Some friends advised Kulshresht that in the struggle for social progress, cultural issues are also crucial. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad had collected vast amounts of money following the Meenakshipuram conversions to work among Dalits, they told Kulshresht and asked how he could still think of himself as a Hindu. Then why not work within at

Hindu organisation to remove casteism. ‘Join any RSS type organisation, then you can work on the cultural front and it will also give you a place in the BJP’, they told him. The despondent Kulshresht’s dilemma deepened. The reasons for this dilemma were partly rooted in the memories of his childhood. His grandfather used to tell him of an uncle who became a devotee of Ram and had stubbornly insisted on worshipping at the Ram Mandir. He is still missing. The people of the village had brutally beaten him for his audacity. Kulshresht’s grandfather had gone to a saintly and kind man in the village, Ram Prakash, to complain. Kulshresht could now understand that this man was a propagator of the RSS and talked of Hindu organisation and unity. Ram Prakash adviced Kulshresht’s grandfather to be patient. Later his grandfather had learnt that the ‘prominent’ man who ordered Kulshresht’s uncle to be beaten was a wealthy businessman who presided over functions of the RSS. But Kulshresht was willing to not give this incident much weight because some friends had told him that the RSS had changed. Kulshresht didn’t know about the internal workings of the Sangh and its undemocratic character, nor had he given this much thought. He was still considering the possibility of trying to work through the medium of the Sangh and the BJP, when the court gave permission for the Ram Janmabhoomi temple to be unlocked. Kulshresht was then left with no illusions about the RSS, about the character of its Rambhakti and patriotism. Those who claim to be leaders of this large organisation are denigrating the country’s courts, they don’t have faith in its processes of justice. The Sangh is not concerned about the conditions of people in the villages from which the Ramshilas (bricks with ‘Ram’ inscribed on them) are being collected under the initiative of Hindus who are steeped in arrogance, ignorance and corruption and lack faith in the basic dignity of all men.

The Sangh is interested only in opportunistic gains by setting brothers against each other and sowing the seeds of hatred and communal violence. Can an organisation made up of such destructive components allow democracy to function in this country? Kulshresht is clear that an enemy of democracy is an enemy of the country, of the poor, the Dalits, the majority â&#x20AC;&#x201D; he is an enemy of all. Kulshresht cannot understand how an organisation with patriotic claims can do such destructive work. How is this any different from Indira Gandhi calling Khalistani Jagjit Singh Chauhan to India or boosting Bhindranwale, or Rajiv Gandhiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s protecting the touts in the Bofors scandal. At any rate, this understanding of the RSS eliminated the BJP as a possible option. What should Kulshresht do now? He decided to abandon the search for a party of his liking. Kulshresht resigned himself to the fact that there is no party which both effectively opposes the ways of the Congress-I and also offers a clear alternative. A friend suggested that Kulshresht join the Janata Dal. The president of the Janata Dal often talked about a politics that transforms the structure of power. There were many young people in this party who had emerged from the Bihar agitation of 1974 and there were old socialists. Dalit leader Arun Kamble had also recently joined the Janata Dal. Therefore, Kulshresht began to seriously think of the Janata Dal as a possible option. But many doubts persisted. How much space would there be within the party to raise questions about democratic rights? How much would money power control the party, how different would this party really be from the Congress-I. Kulshresht thought that there was no one in his family or among his friends who would give him large donations for party activities. In the Congress, if a block youth president sneezes even silently, there

are posters announcing this on the walls the next day. Would the Janata Dal be any different from this? Kulshresht was mulling this over when he heard that veteran Sarvodaya leader Acharya Ramamurti had been taken into the National Steering Committee, Political Affairs Committee and the Central Parliamentary Board. Later the selection of Ramsunder Das as President and Acharyaji as Bihar Parliamentary Board also touched a responsive cord in Kulshresht. He recalled a speech by the President of the Dal, in which he had said that the growth and running of the party are more important than coming to power and running the government. But it is unlikely that Kulshresht will be able to join the Janata Dal. Why is this so? He has found that several friends who have joined the Dal for similar reasons and who belong to the tradition of the Bihar movement are struggling with each other for positions within the party. From the outside it does not seem as though any of the tussles have to do with differences over programmes of the party or social issues. Besides, on 14th July 1989 V.P. Singh had said, as an explanation for the delay in the formation of the Uttar Pradesh unit of the Dal, that â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;a sanghatan is needed to prepare the people. Here the people are already ready so what is the need for a sanghatan?â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Kulshresht disagrees with this view. He believes that a sanghatan is the first requisite for the growth and continuity of the democratic process. Democracy in India today is facing a crisis and lacks an appropriate political party and leadership partly because Indira Gandhi succeeded in skillfully, repeatedly, breaking various parties. Kulshresht had some hopes from the youth In the Janata Dat but their sectarianism disturbed him. Moreover his expectations from Acharya Ramamurtiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s joining the Dal had also been belied since he read a statement

by Acharyaji in which he had denied being active in the day to day affairs of the Dal. Kulshresht also spoke to Surendra Mohan of the Janata Dal, who told him of some experiences of activists working at the grass roots and gave him useful and concrete suggestions for his work. But even Surendra Mohan could not delineate a clear path for joining and working within the Janata Dal. Kulshresht discussed the situation with Rashid and Shripat, his two closest friends. Their responses disappointed him. Rashid said ‘I have thought of myself more as a Hindustani than a Muslim, and tried to ensure that my being a Hindustani does not become a barrier between me and other human beings. But the president of the Janata Dal wants a certificate of his ‘secular’ credentials from Syed Shahbuddin, the man who is determined to make Muslims seem different and separate from Hindustanis.’ Shripat’s words were also saddening. He said: ‘I am a full time activist and manage my public and family life with the help of friends. I have found that in helping a full timer my friends get the same pleasure that a young person gets in helping his or her parents, or parents get in looking after their children. And what will happen in the Dal? Only the body of a bonded labour is enslaved, I have heard that a worker in the Dal does politics not with the help of friends but of leaders and he has to mortgage his soul to them.’ Today Kulshresht is not able to understand what is the most important medium for working between the state and the people. Kulshresht is a youth with a vision of a new society and he wants your help in building a bridge in the form of a party, between egalitarianism and the state. For he is now firmly convinced that only a people’s movement and organised people’s power behind political parties can ensure true democracy.

*The article was published originally in Hindi in Lokayan Samiksha-I, 1989.

Politics, the Non-Party Political Process and Morality: Some Reflections Vijay Pratap & Smitu Kothari What

should

the

wider

political

responsibility

those

who

are in the non- party political process? What should be our creative role in the present climate of fragmentation, distrust, individualism and considerable ideological churning? Can we play a supportive role to the processes that are attempting to create viable platforms of alternative democratic politics in which ordinary people feel enthused to participate? Indeed, what are these processes? These are not easy questions to deal with. Here, we share some reflections on these issues. Today, in almost all the initiatives which are contributing to the process of democratising politics, we find that in terms of political perspective, programmatic priorities and strategies, there are a number of differences that keep these initiatives disparate and divided. Undoubtedly, the task of achieving the objective of becoming part of a process which will culminate in a broad democratic platform in which millions of people can participate, and assert their political ideas, requires many nuclei working around this vision. This implies that a self-conscious effort with tremendous humility will have to be made by many active in these presently disparate efforts if they want to both stem the political and moral crisis and contribute to the democratic political and cultural regeneration of society. To a significant extent, such a platform will subsume many of the functions of a healthy political party. Such a forum will have to comprise of a loose cluster of indigenously funded and supported voluntary initiatives â&#x20AC;&#x201C; from single-issue based groups to mass movements â&#x20AC;&#x201C;â&#x20AC;&#x201C; giving organised expression to human compassion as well as sustaining

and nurturing humanistic values amidst the various struggles for power in society. This platform would have to involve mature social and political activists as well as provide the space to nurture leaders, who are capable of running the system creatively whilst continuing to challenge the many layers of endemic oppression, exploitation, exclusion and degrading disparity within the country and beyond. This requires a perspective of politics in which providing societal leadership and being part of mass-struggle are parts of an integral whole. When struggle and providing creative political leadership for pro-people purposes becomes the goal, a wide range of dichotomies, debates and dividing lines will begin to assume secondary or tertiary significance. For instance, from an academic point of view, political intervention through action and through intellectual activity are two distinct pursuits. However, when seen from the viewpoint of mass political intervention, the boundaries between mobilisational activism and cerebral activism become irrelevant. Each activist has some intellectual discipline and training which is often not respected by people with a purely academic background. Nevertheless, a mass movement and its subsequent institutionalization does bring activists and academics more integrally together. Whatever be the formal academic qualifications of a person involved in a democratic mass movement, she/he will have to engage herself/himself with the nittygritty of politics. The other dichotomy which would lose its divisive edge is whether an activist belongs to an NGO/CBO (Community Based Orgaznisation) or a mass movement. All mass organisations have people with diverse backgrounds and different social, political, and cultural persuasions. The movement/ organisation has to evolve its ideas, norms, work

ethics and political culture which is not necessarily dependent on the diversity of different individuals within the initiative. During periods of rapid social change, a plurality of moral-political codes comes into being and each segment judges the other –– often with rigid and purist norms—with its own specific set of codes. It is therefore axiomatic that immorality in society may be projected in excess of the actual moral decline. We need to recognise that a purist moral position may not necessarily contribute to the enhancement of wider political morality. In fact, building a moral political movement requires significant tolerance and patience to involve and nurture a wide spectrum of “ordinary”, “frail” people. Importantly, Gandhi’s politics generated mass movements as well as institutionalised political parties. Was this not due to the fact that he did not act on the principle of exclusion? His basic messages, including matching the ends with the means, were for society as a whole. He did not fragment society into two or more ideologically fraternal or adversarial camps and acted on the basic principle of universal values which he saw as a basic underpinning of a culturally plural and democratic society. Today, our learning and our socialisation has alienated most of us from the culturally specific and rooted idiom of Gandhi and we have failed to appreciate the universal dimension in his politics. The crisis is not of personal morality alone. After all, the absolute number of moral and idealist activists produced by the Indian National Congress is arguably higher than the combined number of idealists produced either by Hindu and Muslim religious extremists or by the socialists and communists. At another level, even today, despite the hue and cry about the moral degradation in society, the number of individuals who value personal morality is quite staggering.

The issue therefore is not exclusively of the decline of idealism and morality in politics. It is the scale of involvement of idealist people in a mass movement with larger collective goals. A movement organisation needs to be adequately complex and mature so that people with varying personal and moral capacities can participate in it. Political morality is determined by an overall political assessment, where personal morality, is only one variable. In other words, the relative importance of morality in a particular political context is as much dependent on the intrinsic worth of moral issues as on the political context itself. What generates the crucial difference is not only personal morality but also the content and practice of politics itself. For example, most of us who are from middle class backgrounds may be personally authentic human beings but our survival continues to be dependent on the perpetuation of economic and social inequity, oppression and corruption. It is obvious therefore that the struggle against an immoral social order or against corruption is a profound political task requiring us to individually and collectively explore a more creative personal and political praxis. In this context, we must also critically note that, to a large extent, most NGO activists in the third world imitate or generate hierarchical patterns of social action more than their western/northern activist counterparts who make much more effort to reduce the contradictions of personal and organisational lifestyle and vertical organisational structures. Similarly, many who state that there is a serious dichotomy between â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the priorities and strategiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of idealists and pragmatists are unable to adequately capture the complexity of political morality of mass-organisations. Working out the contours of political morality is not the same as working out personal morality. Even the Bahujan Samaj Party or the Bhartiya Janata Party who claim little commitment to the relationship between ends and

means have at least as many ‘idealists’ and ‘pure’ people as the ‘pure’ parties, groups and movement platforms have. As we have already argued, personal morality is only one of the elements that is essential for the achievement of wider political morality. Personal morality is relatively less complex. Nurtured by socialisation and the development of a personal worldview, it is also sustained by the moral capacity of the immediate and the wider peer group. On the other hand, political morality is influenced by a whole spectrum of social, psychological. political and historical experiences of a wide variety of political actors. The manner in which political actors define the sub-sets of ‘we’ and ‘they’, or ‘ally’ and ‘adversary’, greatly influences the terrain of political morality. For example, a large number of idealist, and democratic individuals do not appear to criticize Laloo Prasad Yadav, whose regime has many scandals and scams to its credit. It is not that they fail to see his corruption. Most of them believe that a corruption tainted LK Advani with a communal and fascist machine of the RSS/BJP/Shiv Sena behind him are a bigger danger to a plural, civilised society than a corrupt Laloo Prasad Yadav whose ideological frame is pluralist and non-communal and whose survival plank is social justice for the oppressed people of the country. The present juncture underscores how the very professing of a progressive ideological frame, opens up new spaces in politics and society. No one can dispute the hollowness of Indira Gandhi’s slogan “Garibi Hatao” (Abolish Poverty). However, it did contribute to the escalation of political stirring among the poor and, to some extent, even to the wider participation in the JP movement of 1974 of hitherto oppressed groups. Another example is also from the Congress. During its period of moral decline, it used the identity

anxieties of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs to sustain its political machine. However, because of its claimed non-communal ideology and its plural character, it could not communalise wider socio-cultural sensibilities to the extent of the BJP-RSSâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; particularly after the Somnath Rath Yatra of 1990. In the post-election situation, when the short-lived BJP government tried to woo elected individuals belonging to other secular parties, they were unanimously spurned which, while it may not be reflective of the personal morality of individuals belonging to secular parties, is definitely indicative of the political force of the value of secularism which compelled them to take a moral political stand. Significant political space has opened up in a post-election context where an overwhelming majority of Indians voted for a secular and plural polity. These examples have profound lessons for non-party activists who must actively engage themselves with the critical issues of secularism, comprehensive consolidation of democracy and the active politicisation of an increasing number of people which should not be seen as priorities meant for others. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that many working towards the decolonisation of- consciousness or against global capitalist designs are choosing tactical alliances in a wholly decontextualised manner with communal forces which are essentially destructive of the plural, secular fabric of India. The history of our political process is replete with the grave portents of such naive tactical alignments. It throws up a number of other issues. For instance, in contemporary mainstream politics, there continue to be many non-corrupt people. For instance, take the noted socialist thinker, Madhu Limaye. Till he was alive, he was one of the most eloquent conscience keepers of democratic politics. However, the fact remainst that if the secular democratic

polity has to be strengthened, then some groups and individuals will have to lead the way towards the moral regeneration of society. This can only be achieved through the political process and not through individual moral action.

Some Reflections on Funding and Voluntarism These ideas are the outcome of discussions with the Lokayan core group since 1980 and with the Coalition for Environment and Development, Finland, since 1988. he T

general

secretary

the

Association

Voluntary

Agencies

for Rural Development (AVARD), one of the oldest networks of Gandhian NGOs recently asked me whether Lokayan accepted foreign funds or not. Technically and even normally the straight answer should have been that since December 1982, the foreign component of Lokayan is only in terms of the earnings from the sale of the Lokayan Bulletin to individual foreign subscribers and bulk sale to foreign Trusts, Foundations and NGO networks. But instead of this, I defensively explained that we publish only in English; which we sell in the foreign ‘market’ as well. Thus we can not say that we don’t accept foreign funds. Among the activists, at the present juncture, there are only three whole-time persons in Lokayan. Only one of them is drawing close to full-time honorarium, about the same as usually paid by low paying urban NGO. There is another set of 9-10 voluntary workers, who are not paid anything, while some of them, who come regularly to the office and have no personal source of income, are paid only Rs.500 for conveyance expenses. For a variety of reasons, we had to suspend our Hindi journal, a step for which we continuously face brick-bats from our activist friends at the grass-roots not only in the Hindi-speaking region, but also from states like Orissa, Gujarat, Maharashtra and even some friends in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Why this long-winding statement, giving the details on the issue of funding, instead of a simple answer in yes or no? Probably because in real-life situations, ideal and pragmatic 40

or moral and political are not exclusivist, dichotomous categories. In fact, it is the other way round. What is ideal and moral should also be practical and political. So, it was in search of this holistic view, the urge to be more credible and more effective, as a part of larger radical interventions that Lokayan decided to stop accepting institutional support from international donor agencies. How far have we succeeded in enhancing our ability to intervene on issues of social transformation,it is for others to judge. But, I can assure you that our critiques from within are far more devastating than any critique from observers outside. Lokayanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view is that the bulk of the resources in terms of ideas, human-power and finances need to come from the society which we are seeking to transform. Issues of rootedness, indigeneity and self-reliance are important for all transformative movements in any part of the globe. But equally important are the issues of international solidarity, sharing experiences with dissenting movements across nations and working for the weakest and humblest sections of our people (whom Gandhiji described as Daridranarayan) not only in our own country but in any country on the earth. This kind of international solidarity based on the principle of serving the Daridranarayan has acquired a different kind of salience since the temporary gains made by global capitalist forces know no bound whether it is a question of their profits or the question of plundering nature. But Lokayan is clearly opposed to the marginalisation, undermining and some times the total displacement of issues of rootedness, indigenenity and self reliance in the name of international solidarity. Examples of good work based on international funding are often used to justify the closure of the debate on the issue of the sources of funding.

Lokayan and many other organisations who do not accept funds from international donor agencies, do not take a position that foreign funds should not be taken by anyone under any circumstances. We are fully aware that many of the critical issues which form an essential part of our contemporary radical consciousness have been raised by those who accept foreign funds. We are also aware that many NGOs have made such a substantial difference in the living conditions of thousands of poor people that one cannot but commend and salute such work. One of the many examples which comes to my mind is that of the work done by Rajendra Singh and his colleagues at Tarun Bharat Sangh in Bhikampura, district Alwar in Rajasthan. They have created and restored hundreds of ponds, reforested the commons, increased nutritional levels of the local people and started many health programmes. If I were in the business of recommending or awarding Nobel Prizes or ‘alternative’ Nobel Prizes, I would feel honoured in awarding one to Tarun Bharat Sangh. But if foreign-funded good work is used to make fun of, ridicule or sneer at the arduous journey of empowerment of villagers of Bhim, district Ajmer, again in Rajasthan, by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana (Organisation for Empowerment of Peasant Workers), through primarily local funding resources, then Lokayan will counter such propaganda vigorously. Lokayan’s reaction will be much more intense on Rajendra Singh’s work if it is used to propagate that Indians by themselves whether at the Panchayat (lowest rung of the Indian state at the level of a village or cluster of villages) level or at the national level are incapable of handling and sustaining the participative mode of governance. We cannot allow the destruction of our cultural confidence by a few thousand dollars coupled

with the usage of the dedication and competence of our young men and women. Losing our cultural confidence is the most dangerous form of disempowerment. Examples of good work and paucity of funds in organisations like Lokayan are put forward to ‘show’ that it is almost impossible to raise funds locally. There can be nothing more misleading than this. Paucity of funds is a problem of those urban middle classes, who are socio-culturally rootless, spiritually lethargic to come out of the mad-race syndrome of ‘do-all’ and ‘get-all’ but still keen to believe that they are very ‘publicspirited’ persons. No one can deny that just like mainstream politics, the internationally funded NGO sector also has its share of opportunists and social climbers. The debate for and against foreign funds can not be compartmentalised into an either-or manner such that developing an internal critique on the work-style of public workers becomes difficult. Funding may be local, national or international: issues of austerity, accountability, team-work, sharing credit, nurturing the younger generation by those who have better access to resources, should remain the criterion for judging the good or bad work-culture. Public-work does have its own discipline and share of sacrifice. Although in a deeper sense, no public work goes unrewarded. In fact, the sense of satisfaction and meaningfulness is itself a priceless reward for any public activity which we undertake. But unfortunately, there is a consensus among our elite and middle classes on not confronting

uncomfortable

issues,

looking

for

soft-options,

lofty-persuasive

rationalisation of our limitations, occasional glorification of our weaknesses. We also sneer at the courage of conviction or altruistic sense or longing to do selfless work among ‘ordinary’ frail human beings around us. I say ‘ordinary’ because it is difficult to make

fun of ‘heroes’ of history but easy to make fun of the strivings of those ‘ordinary’ people whose cumulative might creates epochal people like Gandhi or Ambedkar. Small sacrifices in everyday life by ordinary citizens have a crucial role in sustaining the notion, and work around issues, of larger public good. Human compassion, empathy and commitment for larger public good is the ultimate resource for all kinds of voluntarism. Many a times those who have access to easy funds—personal, national or international— tend to look for the substitutes to these resources in terms of professional competence or political skills. Nothing can be more dangerous than such a ‘professional’ understanding of voluntarism which ignores or undermines the ‘ordinary’ and his/her capacity to contribute his/her share in the ‘voluntary efforts’ of the society Computer boys of Rajiv Gandhi tried to destroy the cultural confidence of the rooted and more authentic political workers in his own party which had a disastrous effect on the entire democratic political culture. Similarly smart ‘professional’ social workers, speaking good English, generally culturally illiterate as far as Indian traditions are concerned, and making frequent foreign jaunts are transforming the notion of voluntarism in such a manner that what is paid work will be legitimised and applauded as voluntary work. And what is genuine grassroots, altruistic-voluntary work will not even be classified as work of any sort. Because it does not have a project proposal, registered name-plate, bank-account and project funds. This extreme myopia, in my humble opinion, has mainly been caused by a colonial consciousness. The British, by enacting the 1860 Registration of Societies Act, sought to control our society. Mutuality, co-operation, spontaneity and the consequent robust civicspace were some of the attributes of our social system above the pollution line* . This is not to deny the hierarchy, exploitation and caste based ‘begaar’, exploitation of physical

labour without any corresponding notion of just wages for the scheduled caste workers, particularly in the agricultural sector. This issue has its own validity. It was on account of our moral-ideological weakness with regard to the caste system that we faced humiliating defeats on the cultural and political fronts from the British. The Society’s Registration Act undermined voluntarism in the most fundamental sense. It usurped the act of voluntarism from civic society into the politico-legal framework of the state. Looked at from this viewpoint, all of us who have registered societies, are in fact a camouflaged arm of the state-sector rather than belonging to the consciousness of our civic society. Sensitivity on these issues will allow us to debate on the issue of foreign funds in a healthy manner. The journey towards rediscovering our roots and authenticity will be long, arduous and sometimes frustrating.

* Pollution line is that social barrier below which castes were considered so polluting that even their touch ‘polluted’. Now they are listed in a statutory list called ‘Schedule Castes’.

Combating the Twin Phenomena: Curruption and Communalism or F

activist

with

average

intellectual

and

moral

capabilities,

writing is a painful task. This time I had to write an editorial on fighting corruption. My editorial colleague suggested that since Lokayan has been part of the ‘Campaign on Right to Information’ I must write on this issue. Her case was that this is the issue on which there was a successful struggle in Rajasthan lead by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan of Ms. Aruna, Mr. Shankar, Mr. Nikhil and others. It forced the state government to concede that people had the right to information. The Rajasthan government has set-up a committee to go into the modalities of providing information to those who demand it. Responsive sections in the bureaucracy have gone a bit further, as you may see from the circular letters sent by Mr. N.C. Saxena to civil service probationers and to the Joint Secretary Personnel Department. In both these letters the intention is to create an ethos and institutional arrangements so that citizens will have the power of information to ensure that the state does not behave arbitrarily. That the director and many of the faculty members of LBS Academy, Mussoorie have taken the issue of fighting corruption seriously is illustrative of the concern of a section of the bureaucracy on the issue. However, many of the writers analyse corruption as a potent and pervasive phenomenon. Ratnakar Tripathy writes, “we constantly debate over the acceptable degrees of corruption – how much is acceptable in a given situation, and how much is not. This by itself shows that we have come to regard it as the dominant norm”. He further says, “our psyche is very much that of an accomplice who is constantly disowing his own

involvement.” While agreeing with the later statement, it is debatable whether ‘people have accepted corruption as the dominant norm’. For the last 22 years, since the time of the J.P. movement in 1974, people have time and again expressed their opposition to this dominant ‘fact’ of life, i.e. corruption. People are as yet not willing to accept this as a norm. This is not an ideological statement by an activist trained in the Gandhian democratic socialist tradition. There is repeated and ample evidence to show that people are looking for instruments to fight corruption, so that they can lead a life of ‘Maryada’ and ‘Swadharma’ (leading life with a notion of moderation/limits and following the living ethical traditions as understood and practiced in a customary fashion). People appear to be disowning their involvement because corruption and corrupt structures have not been adopted by them out of choice, but have been grafted on to them. The elite is increasingly indulging in corruption because of its cultural-psychological ‘compulsion’ to ape the mad consumerism of Western industrialism. The poor majority are then forced to do so for sheer survival. The multiple failure and fracturing of the politics of the oppressed contribute to the perception of corruption as a pervading fact. When the national elections were held in 1996, leaders from most of the large political parties were under the cloud of the Hawala Scam. Those of the Left Parties, the Samajvadi Party of Mulayam Singh and the Bahujan Samaj Party of Kanshi Ram were, however, not involved. The Janata Dal had only two of its leaders with small amounts against their names in the Hawala diary. Congress, a party with marked downward slide of its moral fibre, naturally had many of its leaders involved in this scam. This party has ruled the country at the centre since independence, except for brief interruptions in 1977

and 1989. As a respons, the opposition parties had to almost suspend their respective agendas and come together under the plank of ‘non-Congressism’. Their strategy of nonCongressism had succeeded only in an impure form in the major state of U.P., Bihar and Madhya Pradesh where they had to seek support from ‘defectors’ from Congress in order to form the provincial governments. This experiment was short lived. In 1977 the opposition got an opportunity to form the government because the voters reacted against the authoritariam rule of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and her son. But this experiment did not last long because the Hindu rightist segment of the Janata Party was indulging in Machiavallian tactics of using one faction/individual against the other and the socialists, the other ideologically motivated group, failed miserably in resisting the temptation of becoming pawns in the power struggle. The ’77 electoral verdict and the courageous/vanguardist role during the J.P. Movement in 1974 and during emergency rule in ‘75-77 had offered the socialists an opportunity to shape India’s destiny. But they failed. Here it is important to note that the ’77 election saw people’s participation in an unprecedented manner. All sections of people, especially in north India where the experience of authoritarian rule was more direct, adopted Janata party candidates as their own candidates; they mobilised money on their own and every conscious citizen became a Janata Party volunteer. Congress becoming prisoner of a corrupt system is comprehensible to many objective observers. The BJP’s corruption is however less widely recognised. The right-wing, casteist, hatred speading party had one of its chief ministers in Delhi, an ex-chief minister in Madhya Pradesh and its national president, Mr. L.K. Advani in the Hawala scam. Even a casual observer knows that now BJP is able to mobilise ‘unclean’ money for elections,

generally leaving even the Congress far behind, despite not controlling the seat of political power in Delhi. People might not have forgotten that after the national executive meeting of BJP in Pune on the eve of ’96 elections Mr. Pramod Mahajan had ‘admitted’ or perhaps ‘boasted’of his inability to collect ‘clean funds’. Even before the elections, the BJP had made public that they will use seven air-craft during the election campaign. The rationale given for mobilising money from wherever it was mobilised was that the high cost of elections had compelled them to raise funds from the “moneyed people”. We know from the experience of 1977 that if people genuinely own you as their candidate, want to give you a mandate to rule the country, then you don’t need money to win the elections. Here we need to bring into the discussion another important point put forward by Ratnakar Tripathy. According to him, “over the decades as our political processes and social life got increasingly democratised, corruption as a phenomenon has grown in scale… But the fact is that corruption is essentially a retaliatory strategy against the process of democratisation. Corruption carries on with increasing democratisation, lives off it, and mars its liveliness.” There is an absolute agreement with him on this. It becomes imperative to examine how the democratic assertions and urges are tamed by the ruling establishment of the society. There is a remarkable degree of similarity in the strategy of both the dominant parties of ruling sections i.e. Congress and BJP. First of all both the parties, understanding the psyche of Indian people who have not yet reconciled to corruption as norm, take a posture against corruption. In their 1996 election manifestoes both the parties took a position against corruption. Mr. Advani, President of BJP, had the temerity of taking out a chariot campaigning for ‘shuchita’ (purity). Would

the BJP chief ministers dare to appoint supreme court judges of their choice in telling the countrymen (I) the sources of personal assets acquired by BJP ministers and ex. ministers in various states of the country (ii) sources of money acquired for ’91 and ’96 Lok Sabha elections (iii) rough estimates of amounts of money spent by BJP on these elections and on routine expenditure of the party leadership? Only after such acts would they have a moral right to talk about ‘shuchita’. In fact after the elections, when they assumed power for a brief period they did not do anything to weed out corruption. If they could clear the multinational Enron power project with great hurry and secretiveness, they could have come out with a consensus formula for institutional arrangements to weed out corruption from our body-politic. But how can BJP do it! The entrenched social classes which form the support base of BJP can not retain their exploitative position if corruption is not a dominant fact of life. Corruption is one of the most potent weapons of the ruling sections against processes of democratisation. Combined with financial corruption, both the parties of the ruling classes have used other tactics. Let us examine how the other dominant party of the ruling classes i.e. Congress responded to the democratic assertion of 1977. When people defeated Mrs. Indira Gandhi who had promulgated a constitutional dictatorship using some of the loop-holes of our constitution, she whipped up three kinds of ‘identity – anxieties’ of Indian people. First and the most important was the identity of a citizen of a new state called ‘India’. She successfully led a disinformation campaign that the Janata Party can not govern. The pluralistic and open – ended democraatic character of Janata Party was portrayed as a sign of weakness. Her main slogan in 1980 parliamentary elections was ‘Vote for those who can govern’. A large number of Indian masses were duped by this slogan, because

they rightly thought that they had a stake in the survival of the Indian state. They were made to believe that a pluralistic party like Janta Party could not ensure its survival. Janata Party could not counter this propaganda effectively for a whole lot of complex reasons, including the fact that its then information and Broadcasting Minister himself came from a political organisation where an elaborate structure and ideology of authoritarianism had been worked out and practiced. Indian readers know that I am referring to the RSS which is the parent or controlling organisation of the BJP (which was known as Bhartiya Jan Sangh before it merged in Janata Party in 1977). In my discussions during emergency jail detention (from 4th July 75 – 22nd February 77) I found many RSS workers almost defending the promulgation of emergency rule on the ground that JP had given a ‘call’ to the armed forces not to obey unconstitutional antipeople orders of the regime at that time. The Congress and BJP both believe in different forms of non-democratic functioning. Any example of pluralistic, open-ended work culture is used by them to contribute to the anxieties of ordinary Indian citizens regarding the survival and security issues of the Indian State. For the BJP, whipping up this anxiety and creation of a ‘seize mentality’ are the key instruments to stop the march of democratic assertions. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, after she regained power in 1980 propped up Bhindarawala, an extremist demagogue, against the patriotic and democratic Sikhs of Punjab. Congress and BJP worked in unison in painting Akalis (an important political party representing Sikhs of Punjab, which had offered a heroic resistance against the emergency rule of Mrs. Indira Gandhi) as anti-national. Their democratic demand for more power to the states was dubbed as anti-national. During 1977-80 also Mrs. Gandhi had quitely whipped up

the caste anxieties of various communities. With â&#x20AC;&#x2122;77, peasant castes for the first time had a say in the power echelons of Delhi on their own. Indira Gandhi, to a large extent successfully, painted this regime as anti-dalit. She did not restrict herself to the populist tactics of riding an elephant in Bihar to protest against an incident of atrocity against dalits. Her party-men instigated Jats and Dalits to fight each other on the issue of allotment of small plots of land to dalits from the village commons. There was prolonged agitation on this issue with Kanjhawala, a village in the Union territory of Delhi, as the head quarter of this agitation. The long and short of this story is that institutionalising corruption is not the only retaliatory strategy of the ruling sections to blunt the democratic assertions of the people. Congress and BJP had both whipped up identity anxieties, the identity as an Indian as well as various caste and community identitites. This had to be resorted to because Mrs. Gandhi had realised that redefining corruption as she had done, by amending the laws retrospectively when judgements were delivered against Congressmen, was not enough to ensure continuance of her corrupt rule. Incidentally, one of the cases was her own in which Justice Sinha of Allahabad High Court on 12th June, 1975 declared her election as null and void. She clamped emergency rule late on the night of June 25th, 1975 to meet the dissent within and outside. But people taught her lesson in â&#x20AC;&#x2122;77. Indira Gandhi was wiser after 1977 and she did not restrict herself only to corruption as her strategy. She also used blind identity politics as a retaliatory strategy. Even before BJP, Indira Gandhi whipped up Hindu anxieties openly in an election campaign in Jammu and Kashmir. BJP used to do this clandestinely through an organised whisper campaign against minorities using the gigantic RSS machinery.

Her son Rajiv Gandhi, who came to power in December 1984 continued with the same policy of using corruption and whipping up of blind identity anxieties as strategy against democratisation. During his tenure as Prime Minister the disputed portion of the mosque in Ayodhya was opened for the public. This was projected as a concession to Hindus by the internal security minister at that time, Mr. Arun Nehru who later came close to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. VHP/RSS and muslim communalists obliged Rajiv Gandhi in contributing to the identity anxieties of both the communities. But even with all this Rajiv Gandhi and the ruling establishment did not feel secure. Rajiv Gandhi then sold the dream of consumerism of the 21st century. This accentuated the consumerist aspirations of all sections of our society. Middle classes became part of the consumerist mad-race syndrome. Success as a consumer of modern/western/MNC products became the supreme societal goal. India started borrowing from global financial institutions unthinkingly. This led to erosion in our economic sovereignty and the eventual ‘crunch’ in 1991 when Mr. Narasimha Rao removed all barriers for national and international capital. This resulted in a two-fold gain for the ruling sections. The first was, identity and secondly it opened up the space for more corruption by attempting to legitimise the making of the easy buck. This is how the era of Narasimha Rao is described by Prof. Kamal Nayan Kabra-as an ‘Era of Scams’. The accentuated identity anxiety was sought to be transformed into an anxiety of Hindu identity by the BJP. The success of BJP, though limited, is precisely because it has been able to manipulate these identity anxieties for its electoral gains, indulge in high corruption but still take a posture against corruption. For an anxious Hindu corruption has become a secondary issue. Thus whipping up communal feeling is the most important

tool of BJP to keep its corrupt ranks together. The corollary of this phenomenon is that those of us committed to the issues of secularism, equity and social justice avoid criticising secular and democratic forces in the face of the onslaught of communal forces, because we are also anxious about preserving our identity of an Indian democrat or a pluralistic Hindu or a patriotic Muslim. In the Indian case the ruling classes and their two most important political parties have intertwined the two issues of corruption and communalism so much that if we do not target both the issues simultaneously there will be no opening up of the political space. Fighting communal forces and creating structures of accountability are two faces of the same coin. Writers like P.S. Appu have talked about reforming political parties including practice of inner party democracy. This is a very important issue if we want to create enduring structures of accountability. But to be able to execute reform of our political parties we have to take into account the anti-political attitude of our middle classes and lack of a strong tradition of philanthropy for routine political tasks of organisation building. This problem has to be tackled ideologically by launching campaigns for mobilisation of funds for political activity. We also have to arrange for core state grants to political parties based on some formula evolved by taking into account the percentage of votes polled by a political party and membership of the party. It is evident that the people in various sectors of life want to get rid of corruption as a dominant fact of life. We must take up the challenge recognising the merging of identity anxieties (communalism) and corruption as a potent phenomenon countering democratic processes. There is an urgency to win the battle lest corruption should convert itself from ‘dominant fact’ to ‘dominant norm’ in our lives.

A Minimalist Perspective Making Institutions Compatible with Southern Movement Aspirations for a Democratic Order D.L. Sheth & Vijay Pratap On Evaluating Initiatives for Global Democracy: Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues roposals

for

democratising

global

governance

have

for

long

been

P made in pure normative terms. Although often formulated in a rather pretentious language of the policy-maker, in reality they read like ‘wish-lists’ of well-meaning democrats addressed to non-competent, often even non-existent, global authorities. Viewed in this context the Network Institute for Global Democratisation (NIGD) proposal to take stock of initiatives for global democracy is grounded in the emergent empirical reality of the post cold-war world and represents an advance over earlier normativist positioning on issues of world governance. In the first place, it recognises the fact that the anarchic space of inter-national relations is now being inhabited, increasingly thickly, by organisations and actors wielding significant financial and political power globally – across regions and nation-states – directly affecting lives of ordinary people, everywhere. Implied in this recognition is a conception of global governance which assumes that these actors and organisations are truly trans-national entities i.e., not representing interests of any particular nation-states (an assumption in need of scrutiny). Of course, also included in this conception of global governance are the old supranational organisations, i.e., United Nations and several other international agencies;

however, these are steadily losing their salience in the emergent, post Cold War system of global power. Then there are the post World War II international financial institutions. In a nut-shell, the post World War II network of international organisations is now overlaid by the power of the old (of the cold war-time) and the new (post cold-war) global actors and organisations. They together represent a dominant structure of global power. By attributing the term governance to these different sets of actors and organisations they are made to appear as if they constituted a coherent structure of political authority, enjoying a degree of legitimacy. The fact however is that many of these actors and organisations use raw and unlegitimated power in enforcing their will globally. Of course there are also those using power relatively legitimately. The issue, therefore is how to define global governance, and how crucial is the criterion of legitimacy for this definition. Nonetheless, the fact remains that today enormous power is wielded by actors and organisations operating from the non-national, global space. Even though lacking in democratic and often even legal legitimacy they are able to enforce their will – thanks to the support and sponsorship they enjoy of the world’s economically and militarily most powerful nation-states – over the world’s vast majority of less powerful (semi peripheral) and (peripheral) powerless nation-states. (Santosh 2002) In defining global governance it is therefore necessary to take account of disarticulation of power between the old interstate system and the new global power. In brief crucial issue of global governance today is the unlegitimate and undemocratic nature of the existing structure of global power. Giving this structure the label governance in fact obscures this basic issue. It is perhaps this concern about legitimacy of global governance that has prompted the NIGD to undertake the exercise of identifying and evaluating a variety of initiatives – in

the global civil society movements as well as the reform proposals emanating from within the existing institutions of global ‘governance’– which in their different ways address the issue of democratisation of global power. However, the criteria for assessing the degree of democratisation achieved by an initiative and for ascertaining the directionality in which it moves seem to be derived, as we shall presently see, from the conventional theory of liberal democracy, now adapted for its global-level application in terms of cosmopolitan democracy. (Held 1999) The framework of evaluation implies certain (pre)-conceptions of global governance and democracy by using which the evaluatory exercise seeks to judge and prioritise the initiatives. To put it more bluntly, the types of initiatives the project identifies as relevant to global democratisation depend largely on the conceptions of global governance and global democracy on which the evaluating exercise is premised. The given framework (besides the various evaluators’ perspectives) will also influence the evaluation and ranking exercise.

It is therefore important that these conceptions are explicated, in

normative as well as analytical terms and the evaluatory exercise is conceptually and valuatively situated as clearly as possible in the “disputed terrain” of globalisation. (Vergas V., 2002) For, evaluation, in however neutral or positive(ist) manner its terms of reference are stated, constitutes an intervention in the process of determination of norms and standards of behaviour for the relevant actors/subjects and influences the terms of discourse on issues, which the investigation seeks to assess. Equally important in the evaluation process is the account of the actor’s or the subjectorganisation’s own perspective on the issues involved (in this case democratisation and globalisation) and the vantage point that the subject-organisation occupies (North or

South, East or West) and from which it sees its relations of power vis-Ă -vis the other organisations and the evaluator, either as acceptable or unacceptable. It is for this reason that an interactive and dialogic method of evaluation is often preferred to the one that is premised on the positivist assumption of subject-object distinctions between the evaluator and the evaluated. (Sheth, 1999) IP. It is with the above concerns in mind that we shall elaborate below two different but overlapping perspectives within and between which various conceptions of global governance and global democracy are articulated. For the sake of conveniance we shall characterise these perspectives respectively as (i) the Institutional Perspective and (ii) the Movement Perspective. Institutional Perspective In this perspective the issue of global governance is problematised in terms of creating economic and political conditions compelling the existent (dominant) global power structure to acquire institutional legitimacy. It however sees the emergence of this power structure as a historically given condition of life contingently brought about with the end of the cold war. It also sees it as an imperfect condition, which can be and ought to be reformed and improved, so that it becomes accommodative to a variety of concerns, interests and aspirations of a much wider population of the emerging global society. In this process, the institutionalists see an unprecedented opportunity not only for establishing democracy as a universal norm, but also as a form of governance that could be uniformly realised at all levelsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;global, national and localâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and everywhere in the world. It is assumed that with democratisation of the global economic and political

power, globalisation will grow to become a positive historical force, uniting the present economically, culturally and politically divided world. This perspective thus sees institutional power as a driving force for creating a One-World Community and producing economic affluence for its members. But macro economic stability of the global economy is considered a necessary condition for the institutional power to remain productive. It is therefore crucial to maintain such stability in the process of democratisation of global power. It is in this context that the model conceives the role of the global civil society in the process of democratisation of global power, i.e., balancing the stability need of the global economy with that of securing for it a degree of democratic legitimacy. Thus the institutionalist politics is about subjecting the existing structure of global power to democratic control exercised by as large a number of participants as possible, from different sectors of the global civil society. In the course of exercising such control, however, the logic of institutional procedures will have precedence over the logic of popular sovereignty (a la, the self-binding Co-principle of Cosmopolitan Democracy). The theory of democracy on which the institutionalist idea of global governance is premised is thus obviously of liberal-representative democracy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a model developed by the nation-state democracies. This being a state-centred model of governance the proposals for democratisation ensuing from it operate on the assumption that the diverse, really existing organisations of global power represented a global-state-in-the-making. For its democratic functioning and legitimation such a proto-global state would of course require, symmetrically, a global civil society and citizen-participants on whose consent and vigilance it is expected to be kept on the democratic course. Such concept of

democratisation thus flows dually from the model. It is the familiarity of concepts of liberal democracy widely experienced at the nation-state level, rather than the model’s own intrinsic merit in bringing about global democracy, that make such (unwarranted) assumptions and expectations about global governance sound logical and even commonsensical. Strange though it may seem, the model conceived by the institutional-realists assume what is non-existent as real; namely, the existence of a nodal centre of global governance (a proto-global state) and its will and need to function as a democratically legitimate authority. Even more, the institutional realists see democratisation of global power as a real historical process moving inevitably, even if in fits and starts, in the direction of its ideal: becoming a central political authority exercising legitimate power all over the world. It is to expedite this (teleological) process that the institutionalists want a largest possible number of citizen-participants and political activists to embrace this ideal and work for it, ie., making a liberal-democratic global state possible. The politics of the institutionalist model is thus the politics of knowledge and advocacy in which funding constitutes a vital element2 . It is aimed at making centralised (nation-state like) global governance – expected to be tempered and mediated by another faintly existing process, i.e., the making of a global civil society – a self-fulfilling prophecy. A liberal democratic theory, wedded as it is to positivist knowledge, is thus expected to generate the politics of making the ideal a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is hoped that the progeny of this marriage, i.e. the cosmopolitan democracy, will enable the institutionalist model to protect global decision-making from the unmanageable implications of the principle of popular sovereignty – a principle that is still invoked in legitimation contests

within state-democracies. It is even expected to free global governance of the messy politics of popular representation. At least this is how the self-binding principle is likely to work in practice, for democracy at the global level. It must however be admitted that the idea of cosmopolitan democracy is necessitated by the democratic over-stretch, i.e., democracyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extension to ever enlarging scales, which threatens to make it unmanageable and, in the end, an unrealisable system of governance. The application of the self-binding principle of cosmopolitan democracy globally, however, enables the governance to privilege professional expertise over public opinion and allows it to establish the global powerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s monopoly of violence, and its politically legitimated use against the deviant and dissenting groups and nations refusing to accept the macro-ideology and power of global governance. Further, it can help global governance to hide its other face of power represented by the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s few economically rich and militarily powerful nation-states. This model of global democracy, it seems, is being empirically perfected in the creation and functioning of the European Union, the WTO and the re-launching of NATO after the end of the cold war. All these different types of organisations are at one level collectively seeking legitimacy for their role in global governance, and at another level each one of them is engaged in maintaining and expanding its hegemonic power globally. Similarly the principle of democratic control (authenticity), expected to be exercised by a vast number of the informed and vigilant global public (again an expectation premised on an assumed existence of a global state with its non-substantively, i.e., only symbolically, existing global citizens) is guaranteed to create in practice a small class of jet-setting and internet-savy intellectual-activist elites and their organisations, supposedly representing the voice of the global civil society. For,

it is the idiom and language only of this class – whether of dissent or collaboration – that will be intelligible to their interlocutors/counter parts representing the global power structure – the bankers, the businessmen, the technocrats, and the politicians of the powerful (G-8) nation-states. The global-level civil society actors would naturally claim authenticity for themselves, as sole translators and communicators on behalf of the globally submerged groups of social activists of many vernacular worlds. (R.B.J., Walkor…) The voices of the vernacular masses i.e., if they at all reach the portals of global democracy, will be heard as making such a racket that they may make it necessary to frequently invoke the principle of selfbinding democracy. In brief the idea of global governance is although premised on the nation-state oriented theory of liberal democracy, its proponents are in reality unprepared and unwilling to devise institutional mechanising of popular representation. Thus while claiming democratic legitimacy for itself, global democracy will function as a site of competition and conflict, collaboration and co-operation among various types of globally active, metropolitan elites. Such global democracy albeit a formally legitimated structure of governance, can be characterised, at best, as metropolitan (and not a cosmopolitan) democracy. It however will keep the institutionalists constantly busy performing the challenging theoretical task of interpreting the real life-world of metropolitan hegemony as representing/approximating the ideal of cosmopolitan democracy. Thus seen the institutionalist perspective invests global governance with enormous power to produce wealth and keep, albeit not necessarily just, peace. And this is considered to be a good enough reason for it to secure a degree of democratic legitimacy. This kind of democracy (global-liberal) however can hardly be expected to properly recognise, and

deal democratically with such issues as gender justice, ethnic identities, cultural diversity, and ecological care. To this perspective of global governance belong such initiatives as related to taxation, instituting a world parliament, reforming the Bretton Woods Institutions and the WTO. They not only easily fit the structural-functional frame of evaluation, but also enable the vision of global governance as a network of liberaldemocratic institutions producing legitimation for the elite rule. It is through the politics of this perspective that the unfinished neo-liberal project of globalisation can eventually be completed, i.e., by marrying global capitalist economy to global liberal democracy. It however needs to be recognised that as a really-existing and widely prevalent form the liberal, institutional democracy requires an antidote to populism, which it inevitably gives rise to in moments of crisis. Just as human consciousness knows no limits when it takes positive and creative flights, it knows no bounds when it drifts. Hitler and Mussolini, or even the modern politico-religious identity in the form fundamentalisms, paradoxically, draw their strength from populism. For this reason, we believe that self-binding should be an integral part of democratic institutional arrangements. It is relatively easier for local, smaller scale, democracies to function on the basis of popular will but in largescale democracies it becomes necessary to institutionalise the principle of self-binding or â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;maryadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;3. The Movement Perspective/Alternative Governance In this perspective the issue of global governance is problematised in terms of pluralising and deepening democracy and in the process building politics for creating competing and alternative forms of democracy vis-Ă -vis the singularly and the universally propagated, often even enforced, form of liberal representative democracy. The proponents of this

perspective (for short, the alternativist) view the existing, post-cold war global power structure as exclusionary and hegemonic in practice and undemocratic even in theory. This is because any of its governing institutions is not meant to be responsible or accountable to constituencies outside itself. It is at best self-responsible, and accountable only internally to the professional scrutiny of experts. The politics involved is of knowledge and of movements, aimed at delegitimising the existing anti-democratic and dominant global power and building alternative forms of global governance which would privilege the idea of global citizenship over that of consumership. The theory of democracy on which this perspective is premised is of participatory democracy where economic and political power is shaped and legitimated through a bottom-up process of democratisation. The alternativists thus conceive democratisation as a process of creating at all levels â&#x20AC;&#x201C; from local to global â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a system of multiple governances which are horizontally interlinked. These governing agencies are sought to be made responsible not only to each other, but accountable directly and generically to people in their different constituencies. Interestingly, however, unlike the institutionalists, who by and large represent a coherent view of governance (vertically legitimated structure of political and economic power) and democracy (consented elite-rule), the alternativists are of different hues. Two broad types could be easily discerned: the maximalists and the minimalists. The maximalists, like the institutionalists, believe in increasing the democratic power of the governing institutions, but seek their democratic legitimation through popular participation which for them, unlike for the institutionalists, is not merely the form of eliciting democratic consent, but a means of involving people in the process of decision making. They however do not

view the prevalent structure of global power as constituting any basis for global governance. In fact, they view it as unjust and anti-democratic power which must be replaced through democratic movements giving rise to alternative structures of global governance which are just, egalitarian and genuinely democratic. However in this model too, power is conceived as embodied in a central, state-like organisation, but it has to be derived from global citizenry and its use democratically controlled not just through rules and procedures but directly by the civil society. Thus global citizenship and global civil society are the two concepts crucial to this model particularly for ensuring democratic decision-making and accountability of governance. In so far as both, the institutionalists and the maximalists are enamoured by the role of state-power for achieving their respective economic and social objectives they share between them an attitude of governmentality with respect to their thinking about social transformations. The source of inspiration of this model, perhaps its origin, lies in the ideology and politics developed by the European Left during the cold war. The global democracy initiative represented by the World Social Forum when viewed in terms of its theory of power seems to belong to the maximalist alternative model. The other, the minimalist model of alternative governance, does not occupy much space in the discourse of global governance and democratisation. It allocates increasingly minimum power to the higher levels i.e., respectively the national, the regional and global, and invests local governance with maximum power, because it is at this level that democracy is embodied in its true and primary form. Upper rungs of governance can function democratically in so far as they derive their legitimacy and power from this primary source. It provides for articulation of such system of upwardly diminishing

power, horizontally in different domains of life – political, economic, ecological etc.– in the process, seeking to resolve dichotomous separations existing in today’s globalising world, between economy and society, politics and culture. The inspiration of this model is largely derived from the Gandhian vision of governance and democracy which emphasises non-violence as a precondition for civil life and celebrates diversity as manifestation of unity of all life – human and non-human. Such initiatives as Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam4 and perhaps at another level the North-South Truth Commission appear to be natural outcomes of such a vision. The Dangers of Top Down Global Institutional Initiatives: Search for an Alternative Model Since the central defining feature for democracy is not elections only at the nation state level, but participation at all levels, the politics of redefining the present design of institutions of governance at local to global levels into a more participatory institutional design requires that there is direct democracy at the grassroots and participatory modes of linking it with higher levels. This kind of politics has profound implications for strategising the ‘alternative’ structures. The mode of intervention itself is perpetually open-ended and participatory. It starts from a critique of the given institutions. The critique, however, is not meant to reject or even undermine their democratic role in the present, but to link them with the long-term goal of participatory democracy. Democratisation, or any fundamental change of an enduring kind, has to be therefore conceived and effected by the people themselves, and the community of change activists has to see itself as a part of them. While attempting to understand all streams and

sub-streams of urges and aspirations for democratisation, it becomes necessary to chose those which we consider desirable for our time, place and collectivity. This has to be done with a sense of humility and also a sense of self-confidence, which will allow the possibility of listening to even the enemy. The democratic transformation can not take place if people who consider themselves as change agents have the self-image of a vangaurd class. Neither the ultimate utopian vision, nor the strategy for moving towards it, would be drawn up by the change agents through an exclusivist process, but would involve an open interactive process between different constituents of the ‘community’. Following upon this interactive process, whenever critique and alternative suggestions are put forward but not accepted by the entrenched interests and dominant thinking, a two-pronged strategy has to be adopted – (1) by insistence on one’s own truth by inviting self-suffering, called ‘satyagraha’5 , and, (2) create inclusive politics of constructive work and wider popular participation so that alternative models develop through an interaction with, and are acceptable to, people at large. The American consumer paradise has phenomenal magnetic power for the elite and middle classes all over the world. Belief in the ability of modern science and technology to realise this ‘paradise’ for all, through the right kind of politics (socialist or social democratic) is universal, including among the radical political and other elites of the South. The Southern elite is willing to accept the northern elite’s goal of economic affluence if achieved democratically and with distributive justice. This temptation to have both the worlds has prompted the Southern elites to ignore/give up the life-styles practised by the majority of their societies, which have proved to be much more sustainable but an austere way of living. The peasants and tribals have known these ways

of life. The global elite, including that of the South, has yet not managed to destroy it all. For an alternative movement globally we do not need to start from scratch. We need to rediscover our roots, making politics of life style and knowledge systems an important agenda. We will then realise the richness of available moral, spiritual, cultural and political resources that we have to build a better world. The Green movements of the North, to a considerable extent, have realised these truths. Unfortunately, the entrenched Northern elite has been able to insulate the rest of their societies from this consciousness by representing the community of all shades of alternative movements including the Greens, as freak margins of modern society. The urgent need therefore is to evolve a strategy that takes note of aspirations, visions and energies of the alternative movements that are trying to counter the hegemonic thrust of contemporary globlisation. It is the well-refined rigorous intellectual designs worked out by the top, at the top, for the top, in the name of institutions of global governance and global democracy that go a long way in legitimising the demonic dimensions of globalisation. This framework kills or at least greatly undermines the debates at the level where ‘people’ are engaged in a ‘survival’ battle. It undermines the possibilities of democratic urges asserting themselves in a bottom up manner. The short point is if we are serious about the ideal of democracy, whose cardinal principle is participation, then we can not present any institutional design either for the movement sector or for governance structures, without focusing on participation as the basic principle of governance. Obviously, this is an abstract statement. The implication is that people are organised at different levels and at different locations through diverse principles of community organisation. No particular principle of community organisation

has intrinsic political superiority over the other in terms of actual or effective participation of their people. It has to be demonstrated in actual practice. Global Civil Society and the Structure of Global Governance: Towards an alternative proposal Global governance, even when made responsive to a global civil society, will, at the best of times, remain only benevolent geo-governance (institutionally just but not necessarily humane). Globally, it is unrealistic to aspire for more. Being, in any event, a tertiary system of governance it should also not aspire for more power for itself.. We therefore visualise institutionally just global governance as a necessary condition for humane governances locally and nationally. We do not attribute to it any causal power. Humane governances will remain humane insofar as they are primarily organised in territorial contexts (not necessarily statal). Global governance (as a condition for territorial humane governances) will be organised in transterritorial-sectoral terms. Just and peaceful global governance need not be therefore conceived as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;one-worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; governance/community. We prefer to view it as a consented constitutional order deriving its legitimacy primarily from the sectorally structured global civil society which in turn articulate needs and problems of local communities globally.. The sectors it may include are inter-state relations and markets as well as transnational movements with appropriate trans-territorial organisational forms articulating the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;politics of democratisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; on such issues as human rights, gender, ecology, accountability of global power structures and institutions. These movements and organisations will constitute a Global Civil Society. But that Global Civil Society will not order directly and vertically, state-society relations globally or nationally. Its relations with other territorial orders therefore need not be conceived

vertically, in terms of sending impacts mainly downwards. Global governance functioning in tandem with Global Civil Society should be conceived as an umbrella of network institultions, not a super-ordinating global organisation for all human communities everywhere. Put more concretely our concern is embodying the idea of Global Civil Society, which at present is an empty box. Let us elaborate this point. First, U.N. organizations like ILO, UNICEF, UNDP and myriad others will have to be detached from the inter-governmental system. They will have to derive legitimacy directly from transnational constituencies. Representation will have to be not through national governments but through electoral college-like mechanisms in various sectors. The constituencies of trans-national organisations will thus be identified not territorially but by transnational sectorality: e.g. womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s organisations, organisations for children and the handicapped, ecological and human rights organizations etc., which themselves may have member organizations with territorial bases. In brief, such U.N. organizations will by-pass states/governments and derive their mandate sectorally from specific transnational constituencies of organizations and movements in different parts of the world. Here the danger lies in domination by the more â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;organizedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; North, but weightages and proportionalities can be worked out within such an arrangement. Second, non-governmental and non-UN, people-oriented organizations have to be promoted and recognized through a system of international law premised on Global Civil Society. They should be structurally incorporated in the global system of accountability of multi-national actors and institutions; through them the Global Governance could also be made accountable. The issue, in other words, is to give substantiality to a politics of global governance through privileging non geo-political

structures/organizations/movements in the global civil society. In sum, the issue of substantiality/embodiment of the Global Civil Society needs greater attention. Building a Global Civil Society thus need not be a top-down process of democratisation transforming state-society relations everywhere. It should be a lateral process, aiming at horizontalization of global structures of power, sectorally and legitimationally. Such global level democratic governance based not on specific state powers but deriving its legitimacy from sectorally constituted Global Civil Society will, of course, enable the deepening of democracy at every site, but it should not be expected to hand out proposals addressed even to deepening of democracy. That task, in the ultimate analysis, belongs to processes within territorial orders. Democratisation of state-society and other relations within territories is a process that may give rise to different (not necessarily liberal) democratic forms. The relationship between sectoral-global civil society and territorial organisations (statal and other autonomous ones) can be visualised in terms of simultaneously and multiple citizenships â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e. global, national, local â&#x20AC;&#x201C; such that they need not, in principle, exist in a relationship of conflict. Thus seen, the challenge, as yet unatttended, is how and in what terms the idea of global citizenship should be institutionalised. In this context, both politics of discourse and achieving sectoral-structural coherence of the global civil society must constitute important aspects of democratisation at the global level. By emphasising the institutional design of democracy, on the other hand, we may willynilly justify the current trend of equating democracy with the market and citizenship with consumership. The result is privileging a discourse which sees democratisation as a process which culminates in a world-order consisting of one World-Government with a

Liberal (albeit federal) State. Such a discourse shuts out experimentation/formations of other varieties of democratic governances such as, for example, the Gandhian one based on the idea of village republics (at the micro level) and ‘trusteeship’ at the macro level or other communitarian consent-based democratic but non-elective forms of governance, or those which are happily self-governed but are not outwardly and ‘globally’- oriented. The search for one-world governance would thus end up in privileging the metropolitan over the vernacular. The pure liberal form of democracy has this inherent danger. Its institutions remain elite-oriented and imperious. In such a perspective other local democratic forms of governance are often seen as parochial or worse, undemocratic. But if global conditions are right (i.e. democratic in form, strong on equity, just in practice and non-violent in the pursuit of collective interests), the effects for territorial or local sovereignties (of State and/or of communities) and for sectoral existences (children/women etc.) can not be but promotional in terms of democratisation and wellbeing. Of course, under conditions of minimalist and self-consciously limited global order, the resultant forms of democracy and economic organisations and cultural lifestyles in the territories will be different and diverse among themselves. Tolerance, along with non-violence,thus becomes is a relevant category for democratisation undermining the current global politics of evangelism for integration. It allows not only for time-lags and rhythms of different peoples involved in the process of democratisation, but ensures open-endedness to the human future. Democratisation should thus be premised on one’s recognition of differences as representing ‘partial truths’ of other people’s convictions, while recognising the partial truth-value of one’s own. Nevertheless privileging one kind of conviction can be argued

in terms of ‘relevant’ truth in the given empirical-historical moment as against isomorphism of differences. The former makes it possible to argue for global constitutionalism as ‘manifest order’ – resting on general consent of the differing entities – within which differences are negotiated and conflict resolution mechanisms can work. The challenge is how not to see multiculturalism as a global or national prison-house of frozen identities but as a system of agreements about enriching differences in varying contexts and at different levels. Alternative Visions for Comprehensive Democracy: Interconnectedness in Belief / Knowledge Systems If the epitome of global governance is seen in terms of ‘one-world community’, – even if it is premised on human rights, gender justice, respect for international law, ecological balance etc. – then our vision of global democracy may also slide into a plea for another, culturally integrative global polity. There is no doubt that the end of the cold war has created a historical moment for globalisation of democracy. But it offers an unprecedented, the biggest ever, opportunity to the geopolitical appropriators than to the promoters of the politics of democratisation. While the geopolitical ‘vision’ of globalisation is premised on establishing a world-power system (resting on state-power of a few rich, powerful, nations), it also seeks to bring about liberal state-democracies everywhere. Geopoliticians see the ubiquity of such democracies as a guarantee for economic and political stability globally under the prevailing global conditions of inequality (economic and political, military and technological) and a ‘non-war’, unjust, peace. Its legitimacy is sought through uniform economic aspirations of metropolitan (non-vernacular) elites and populations the world

over for whom the promise of capitalist economic development is still alive and ‘reachable’. The almost superstitious faith in the values of ‘industrialism’ and ‘scientific rationality’ underlines the notion of humankind as the victor over nature, a consumer without any ‘maryada’ - constraints or restraints. This consciousness is a by-product of the European renaissance,

important

source

the

imperialist

politics

of evangelical

integrationalism. The anti-colonial struggle also had the same agenda, how to homogenise difference by establishing the hegemony of modernising elites of the society. The main thrust of the social energies realised by anti-imperialist struggles were thus directed at retailoring the politico-economic system and reshaping the socio-cultural consciousness in a manner that the values of renaissance and industrialism could be realised as quickly as possible for the entirety of humankind. In brief, the historical moment, it seems was loaded in favour of the world power system. One important consequence of this politics of homogenisation of cultures and of establishing hegemonic rule of elites was colonisation of the knowledge systems of all receiving societies. As a result, a large part of human consciousness was dismissed as the most unscientific, non-rational, belief systems. This was tellingly illustrated by the convenor of Pani Chetna Samiti, Mr. Arun Kumar, during his march (‘padyatra’) through thousands of miles of in the Thar desert. He demonstrated to his co-marchers how the kind of nuanced knowledge the unschooled peasant boys possessed about their surroundings was beyond the imagination of the modern educated youth and even the ‘modern scientific’ ecological experts. The former knew thoroughly what the ecology is within their ecological zone of 10-12 miles radius, its implications for the rhythm of life,

for agricultural operations and for the human beings, flora and fauna of the area. It was all understood in the traditional knowledge system of the Thar Desert and is still living knowledge constituting a part of everyday practice. But refusal to recognise and attempts to delegitimate it, will destroy most of such existing knowledge systems. The same applies to many institutions of (local) governance which are seen to exist today as anomaliles of the past. Susanne Adahl, a Finnish researcher, who has observed the Bangladeshi fisher folk found that a lot of fishing taboos were forgotten after Augustâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 47 because of the creation of nation-states based on the religious division of Hindus and Muslims. After creation of East Pakistan these taboos were dismissed as Hindu religious beliefs. According to the Finnish ecology philosopher Olli Tammilehto, knowledge/belief systems were worked out by humankind all over the earth in the language of the sacred. Many of the sectarian believers in our part of the world may believe that such ideas of sacred forests, sacred groves and lakes were special features of the belief systems of the global South. But this has been the case all over the world. Finland has a notion of sacred forests similar to central Russia. The Thar Desert has a similar system of taboos for its commons. In Siberia one cannot fish in certain lakes at all. We in South Asia also have seasonal restrictions on fishing, which coincide with the breeding cycles of life in water. But renaissance superstitions about industrialism and the faith (born of an arrogant ignorance) in the possibility of realising the consumer paradise created conditions where all bonds of consciousness, awareness and emotions between humans and the rest of nature were weakened, in fact destroyed, in large parts of modern nation states. Human beings ceased

to be part of nature, with only claims over Nature and no responsibility towards the larger whole, of which we are a small part. The damage by renaissance ‘superstitions’ was reinforced by the imperial international world order. In this dispensation, continuing into the post-colonial era and upto the present times, the natural resources like gold, copper, petro-oil, other minerals, forests and agricultural produce were transferred from the third world to imperial Europe and North America at almost no price i.e. without even paying the dignified wages to those who had put their human sweat and blood in transforming Nature’s bounty into exportable commodities. The current hegemonic globalisation is attempting to resist the assertion of democratic urges and sustain the exploitative colonial legacy. To realise the ideals of ecological democracy, the just use of and equitable control over environmental/natural resources, requires that the well worked out concepts of ecological debt and ecological footprint – the two elements together constituting the self-binding element – inform the life style of Northern people and the Southern elite. Campaigns for the return of ecological debt must be intensified. Thus seen, the language of symbols and rituals, implied in the traditional knowledge systems may serve as a tool facilitating cognition and perception of complex, almost overwhelming, reality into comprehensible fragments. There come periods in the cycle of human consciousness when the analytical mode has to supplement its understanding through the synthetic mode and also through the language of symbols and rituals, which may not meet the criteria of our modernist notions of scientificity. So, the combined impact of imperial plunder of natural resources, the soviet model of state driven development and corporate driven renaissance model of development have

together contributed immensely to the degradation of nature, not only on earth but also its outer limits of the ozone layer. But the renaissance theology has created a structure of consciousness, which is almost incapable of seeing the oneness of this universe as a whole. It was through the language of rituals, symbols and complex set of belief systems that this understanding of oneness was communicated from one generation to another. Now, in this ‘age of reason’ we are bereft of these intellectual/emotional/spiritual tools of consciousness. For modernists like us it is almost impossible to perceive the deep and comprehensive crisis in which we are trapped. Since we can’t see the whole and its oneness, it is possible for us to perceive the multidimensionality and the comprehensiveness of the crisis. Our consciousness is shaped as if we are absolutely non-connected, without any past heritage or future links, an independent reality unto ourselves, we are non-connected/‘independent’ individual entities - whether a material entity, i.e. belonging to a material reality called class, or a speck of consciousness i.e. repository of ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ processed by our intellect through the filters of ‘rationality’ and ‘reason’. In this mode of consciousness it is but natural that all of us perceive the crisis from different perspectives and in partial ways. Some of us are concerned about the political crisis, others are concerned about degradation of nature, global warming, water scarcity etc. Some others are frightened about what will happen if the cultural plurality of humankind is destroyed by identity-fundamentalists. Yet others are attempting to fight the situation ‘when corporations rule the world’. At the risk of some over-generalisation, it is necessary to appreciate that the exclusive use of our tools of modern consciousness neither allows us to appreciate the wholesomeness of the crisis nor its interconnectedness. The other related point is, again with a risk of

some over-simplification, that it is the attempt at defining democracy holistically, the search for truth, insistence on truth even through self-suffering (‘satyagraha’), respect for the other’s truth and appreciation of the concentric circles of identity, appreciation of the life conditions of the most marginalised (the daridranarayan), which together can help us to perceive the crisis in its totality. And hence the possibility of strategising to respond holistically to the calling of our times. It is in the context of the minimalist-alternative perspective elaborated above that we undertook the evaluation of the five initiatives presented by NIGD. Reform of Bretton Woods Institutions Reform of the BWIs and curtailment of their role in the world policy formulation which by and large runs counter to democratisation at world governance, are indeed urgent and desirable goals. In this context Waldon Bello’s proposals are important for getting out of the ‘TINA’ syndrome (Bello W., 2002). They offer directions for concrete action in terms of strengthening countervailing structures. However, in the present global political environment, these structures (UNCTAD, SAARC, SADCC and ASEAN) are unlikely to realize their potential role of performing as countervailing forces to hegemonic global governance. In fact they promote the BWI perspective of globalization. BWIs, with absolute commitment to the principle of dollar power, cannot be reformed by civil society campaigns alone. Their present structure of adaptation for survival has been developed through expert initiatives from within the institutions. The experts, in fact, have helped the BWIs to adapt to the movements’ critique of the growing negative impacts of the BWI initiatives. And this has often been achieved by appropriating the language of movements at one level and by co-opting a section of movement activists at

another. Hence the changes effected by the BWIs in their organizational functioning and rhetoric have been more cosmetic than representing an actual shift in their approach. It is only the combined energy of comprehensive political movements, the will of the political leadership of nation states and consonant expert knowledge that can reform them. Thus seen, the reform initiative has to be reconceived in transformative terms. Perhaps, global democracy needs something like a world-level gramin-bank, a world co-operative where every recipient is also a participant in the decision making and a contributor to the corpus, albeit in a degree of his share in world income. Global Taxation Tobin Tax As both Heikki Potomaki (1999) and Teivo Teivainen (2000) have written, the transnational politics of economism can significantly restrict the possibilities for the exercise of democracy. And, in the 1980s and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;90s, political decisions have been increasingly governed by such economism. The Tobin Tax proposal is located in the institutional segment of global governance initiatives, and is an attempt at damage limitation for the financial crises imminent under the current neo-liberal policies. While this is important in itself, it contains wider ramifications for democratisation of global governance, including of the UN institutions. For both the potential roles of the Tobin Tax initiative, some questions however need to be addressed from the perspective of the low-income countries and the marginalised majority of these countries. While several first world countries (Canada, France, UK, Finland and US) have been able to inaugurate what looks like effective campaigns for the Tobin Tax initiative, the activist groups and peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s movements of low income

countries have

been apprehensive about the initiative. For acquiring a globally

democratic character particularly in raising and using the funds generated, it is important that participation of the presumed recipients of the funds are involved in the decision making about holding and using such funds. The questions involved are who shall be the recipients? States or the civil society organisations in recipient countries. Who shall decide priorities for using the funds. These are not just administrative questions but articulate issues of democratisation. It is in this context that it has become a crying need for the movements in the countries of the South to understand operations of global finance capital and be actively engaged in devising new tools of analysis and action to ensure that global finance capital serves the interests of citizens and democratic states and not the avarice of owners and managers of capital (Kawaljit, 2000). At national levels institutions of a Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on equity transactions could help stabilise markets in individual countries, besides several other benefits (Kawaljit, 2002). For democratising global governance the proposal is exciting because of its potential to create multiple centres of power at global level and thus promote democratisation of the international political system. However, it is important to ensure that the international tax administration structures and processes which would come into existence with the implementation of the proposal would counter the present unipolar and monopolistic system of global governance and give due space to the poorer economies. Conducive norms of functioning are essential from the start and can, in fact, become triggers for democratisation of existing institutions particularly the UN system. Thus an institution such as the proposed Tobin Tax Organisation is likely to be more responsive to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;other visionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of social development than the existing institutions.

It would be crucial for the TT to evolve institutional mechanisms ensuring that it does not have negative impact for democratisation processes in the low-income countries. This is possible only when those working on such single issue initiatives link with the other issues of economic democracy in absence of which and their effort may become another distraction and a de-politicising tool, sometimes even legitimising the present hegemonic structures. Similarly, the proposed environment/carbon tax is a double edged tool. If the tax funds are used to coax the South to buy so-called eco-friendly technologies without bringing in issues of non-sustainability of Northern lifestyles, the environmental tax will be negative for ecological democracy. The environmental tax must contribute to and legitimise the debate on redefining ‘development’ and ‘progress’. There is insufficient critical mass in terms of Green movements that can ensure such a result. The Green Parties, unlike the Green Movement, follow the compulsions of competitive populism and may not always take a stand against unsustainable lifestyles. Un Reforms6 A discussion on democratising global processes has to inevitably include the UN institutions very centrally. As Major General Vinod Saighal rightly observes (Saighal, 1998) – “it has been artificially constrained from carrying out its mandate by the US and its allies. Russia (the erstwhile Soviet Union) and China have also contributed to its loss of authority. The first priority before the UN is, therefore, to start learning to live as an organisation which has a legitimate right over resources of nation-states albeit in proportion to surpluses they generate.

Secondly, the structure and processes of decision making need to be examined. If we look at the present international organisations, three main systems of decision making can be distinguished (Sattu Hassi, 2001): there is the UN system based on the principle of one country - one vote, in the operations of Bretton Woods Institutions there is the rule of one dollar - one vote, and the practice in the World Trade Organisation (and many UN conventions) is that decisions are taken ‘by consensus’. None of these arrangements fulfil the criteria that we set for democratic governance on national level. The UN practice is closest, but even there the demography is not taken into account. An idea of the present power relations can be obtained by looking how the representation from different countries would be in a ‘world parliament’ based on demography. In a parliament of 600 seats, representatives from the 10 major countries would be like this: 1. China 127 2. India 100 3. European Union 38 4. United States 27 5. Indonesia 21 6. Brazil 16 7. Pakistan 16 8. Russian Federation 15 9. Bangladesh 13 10. Japan 13

In this setting China would have five times more representation than the US, and India four times more. However the resistance to any proposal to this kind of structural democratisation is going to be strong. The real life-world of international relations and institutions is so far away from democratic principles and practices, that increasingly the popular discourse about global democracy is becoming confined to constituencies having no direct influences on institutions of global governance. Since the global governors lack commitment to global democracy, the institutional structures do not only reflect the unjust power structures but strengthen them as well. Therefore it is of primary importance that the democratisation is nurtured and strengthened at the national and local level and that it does not remain confined merely to the global level. The democracy deepened and strengthened at these levels can effectively counter antidemocratic forces at the global level. To put it in more concrete terms, the problem facing UN reforms is formidable. In fact it is not a simple problem of reforms. It involves nothing short of changing the worldview of the U.S.A. and the European Union. The latter, on account of its geographic contiguity with the continents of Asia and Africa, could take on a perspective different from that of the country across the Atlantic. It is only when the European nations begin to get used to independent policy formulations, that they would be the best poised to moderate the American viewpoint, and to help realign it with the aspirations of the rest of the world. Viewed in this perspective, the European Union may find a positive role to play in democratisation of global governance. The former, i.e. the U.S., has to acquire globally democratic ways of dealing with other

nations of the world and, in the process, cease to use the U.N. as the handmaid of American power. The UN Security Council reforms are crucial for any democratisation of global institutions. If the world is to be based on a moral and just order that the UN Charter envisages, the anachronism called the Security Council, which is neither justly composed nor based on a moral order, should be done away with and some other, more democratic, way will have to be found to carry out its functions. The minimum that is required is restructuring of the council to make it a democratically more representative and yet effective agency of world governance. In this context the proposal for an Economic and Social Security Council is eminently apt as it would link the two dimensions and develop checks on the prevailing economism. However it will have real meaning only if it attains the role of a major arbitrator in decisions regarding transnational economic activities and development efforts. The crucial thing for the Council would be to develop a democratic structure and norms of functioning. Its executive must be constituted such that it has a proportionate number of members from the least-income, low income, middle income and high income countries. It must be able to institute formal and legal procedures superseding other transnational financial arrangements. In recent years several development issues have been taken up by the UN agencies around which worldwide processes of consultation took place at various levels, from grassroots, sub-national, national, regional and global levels. The process leading up to the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995 is an excellent example of such a process. Furthering the pro-women development perspective of earlier conferences, it succeeded

in galvanising debate, discussion and action at various levels and reflecting the diverse voices at the conference. Yet, as Virginia Vargas has reflected so well in her evaluation of the outcome of the Beijing Plan of Action, implementation of the commitments made was “partial, marginal, without enough resources, and without tackling the main issues of redistribution of power at all levels, in the context of neo-liberalism and democracies in difficult construction”. This is the natural outcome of a fragmented discourse, the women’s agenda being viewed in isolation of the other social and economic dimensions by the dominant powers. Also, it needs to be acknowledged that the singular achievements of the ‘Beijing process’ were a result of the strength of the women’s movement world-wide. While all such initiatives may promote an overall democratic environment and ‘other visions’, their plan of action can not be implemented successfully because of the larger countervailing forces. The initiatives for wide consultation and civil society intervention within the UN system must be promoted but with the goal of moving towards an Economic and Social Security Council. The idea of a People’s Assembly can have a populist appeal but can ossify the present hegemonic structures and power relations, drastically undermining popular sovereignties at the nation-state level and providing greater legitimacy to the use of coercive power against deviant states. The North-South Truth Commission This initiative is conceived in a manner that a large number of people can be involved in the public hearings on inequality and injustice in contemporary societies, and can cover all dimensions of life. It involves a direct engagement of the North and South, addressing

contentious issues in a framework of resolution. However this intervention is still embryonic, requiring refinement in conceptualisation and practice. The North-South Truth Commission can have a very creative role if it is clear that it is not an exercise in opening up historical wounds for taking revenge or working out compensations for the past acts of injustice. It should be oriented to making a better future for the world. The past should therefore be understood from the perspective of improving the present and making the future. So the democratising role of the Truth Commission would be to work out North-South reconciliation through lessening of contemporary injustice albeit on the recognition that radical disjunctions need to be made in unjust international practices surviving from the past. The grid has to be shifted from revenge and compensation to justice and compassion. In its present conception the kind of financial resources it requires will be executed by those in positions of power, primarily of the North. Institutional mechanisms will have to be consciously introduced with a view to check biases. This may involve ‘spot inquiries’, low expense accounts of the Commissions and financial inputs from the state and civil society of the South. Strengthening the World Social Forum7 WSF has triggered off unprecedented hope and political energy for a much more lively, pluralist world. Even confirmed sceptics and cynics, now seem willing to suspend their adverse judgement and work for making ‘another world possible.’ The idea of an open space and other points in the WSF charter of principles clearly distance it from the idea of the vanguard in a revolution. For the first time, faith in ordinary workers and people is stated with a bang, where all those who believe that they 87

could build a better world have a space.

This freedom from top-down controlled

revolution approach has provided a new framework where everyone has the opportunity to work out one’s individual or collective role or work out mutualities and complimentarities with other movement organisations or currents of change in the positive direction. This framework does not create unnecessary polarisations, confrontations or a false sense of boundaries. The most distinctive feature of the forum is that it has made people to people contacts possible at the global level. In fact wherever possible, national chapters of WSF could further accentuate this process. In the process the WSF world enhance the possibility of South-South interaction on issues of vital concern for global democracy. Another important contribution it has been making is in influencing and formulating terms of discourse globally, such that democratic transformation of global governance has come centrally as the agenda of social movements the world over. A new, more egalitarian, democratic frame work to North-South relations at the civil-society and the people-topeople levels is being erected in parallel politics of movements intensifying the contradiction between processes of dominant globalisation and democratisation of global governance. This new politics for alternative global governance enables informed interactions among different civil society groups in different geo-political contexts. The social activists have become more able to appreciate why they among themselves have different points-of-view on what could be the most desirable intervention to democratise globalisation. The ‘how and why’ of campaigns for UN reforms, global taxation, the truth commission or Tobin tax, the Jubilee campaigners, campaigners of landless agricultural workers, of the unemployed, … can all discover the

interconnectivity and complimentarity. Misplaced priorities can be identified and left behind without generating a sense of failure. There is only one danger – that it can artificially create over-optimism or a false hope of easy social change without sustained effort and sacrifice. These values are being eroded from public life in any case. In the WSF euphoria, we should be careful that we should not contribute to such a professionalisation of public work that volunteerism, austere work style, and taking risks, become museumised values of a bygone era. The strength of the WSF lies in recognising the quantity, quality and diversity of the interventionist strivings on the ground rather than taking a vanguard role of initiating new processes. The coming together of such movement groups will inevitably trigger off new processes. This triggering off is born out of the respect for existing processes by the present networks and organisations and movements without competing with or threatening the existing processes. This innovation of recognising and giving space to existing strivings gives it a unique character over the earlier initiatives. As Jai Sen writes – “The Forum – and all its participants – need to realise that the Forum could only be organised because the civil and political space for this was available at this point in time, in Brazil and globally. (Imagine, for instance, trying to organise this meeting – or anything like it – back in the late 70s or early 80s, when the military regime was still in place in Brazil; or trying to organise such a Forum in China as it is today.) We need urgently to recognise that democratic space is not a given, but has constantly to be struggled for and to be seen strategically. Seeing and seizing the opportunity of available space needs to be not just an assumed ‘natural’ character of the Forum but rather a conscious, strategic posture and stance.”

Seen in this context, conception of WSF as an open-ended process is crucial for searching and expanding democratic spaces at all levels – global, national and local. As Franscisco Whitaker points out – “Actually, the biggest challenge for the World Social Forum organizers is the reassurance of the continuity of the Forum’s form, not the definition of the newest and best subjects that may lead to more concrete proposals. In this case, the environment determines the goals one wants to reach. The subjects will naturally come up during the process, if the form is respected, within humanity´s struggle for another world and also will necessarily be channeled into the several editions of the Forum, containing common questions in all of them, as well as specificities of each region of the world where it may take place. What matters is the reassurance that this new paradigm of transformative political action, created by the World Social Forum, is not put into ‘old bottles’.” Any initiative to strengthen the WSF must ensure that it keeps this perspective and does not impose upon it a structure in haste, pre-empting the inherent dynamics of the open process and the spirit of the Charter of Principles. Joker Explained: The ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ Initiative ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (The Earth is a Family), a Coalition for Comprehensive Democracy, is about furthering, strengthening and consolidating ‘democracy’ simultaneously in economic, social, political, cultural and ecological dimensions of life, from local to global levels. Its basic premise is based on faith in fellow human beings; that selfishness and greed are only one part of the human journey and not the dominating, defining characteristic of human life. Wants can be fulfilled, and even indulged in, without being glorified.

We believe that it is very degrading to define human beings as entities with material wants only. They have moral, spiritual and cultural orientations as well. Qouting Prof. B.K.Roy Burman, a leading Indian anthropologist – “My understanding of anthropology impels me to accept the basically social nature of human nature.... Democracy is the other name of practice of companionate value oriented culture, it is a process in non-stop dialectical relationship with antinomous culture. Commitment to responsible democracy is commitment to the processual dimension and not to any pre-fabricated structure.” The task of building true democracy is now inextricably linked with the global struggle to reform or transform capitalism through making democracy more comprehensive in reach and radical in content. It is a new project, but much of it is based on perennial values of compassion, justice, equality and freedom and ideas of democracy developed by great political activists and thinkers of the world. Accordingly democracy is conceived as a continuous and multifarious process making it possible to nurture life in its most holistic sense in the contemporary context. In the present phase of phenomenal upsurge of democratic aspirations, new norms have to be agreed upon through a process of participatory dialogues even with the adversary, at various levels of human collectivities. One has to recognise the complementarity of each other’s ‘truth’ and consciously avoid being judgmental regarding the other’s viewpoint. The critical evaluation of other viewpoints has to be in an idiom that encourages moderation. Such processes are unfolding and can consciously and actively be pursued today. Democratic struggles are crucial to the initiative’s methodology. It is constituted of three aspects. One is ‘Dialogue’, basically to recognise the contours of the present times.

Through dialogues we not only recognise our times but also understand the calling of our times. Dialogue at all levels, including with the adversary, is possible only if we do not believe in the conspiracy theory and believe in the willingness of the human spirit for struggle and self-sacrifice against injustice. However, grasping the essence of the times will be incomplete if we do not simultaneously fight the injustice. For this the second component is ‘Non-violent Civil Disobedience’. ‘Constructive action’ to create structures, activities and life styles in consonance with the vision of a democratic society is the third component of the method. Epilogue This evaluation exercise (in our understanding) has a two-fold purpose. The objectives flow from our shared commitment to the value of democracy at all levels, irrespective of our individual identities of being a researcher, activist or policy planner. Evaluation in terms of ranking and grading is a reductionist exercise. One objective is to constantly update and renew our perspective on institutions of democracy, in this case primarily at the global level. We have tried to put forward our ideas at the intellectual plane as clearly and honestly as possible. We have not aimed at discerning out the areas of agreement or disagreement but participated in the intellectual debate by engaging with the issues and the framework presented by N.I.G.D. We are aware that policy choices are made in practice taking a variety of considerations into account such as the local political priorities, contexts, availability of professional competence, right kind of partners and their preferences. We are not in a position to assess such variables in absence of field research and interactive dialogues. We can give suggestions in only a generalised manner based on data derived from secondary sources.

For example, some organisational and strategic framework for North-South dialogues/research on issues of democracy in all its dimensions will be very enabling for the groups working on issues of human rights, democratic rights and values of equity, justice, non-violence and sustainability. Such dialogues can be organised under the auspices of N.I.G.D. If the programme is carried on intensively for 3 to 5 years, then it would spin-off into many programmes and may create enough of critical mass for a global-local university. This university will endlessly work for the renewal of the value of democracy, working out the interlinking of various levels and dimensions. Its sub-units can be located in South-Asia, Africa, Latin America,…Important and challenging things are happening in all these parts of the world, many of which have very creative potential and some very frightening implications as well. References Hassi, Satu (2001), Speech of Minister of Environment and Development Co-operation, Finland, at the ‘North-South Dialogue on Democracy and Globalisation’, Workshop Organized by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and Network Institute for Global Democratization, 19-20 June 2001, Helsinki. Patomaki, Heikki (1999), ‘The Tobin Tax: How To Make It Real, Towards A Socially Responsible And Democratic System of Global Governance’, Project Report By The Network Institute For Global Democratisation, NIGD, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki. Pietila, Hilkka & Vickers, Jeanne (1996), ‘Making Women Matter: The Role Of The United Nations’, IIIrd Edition, Zed Books Ltd., London and New Jersey.

Pratap Vijay (2001), Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: A Global Alliance for Democracy in the Era of Globalization. Rikkila L & Sehm Patomaki K. (Ed.) Democracy and Globalisation: Promoting a North-South Dialogue, NIGD & Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Helsinki. Saighal, Vinod (1998), ‘ Third Millennium Equipoise’, Lancer Publishers, New Delhi. Sen Jai (2002), ‘Building Another World?’ Paper for the NIGD forum on ‘Global Democracy? A North-South Dialogue’ 4th Feb.2002, Porto Alegre. Singh, Kavaljit (2000), ‘Taming Global Financial Flows: Challenges And Alternatives In The Era Of Financial Globalization, A Citizen’s Guide’, Madhyam Books, Delhi. Singh, Kavaljit (2002), ‘Equitable Equity: Case For Securities Transaction Tax’, The Times of India, February 22, 2002. Teivainen, Teivo (2000), ‘Enter Economy, Exit Politics: Transnational Politics Of Economism And Limits To Democracy In Peru’, Helsinki University Printing House, Helsinki. Vargas Virginia (2002), On the Tension between Civil Society and State in the Global Arena. Evaluation paper for NIGD. Whitaker F. (2002), ‘Lessons of Porto Alegre’, Communique sent to the Pastoral Episcopal Commission, CNBB, 19th Feb. 2002. Translated from Portugese by Thomas Ponnaiah & Flavia M. Falcao. Adahl Susanne (1999), Personal communication. Tammilehto Olli (2002), Personal communication. Roy Burman B.K. (2001), Personal communication.

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: A Global Alliance for Comprehensive Democracy in the Era of Globalisation Vijay Pratap & Ritu Priya Pursuing the Democratic Dream People

South

Asia

have

long

cherished

values

which,

modern

times, are best expressed under the rubric of ‘universalism’ and various dimensions of ‘democracy’. Before the colonial interventions of the West, even where there were rulers of foreign origin, the participatory mode of governance from the grass roots to the top, devolution of political power at all levels and cultural plurality were hallmarks of our socio-political system. We had our own failings such as the obnoxious practice of untouchability or the fact that communitarian principles manifested through the caste system degenerated into hierarchical fundamentalism. But despite all kinds of failings, the sense of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam” (a Sanskrit concept meaning “The World is a Family”) has been part of our cultural sensibility since time immemorial. That is why our socio-cultural diversity is a source of strength and in fact the primary defining force behind our unbroken identity. There have of course, been brief phases of ideological or identity polarizations. But soon after, the pluralist perspective prevails. The basic premise of this world-view is that no sect, religion, ideological group, class, socio-political formation, the state or ‘church’ can claim a monopoly of the truth. All truths have to start with the small letter ‘t’ and, depending upon the vantage point, are able to capture only some aspects of the Truth and not the Truth as a whole. This forms the basis for a democratic society.

Conventionally, democracy is taken to be a political system based on the separation of judiciary, executive and legislature, where the legitimacy of governance is derived from the electoral process on the principles of adult franchise. Such a narrow definition reduces ‘democracy’ merely into a political instrument. However, the last century has witnessed a series of transformations generating an unprecedented explosion of human energies devoted to redefining human life. The praxis of ‘new’ social movements embodies a much deeper and comprehensive meaning of democracy than what is understood and practised in the mainstream political discourse. Never before in the history of humankind have such a large proportion of human beings worked for swaraj (‘swa’-‘raj’=self+rule) a term commonly used by Gandhi and the Gandhi inspired movements in India. The idea of ‘self-rule’ goes much beyond the political and encompasses life itself in a comprehensive manner. It relates to all dimensions of human life and applies to relationships at all levels – from the individual to the global. Broadly it has five facets e.g. (1) the relationship between nature and human beings, (2) the dynamic of ‘the individual’ and ‘the community’, (3) the dynamic inter-relationship of ‘the self’ and ‘the other’, (4) the relationship of individuals and various types and levels of collectivities with governance structures, and (5) the relationship of individuals and collectivities with the market. The striving for democratic relationships within them can be respectively termed ecological democracy, social democracy, cultural democracy, political democracy and economic democracy. There is a ‘comprehensive’ democratic revolution in the making as humankind is striving to redefine all the basic relationships of human life. No single ideology or region can be

identified as the vanguard in terms of striving for all the five dimensions of democracy simultaneously. Issues of self-rule related to the nature-human being dynamic have given rise to green parties, groups, movements and intellectuals all over the world. These green movements are proliferating even in those parts of the world where, according to the conventional development indices, standards of material life are very high. In the societies of material affluence there is an attempt to recover the ‘green consciousness’ and to address the challenges of ecological degradation. In the majority countries movement groups are engaged in defensive action of saving the livelihood support systems, along with revitalizing of ecological and cultural sensibility. Since these energies aim at greater participation of local communities in deciding the nature-human dynamic, we could call it an age of striving for Ecological Democracy. Similarly, there is phenomenal human energy on this earth trying to redefine the individual-community dynamic. Issues of dignity are on the central agenda of many human rights, gender, anti-caste and anti-apartheid groups. There is almost a global churning for redefining social relationships, what we could term as Social Democracy. The response to the Conference Against Racialism in Durban is an indicator of the revolutionary energies I am talking about. The women’s movement is no longer just a women’s rights movement. Now it has a gender perspective on all issues. From this stand-point this is an age of strivings for Social Democracy. If we analyze the dynamic of ‘self’ with ‘the other’, of meaning systems an entire set of issues emerge under the broad rubric called ‘Culture’. Their has been an explosion of new ideas and ideological confrontations, both violent and non-violent. The human activety on this front has been unprecedented. Critiques of ‘modernity’ and the culture of

industrialized societies, attempts at revitalizing indigenous knowledge systems, emphasizing importance of plurality of ideas and ways of life, and the loosening of controls of orthodoxy are part of the varied strivings of a Cultural Democracy. After the majority of nationstates were liberated from colonial rule, they acquired greater control over their economies. The standard of living started rising, even though very slowly for some. However, natural resource based economies of indigenous peoples, small and marginal farmers are now in search for dignified ways of earning their livelihood. It is reflected in two ways. One is to emulate (and even blindly imitate) the rich and prosperous North. The other is to recover their control over natural resources as well as knowledge systems in agriculture, medicine, food, water management, and so on. Both represent the pervasive desire for an Economic Democracy. The anti-colonial struggles in these Countries have created new political identities. A desire for self-rule is pervasive and people are questioning the grafted colonial instrumentalities in their attempts to re-examine and redefine them. Sometimes there is regression, as the entrenched elite imposes some form of authoritarianism. Fortunately participation of people in the political institutions has acquired a tremendous legitimacy. This explains why many dictators have had to undertake a legitimation exercise through some form of election, howsoever partial or imperfect. This constitutes Political Democracy. The imperative of democratic revolution requires that we recognize and relate to the positive dimension of all these energies and contribute our mite in their coalescing into a definable world view and a dream for the future. This is our vision of a universal humanistic globalisation.

Social Costs of Globalisation However what we witness today is the culmination of exactly the opposite – a hegemonic globalisation that can only be viewed as a satanic force. In South Asia the social costs of economic globalisation has already been very high - and could become still worse. The achievements of four decades of a democratic polity, however limited, are being reversed. Rapidly declining mortality rates have become stagnant or even reversed in some sub-populations. The dalits, the landless or nearlandless agricultural labourers, the indigenous peoples of India, the Adivasis, in India will be the worst hit. At the same time, the land-owning farmers have also suffered; Indian farmers are more indebted than ever before. In Nepal the legislative measures which formed the basis of the country’s successful community forest programmes are being reversed because of the pressures from the World Bank. Besides the economic reversal, the process of economic globalisation has created new and serious challenges for the democratic decision-making processes in every part of the world. The transfer of decision-making power into the hands of transnational institutions like the WTO, the IMF and the WB, has severely eroded the sovereignty of the national governments, and resulted in a very serious drift, undermining the whole party political system, especially the accountability of the governments, to their own people. As Franck Amalrick has pointed out, “Influencing national institutions and policies becomes openly one objective of development co-operation policies…. The WB and IMF intervene at the national level under the banners of ‘sound macroeconomic policies’ and ‘good governance’ – technical banners that fit well the technical nature of these organizations — while bilateral donors intervene under the banners of ‘democracy’ and ‘partnership’.”

In the present situation it does not really matter so much what kind of party or coalition of parties has been in power. In India, subsequent governments have been forced to continue implementing roughly similar neo-liberal policies, including privatization, the liberalisation of trade and investment policies and the reduction of subsidies. One finds the similar defeat of democratic dreams in Finland. Since the Nordic countries undertook the transition from peasant pre-modern to industrial modern societies they developed social security systems to smoothen the process so that it kept the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;satanicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; features of industrial society in check at least within the region. Monstrous disparities were allowed to creep in, marginalisation and hardships were sought not to be kept in check by high taxation and a sound welfare state. The decision making and governance was reasonably participatory and transparent. Now, with the new structures created by EU, new laws are proposed by a small group of people and national parliaments endorse them without adequate debate and without space for listening to voices of disagreement. This has amounted to a crisis in democratic decision-making because in most countries the neoliberal reforms have been implemented against the will of the majority of the people. Second, the crisis of democracy has been aggravated, in a very important way, by the problem of corruption. According to a leading World Bank official corruption has increased geometrically during the last decade, and there has been at least a ten-fold rise in corruption during the 1990s. For instance the privatization of public-owned companies and public services and the entry of the transnational corporations into the national markets have created ample opportunities for corruption and misuse of public offices. Corruption was a major problem in South Asia even before the present era of

100

globalisation, but deterioration of the moral and ethical basis of political life has proceeded very fast after it. How can all these problems be addressed? How can the positive energies be synergised to forge a humanist-universalistic globalisation for an effective democratisation of human society at all levels? All epochal transformative moments in history are pregnant with both the possibilities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a new dawn or an era of darkness. What are the forces of darkness at this juncture? Threats to Democracy Globally, an elusive â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Consumer Paradiseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is being promised through the electronic media and now through the internet financed by interested stake-holders without any consideration for issues of economic equity, ecological sensitivity, cultural plurality or dignity of the oppressed. All over the globe one finds a kind of mad rush for this globalism. Values of austerity, larger good, rights of future generations over our natural and other resources and keeping the interests and perspectives of oppressed communities in mind while justifiably asserting individual autonomy, are considered obsolete. This is resulting in fragmentation and polarisation of human collectivities. Extreme individuation and atomisation is resulting in a backlash of identity assertion. This backlash is to be clearly distinguished from the genuine assertions of autonomy of cultural self-definition, issues of ethnic identity or social dignity. The Democratic Agenda In a phase of phenomenal upsurge of democratic aspirations, new norms have to be agreed upon at various levels of human collectivities through a process of participatory dialogues even with the adversary. It could be two neighbouring Nation States who are at 101

logger-heads with each other or two ideological adversaries in a single Nation State or between and within communities and families. One has to recognise the complementarity of each other’s ‘truth’ and consciously avoid being judgmental regarding the other’s viewpoint. The critical evaluation of other viewpoints has to be in an idiom that encourages moderation. In discussions that have taken place in various national and international fora, people have started to develop ideas about building a global network of individuals and organizations sharing similar values and goals. Such an initiative could also be seen as an effort to engage the international civil society in organizing global or regional dialogue processes about a number of issues that are of crucial importance at this juncture. The five basic dimensions of human life discussed above could form the thematic perspective for an international network on democracy. In a personal communication on 1st of May 2001 Mr. M. P. Parameswaran, a leading ideologue of the All India People’s Science Network had written: “Strengthening of all the five types of democracies at home in India, in the states, and in the panchayats, is important. This is a real concrete task. Equally important is the task of disillusionment, that progress is not what the capitalists or even the Marxists have been telling us. International solidarity is important. It gives us moral support. But there is something more important. I feel that we cannot save humanity without saving “the West” especially the Americans from their follies, without making them realize that their way of life is unsustainable and unenviable. There are a very large number of groups in the USA who share this view. A project – a programme- to weld all these groups into a single force will be useful and even necessary

102

for us and the rest of the world. Can we think of a concrete plan of action for this? I have been feeling the necessity of such action since quite many years.” It is, admittedly, somewhat uncomfortable to discuss democracy – which, as a process of constructive self-engagement of humanity, should be indivisible – in such small bits and shreds. However, if the complexity of democracy is approached through the five above mentioned dimensions, this should bring forward a wider and richer spectrum of problems and possibilities. One possible articulation of these dimensions as thematic perspectives is suggested below. I. Empowerment of the Daridranarayan, the ‘Last Person’ (Economic Democracy) All the great teachers of humankind including Gandhi, Mohammad, Christ and the Buddha, have emphasized the importance of empowerment of the weakest and the poorest of society. In spite of the fact that many people probably consider such a concept either patronizing, elitist or naive, perhaps the most important single test for any kind of democracy is whether it can protect the needs and rights of the poorest, most oppressed and least influential people in the society. What this means in each society and in each historical period will differ - because poverty and deprivation will be created and regenerated over and over again through widely varied means - but the issue or goal is clear and remains the same. One of the main problems is how to relate to the needs and concerns of the Daridranarayan in a way that is empowering and not patronizing. With the Daridranarayan at the center of all thinking, all issues concerning transactions of goods and services, mode and relations of production, and technological choices, have always been part of human engagement. All such issues can be considered as the economic dimension of democracy, called ‘economic democracy’ for convenience.

103

II. Ecological Regeneration and People’s Control Over Natural Resources (Ecological Democracy) Environmental degradation - pollution of air, water and soil, loss of species and biodiversity, destruction of the ozone layer, destabilisation of the climate, loss of tree and vegetative cover, soil erosion and desertification - is one of the most serious issues of our times. It should be a high priority for the movement. However, the discourse of the West and among the westernized organisations in the South is often very alienating for the majority of the (rural) people, and may result in programmes and measures neither understood nor owned by them. In the long run, such programmes can backfire. A better approach is to concentrate on people’s control over natural resources, and integrate the various environmental and conservational concerns in such an approach. Mankind’s relationship with nature as consumer, controller, nurturer, destroyer or as a small component of nature are all issues to be dealt with under the rubric of ecological democracy. III. Ensuring Human Dignity (Social Democracy) There is no doubt that the neo-liberal economic policies and other measures pursued by the ‘New Right’ will be causing extreme poverty on a scale that could be unsurpassed in human history. In many cases the problems should be seen in the framework of empowering the Daridranaryan and as issues of sheer economic survival. However, in most instances, issues like unemployment workers’ rights and the meaning and nature of the available working opportunities are, across the globe, issues of human dignity. Even in cases where the crumbs falling from the table of the neo-liberals are more than enough to satisfy the basic material needs of the people, human dignity is sacrificed in a most

104

detrimental way. The hegemonic neo-liberal policies create identities of greed, promote consumerism and materialism, and prevent people from making good moral choices, from pursuing their spirituality. They sacrifice human dignity for profit. The struggle for dignity and social equity has to be the core issue among dalits, so that they are well equipped to contribute from their perspective and experience in the struggle against Satanic Globalisation. It is the objective situation among dalits which forced large number of ideologues including Babasahib Ambedkar to emphasize the importance of a caste annihilation movement in India. In the past two decades there has been a regression from the earlier acceptance by the upper caste of empowerment of the ex-untouchable castes. Increasing voice of women in the social sphere is being accompanied by new forms of perversions and violence against them, manifested e.g. by the declining sex ratio of 0-6 year olds in India (Census 2001). These issues have to be viewed with their wider linkages under the rubric of social democracy. IV. Strengthening Plural Co-existence (Cultural Democracy) The issue of plural coexistence - and of the prevention of communal (or racial) violence has a profound significance for every part of the world. When the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic and cultural crises deepen, the threat of communal violence increases. In areas suffering from acute environmental degradation, the undermining of the natural resource base can aggravate such problems. In South Asia there is a living tradition of peaceful co-living of various ethnic and religious groups and of sects within religions. This tradition is under great strain and needs to be revitalized in the present context. A judicial pronouncement in Bangladesh in January 2001 banning fatwa (religious edicts) is an authentic illustration

105

of cultural democracy. Among the Hindus, vesting of adequate dignity to the folk practices not conforming to Brahmanical scriptural norms should be a priority item. A campaign for Cultural Democracy should also be a mobilizing act against attempts to distort history in almost all countries of the world, including those in Europe and America. In Europe the Muslims are being projected as a fundamentalist or non-pluralist segment of the society. The increasing polarisation between the Islamic countries and the West (the European Union and the United States of America) has been deepened by instances like the Gulf War in 1990, which created anti-West feelings throughout the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Islamic worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The European integration - all the old colonial powers being fused to one new super-power - is worsening the situation because it is considered as the potential and powerful adversarial supra-state by the Islamic states. The conflict will be further aggravated if the European Union becomes a real Federal State and if it develops a joint defense policy and a joint army, in which case all the EU member states, including the Nordic countries, will become integral parts of a major military super-power with a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. Plural coexistence, however, should not be viewed only from a negative viewpoint of conflict that needs to be prevented. It should also be seen as richness, where new things are being created and recreated continuously through the interaction of differences, cultural interaction, diffusion and adaptation. Diversity in ways of life provides complementary ways of fulfilling the need for expression of diverse human tendencies in any society, and therefore must be nurtured. V. Nurturing and Deepening of Democracy (Political Democracy)

106

Political democracy, if not cared for and defended constantly, can be greatly undermined. All the possible checks that can be built against the un-democratizing thrust of social systems can only be effective if the people actively guard democratic structures and norms. Democracy - defined in terms like participation, representation, rule of law, protection of cultural, linguistic, religious, political minorities and transparency of political decision-making - is to be nurtured and deepened. However, at present only one model of such democratic processes - the western liberal or market democracy whose specificities have evolved in a small cultural-historical zone of the globe - is being adopted by all the countries with different cultures, institutions and traditions. The big wave of indigenization and anti-westernization -

which is part explanation for the

Islamic Resurgence, the growth of the Hindutva movements and the economic and cultural rise of China - cannot be wished away lightly. If issues like democracy, human rights or women’s rights get labeled as “western values” by various oppressive forces in the South, there is a real danger that these values will be seriously undermined during the first century of the new millennium. Directions of Search For the World view that believes in the bottom-up approach of participatory democracy where institutions, ideas and ideologies are also worked out by the people themselves, there is a contradiction in terms to suggest institutions of governance. Recently, on May 29 1999, recipients of the Right Livelihood Award met in Salzburg. Issues relating to WTO came up. The solution suggested was not an alternative WTO but basically a plea to pause and undertake introspection seriously. It was suggested that operation of the W.T.O. should be suspended for five years, a Citizen’s Commission be appointed to go

107

into the various kinds of damages it has inflicted over humankind, and civil society dialogues be organized all over the globe, especially among the affected communities. Instead of giving a top-down solution I would like to engage with the following questions with regard to the potential and direction the present flux will take. The main issues for a democratic basic transformation of society

involve a) faith, (b) hope, and (c) the

methods. Faith I alongwith my community of activists, share the belief that selfishness and greed are only one part of the human journey and not the dominating, defining characteristic of human life. Wants can be fulfilled, and even indulged in, without being glorified. We insist that it is very degrading to define human beings as entities with material wants only. They have moral, spiritual and cultural orientations as well. Commenting on an earlier draft of the Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam statement Prof. B.K.Roy Burman, a leading Indian anthropologist, had said the following: – “My understanding of anthropology impels me to accept the basically social nature of human nature. [...] Democracy is the other name of practice of companionate value oriented culture, it is a process in non-stop dialectical relationship with antinomous culture. Commitment to responsible democracy is commitment to the processual dimension and not to any pre-fabricated structure.” Hope The task of building true democracy is now inextricably linked with the global struggle to reform or transform capitalism without a readymade version of socialism. It is a new project, however much it is based on perennial values of compassion, justice, equality and freedom – to understand the spiral and web of life and to nurture life in its most

108

holistic sense in the contemporary context. There has to be hope for such a creative endeavor. In a phase of phenomenal upsurge of democratic aspirations, new norms have to be agreed upon through a process of participatory dialogues even with the adversary, at various levels of human collectivities. One has to recognize the complementarity of each other’s ‘truth’ and consciously avoid being judgmental regarding the other’s viewpoint. The critical evaluation of other viewpoints has to be in an idiom which encourages moderation. Such processes are unfolding and can consciously and actively be pursued today. Method The method for democratic struggles has three aspects. One is ‘Dialogue’, basically to recognise the contours of the present times. Through dialogues we not only recognise our times but also understand the calling of our times. Dialogue at all levels, including with the adversary, is possible only if we do not believe in the conspiracy theory and believe in the willingness of the human spirit for struggle and self-sacrifice against injustice. However, grasping the essence of the times will be incomplete if we do not simultaneously fight the injustice. For this the second component is ‘Non-violent Civil Disobedience’. ‘Constructive action’ to create structures, activities and life styles in consonance with the vision of a democratic society is the third component of the method. Caveats to North-South Civil Society Dialogues For a variety of political and historical reasons internationally funded NGOs have less popular appeal and legitimacy in our society than the non-funded/non-structured movement groups. Civil society groups working among dalits of India are under such

109

pressures (to work for issues of local oppression, proper implementation of the policy of positive affirmation, land reforms, plight of the agricultural workers and issues of dalit atrocities etc.) that they hardly get to link these pressing issues of identity and dignity with the larger issues of globalisation. The diversity of Indian civil society makes it imperative that only when there is a linking up of various social groups into a holistic democratic struggle at all levels, including the grass-root and national levels, that the anti-globalisation perspective and struggle can flower. Northern civil society has to work out institutional mechanisms to relate to the less globalized sections of our society. In the early eighties, peasant movement ideologues like Sunil Sahastrabudhey used to emphasise a distinction between India and Bharat. Bharat refers to that section of Indian population which is either less colonised or structurally placed in a situation from where they could not access the global modern knowledge systems and networks. There is ample literature that clearly demonstrates that people in ‘Bharat’ have not completely lost their moorings yet and they lead a more wholesome life than those of us who are victims of the mad-race syndrome. We are trying to convey two issues (1) in the bottom –up view of democracy, we need to learn the specificity and uniqueness of each entity and at every level. (2) we must not undermine the autonomy of each entity and should not mix-up the levels. But in an era of globalisation, where we all need to unite to deal with the satanic dimensions of globalisation, we need to know each other empathetically. Knowing oneself is a very difficult task and knowing the ‘other’ is yet more difficult. But to work out concretely the ideas of global solidarity we need to help each other to know ourselves without undermining our autonomies.

110

It is instructive to remember Gandhiji’s advice that he gave to a group of Christian workers from U.S.A. in 1936. This advice also makes it clear that Gandhiji was not a blind opponent of modern science and technology, as some sections would like to portray him: “When Americans come and ask me what service they could render, I tell them, if you dangle your millions before us, you will make beggars of us, and demoralize us. But in one thing I don’t mind being a beggar. You can ask your engineers and agricultural experts to place their services at our disposal. They must come to us not as lords and masters, but as voluntary workers”. Proposals for concrete action Keeping our basic premises, the challenges discussed in the foregoing discussion, and these caveats in mind, the following are some of the suggestions for concrete action: 1. Opening up spaces for multiple visions to evolve, flower and express themselves. Dialogue, in fact multi-logue, across the diverse visions and between diverse strands within each will then enrich all human striving. This can occur democratically only when each vision feels secure and empowered. 2. Institutionalizing quasi-permanent structures/networks for enduring ‘Dialogues on democracy and globalisation’ can be the most strategic tool for global democratisation. We need to consciously and urgently cultivate peer groups, clubs, institutions, networks, movement groups, and political parties to discuss the positive forms of intervention to deepen democracy. 3. We urgently need to undertake some defensive actions as well, to evolve a defense strategy in preserving what has not been so far destroyed by the hegemonic forces.

111

Southern civilisations for thousands of years have been practicing a way of life that we now describe as ‘Green Principles’. A careful look at their livelihood support systems will show that limiting the wants was a conscious choice for conservation and regeneration of nature and not due to sheer technological backwardness. But now, the present form of globalisation is destroying these communities at a very rapid rate. Global democratic fora need to be set up a ‘Defense Committee’ to defend ‘Green communities’ in the South. Otherwise, what has been preserved through thousands of years will be completely destroyed in the next couple of decades. 4. We need an independent information, research and media network to identify the democratic practices, struggles, dreams and dramas being unfolded and enacted in the family called Earth. We need to collect, collate and then disseminate this information, especially for those who are still prisoners of the mirage of the American Consumer Paradise. We should resolve to (a) set up such media centers all over the world, (b) to disseminate this information in the people’s languages as far as possible, besides doing so in English. 5. All these dialogues and building up of institutions and networks should culminate into building a global front for defending, deepening and expanding democracy. This front can be built through a combination of intellectual activism and organization building. The organization building cannot happen through intellectual activism alone. The evolution of ideological frameworks and building up of networks can happen effectively if we use the weapons of civil disobedient and constructive action, as evolved by Gandhiji.

112

Those who believe in democracy have not only to shun violence themselves but also have to delegitimise violence as a method for social change. They have to sharpen the weapons of non-violent civil disobedience. Gandhiji believed that only those who are civil and obey the laws of the land have the right to fight the unjust laws. After adequate political and technical preparation including sustainable land use planning, the agenda of boycotting genetically modified food-grains, biotechnology produced edible materials, should be adopted and if necessary non-violent civil disobedience should be resorted to. A campaign should be launched against all diversionary moves which, in the name of cultural nationalism and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;national sentimentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, put issues such as the right to work, right to sustainable livelihood on the backburner. 6. Democratising existing global institutions by sensitising them to the above processes and making them supportive. Building such pressure on existing institutions and devising new institutions more in consonance with the calling of the present times would then be part of bottom-up movements. The institutions must be constantly renewed by an interactive process and mechanisms for this must be structurally incorporated. References 1. Burman, B.K.R. April 2001. Personal Communication. 2. Gandhi, M.K. 1940. An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. 3. Gandhi, M.K. 1944. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.

113

4. Huntington, S. P. 1996. The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order. USA: Simon and Schuster 5. Imrana Qadeer, Presentation at the Conference Against Globalisation in New Delhi, 2001, Shri S.P.Shukla, Convener < spshukla@id.eth.net> 6. Parameswaran, M.P., April 2001. Personal Communication. 7. Shiv Visvanathan, ‘Norfolk Genetic Information Network (NGIN): A Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Science ?’, 2000, http://www.ngin.org.uk 8.

Vijay Pratap, ‘Corruption And Communalism: Anti Democratic Indian Politics’,

Prout, April 1-15 2001, Page 41-44

114

115