What We Stand For Is What We Stand On

writer: Vibhu Pandey

Activists voicing the issues that are tagged as "issues of the privileged", such as those advocating for the rights of LGBTQ are met with raised eyebrows from people across India. This reaction is rooted in the country's struggle with basic problems like hunger, poverty, and the availability of drinking water that concern millions. Against this backdrop, even fairly liberal individuals may find themselves pondering, "Have these first-world activists got their priorities sorted?"

The Individual's Cause

Our nationality, religious beliefs, and gender are sure part of our identity, but beyond these assigned tags, what really makes us who we are is our hardships. Each individual's path is distinct and so are their battles. The struggles that we go through forge our ideas to navigate this world and the ideals that we try to stand by. When these principles are tested by the prejudices in society, it incepts a rebellion within. Whether those injustices are personal, communal, or environmental, this small rebellion within eventually extrapolates to the social cause that we identify with. Wendell Berry captures this thought eloquently, "What I stand for is what I stand on". Since the cause one identifies with is deeply personal, dismissing certain social causes as less worthy can be disheartening. To analyze these challenges more concretely, we can examine a government policy that reflects the dilemma of causes at a group level.

The case of CSR

The Corporate Social Responsibility policy tries to formalize and regulate philanthropy by businesses. CSR mandates companies to earmark 2% of their profits towards social causes chosen from a limited list. Even if we just evaluate this policy at its face value, the policy has stirred considerable debate about the autonomy of organizations in selecting their causes. Critics argue that CSR leads to a box-ticking exercise rather than genuine social engagement. Moreover, the requisite to adhere to a predetermined list of 'valid causes' potentially marginalizes less 'popular' issues that may be equally pressing or closer to the stakeholders. Modeling a policy to govern philanthropy towards social issues dynamically isn't easy. Not a surprise that when brought to implementation CSR has some loopholes. The vagueness in this policy not only presents opportunities for corruption but more importantly reveals the challenges when enforcing philanthropy through predetermined causes.

Conclusion

As we reflect on the role of "first-world" activists in developing countries like India, it becomes evident that the criticism leveled at them for championing what is seen as "elite" causes overlooks the larger picture. India's vast diversity means that what might be considered a big achievement for one, say the first motorbike in a modest family might be trivial for others; similarly, an issue that can be niche in one context could be a pressing concern in another. Recognizing that India encompasses multiple realities within one geographical expanse is the first step toward acknowledging diverse issues. Pigeonholing what counts as a legitimate social cause based on our limited worldview not only marginalizes certain groups but also ignores the layered and complex nature of societal development. If the motive is to reduce the suffering of our populace, then we have to appreciate some causes even if we can't relate to them, embracing this fact is itself a selfless act.

Relevant Read - Mandatory CSR in India: A Bad Proposal