Who wants to address poverty?

At the Human Rights Law Network, I have gone through case after case where government officials are seen to be colluding with company executives. Their cozy relationships come with the thought of riches but at the expense of the poor. Officials have casually passed environmental clearances to highly polluting factories, denied the right to safe working conditions for labourers, and turned a blind eye when management does not provide the social security benefits to which employees have a legal right. While the schemes are already in place, it is up to the people themselves to ensure their implementation. The Right to Food case is a prime example. In November 2001, the Government of India issued a series of interim court orders that directed states to, interalia, provide hot meals for school children, rations at low prices for the poor, and pension for the aged. Even today, full compliance has not been observed for all the schemes. Not only is there an apparent apathy to implement the schemes, but worse; officials have been caught siphoning grains from the food distribution schemes to sell on the black market, among other forms of corruption.

Even at NGOs, I’ve learned that workers can be highly dependent on the central leader of the organization, with little drive or understanding of their own subjects. As an aside, I have been assured that there is no dearth of passion for human rights and of course I have seen it in so many people (as I mentioned in my last post), and also, I speak only after hearing of a handful of organization. But barriers do exist. Some organizations seemingly institutionalize apathy; that is, staff they recruit are expected to follow the already-established mandate of the organization without a creative thought of their own. It is a huge concern that a fundamental understanding of an initiative at the basic level is not always nurtured through sensitization or training! Without such grounded understanding of why an initiative or scheme is necessary, it seems that non-compliance or poor implementation is inevitable.

Last night I attended the 2nd Dr. L. M. Singhvi Memorial Lecture by Justice Altamas Kabir on Sixty Years of the Indian Constitution and the Common Man. At first, I had a tricky time getting past the irony of discussing humility and the trials of the ‘common man’ with a panel being awarded with heavy polished statues and amongst an audience primarily dressed in fine silks and jewels. One speaker mentioned that the plight of the common man “is an issue that we can no longer ignore”. I know that my place here is still as an outsider, a development tourist. But that fact aside, I found this statement almost offensive to the ‘common man’ on which this night was supposed to be focused. How can the rich use this label, an ‘ignored issue’? The common man is the backbone of the country, the building blocks etc. Addressing the political division between the rich and the poor should not be an act of generosity or illumination by the privileged.

But when Justice Altamas Kabir of the Supreme Court bench began to speak, my cynicism melted and I felt gladdened instead. He described his exasperation at seeing endless queues at the government hospitals and the even worse provisions in rural areas. He spoke of the tragedy of rural-urban migration and the lacking presence of the State in providing services to the people who make up the majority of the country, the common man. He mentioned that services provided for profit do a better job than the government services that are supposed to be provided for the poor, implying that officials have a responsibility to their fellow citizens to eliminate the state’s inadequacies. It was almost strange to hear Justice Altamas Kabir speak with such sincerity, which may not be a fair thing to say. I suppose after having read so much about corruption and apathy, I couldn’t help it. Still, Justice Altamas Kabir provided an earnest reminder of the importance of taking initiative to serve, even asking the audience to face their own motivations by stating that “I don’t want to be political, but that is the reality”.

There appears to be a clear polarity in the understanding of poverty and how to address it. The division is unbelievable! I see how important it is to spread messages of people’s realities with frank sincerity, without accusations but with hope, like Judge Altamas Kabir did. I still don’t know in which end of the polarity I fall and am forced to challenge my own perceptions each day. But nevertheless, I will try to dissolve my current indignation and instead learn from these peacekeepers how to bridge the gap, wide as it may be.