A new CSR landscape ?

Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR) as a model of engagement between the private sector and the wider stakeholders in a society is well established and entrenched in many societies. But in the developing world, CSR is at various stages of development, right from its nascent stage to a very advanced stage; with the private firms working closely on issues such as education, healthcare - and making a substantial contribution to the society.

In the context of the global recession, and decreased development aid from richer countries to the poorer ones, it is estimated that there will be a greater role of the private sector in International development . I wonder how this will shift the CSR landscape ? Will it mean greater CSR initiatives, now that the Aid dollars will reduce from one government to another ?

In reading the latest report by Brookings Institute titled " Global Development Under Pressure", In addition to partnering more systematically with international
private actors, support for sustainable development in any developing country requires collaboration with local businesses and civil society organizations rather than just a narrow relationship with state institutions. Over the long term, it is these enduring elements of broader society that will continue to drive growth
and accountable governance".

The report goes on further to add :"The shift in the global development landscape requiring even greater linkages between public and private actors is not a sudden revelation within U.S. foreign policy circles. The United States has long been an international leader in this area".

I wonder how all of this will shift, and at what pace ? Will private players actually move in, and do "what is right" to create the right business environment so they too can operate well, or as Milton Friedman argued, stand back and say " Social responsibility is not our business".

De-constructing India-bashing

This post is a response to an article by Anand Giridharadas in the NY Times on 1 July 2011 titled "In Fight for Better India, Best to Look Within", an attempt at a provocative essay, which fails miserably. A dear friend was offended at this article, and I thought about this for a while before writing my own take on this important issue : that of India-bashing.

Well, for starters, it is not new. There have been as many India haters as there have been Indophiles. Among India-bashers, VS Naipaul, Khushwant Singh come to mind. And these are contemporary writers, who have written some deep, insightful stuff,though i dont agree with most of Naipaul's analysis.

Khushwant Singh, the veteran journalist and writer does it with style, class as well as good humor, which seems to be lacking in Giridhar's writing, which comes across as pompous, grand and obviously flaky.

Going back to Giridaradas's article, his opening is not only offensive, but also racist and bigoted. Sample this : " I have entered India from the sky five times over the past year. Those flights started in airports where norms, rules and authority carry weight — Hong Kong; Doha, Qatar; Newark, New Jersey; Frankfurt. But in waiting to board, I have come to a troubling realization: Airport workers around the world have learned the hard way that my people — Indians, resident and diasporic — cannot be boarded the way other humans are".

I am always suspect of anyone who uses hyperbole to draw attention. It is as if his/her ideas are not strong enough to make a case - and one has to rely on exaggeration and show of bravado or intellect to draw attention ? How else would he expect to enter India ? On an Elephant, if not on an Airplane ?

He further offers us more "insights" with such inane examples such as :" A heart-rending example involves ambulances. Several times in the past few years, I have been in traffic in a major Indian city and suddenly heard an ambulance behind. To watch it forge fitfully ahead is to observe thousands of drivers make the choice to ignore it. Some people genuinely cannot pull over. But many can. Mostly, they don’t. Not a small number of Indians must die each year thanks to that collective refusal to be bothered".

I am reminded of a comment by Joan Robinson, who taught Amartya Sen at Cambridge, who told him once:"whenever you make any generalization about India, the opposite is equally true".

For sure, this is his personal observation of a few people - and i can counter this with a few dozen examples from my 26 years in India, when the exact opposite has happened, when total strangers have risked their lives to save other strangers. My friends who have personally tended to wounded and hurt passengers - again total strangers, not to mention giving way to ambulances.

This is not to say that he is making up this issue or at worst imagining an India which does not exist.

Nor is my gripe with his American roots or NRI flaunting of "insights" that come from spending a summer consulting with a firm in Delhi and "understanding" the deep existential angst that only the author understands.

There are far too many journalists who fall into this trap of trying to de-construct India in a few months / years and offer the world solutions, as they seem fit.

Implicit is the assumption that there are no intelligent and sentient beings in India and we needed an American born person of Indian origin to return and civilise us.

I wonder if Giridhardas has even read anything about India. Is he familiar with Nehru, Tagore, Premchand ? Has he seen any Satyajit Ray films ? Has he worked with any non-profits or civil society workers who grapple with these issues on a daily basis ?

Does he even read newspapers ? Times of India, Economic Times, The Hindu ??

My educated guess is no. He hasn't really bothered to do his homework. His un-inspiring talk on Jon Stewart's Daily Show is a case in point . He makes a fool of himself when he says that the real challenge to the US is not from India or China's economy, but from their "cultures". Really ??
">

This guy needs some lessons in Macro-economy before he is allowed to open his mouth.

I wonder how the NY Times and other media allow such inane observations to pass off as "analysis".

Again, it may be because from a western perspective, he is credible because he is one of "them", who is diagnosing the problem from the "inside" ( being an Indian and American at the same time).

I believe this smacks not only of racism, but also bigotry and lazy journalism.

And it is about time someone protests this non-sense and tells Mr Giridharadas that he would be better off spending a few more years and perhaps tempering his own ego before he goes off on trips on Airplanes and landing in his country of origin - analysing problems to which he offers no solutions.


The more such people speak for India, the more he loses his credibility among the "real" Indians, those who struggle with the daily challenge of de-constructing India. Their fear and suspicion of the 2nd or 3rd generation Indians would be validated - who in many cases are rightly called ABCDs : American Born confused Desis.

He would do well by reading a bit before he writes more nonsense. Khushwant Singh may be a good teacher to follow. The grand old man of Indian writing has style, grace and humility. Something sorely lacking in this arrogant young punk from Ohio.

He would also do well to remember what Nirad Chaudhury said about India, that even "Exceptions in India run into millions".

Communications as an ongoing process – in the grant seeking process

A few weeks ago, I attended a workshop at the Foundation centre, (http://foundationcenter.org/newyork/) in New York city on Grant seeking basics. While the session was about broader aspects of seeking a grant, preparing for it and the modalities of how to do it effectively; what stuck with me was the notion of communications as an ongoing activity in the entire process.

The instructor mentioned that from her experience, the ones who successfully received grants were ones who had formed some form of a network with the foundation or grant-making body and had already prepped them about the work that they seek to do, and also had laid the foundation of this- in some shape or form.

This not only strengthened their case, but also made sure that their top of mind recall remained high.

Simple, isnt it ? Well, yes and no. Most of us are aware of this basic fact, but when either seeking a grant, applying to one or even servicing one, we tend to forget this fact. I am no veteran of grant-seeking, but i do see parallels from the world of client-servicing, which i am very familiar with. As a former Public Relations consultant, i am all too familiar with the process of acquiring a new client, nurturing them and sustaining this relationship.

It can be tedious, painful and at times nerve-racking. But all in all, if there is one thing that can help smoothen this it has got to be Communication.

Ongoing, consistent, clear, honest and transparent communication with all stake-holders ensures that you not only remain on the top of their minds, but also that your work is clearly recognised and valued for what it is. That was my biggest take-away from that talk.