CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO - Opposition of Vested Interests
Gudakesh

In the nature of things, if the status quo is sought to be upset, those who stand to lose will retaliate.  The strength of the retaliation depends upon the type of provocation which could arise at the local (village) level but may not be confined to it.  The challenge may well threaten the status quo at the state level, and even that at the Centre (Delhi).

At the village level, if the NGO does not kowtow to the dominant caste, there is bound to be trouble.  This may merely be the denial of what the dominant caste has been enjoying for centuries, as of its right.  In such a situation it will use the patel-patwari-police combine to ensure that the NGO project does not get implemented.

The National Institute of Rural Integrated Development (NIRID) is operating in 25 villages of Palghar and Jowahar talukas of Thane district, Maharashtra.  Once its Duktan Centre was established, the Kunbis who had the use of the barren land in the area, could no large graze their cattle on it.  As threats to get the NIRD team to leave the area did not succeed, they let loose their cattle on the land at night destroying its early tree plantation efforts.

To take another example: under it’s afforestation scheme, NIRID stipulated the conditions that each farmer build a compound(wall) so that the saplings would be protected.  Other farmers objected on the ground that it obstructed their right of passage.  Providing a path through a field or village common land is a revenue matter, hence the talati/mamlatdar ought to have been contacted.  But the police was and the constable began to harass NIRID-backed farmers.  Subsequently a case was filed against a farmer under the Riot Act: the ground was that the compound wall threatened to disturb the peace!

NIRID is not into big economic programmes.  Hence, the opposition to it is limited.  When economic/development programmes are taken up on a large scale, i.e. the voluntary agency becomes a major development agent, do the vested interests get disturbed.  But they are scared when an organisational NGOs gets into the act.  Why?  Because working amongst the poorest of the poor, it strengthens their hand i.e. empowers them.  A good example is the work that Godavari Parulekar and her organisation did among the Warlis Thane district; it is documented in her book Adivasis Revolt.

The empowering of the tribals to demand their rights means essentially the restoration of the tribal land that has been usurped by outsiders through trickery, threat, fraud and worse.  There are government laws for the restoration of their lands.  Each state, especially with large tribal pockets, such as Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, has them.  But are they being enforced?  Hardly.  The following voluntary agencies in Maharashtra that organised the tribals to get back their land under the law aroused the hostility of the vested interests:

1. Kashtakakari Sanghatna: Padip Prabhu’s group in Thane district, Maharashtra.
2. Shramik Sanghatna: Vivek and Vidyulata Pandit among the bonded labourers (in thane district) who are in the main tribals.
3. Bhoomi Sena of Kaluram Dhondge, the third NGO in Thane district, has been working with tribals prior to the advent of the above two NGOs.  There are also several NGOs organising the adivasis in the Dhulia district of Maharashtra.

The vested interests that the NGOs disturb are usually outsiders to the area.  They are the sahukars (moneylenders) and landlords; not infrequently, the landlord may well be the moneylenders as well.  They are also being challenged by NGOs in other tribal belts of the country, such as the Jharkhand region, the Chhatisgarh region and parts of the Malwa plateau area.

The government’s contribution has been to make available legal aid to the poor.  This essentially allows for organising awareness generation camps.  But funds are needed to fight individual cases of land alienation through the help of lawyers.  Some donors are willing to provide them.  What happens if the NGOs begin to succeed?

This will upset the vested interests, the outsiders, who have gained control of tribal land, Since they are not likely to relinquish it without a fight there is bound to be a backlash.  In fact, voluntary agencies working in tribal belts such as Prayog in the Chhatisgarh region (which includes the now famous Bastar area) of Madhya Pradesh, have borne the brunt of it.

The dominant scenario in Chhatisgarh is drought, migrant workers and a tribal community that has lost control of forests and as such is being economically destroyed and culturally uprooted.  Prayog’s intervention has hit at the contractors, who exploit the tribals (pay low wages to them), middle-men (kuchias), who have become powerful because of the nationalisation of forest products and businessmen, who have benefited overall.  They are linked to the politician; in some cases all three functions are combined in one and the same person.  Since the contractor-kuchia-middleman nexus controls the economy and the politicians of the area, it thus controls the bureacracy which often acts as an instrument to protect and further it’s interest.

On visits with a Prayog worker the police station at Gariband (Raipur district), the thanedar made the following accusations to this writer against the NGO:

1. The funds Prayog receives are used for conversions (to Christianity)
2. Prayog incites people in the rural areas with false claims and creates law and order problems.  Hence its staff should be put behind bars.

To take the case of the Mahila Manch of Gond women in Keskal town, Bastar district.  In the past, the kuchias would seize the tribal produce before it reached the market, giving less than the proper price for it by underweighing it.  The Mahila manch members decided to retaliate.  They snatched the weighing machines from the kuchias and got control of the auction in the market, with funds borrowed form Prayog.  They sold their goods through this process for the first time ever in Bastar’s history.

At this stage the local business community of Muslims from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, as well as Sindhis, Marwaris, Gujaratis decided to hit back.  It pressured the panchayat to cancel the auction contract by creating a scene in the market to demonstrate that the adivasis women could not handle the operations.

The upholders of the status quo do not always succeed.  The youth group organised by Mahiti (Ahmedabad district, Gujarat) at Khun, i.e. the Khun Yuvak Mandal selected a site for the pond which would benefit the maximum number of villagers.  But it was opposed by the well-off residents.  The initial site that was selected involved the inundation of several huts; the farmers so affected belonged to the faction against the sarpanch.  It opposed the site, so the sarpanch Babla bhai, came up with an alternative site.  On examination, it was revealed that the pond at the second site would collect salt water.

The Yuvak Mandal suggested a third site.  The sarpanch agreed to it initially; his concurrence was required for the release of the NREP funds by the taluka panchayat.  Then he backed out.  By then it had become clear that the sarpanch was practising delaying tactics to kill the project.  He was supported by the darbars, the feudal lords of the area.  So the Khun Yuvak Mandal decided to expose him and as pressure mounted, the sarpanch succumbed: the site met all the technical conditions necessary and he had no option but to give his consent.

At the state level some NGOs have aroused political opposition. Gram Bharti, Munger district, Bihar came into conflict with political parties when they:

1. tried to split the unity of the gram sabha on gramdan land by introducing (a) the caster factor (b) money to buy votes
2. refused to allow the people to vote during the MLA/MP elections through threats and booth capturing.

The gram sabhas have been set up to build the unity of the village.  But political parties have opposed it.  During the elections, a local Congress leader has consistently made two points to undermine the Gram Bharti instituted gram sabhas (I) that Shivanand bhai, head of Gram Bharti, is an outsider (to the area) (ii) gramdan would mean that land would not remain theirs, Shivanand bhai would take it all (The second allegation is a common one made by vested interests against NGOs operating in gramdan areas such as Banwasi Seva Ashram, Anand Niketan Ashram, ASSEFA, etc).

Gramdan villages are entitled to all the rights of panchayats which are vested in the gram sabhas.  The local MLA has been opposed to them, the gram sabhas, because he has been deprived of his panchayat vote banks as well as the right to tamper (handle) with development funds made available to the panchayat.

The Congress gram panchayat President (mukhiya) of Gangapar village, Chakai block, has his own reasons for opposing gram sabhas and gramdan.  Beofre gramdan, he used to pocket the development funds earmarked for the panchayats.  Once the gram sabhas were set up, people were made aware of government assistance, which meant the mukhiya could not siphon them off.  A confrontation ensued between a faction of the mukhiya and Gram Bharti.  The SDO had to intervene and point out that the Gramdan Act had been formulated by the government and no one could therefore remove gram sabhas at his own whim and fancy.

Banwasi Sewa Ashram has faced considerable political opposition because political parties felt that its head (prem bhai) was building a base for himself.  So he and his workers have been constantly under attack.  There have been any number of attempts to cut off state and government (central) funding, particularly since BSA has had the licence to sell liquor revoked has had the licence to sell liquor revoked in the area and many of the liquor kings are political bigwigs.  Prem bhai refuses to allow politicians to use BSA’s vehicles and workers.

Harivallabh Parikh of Anand Niketan Ashram, on the contrary, willingly gives vehicles and his workers to political parties.  He believes in participating in mainstream politics (as opposed to ‘revolutionary politics’ practised by Marxist NGOs).  As such Anand Niketan Ashram has aroused the ire of opposition parties.  And even members of the Congress party, because though Parikh has largely supported Congress, he as at times opposed Congress candidates and backed those of the opposition.  In fact, he has often campaigned for political candidates/parties for he believes that development work is closely associated with politics and power.

His participation in politics has led to problems.   Funding support from government has been cut off, and restriction placed on foreign funds.

Political opposition and reaction of the State machinery can also be provoked if the NGO leadership ventures directly into politics.  Viulas Salunke of Gram Gaurav Pratisthan (Maharashtra) stood as a candidate for the state legislature, as an MLA.  He lost.  After that GGP was not treated as a voluntary organisation.  The electric connections for the community irrigation schemes that it was readily provided, were stopped and government funds for the scheme withdrawn.  As a consequence few Pani Panchayats have been set up since Salunke stood for elections.

The above is a description of the reactions of vested interests against Gandhian and some Marxist NGOs.  The extent of the retaliation is understandably related to the ideology of the voluntary agency.  The Church-inspired ones (Jana Seva Mandal led by Fr. Peter Massanet; Urban Community Development Centre led by Del de Souza) provoke less hostility as they do not seek to change the power equation.  As for Eclectic NGOs, if they feel strongly (i.e. Mahiti), they will take a stand on an issue.  But confrontation is not, per se, a part of their policy.
 

Back to Contents