Recently, an article from The Guardian titled “Prison would have been better,“ about Sunitha Krishnan's NGO Prajwala and her reply to the same has made a new buzz in the social sector. Like everything else, people have the privilege to take sides with either party. Some think it is a global conspiracy against anti trafficking warriors and some think that Sunitha Krishnan is guilty of not managing her shelter well. It may be worthwhile to recall that many shelter homes have been in news for all the wrong reasons. Many organizations have been blamed for many crimes and cruelty against their inmates. From Muzaffarpur shelter home to Dhenkanal shelter home case, it has given us enough reason to believe that shelters and the whole protection mechanism has some unidentified problem which is being ignored by the NGO sector as well as the Government.
The article and the reply from Sunitha, both have enough reason to be believed. Both are equally right and we can’t blame anyone. The real problem lies in the perception of things. What Sunitha is doing in her shelter home is nothing but an implementation of the policy of the Government and the Sector and on the other hand, what The Guardian’s article talks about, is the right of an individual. So there is a simple ideological conflict between Protectionism v/s Liberalisation. The Journalist must have a detailed chat with the Activists to learn about the idea behind their work and their approach.
Being the Founder of an NGO and an Activist, I have no hesitation to accept that the sector is going through an ideological crisis and is undergoing a learning process. This is as a result of the advent of professionalism and corporatization of the social service organizations. NGOs and government sponsored welfare schemes implemented by NGOs have very little accountability which gives them an open sky to fly. Simplification of problems and protectionism are major challenges in the sector. The sad part is that the capitalist society which doesn’t even think of protectionism in context of trade and other economic debates, promotes protectionism for civic rights; and the funny part is that people who work for protection often identify themselves as Right Activists. Factually, both are totally opposite to each other.
I have many personal experiences where I was advised to join the Academia by various donors because they thought I was complicating everything while presenting my cause before them. They want us to fix things in a log frame and work around it which actually leads to simplification.
When I was a young activist learning about the society, my mentor often criticised me saying that I'm simplifying the solution and he always insisted that every solution must be problematised to see other aspects of the solution. He often said that simplification is the enemy of a progressive society. He was right because no solution is permanent and long lasting. Every solution has its life and after some time it will become a problem. The NGO sector didn't learn this lesson.
The real challenge of anti trafficking NGOs is their approach. Most of the organisations work to protect women and children and none of them actually believe in liberation of the people in slavery. This is not only about NGOs or survivors of trafficking but it is also applicable in other areas. For instance, in a case where an autistic child was defamed and harassed by a private school, the child protection quasi judicial body child welfare committee preferred to ignore Medical recommendation believing that they are doing it in the best interest of the child. The Chairperson of the committee had a long experience in the social sector which gave him enough confidence and belief that he was right and his decision of ignoring medical advice as well as law and rules was right because he is revolutionary and only he can protect the child. Factually though, he is only harming the child and spoiling his life.
Protectionism is what Khap Panchayats do with an intention to protect their girls in the best interest of their lineage. Sometimes they kill love couples in the best interest of their family honor. They want to marry off their daughters and they want their daughters to be in safe conditions. They give bulk dowry to secure a respectable life for their daughters. But they don't ask them for their consent. Anti trafficking organizations are not different from them. Anti trafficking organizations offer a good life in their shelter home. Some staff members at times slap them for not brushing their teeth or for not taking bath or for refusing to dance. Anti trafficking organizations don't care about consent too. In 2011, I was planning a shelter home for survivors of trafficking and a meeting was called for it. One of the survivor leaders asked me if the shelter home would allow its inmates to have sex? Or if the shelter would allow visitors? Our answer was no and she condemned the idea of the shelter home which would imprison its inmates and wouldn't allow them to exercise their freedom. "Who decides that these girls don’t want to have sex?" She asked.
"A person has an equal right to be in love with anyone- man or woman. A person is free to choose their partner and make decisions which might lead them towards celebration or problem." These are a few ideas which indicate rights of a person and this very idea proves Khap Panchayats wrong and that no other person can decide anyone else’s fate. This is also applicable to NGOs. They can't decide anyone's fate. Their job is to provide assistance to the victim who made a decision and fell into a problem where no one was coming forward to support. Being an NGO, we have a very limited role. Being a Government sponsored scheme, we only have the role of assisting survivors in enabling them to take decisions for their future. They might make a wrong decision so we can advise them but we can't dictate them. Without dignity and positive measures, there is nothing like the best interest of anyone. People in distress are not bad or alien to the society. They are entrepreneurs and change-makers who took an extraordinary step and fell into trouble because the State and the Society was not mature enough to allow them to break the status quo.
The major problem of our sector is its angelic aura. We believe that everything that we do is pious and we do it with all conviction ignoring consent and what a survivor believes about freedom. NGOs have become implementing agencies and Activists have become a force that implement the law. We need to instead become a bridge between people, their aspirations and the state craft. Only a basic approach would help the NGO sector in gaining its credibility among the masses.
But why only NGOs, Corporates and other agencies who believe in liberalisation in context of trade, should believe in liberalisation in context of civic liberties else they are not going to be able to sustain their idea in trade and economic affairs. Once corporates and policy influencers will start thinking about liberalization for all, NGOs will follow course for funds.
