Can Philanthropy help fix the refugee crisis?

Beyond the headlines, the noise and clamor that we hear about immigration is a rather simple question: How will we welcome the stranger? The one who is unknown, perhaps vulnerable?  The question of refugees is also ultimately about us, especially those living in countries where refugees come to. The U.S, Europe and the Gulf nations have come under intense scrutiny in the past few weeks and will continue to be questioned by media pundits and experts who pay attention to this issue. I believe that the way policy makers and politicians (and civil society) addresses these questions will ultimately define who ‘we’ are. It is as much a matter of self-definition, as it is about dealing with the problem ‘out there.’ Let me explain.

Photo credit : www.fleetfeetstuart.com
Photo credit : http://www.fleetfeetstuart.com

Robert Wuthnow, one of the most well-known Sociologist in the U.S. argues that the stories that we tell ourselves. For instance, he says that they narratives or the ‘American mythos’ often lead us to believe that we are more generous than we are. He adds ‘the deep meanings of these stories provide us with common ways of thinking about who we are. At the same time, they bias our perceptions. For instance, they encourage us to think that we are more religious than we really are. They result in ideas about how to escape from materialism and consumerism that are usually more wishful than effective.’ Wuthnow reminds us that since 1965, we have had over 22 million people enter the U.S. legally and about 8 million by other means. Consequently, this also has shaped the demographics of the country, bringing in more diversity. Our values regarding acceptance of people who are different from us have also changed. We are in a ‘New America’ of sorts – that is less white, less Protestant, more Hindu, more Muslim and more tolerant of these differences.

Speaking of civil society responses to the immigration issue, here is a recent write-up in the Wall Street Journal. In this piece, the author makes the claim that private, civil society responses to welcoming and taking care of immigrants has worked in the past. For about a decade, the State Department even allowed it in the U.S. but apparently the program was stopped due to lack of agreement on who should come. Also, I am assuming this changed after 9/11 and the scare of potential terrorists coming to the U.S. In my own personal experience, U.S. immigration is one of the hardest in the world and as a migrant from India, my own experience was quite difficult; even though I came through all the ‘proper’ channels, as an international student.

The WSJ article says that the delays in processing immigrants – and it can take upto 18 months for a refugee to get here involve paper work- for reasons that are entirely based on potential worse case scenarios, that the refugees are all potential terrorists. So, the framing of a refugee as a terrorist is in place and is extremely hard to combat, even if it is a three year old child. How can philanthropists overcome this framing, unless they spend enormous amount of money battling this policy framing? This is a question that the article does not address. Civil society has its limits, which are often defined by the state.

In Wuthnow’s view, the reason that we are unable to live to our promises is because our assumptions of who we are, often go unexamined. For instance, he argues that America is considered a ‘land of opportunities’ but at the same time, this myth goes unexamined. The stories we tell ourselves, about who we are he says ‘They are fundamentally about morality.’ He further points out that the very process of coming to the U.S . is one of renewal for those who come and also the society here. It has the potential to renew democracy, even.

If the process of immigration is about renewal and philanthropy is about individual values acting out in the public sphere, as Peter Frumkin argues, then there should be a role for philanthropists to address the refugee crisis. While there are pockets of groups in the U.S. and other countries, that are tackling the challenges, I would hazard a guess and say that current policies in place in EU and the U.S. restrict how much individuals and groups can participate in this process. Perhaps it is time to re-look at these policies and see if there is room for private intervention?

I will end with the question I started this article with: How we respond to the present crisis will be shaped by how we think of ourselves, as people. Also, equally importantly, this is a question of values and morality, as Wuthnow reminds us. It is not about pure rationality or logic.or this reason, I think philanthropy can have a huge impact on how refugees are rehabilitated and also find long-term opportunities. ACCESS, a MI based NGO, which has been working with recent immigrants for over 40 years offers an example of what can positively be accomplished. This is borrowing from Wuthnow’s insight that ultimately, many of our failures in solving social problems boil down to unexamined cultural assumptions. The assumption that is of interest to me is that governments should solve all of these problems. The second one is that the refugee is someone to be feared.  At the present moment, these two assumptions about how we treat the ‘stranger’ in our midst and our own philanthropic motives and its impact can shape what we end up doing, as a matter of policy.

“Where are you from” and other questions

In the U.S., ‘Where are you from’ can be a loaded question. It took me a while to realize this. It could range  from : a) genuine curiosity about your origins b) ignorance  about who you are  OR c) An arrogant assumption that you are an ‘outsider,’ even if you are more ‘native’ than the person who asked you this question. The question also is an exercise of power – especially when the question is posed to someone who seems ( apparently, at least) is member of an ethnic or racial minority group. Roger Shimomura’s talk at the National Portrait Gallery last night brought to fore this question. As someone who is interested in ethnic identity issues, I was curious to hear what Shimomura had to say.

Shimomura Crossing the Delaware. Photo credit : rshim.com
Shimomura Crossing the Delaware. Photo credit : rshim.com
photo credit : rshim.com
photo credit : rshim.com

Shimomura is an artist who spent his early childhood in a Japanese internment camp and this experience, more than any other seems to have shaped his thinking. As a consummate collector, he seems to have collected not only items – which he introduced us to – but also experiences, both pleasant and unpleasant. The paraphrenalia that he collected, ranging from salt and pepper shakers to miniature shoes and also mannequins, one of which adorned his bathroom all seemed to introduce us to the mind of an eccentric artist; who is not afraid of being ‘himself.’

Shimomura recounted several anecdotes but one stood out in my memory. This involved a stranger approaching him in Lawrence, Kansas and asking him ‘Where are you from,’ to which he replied ‘Seattle.’ Not to be undone by this innocuous answer, the stranger again asked him ‘No! That is not I meant, what I meant was, ‘Where are your parents from.” To this query, Shimomura replied ‘Seattle’ again, given that his parents were second generation Japanese-Americans and he was a ‘Naesae’ Japanese, a third-generation one. His grand-mother arrived to the U.S. in the beginning of the twentieth century, as a ‘picture’ bride and she, more than anyone seems to have instilled in him the need for documenting one’s identity and personal narrative. Speaking of the line of questioning of this stranger, Shimomura pointed out that no matter how long one lives in the U.S., sometimes, one is always  a stranger – particularly, if one is a minority – or Asian American in his case. This persistent ‘othering’ is a phenomenon that seems to be at the heart of his work.Whether it is kicking the mickey-mouse characters or donning the Superman suit, Shimomura’s art has it all.

All of his work seems to challenge our stereotypes of what it means to be an Asian, an American and also how one can break away from this ‘framing.’ While he did not talk much about how one can move away from such framing, that is imposed by others; he did allude to the exoticization of one’s identity and the need to challenge it. One example he offered is that of ‘Yellow Rat Bastard,‘ brand of clothing. This slang term was used during WWII to refer to the Japanese, at the height of suspicion about Japanese-Americans’ loyalty to America. This term has stuck and it is surprising that the most avid consumers of this brand of clothing in NYC are Japanese tourists, mused Shimomura. Ironic? Perhaps so, or is it just that racism, when made to appear ‘cool’ seems to take on life of its own.

One of the more subversive one of his paintings is titled ‘Shimomura crossing the Delaware,’ based on George Washington’s famous crossing the river. Speaking of the original painting of the founding father, Shimomora asked “How might American history have been different, if it was the Japanese who were founding fathers of the U.S. or if those accompanying Washington were Japanese?”.

Shimomora’s oeuvre seems to have a strong message of battling stereotypes. Whether it is the plays/ performances based on his grandmom’s diaries or his own art-work that is very strongly reminiscent of Andy Warhol – improvizational, eclectic and very pop culture inspired, this artist forces us to re-look at the images and stereotypes that we hold in our minds.

I came away with a few ideas and a better appreciation for the Japanese-American experience and also a more nuanced understanding of what identity really means. As an immigrant myself and also as the husband of a first-generation Mexican-American woman, ideas of ethnicity and identity are constantly making the rounds in my mind. Shimomora added a dash of color and style to these perspectives and I am glad we went to his talk. More importantly, I will perhaps stop asking ‘Where are you from,’ unless it is absolutely necessary. That question, as I learnt last night, carries more power than we realize.

The Anatomy of Arrogance: How to understand the Donald Trump phenomenon

Pride is one of the cardinal sins, but in today’s America it seems to have  become a virtue. If Donald Trump’s rhetoric is anything to go by, and the reaction he is getting from his ‘fans,’ then this ‘sin,’ seems to be the way to win elections. In the language of culture studies, this absolute belief in oneself and one’s values, to the exclusion of others has been called ‘expressive individualism,’ by Robert Bellah, the great American Sociologist.          Expressive individualism means that the primary value that needs to be satisfied or fulfilled is the ‘creative self within.’ This means that all other obligations to others need to be subordinated to this urge. One can easily see how this can run into problems, with others – the family, community – which one is part of.trump

The paradox is : How is such vitriol gaining followers and traction? Are the American voters so unsure of themselves that they will fall for the slightest show of confidence – even if it is based on arrogance of power and wealth – and no real substance?

Trump’s self-declared values – in hard work, entrepreneurship, leading from the front, winning at all costs etc. – make him believe in his own individualism much more than any obligation or duty to anyone else. This extreme manifestation of his personal values in the public space is causing a lot of angst. Combined with extreme arrogance and racism (some have called it xenophobia) we have a deadly cocktail, which seems to be gaining traction.

We may actually have to rely on some scholarship, a bit of conjecture and ultimately, the actions of Mr.Trump to understand the phenomenon that is manifest before us. It is shocking, to many Americans that he is leading the polls, according to this article on CNN. The article points out that “Trump secured 17% support, according to the Suffolk University/USA Today survey. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush garnered 14%, while the rest of the 2016 field remained in single digits.” This puts him ahead of many veteran politicians. During the interview, he argues that no one is listening to Republican leaders such as Lindsey Graham and it is reported that the top Republican brass is already concerned that Trump is causing damage to the party.

But the question still remains: Why is this mode of expression so vastly popular – if Donald Trump’s popularity is any indication that it is so? I would hazard a guess that this reflects the current mood in the U.S. – the country is very slowly recovering from a recession. The world is chaotic – each time one turns on the T.V. or social media – one is bombarded with bad news and gloom and doom scenarios- both domestically and internationally. The fact that lobbies are pushing their own agendas, to twist news to their advantage, is another issue. Very few people have the ability to sift through all the noise in media and make sense of what is actually ‘true.’ Besides, we live in an age where ‘truth’ is contested, and rightly so. But we seem to be living in an age, where there is so less certainty about anything. And amidst all this chaos, the American population is shown promise of a better future, stability and ‘security,’ the great myth that has come to dominate American public imagination.

Who wouldn’t want some more security, a better job and a president who seems to want to make America the ‘greatest country in the world.’ Trump is tapping into not just the insecurities that Americans face, but also the core of American exceptionalism, a fact that he openly embraces. He is also someone who represents corporate America and its suspicion of ‘big government.’ This goes well with the Tea Party, Libertarian and other constituents. So, in that sense, Mr.Trump is offering hope, but with a lot of ‘vitriol,’ as Jeb Bush characterized his rhetoric.

My own analysis of what will happen with Mr.Trump’s campaign: As much as he seems sure of himself and his campaign, I think the Trump campaign will burn out, before he reaches the final round of primaries. He is pissing off too many people in the party, to earn any credibility, even to be nominated as a candidate; much less become the President of the United States.

Should you give ‘Directly,’ for impact? Lessons from my mom’s charitable experiments

What is the best way to help people? Is it to let the market forces determine who should survive and who should sink, or should there be intervention from the state or other players? How should philanthropy be directed towards individuals and communities? These questions have neither clear-cut answers, nor a good way of being resolved. At least not anytime soon. While these questions come up in the context of discussion of both domestic welfare programs as well as international development, we often hear talk of ‘impact evaluation,’ and the need to see results.

photo credit : Give Directly
photo credit : Give Directly

So, how does one think of the ‘right ‘answer? Is it ‘Giving Directly,’ i.e., giving cash transfers to the poor, to let them decide what is best for them? Or is it a more targeted and  specific program – like school scholarships, loans to purchase cattle or agricultural equipment? I suggest that this debate is not so much about the right metrics or longer duration of measuring them, but rather about ‘charity’ and ‘philanthropy,’ and which one is more effective.

For the uninitiated, charity is any form of giving that aims to save or transform the individual and is short-term and driven by emotions or a ‘higher’ calling. Philanthropy, on the other hand, is a more ‘scientific,’ way of doing charity, which aims to change the social structures – education, healthcare or others – that make people poor. This ‘scientific’ movement emerged in the 19th century, with the mega-rich such as Rockefellers, Carnegie and Ford – who sought to use their enormous wealth to rectify some social ills. A similar thinking permeates the international development sector too, where there is an increasing demand for showing ‘results,’ for the money spent.

As those who study or practice International Development know, there is an almost obsessive urge on the part of organizations carrying out the ‘development,’ to prove that what they are doing is indeed working. Combined with this, there is also a huge amount of resistance to any form of international aid from certain political groups and ideologues in the West – the Republicans, for instance, who think that the U.S. is spending way too much on aid, than it should. There is an entire discourse of how countries should ‘help themselves,’ and not depend on the U.S. or others – whereas the U.S. spends about one percent of its annual budget on aid, globally. This too, serves as a ‘soft-power’ tool, rather than being wasteful. This helpful chart outlines how much the U.S. spent on aid in the year 2012.

So, American aid to the world is seen not so much as charity, but rather as ‘philanthropy,’ a scientific tool and a measured response to how the U.S. should be perceived by the world. Since WWII, as the only super power in the world, all eyes have been on the U.S., in terms of looking for how it would behave. With Marshall Plan, the U.S. set off a very successful model of development that has continued to be seen as a gold standard.

While there are other discourses of charity and philanthropy out there, that do not privilege or prefer ‘outcomes’ and ‘impact measurement,’ over other aspects of ‘why’ we give aid the meaning making processes that lie underneath these actions. Religious understandings of charity and philanthropy can be seen as the alternate to our obsessive quantification. While Give Directly has received a lot of praise for initial results and successes, critics point out that it is precisely that, the initial results from a trial experiment. Reality, they argue is far more complex and convoluted. And in this, they are partially, if not fully, right.

My (late) mother’s model of doing charity was surprisingly similar to that of Give directly. As a financially independent person (my mother worked as a high school teacher), she made many big and small decisions about money on her own – after taking care of her own family’s needs. This meant she identified the poor both within our extended family and also others, who came to her, for help. In her lifetime, I have seen my mother help at least four families in a substantial manner – to the extent that they are actually better off, in many ways., The kids are better educated, better fed and now, almost 20 or 25 years, after she started helping them, are in better jobs – because of their education or other opportunities – than they would have been otherwise. This, to me, is the power of giving directly. It works. But, with many caveats. Life is never as simple or linear as it seems!

In analyzing the effectiveness of giving directly, there is also the bigger problem of the ‘problematization of poverty,’ as Arturo Escobar has pointed out. This means that we tend to define, measure and position poverty in the third-world, sitting in the first world, not knowing and not fully appreciating how people understand poverty themselves, the strategies they use for survival and what means are available to them. This, I think is the bigger problem in this debate, as much as it is about charity and philanthropy. Until we find more details and more long-term results of what transpired with the families that Give Directly has helped, we must deal with the confusion that exists and the lack of ensuring clarity.

How to tell someone they are wrong

I got  into an argument with a friend just yesterday. The topic was U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East. While I do have strong ideas about this issue, so did my friend – who is a Veteran. We had a few strong exchanges and clarified our positions, in no uncertain terms. But after my friend said something along the lines of ‘You didn’t have to be so condescending,’ it occurred to me that I was  perhaps coming across as such, while not meaning to.

For those who know me, know that I tend to refer a few books in every ‘informed,’ conversation I have. It is an old habit and I believe it is better to base arguments in facts, opinions and ideas that have been well thought out, and often books have such reservoir of ideas. So, I make liberal use in referencing them. It helps that I enjoy reading and often have read a book that is at least tangentially related to any discussion at hand. Also, I realize that some people don’t take to this too kindly, thinking that either :

a. I am showing off that I have read these books

b. Pretending to know more than them

c. Being a pretentious SOB, just for the heck of it

In any case, it doesn’t help my cause. If my intention is to win an argument, then perhaps I had already won it. But the point of having informed discussions isn’t just winning arguments. It is also about genuinely reaching an understanding and helping the ‘other’ see one’s viewpoint. Towards this, I have often learnt that the best thing to do is to stop arguing.

In some cases, I have drawn back the aggressiveness and appealed to the person’s reason or higher intellect – assuming it exists.

When people are angry, defensive or plan excited, they don’t listen. And similar to yesterday’s experience, I have been in far too many situations where I have learnt that even if I win an argument, I may lose the person’s attention. So, better to tone down and try to reason, while keeping the other persons’ perspective in mind. IN other words, trying to be more empathetic.

So, that seems to be the lesson I learnt yesterday: The best way to tell someone they are wrong is not to tell them that. Rather, it is better to help them think through their position with more care and attention. For this, they must be empathetic to your viewpoint. For this to happen, you must tone down, relax and let them reach out to you, at their pace. Empathy is the name of the game.

I am still learning.

Ten Commandments for an International Relations Professional

I received an email from a relative in India, requesting me to speak with his niece, who is considering grad school in the U.S. She wants to specialize in International Relations. This is perhaps the fifth or so request I have received in the last year. So, I thought of writing a blog post for her and also fellow scholars/ learners who may be interested in issues of International Development/ Affairs.

Photo credit : http://international.ucla.edu/media/images/career-ek-1wz-23-nfo.jpg
Photo credit : http://international.ucla.edu/media/images/career-ek-1wz-23-nfo.jpg

As someone who graduated from the top Public Policy program in the U.S., I feel (slightly) qualified to talk about this topic. I think it had more to do with timing, luck and perhaps a few other factors, including my work experience; rather than sheer talent. Nevertheless, I will attempt to outline a few things for wannabe IR professionals. I believe I have done a few things right and feel confident in sharing what I have learnt, along with way. While these are not literal rules to follow, here are my ‘Ten Commandments,’ for an IR professional.  Here goes:

  1. Start with an end in mind – Why do you want to study what you want to study? This may seem counterintuitive to the whole philosophy of education, but in the case of an applied field such as IR/ Public Policy/ Development Studies, it is almost mandatory that you start with this in mind. If not, you will drift aimlessly. As much as you should ‘learn for the sake of learning,’ a professional degree such as International Relations/ Public Administration should be approached with a clearer focus. Have a vague ambition, at the least. Do you want to work for an International NGO/ the U.N./ Your government? Or pursue a Ph.D? What impact do you want to make in this world, through your work?

For instance, I wanted to work for the United Nations, before I came to Syracuse University. My goals have changed, since. But at least, I knew why I wanted to study at Maxwell School.

  1. International development is messy – You will quickly realize this, if you haven’t already. The whole ‘development’ talk can be very glamorized and ‘done up.’ You must read widely, intern during your course-work and also possibly try to spend some time in the country you see yourself working (if it isn’t you home country), to see the realities ‘on the ground.’
  2. It is not what it is made out to be – Related to the point above, you will also realize that development/ diplomacy/ administration of organizations is very different, once you start doing it. Skills that you think are important can become redundant and you may be called upon to use other skills that you have not developed too well. For instance, during my previous job as the Executive Director of a small NGO in Washington D.C., I realized quickly that managing people, their anxieties, concerns were equally important, as running the NGO itself. As an NGO that had undergone a crisis, both the donors and those who wanted to work with the organization had deep doubts. I had to address many such issues, before I could focus on performing my task. Watch Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, for a good laugh about this issue.
  3. Be careful about wanting to ‘change the world’ – A bit of humility will help. Look around the countries that the U.S. and E.U. have tried to develop – Iraq, Afghanistan can be two examples – to see the complications and challenges involved. Sometimes, the best of intentions can have extremely negative consequences.
  4. Be aware of the politics involved – As much as ‘technical’ skills are involved in the process of ‘development,’ and ‘diplomacy,’ the processes are deeply political. This is the nature of the game and it would be wise to be conscious of it.
  5. There are no free lunches – Nations, like individuals are motivated by incentives. Is it all about ‘Carrots and Sticks?’ On a lighter note, watch this.
  6. Read critical development studies – It is not all good news, throughout. Read critical theorists, they will expand your mind about what can (and often) does go wrong. But don’t let their cynicism stop you from pursuing your work. Encountering Development by Arturo Escobar is a great start.
  7. Be humble, about what is possible – Studying and working in the U.S. can make one feel that the U.S. is literally the center of the world. In some ways, it is. People in Washington D.C. do feel like it is the global capital. But this ‘American exceptionalism,’ is a myth, like many other myths. Learn some humility, along the way.
  8. Learn to network – People underestimate the value of knowing people. Network not to just ‘get a job,’ or schmooze, but to genuinely connect with people, who will help you: to think clearly, to collaborate, to work with and also to guide you. You can and must have a wide range of people, who you will reach out to, and who should be able to reach out to you for advice, help or guidance. Most people will help you, if it doesn’t cost them much. Also, genuinely help people when you can. All it takes to land a job is one good connection. Remember this.
  9. Don’t stop dreaming – Finally, never stop dreaming. Imagine a better world, both for yourself and for those who you ‘serve,’ whether it is an organization, national/ state government or even your community. Be aware that human agency and your own actions can change a lot – for the better or for the worse – and that ultimately, politicians, leaders are human: just like you and me. Even the president of the U.S. is human and makes mistakes. As one of my colleagues in Dubai used to say about celebrities: Their shit smells just as bad as mine.

Development: For whom and why?

Over the last two weeks, I have had a few interesting discussions on ‘development,’ both in the context of local community development and international development. One can see conflation of security discourses, humanitarian and related concerns in each of these debates.  The dominant narrative about ‘development,’ in the context of Asia and Africa seems to also stem from the need to ‘contain’ problems arising from lack of development. People are violent, anti-government etc. because they are poor, the theory goes. Only if we give them ‘goods,’ or wealth will they behave better, seems to be the governing logic. But is this true? Is poverty and lack of development really causing the ‘chaos’ that we see around us. Or is it ignorance, lack of dialogue or wrong geo-strategic decisions, by the powers that are involved – including the local actors?

While it is easy to brand someone we don’t agree with as ‘anti-national’ or ‘against our interest,’  I suggest that we must pay particular attention to the power dynamics involved on who gets to legitimize what sort of ‘development,’ a country needs and how it will be carried out. In the absence of this awareness, we may be led into arguments that are faulty at best.

Photo courtesy : wateraid.org
Photo courtesy : wateraid.org

A recent example of ‘anti-development’ rhetoric being used as a platform to shut down a civil society organization is the case of Green Peace in India. While the specifics of the case can be found here and here, the point at stake is the vision of what sort of ‘development,’ does the government of India want. While it is the right of every Indian to know and question the policies being formulated, it is a deeply anti-democratic measure to shut down a reputed NGO just because the government disagrees with its position. By this account, most (if not all) media outlets in India should be shut down, as they regularly print articles that are critical of the government. In fact, it is the job of civil society and media to hold elected officials accountable. This very crux of a pluralist democracy – which India is – by all means. Democratic pluralism demands that dissenting views be heard, incorporated in the planning processes. To want the goods of globalization and not want the criticism that comes from it, both from local and global organizations is not exactly an ‘open’ way to do business.

The context of international development also brings up questions of how ‘development’ is defined. Who are we ‘developing’ and why? What is at stake? Who gains and who loses and also, fundamentally; development at what cost?  These are some questions that need to be asked, suggests Bent Flyvbjerg (2001) speaking of the role of social scientists, in uncovering and understanding human action in a social context.

A recent conversation I was part of, involved an expert, who spoke of ‘fixing Africa,’ with his technical expertise. While to a trained social scientist / development expert, this may sound like the worst nightmare come true; in his mind, this idea of ‘fixing Africa’ was as natural as having one’s breakfast – you just do it because you can – there was absolutely no consciousness of the power dynamics involved, with the ‘American’ expert and the ‘poor, African,’ at the receiving end. The politics of what I just have pointed out notwithstanding, there are real power differentials here that need to be acknowledged. This often means that the ‘best solution,’ for the African context may end up not being what they actually need, but perhaps what the American or European (or Chinese) may think they need.  This is one big problem in the discourse of development. The one with the dollars often get to decide how the discourse of development is shaped.

Similar critiques of development have come from other scholars. Arturo Escobar (1995) places the discussion of development in his book Encountering Development, this in the context of the ‘Truman doctrine’ of the late 1940s and early 50s.  The ‘discovery’ of poverty and ‘lack’ of material goods in Africa and Asia was made then, which completely ignored the way that the natives understood community, frugality, he further points out. He argues that it is with the massive onslaught of marketization that led to the pauperization of people and eventual creation of massive levels of poverty.

This idea of ‘developing’ the world by infusing capital, industrializing the poorer countries and measuring their progress by the standards became the standard operating procedure, he argues. This ‘Orientalism, Africanism and Developmentalism,’ continues, unabated and relies mainly on the standards, metrics and systems devised as part of the discourse of creating a representation of the ‘underdeveloped’. At stake are issues of representation, autonomy of those who are at the receiving end of this development. (Escobar, 1995; Mitchell, 1988). While the critique of development that Escobar offers is valid in the context of the discourses of development, what it ignores are the local, indigenous formulations of how this development impacts the receivers of ‘aid.’

Flyvbjerg (1998) argues in his book Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice that we must pay special attention to power dynamics in the ‘rational’ planning processes. What passes for ‘scientific’ and ‘expert’ knowledge can often be deeply dogmatic and convoluted, that reinforces certain ideological ideas. This aspect of focusing on power dynamics, relations of how the parties being ‘developed’ and those doing the ‘development,’ need to be kept in mind simply because without this awareness; we cannot have a mature and critical look at ‘who gains and who loses.’  Intended development projects may end up causing more harm, than actual benefit.

So, are International NGOs working against India’s interest when they try to stop a mining project, or do all Western ‘experts,’ have Africa’s best interest , when they plan projects in Africa? I don’t think the answer to this is straight-forward. While donor relations normally dictate what gets done in a target country, I suggest, following scholars such as Escobar and others, which we need to radically re-think development. Asking some basic questions such as the ones outlined above may be a good start.

Critical questioning and thinking are the bedrocks of any democratic order, and I would argue that media, civil society organizations and active citizenry should be the ones ensuring that this function takes place, on a regular basis. In the absence of this, we would end up with massive levels of propaganda posing as actual knowledge, with media becoming the mouth-piece of those in power – both politically and other wise- and a plutocracy that serves only those in power.