I work for social change. When I started in this
field I was often the butt of my own jokes and did joke about how I was always
broke. Somehow it goes with the image, but the more time I spend in India
working on civil society projects relating to women's rights, the more I
realize how ridiculous it is. Sure we can all conjure up the traditional image
of an Indian social worker, 'Khadi ka
Kurta pajama', in our minds with a cheap Jhola bag resting on his shoulder and dusty
kolapurri chapals on his tired feet. In addition to being obviously poor and
hungry. Well I could not disagree more with that image. Yes, I believe in
working tirelessly for the needs of others. Yes I believe that we all owe it to
ourselves to make sure that our fellow woman and man is well taken after. But
no, I do not need to be hungry and poor to help the ones who are. I do not need
to live below the poverty line in order to help people who do. Just like I
don’t need to turn into a maple tree in order to save one, or a woman to work
for women's rights.
I ask you this, why on earth are the people who work
for the good of others forbidden from enjoying a comfortable lifestyle? No one
would ever question my lifestyle if I made millions by marketing the merits of
poisonous products such as Coca Cola or tobacco but the second a social worker
drives a car or eats in a nice restaurant she/he is considered to be dishonest.
Had I been a doctor or a lawyer no one would
question my fancy German car, or accurate Swiss watch, fine Italian suits or
lavish holidays on some luxurious island resort with a hard to pronounce name.
When I asked Dr Anand Kumar a noted sociologist the
same question, he answered "Society accepts preachers who are
practitioners, be it Vivekanand, Gandhi, Mother Teresa or Anna Hazare. Socially
cautious entrepreneurs like Ratan Tata, Narayan Murti and Azim Prem ji are all
highly respected by all strata of society. Social entrepreneurs like Sunita
Narayan, Aruna Roy and Vindeshwar Pathak are all examples of women and men who
have broken away from the cliché of the impoverished individual working towards
social change.”
Kuber Sharma, a modern day social activist, argues that "This doesn't exist
in my world. I know that this lifestyle is something I don't survive in.
Hence while I am not averse to working in the grassroots
and have worked in little villages all over India, as a full-time
profession I prefer a cushy Delhi office. No I still don't have an air-conditioned
office, but at least I can be myself here. If clothes and gadgets will dictate what
I am and how I think, then let people judge me."
Devendra Kumar, a development professional and also
one of the first people who told me "I want to make money through doing
good" (this was about 10 years back ), when I gave him a ring for this
blog post explained that "Social work in India is still considered a
voluntary action and not a professional one. This is a major downer for the
development sector. The salaries of the social sector need to marginally match
the ones of the corporate, then only can one expect quality social activists.
We need to look into the development sector as a professional one if we want to
bring about large scale sustainable development."
Manish Tiwari, a political journalist,
argues that "If one was to create two categories of NGO’s the ones using
the funds and the ones stealing the funds, the list of thieves would be miles
longer (I could not agree more). This extreme disparity has led to the
critical take of society. No one as such is against social entrepreneurship,
but everyone is against con artists minting money in the name of philanthropy.
Dr. Rohit Negi, who teaches Development Studies and
also the catalyst behind this blog post, explains that “The origins of this
notion are in Gandhian practice. Prior to Gandhi's entry on the Indian
political scene, the leadership was largely elite, and they had very little
pretensions of reaching out to the masses. Gandhi's message was to live and
dress like those on whose behalf one claimed to speak, which is what
representation--government or non-government--is essentially about. Even
today, civil society and social workers are viewed through that same lens: they
must be incorruptible and lead what the larger society considers a simple life.
Because, in part, non-profit also means non-well to do. That someone who is in
the development sector, broadly defined, also make good money and live a
more-than-decent life attracts allegations of impropriety, and undermines
his/her credibility. For better or worse, I believe this is a fact. There
are obvious merits of holding civil society to a tough standard, but then it
means that anyone who wishes to be in this arena with a degree of honesty needs
to choose between the work and a comfortable life.”
So what happens to me? A guy with a technical
degree who believes in viable social change . Do I starve to fit into a cliché
? Or do I battle it out , changing professional norms as I progress ? Or do I
give up both and jump back into the corporate sector designing micro chips and
selling them to the highest bidder?
