FANATIC MAFIAS AND IMAGE MERCHANTS

John Samuel


Muslims and Hindus have shared a culture of co-existence and assimilation. But reality is buried. The image that the cultural mafia market legitimizes and uses to subvert societies and cultures would have us believe that all Muslims are fundamentalists, all Christians are out to convert the world and all Hindus are fanatics.


What is Ganesha doing in the drawing room of a devout Muslim? How come Muslim women who pray to Allah five times a day are named Parvati, Laxmi, Gayatri or Devi? Is this a social aberration? No, it's the norm in thousands of Muslim households in Indonesia.

In one of several Muslim homes I visited during my trips to Indonesia, I was pleasantly surprised to find a copy of the Bhagvad Gita.

Back in Pune, I used to live near an important Muslim shrine -- of Sadal Baba. Every day I noticed that it's not just Muslim devotees who visit this shrine, but Hindus as well. The annual festival transcends the traditional boundaries of both religions. Likewise, in my village in Kerala I grew up on legends surrounding the ancient Syrian Christian church as much as legends about the Devi of the ancient local temple.

This is the reality. The reality of co-existence, reconciliation and assimilation. But increasingly such realities are being rendered almost invisible. What matters most is the image. An image that is constructed, marketed, legitimized and used to subvert society and culture. Cultural policing is a strategy used by most chauvinistic and fanatical elements across the world. We hear a lot of criticism about bulldozing market globalisation. But knee-jerk cultural reactions are equally dangerous and counterproductive, and yet this is not a phenomenon that is being discussed.

Bulldozing market capitalism and knee-jerk cultural relativism feed into each other in paradoxical ways. One significant aspect of the information and media revolution is the predominance of images in determining reality. There was a time when reality shaped the image. Reality found expression in innumerable creative ways and was transformed into powerful images and metaphors in poetry, plays, painting, art and architecture. Now the process seems to have been reversed. Images are increasingly shaping our sense and sensibilities. And images are being used to interpret and influence reality rather than the other way around. In the image-saturated streets of the globalised economies, poetry is dead and buried.

Markets thrive on images. Ironically, the construction and marketing of stereotypical images are the strategies that are used by emerging cultural mafias across the world. We call them cultural mafias because they use culture unethically and unscrupulously as a means of amassing wealth and power to subjugate peoples and society.

So when you hear the word `Islam', it is the image of the Taliban or fundamentalist mullhas that immediately comes to mind. Not images of the liberal, tolerant and indigenous Muslims of Indonesia, south asia and in different parts or the world. When one hears the word `Hindu nationalist', it is not the image of Vivekananda, Gandhi or Aurobindo that is summoned. It is the vandalism and the hooliganism of a minority of Hindu fanatics that comes to mind. The image of the Christian in India and other parts of South Asia is likewise slowly being constructed as someone with western loyalty, out to convert anybody and everybody.

These images are constructed over time to conceal reality and manipulate middle class opinion in a way that would suit the needs of the cultural mafia. The Islamic Taliban, the extreme right-wing
Christian fundamentalist, the Hindu fanatics and the ultra nationalist in Russia, Germany and Austria are manifestations of an emerging global mafia that seeks to subvert existing structures of power and legitimacy for their own ends.

The images are built around cultural stereotypes constructed around selective images from history and the conservative social spectrum. We all know that the majority of Muslims do not marry four times or proclaim divorce at the drop of a hat. We know there have been very tolerant Muslim rulers like Akbar and reformist leaders like Dara Shukoh. But the images that are thrust upon us are based on biased interpretations and selective image construction. Hence Saddam Hussain's image among many would be that of a courageous martyr; but according to others, he is synonymous with evil. Both images are based on the construction of stereotypes and sweeping generalizations. There are many Jews who are successful bankers but that does not mean all Jews are bankers or moneylenders.

Manipulative image construction can have very dangerous political consequences. The consequence of stereotyping is abundant in history -- the stereotyping of the Jews as exploiters in pre-Hitlerite Germany, the socio-political dissents as imperialist agents in the Soviet Union, the leftist sympathies as anti-American, and the stereotyping of intellectuals as anti-national and anti-poor during the Cultural Revolution in China.

The 20th century is witness to the fact that all stereotypes tend to be lies that lead to untold misery and wretched years filled with dead bodies and destruction. Though Hitler and Stalin had a different rhetoric and logic, at the end of the day there seemed to be little difference between the two. The ordinary people of Germany had a bitter taste of the consequences of such manipulative images and the people of Russia are still suffering the unintended byproduct of Stalinism.

The image-building industry is not, however, part of any grand conspiracy. It seems to emerge partly from the insecurity and paranoia of the middle classes in different countries, and partly from the tendency to present news and views as consumer products packaged with striking images and sensational coverage. Television thrives on images. Each channel uses image marketing to compete with the others. Thus, insignificant personalized images and celebrity trivia are often paraded as news!

When the marketing managers of established churches sell salvation like soap or fast food, they are basically creating and marketing images of salvation rather than spreading the real message. of love.Highly visible marketing without any real consequences create backlashes in the form of knee-jerk cultural reactions and cultural glorification. No wonder the prevalent image of the Christian is beginning to be that of the overzealous southern Baptist out to save and convert the dark continent of Asia. Not many people seem to know that there were thriving christen community in different parts of South Asia, before even Europe ever heard about Christ. The first Christian community in Kerala, in South India was believed to be initiated in AD 52 by St. Thomas. The first Mosque in Kerala was established by the Arab merchants few years after the death of the Prophet.

And yet the reality is that most Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhist and others are preoccupied with survival issues -- better food, shelter and social amenities. Every Christian is not a proselytising maniac any more than every Hindu is rabidly campaigning against Valentines day. Every Muslim is not a fundamentalist! It is the power-seeking minority that builds these stereotypical images and sells it through co-opted intellectuals ready to sell even their soul for a price.

The bulldozing tendency of the globalised market does create a cultural paranoia among the middle classes across the world. This paranoia, based on dominating images and symbols, creates social and political myths based on half-truths. The regressive and politically frustrated elements in each religious and cultural stream make use of the middle class paranoia by further reinforcing cultural stereotypes and myths. Such myths are by and large based on a glorification of the past and on shifting all the blame for socio-economic inadequacies on the immediate other. The media, which is more preoccupied with its market share than long-term social responsibility, feeds the social tension by piling on more and more sensational images for more and more buyers. This is how a critical mass of social acceptance is achieved for such stereotyping. The stereotyping of the image is aggressively marketed and then legitimized by intellectuals and academicians who give a veneer of intellectual sophistication to cultural mafias across the world. That is why the Nazis made use of the work of Neitzsche and Heidegger. That is why the erstwhile leftist intellectuals in India are increasingly turning saffron. That is why erstwhile progressive editors are writing articles that legitimise stereotyped images: there's a ministerial chair in their sights. The free-floating intellectuals and cultural activists are social parasites that cling to the power holders of the day. That is why they glorify cultural essentialism and extreme forms of cultural relativism.

We need to make a distinction between cultural self-reliance and cultural jingoism. Images of Valentines day are rooted in the logic of the globalised marketing of the entertainment, greetings card and fashion industries. It's all about unhindered profits. A knee-jerk reaction to marketing of these images of modern romance is not a solution to the bulldozing market logic. The same cultural mafia which is busy wooing multinational corporations and their markets on the one hand is on the other hand questioning everything under the sun presumably because it has a foreign (read western) origin. Instead of exposing the dangerous consequences of this politico-cultural trapeze act, our intellectual and media parasites busy themselves catching fish in these muddied waters.

Zhirinovsky in Russia, Osama bin Laden of Al-Qaeda and their counterparts in India are thriving because of short-term political consumerism and the emerging cultural paranoia. The response to bulldozing globalisation and knee-jerk cultural reaction should emerge out of new reform movement, locally and globally, that revitalizes the liberating, humanizing and eclectic streams of culture. A social, cultural and political reform based on real life experiences rather than marketed images and consumerist culture.

Culture is a double-edged sword. In the name of culture, women are denied justice, in the name of culture untouchability is being practiced, in the name of culture the black are seen as inferior and human rights are denied. The worst atrocities in the world are committed in the name of culture. There are vultures all over the world that thrive on the destructive elements of culture. The entire social and cultural practice of the world has evolved through mutual influence, assimilation and reinforcement. That is why a Muslim child in Indonesia knows more about the Ramayana than an Indian child who is forcefed a dose of our glorified cultural past every now and then. That is why the great Indian middle class is still bothered about its English accent. That is why the Indian Constitution is considered as one of the best in the world. That is why our politicians talk about cultural purity in a parliament building constructed by the English colonialist. That is why we are still talking about democracy on our television chat shows. Culture is not an island. It is a bridge that connects people, nations and humanity. Culture is a sense of belonging, not a denial of the other's belonging. That is why we have to shake off our drawing-room complacency to redeem culture from the cultural mafia. Do we need cultural policing to reinforce our heritage? Or do we need to build our own sense of self-respect and self-worth without being swept away by the market?
_____________

Volunteering: The art of going beyond the self


John Samuel


Volunteering is a distinct human characteristic. Human beings have a distinct ability to create, to communicate through evolved language, and to relate to each other with a set of basic values and principles. This distinct human creativity, communication and sense of community is what gives rise to art, science, literature, history and even politics. The history of social change is the history of how individuals and groups of individuals in different societies negotiated between the self and the other. Volunteering is a socio-psychological bridge connecting the self and the individual consciousness to the collective consciousness of the community. Volunteering is, on the one hand, an expression of the free will of an individual and on the other, an expression of a certain set of values imbibed from society -- values that enable an individual to locate herself or himself in relation to others.



The negotiation of the self with the other can happen at various levels: at the level of the individual, the self and other partners, the self and other members of the community, the self and nature, and the self and the supernatural. At a societal level, such negotiations of individuals or communities with others, or even one nation-state with another, can have implicit or explicit negotiations of power relationships. At the societal level, volunteering is a much more complex process, with ethical, cultural and political connotations. But volunteering as the art of going beyond the self is a key element in all such individual, social and political negotiations.

Volunteering could either be a conscious or unconscious act. Almost every human being unconsciously volunteers in some way almost every day. In one way or another, human beings try to help each other, because that is one of the social norms imbibed by everyone. Such unconscious acts of volunteering are a very crucial strand in the formation and survival of various processes of socio-cultural institutionalisation -- from family and kinship to diverse community formations. The conscious act of volunteering is often defined by a set of socially and culturally-evolved values. So when someone gives for charity or feeds the hungry, or helps an unknown person find her way, all these acts are defined by a set of socially evolved values.

In the most basic sense, the act of going beyond the self can be seen in the relationship between a mother and child, often the most unconditional human relationship. In one sense, it is a biological necessity because human babies need relatively more long-term care to survive. In the beginning, a mother may consider her child an extension of herself. However, in the course of time, as the sense of self of the child unfolds, this relationship becomes one of defining one's sense of belonging in relation to the other. One can find a link between the first evidence of a spiritual search for belonging and the early notion of the Mother Goddess and fertility cults in almost all early religious traditions. The idea of the Mother thus goes beyond the biological to a social, cultural and spiritual connectivity to the other. It is the fountainhead of a variety of relationships that serve as the umbilical cord between nature and humankind. That is how the notion of Mother Earth becomes part of our collective memory. And that is probably how and why volunteering came to be considered a human virtue.

The socio-psychological need of every human being for a sense of belonging in relation to the other forms the basis of volunteering. The need for a sense of belonging also arises from the need for emotional well-being and for a socio-cultural identity. This need also propels human beings to go beyond the self to reach out to people, nature and even the supernatural. For the quest for the other -- beyond the visible, beyond the physical -- is at the root of the spiritual urge. The spiritual urge represents the eternal quest of human beings for the ideal other. This unending and unfulfilled need of human beings to mould their sense of belonging to people, culture, nature and the divine is the mother of creativity, communication and community. Creativity, communication and communities happen only when there is a fundamental sense of volunteering among human beings. The spiritual urge and volunteering are two sides of the same coin; two sides of the search for the other, to derive a sense of belonging and meaning for oneself by going beyond the self. While the spiritual urge seeks the eternal, benevolent, omnipotent and omnipresent other, volunteering seeks out the other within one's own socio-cultural and ethical milieu. By volunteering, human beings seek to touch, feel and smell the other to derive a sense of meaning, belonging and identity in their own lives. Thus, in many ethical and religious traditions, spiritualism and volunteering are inherently related to each other.


Volunteering and voluntarism

Though often used interchangeably, there is a substantial and subtle difference between volunteering and voluntarism. Volunteering is a value-based and function-oriented human characteristic, and voluntarism is a relatively more institutionalised set of principles and practices to serve the people at large. While the intentions and impact of volunteering can differ from person to person, there is a constant basic element of going beyond oneself.. Voluntarism is an evolved social process institutionalised over a period of time through various religious, ethical and political traditions.

So while volunteering will always essentially be about going beyond the self, the character of voluntarism will keep changing in consonance with dominant ethical and ideological power relationships. That is why the sense, spirit and purpose of voluntarism among the members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevek Sangh (RSS) is different from that of the ultra-leftist groups. That is why there are different streams of voluntarism within the broad arena of social and political action and human development. Voluntarism as a social practice seems to be relevant only in relation to a socio-political perspective or ethical tradition. Voluntarism seems to be a corollary set of practices that derives its meaning from dominant worldviews and prevailing power relationships within society. Planned, organised and purposeful volunteering may give rise to a stream of voluntarism over a period of time. Volunteering thus precedes voluntarism. One could say that voluntarism is institutionalised volunteering. Voluntarism cannot be effective or meaningful without a strong undercurrent of volunteering. But volunteering can exist without voluntarism.

Voluntarism and power

The emergence of many social and political institutions can be traced to volunteering and voluntarism. In fact almost all religious movements and institutions began as movements of voluntarism. This is the case with most political organisations and institutions as well. At some point in history, voluntarism can get institutionalised beyond recognition. When the proletariat becomes the politbureau, voluntarism will be displaced by domineering power structures . While voluntarism is based on the need of human beings to go beyond themselves to build a sense of belonging in relation to the other, politics is shaped by the dominant power relationship that seeks to control the other The source of power in the case of volunteering comes from the notion of power within: the power within the self to go beyond the self and to influence one's life and environment. The source of power in voluntarism comes from the notion of power with: power with the other, power with people to change society at large. The source of power in dominant political structures emerges from the notion of power over: power over the other to control and to influence. The shift in the sources of power changes the character of socio-political negotiations.

Through a process of institutionalisation, the spirit of volunteering gets transformed into the practice of voluntarism and then eventually voluntarism itself is hyper-institutionalised into structures of political domination. In this process, power is morphed from a source of inspiration to a means of domination. Unless one understands the power dimension of voluntarism, one will fail to appreciate that all dominating political ideologies -- from fascism to Stalinism - began with political movements based on voluntarism. In this sense, voluntarism produced Gandhi as well as Martin Luther King. But one should not forget that the beginning of Hitler as well as Mussolini was based on organised voluntarism; a voluntarism that capitalised on the socio-political frustration of a generation. Thus voluntarism can either give rise to liberative political transitions or to oppressive political regimes. Voluntarism should not be merely seen as something which is done by a social worker in your neighbourhood . It is a powerful social vehicle that could become either a means for positive transition or oppressive political monopoly.

Historically one can see how voluntarism has oscillated like a pendulum between institutions of religion annd institutions of State, traversing various ethical patches. Hence theology and politics become two important reference points in the history of the institutionalisation of voluntarism. In a democracy, a political worker is a volunteer and political parties are supposed to function on the basis of voluntarism. However, over a period of time, the very identity of a volunteering political worker gets subsumed into the institutionalised voluntarism of political parties and eventually into the institutionalised structures of power. The same process occurs in the case of a priest who begins as a volunteer in the service of God. In this way, voluntarism can be seen as a bridge between the individual and society. It is a crucial transitional phase between internal spirituality and external power politics.

Voluntarism as social action

Social action is the most recognised and appreciated form of voluntarism. This is because, in the arena of social action, voluntarism is supposed to be driven by strong ethical currents rather than individual interests. This is also because social action in its best legacy forms counterveiling forces of power to other dominating power structures. Hence this tradition of voluntarism is seen as the spirit behind various social initiatives for charity, justice, human rights and social justice.

Within the broad arena of social action itself, one can see voluntarism based on a more spiritual sense of the act of going beyond the self. One can also see voluntarism as dissent against injustice and dominating power structures. So the spiritual as well as political streams of voluntarism are at work within the broader arena of social action.

There is a need to understand voluntarism in the context of two ongoing processes – the institutionalisation of social action, and individualistic voluntarism. When social action itself gets increasingly institutionalised, voluntarism often becomes a vehicle of legitimation, as opposed to voluntarism based on organised participation, expression of the free will of individuals, or collective vision. In times of institutionalised social action, the underlying voluntarism gets eroded, as social action itself becomes an agent of the State or market. This is one of the most important dangers that we need to watch out for if the real spirit of voluntarism as social action is to be revitalised.

Individualistic voluntarism is another important aspect of voluntarism as social action, particulary after the '70s. While there are a number of streams of voluntarism that facilitate social action, there is an increasing individualism that is fragmenting the potential of liberative social movements. This individualism is in a sense the reaction of a generation that protested against the dominating political ideologies and structures of the 1960s. There is a paradox in the very nature of the leadership within the arena of social action in India. This paradox arises from the fact that most of the leaders believe and preach a collective social transformative politics, but they operationalise that politics in the most individualistic manner. This means that issues and movements become increasingly associated with individuals, with the result that the arena of social action becomes fragmented, and the social force of voluntarism as social action is dissipated. Such individualistic voluntarism, along with the hyper-institutionalisation of social action, raises important questions about the validity and viability of the ongoing practice of voluntarism as social action. We need to rethink the future of voluntarism as social action. Otherwise the arena of social action itself will be appropriated by the market, State and reactionary political forces.
______________________________________________________________________________

Corporate Social Responsibility

John Samuel


We live in an age in which companies equivalent in wealth to countries call the shots and control much of the earth's resources. Because corporates intervene in so many areas of social life, they must be responsible towards society and the environment. In India as in the rest of the world there is a growing realisation that capital markets and corporations are, after all, created by society and must therefore serve it, not merely profit from it. And that consumers and citizens campaigns can make all the difference


New Perspectives on corporate social responsibility

Alacrity Housing Ltd is the market leader among apartment builders in Chennai. It has paid steady dividends to shareholders. And yet, it is a company that strictly adheres to laws and regulations and totally avoids dealing in black money, or paying bribes to get building sanctions and approvals. Alacrity is not the only exception. There is an increasing awareness about the need for, and efficacy of, corporate social responsibility and ethical business in India.

The story of Alacrity is indicative of an emerging shift in the way business is conceived and conducted. While some Indian corporate houses like Tata, Bajaj and Birla have done much by way of corporate philanthropy, the new shift in corporate governance goes beyond traditional corporate philanthropy.

Following globalisation, companies are no longer confined to a nation-state. One of the key characteristics of globalisation is the spread of the market and the change in the mode of production. The centralised mode of production has given way to a highly decentralised mode of production spread across the world.

In the last 20 years the role of multinational corporations in defining the markets and influencing the behavioural pattern of a large number of consumers has been tremendous. The rules of corporate governance have changed. And there has been a range of reactions to this change. On the one hand globalisation and liberalisation have provided a great opportunity for corporations to be globally competitive by expanding the production-base and market share. On the other hand, the same situation poses a great challenge to the sustainability and viability of such mega-business, particularly in the context of the emerging discontent against multinational corporations in different parts of the world. Labourers, marginalised consumers, environmental activists and social activists have protested against the unprecedented predominance of multinational corporations.



The ongoing revolution in communication technology and the effectiveness of knowledge-based economies has created a new model of business and corporate governance. A growing awareness about the need for ecological sustainability and the “New Economy’ framework with an unprecedented stress on communication and image merchandising has paved the way for a new generation of business leaders concerned about the responses of the community and the sustainability of the environment. It is in this context that we need to understand the new trends in corporate social responsibility.

There are two important perspectives that inform corporate social responsibility:

One, a business perspective that recognises the importance of ‘reputation capital’ for capturing and sustaining markets. Seen thus, corporate social responsibility is basically a new business strategy to reduce investment risks and maximise profits by taking all the key stake-holders into confidence. The proponents of this perspective often budget for corporate social responsibility as part of their advertising and social marketing initiatives.

The second is an eco-social perspective. The proponents of this perspective are the new generation of corporations and the new-economy entrepreneurs who created a tremendous amount of wealth in a relatively short span of time. They recognise the fact that social and environmental stability and sustainability are two important prerequisites for the sustainability of the market in the long run. They also recognise the fact that increasing poverty can lead to social and political instability. Such socio-political instability can be detrimental to business, which operates from a variety of socio-political and cultural backgrounds.

Seen from the eco-social perspective, corporate social responsibility is both a value and a strategy to ensure the sustainability of business. It is a value because it stresses the fact that business and markets are essentially aimed at the well-being of society. It is a strategy because it helps to reduce social tensions and facilitate markets.

For the new generation of corporate leaders, optimisation of profit is the key, rather than the maximisation of profit. Hence there is a shift from accountability to shareholders to accountability to stakeholders (including employees, consumers and the affected communities).

Apart from this, there is a third and growing perspective that shapes the new principles and practice of corporate social responsibility. This is a rights-based perspective on corporate governance.

This perspective stresses the fact that consumers, employees, affected communities and shareholders have a right to know about corporations and their business. Corporations are private initiatives, true, but increasingly they are becoming public institutions whose survival depends on the consumers who buy their products and shareholders who invest in their stocks. This particular perspective stresses accountability, transparency and social and environmental investment as the key aspects of corporate social responsibility.

There is a growing realisation in the USA and Western Europe that long-term business success can only be achieved by companies that recognise that the economy is an "open subsystem of the earth's ecosystem, which is finite, non-growing and materially closed”. (Herman E Daily in 'Sustainable Growth? No thank you' in The Case of the Global Economy, (Eds) Jerry Mander, Edward Goldsmith; Sierra Book Club; 1996).


The mid-’90s were the watershed years for the new consciousness in international corporate polity. This was the time when two prominent MNCs were compelled by ‘ethical market forces’ to re-orient their business attitudes.


In 1995, Shell dumped its Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea. Public agitation in Europe was so intense that in Germany sales fell by 70 per cent within a fortnight. Similarly, Nike, the shoe and apparel giant, ran aground thanks to a campaign against child labour and worker exploitation in many of the 700 factories across 40 countries where Nike worked with subcontractors. That prompted the company to set up a full-scale team under a Vice President - Corporate Responsibility in 1997.


WHY NOW?

The primary drive for ethical business and corporate social responsibility came from the USA and Europe in the ’80s and ’90s, from campaigns run by pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

Consumer boycotts, direct action, shareholder action, ethical shopping guides, ethical product labelling schemes, media campaigns and ethical competitors became increasingly effective in changing corporate perspectives.

In the early-’90s, Greenpeace commissioned a unit in eastern Germany to manufacture a CFC-free refrigerator. Within six months, mainstream manufacturers in Germany were manufacturing identical fridges.

In the post-war period the character and nature of business began to change in the western world, with proprietory firms taking on corporate structures. By 1998 there were 45 registered MNCs and the income of the top 10 MNCs was higher than the GDP of over 50 countries.

A new political paradigm had thus been established, with the market playing a very important role in everybody's life. There was a subtle shift from a State-centred polity to a market-centred polity. In such a polity, fluctuations in the market influence State policies, and it is markets that increasingly define a State’s boundaries of financial and social activity, particularly through the World Trade Organisation and powerful individual cartels and stock exchanges. A State’s national economy is increasingly dependant on the financial capital market and the consumer market.

But we are now on the threshold of the second phase of the globalised economy. Other value additions have intervened in the world market.

A recent opinion poll conducted on behalf of CSR Europe concluded that:
1. Over half of those surveyed felt that businesses do not pay enough attention to their social responsibilities.
2. Over one-quarter said that they had engaged in activities in the previous six months that either introduced ethics into actual consumer purchase decisions or else made such views known by other means.

In 1999 a Fleishman Hillard survey showed that 86 per cent of about 4,000 people aged 15 or older in Europe, expressed a preference for purchasing a product from a company “engaged in activities to improve society” (Consumers Demand Companies with a Conscience; Fleishman Hillard Europe, London).

In the UK, the Co-operative Bank report on ethical consumerism recently found that consumers expect more, as citizens, from business corporations.

In the US, the San Francisco-based Business for Social Responsibility has been working since 1992 to help companies sustain their commercial success ‘in ways that demonstrate respect for ethical values, people, communities and the environment’ and it already has 1,400 member companies, including American Express, AT&T, Dupont, Ford, General Motors, Johnson and Johnson and Levi Strauss, reports Rajni Bakshi ('Corporate Angels', The Hindu). “Even Wall Street has responded to this trend, with the Dow Jones launching a Sustainability Group Index (in October 1999). The SGI rates companies for their success in managing economic, environmental and social factors.”

Bakshi says that the early-’90s mantra to “maximise the medium-term earnings per share” has come under pressure from a wide range of stakeholders-employees, customers and the general public affected in any way by the company's functioning. For instance, in 1999 the share price of Monsanto, the American bio-technology MNC, nose-dived due to public protests about its genetically modified products.

What the consumer-citizen is saying is that since the corporate sector now controls so many of the earth's resources and because it intervenes in so many areas of social life, corporate entities must balance their right to grow with their responsibilities to society and to the environment. Because the financial capital market and business corporations are created by society and must, therefore, serve it: not merely profit from it.






Corporate responsibility: The typology

Though the concept of corporate social responsibility has only recently been formulated, there is a long history in both the East and West of a commitment to social philanthropy, in the belief that the creation of wealth is primarily geared for social good.

This aspect of ‘ethical business’ in modern times can be traced back to 19th-century philanthropists like Robert Owen and the various Quaker-owned businesses. The Quakers “ran successful businesses, made money because they offered honest products and treated their people honestly, gave honest value for money, put back more than they took and told no lies.” (Anita Roddick, KLM Herald magazine, August 1999).

In India, innovative philanthropic endeavours by the House of Tatas date back to its founder JN Tata. His descendants expanded the scope of their philanthropy, establishing various trusts and contributing to the creation of vital modern institutions, which went on to become leaders in their respective fields.

Traditional corporate philosophy is only one of the three broad areas in which business companies can, and should, discharge their social responsibility. These three areas are:
i. Traditional corporate philanthropy
ii. Corporate social responsibility, with a focus on sustainable development and attending to stakeholder priorities
iii. Ethical business

Traditional corporate philanthropy dates back to the 19th century and emerged out of a variety of factors, such as:
i. Concern for the welfare of the immediate members of the corporate body: the staff and employees, and their families.
ii. Innovative contributions by visionary business leaders in quest of personal satisfaction, who built up philanthropic institutions out of their individual shares,
iii. In part as a result of the desire to establish a strategic relationship with the State, or with society as such, some corporate bodies invest in the establishment of institutions that fulfil the specific requirements of the community,
iv. Through the establishment of trusts and foundations for tax benefits, which also support socially beneficial activities.

Corporate social responsibility is a qualitative metamorphosis of the traditional concept of corporate philanthropy. It acknowledges the debt that the corporation owes to the community within which it operates, as a stakeholder in corporate activity. It also defines the business corporation's partnership with social action groups in providing financial and other resources to support development plans, specially among disadvantaged communities.

In a traditional paradigm, most corporate bodies have come to view the concept of CSR as the extension of a financial input for a humanitarian cause. However, as Harish Srivastava and Shankar Venkateswaran point out, the contemporary context is more complex: A company that undertakes activities aimed at communities (be they philanthropic, social investment or commercial initiatives) but does not comply with business basics cannot be termed socially responsible. (The Business of Social Responsibility; Books for Change, Bangalore; 2000).

Ethical business is the more fundamental, emerging trend on the international scene. It focuses on specifics:

* how a business is conceptualised,
* how a business is operated,
* the notion of fair profit.

In an ethical business the essential thrust is on social values and business is conducted in consonance with broader social values and the stakeholders' long-term interests.

The new issue at hand is "how to reconnect the corporation to the social and
community concerns it was originally intended to serve?" (Jonathan Rowe, Reinventing the Corporation). Analyst Alan Reder shows, through documentation, that "marrying profits and humane, respectful management practices is no mere ideal". (In Pursuit of Principle and Profit: Business Success Through Social Responsibility).

In I991, the company Patagonia Garments sought replacement materials, dropped 30
per cent of its clothing line and planned for a restricted growth of its operations, because an environmental audit of its products found that all its garments, including cotton clothing, cause pollution. Yvon Chouinard, the company's founder and president, defended the principle of restricted growth, saying, "We also committed ourselves to a lifespan of a hundred years.
A company that intends to be around that long will live within its resources, care for its people, and do everything it can to satisfy its community of customers."

Body Shop, the environmentally alert cosmetics company, and Ben and Jerry's Homemade Ice-cream are two other world-famous examples of ethical business.


Social action and citizens campaigns

At the same time, points out Naomi Klein, author of No Logo (2000), "the triumph of economic globalisation has inspired a wave of techno-savvy investigative activists who are as globally minded as the corporations they track. This powerful form of activism reaches well beyond traditional trade unions."

The relevance of social action and campaign interventions stems from the very growth of global corporations and major paradigm shifts in the polity.
Traditionally, citizens were to define the boundaries of the State and the State in turn defined the boundaries of the market. A reverse pattern has now evolved: the market is increasingly defining the boundaries of the State’s operations. From being a mediator of proprietary interests, the State has been minimised into an arbitrator of proprietary disputes.

In the last 20 years, social action interventions, boycotts and citizen campaigns have, however, brought a new player to the global market.

Rob Harrison, co-editor of Ethical Consumer, UK, heard arms-trade manufacturers admit that "the four women who did 'criminal damage' to British Aerospace Hawk jets destined to help Indonesia's suppression of East Timor, achieved more in 10 minutes than 10 years of more conventional campaigning."

In the mid-’90s, a carefully orchestrated campaign by US church-based campaigners brought RJR Nabisco to its knees at its annual general meeting, almost forcing the MNC to split its food and tobacco divisions.

In the USA, and elsewhere, time seems to be running out for those who are content to maximise profits with minimal regard for the social, economic and environmental impact of their business, says Rajni Bakshi (The Hindu).

New forms of activism that are acting as a countervailing force to corporate brand domination and the diminution of public and private space are constantly emerging. One such is 'culture-jamming'. Culture-jamming baldly rejects the idea that marketing -- because it buys its way into our public spaces -- must be passively accepted as a one-way information flow.

So, adbusting (using the mainstream media itself to strike at dominant marketing messages and send out alternative messages) is the perfect tool. "In one simple deft move you slap the giant on its back. We use the momentum of the enemy," says Kalle Lasn, editor Adbusters magazine, Vancouver. For a growing number of young activists in the USA and Europe, adbusting is the appropriate tool with which to register disapproval of the multinational corporations that have "so aggressively stalked them as shoppers, and so unceremoniously dumped them as workers".

The Internet has rapidly become the tool of choice for spreading information about multinationals around the world. "For example, each day information about Nike flows freely via e-mail between the US National Labour Committee and Campaign for Labour Rights; the Dutch-based Clean Clothes Campaign; the Australian Fairwear Campaign and many others spread throughout the world.

In a September 1997 press release, Nike dismissed its critics as 'fringe groups’. But by March 1998 it was ready to treat Nike's online critics with more respect. It introduced yet another package of labour reforms and it admitted, "You make changes because it's the right thing to do. But obviously our actions have clearly been accelerated because of the World Wide Web." ('Sites for Sore Consumers', Washington Post, March 29, 1998).

The thing every company fears most "is becoming the target of a powerful single-issue campaign group. So, rather than wait for it to happen, managers are taking pre-emptive action in the form of 'environmental product' development and labelling, or engaging in such ideas as codes of conduct and social audits." (Rob Harrison, 'Consumers can make all the difference').

When this public resistance began taking shape in the western world in the mid-’90s, it seemed to be an activity precipitated by a group of protectionists. But, says Naomi Klein, as connections have formed across national lines, a different agenda has taken hold, one that embraces globalisation.

As a result of the successful campaigns, says Helio Mattar, and the ever-increasing solidarity between the media and NGOs throughout the world, changes have been felt in corporate attitude, allowing social responsibility to be directed towards non-traditional stakeholders.

"These new attitudes have been induced jointly by NGOs, which publicised the need for supportive social action, and the media, which inspired these positions and generated consumer awareness. Thus NGOs, the media and consumers formed a partnership that led to the introduction of environmental protection as part of the factors that determine company success. More recently, other corporate elements of social responsibility, such as labour practices -- and, more specifically, child labour -- underwent similar processes."


The corporate world adapts to changing forces

The major MNCs have, in part, reacted positively to the new attitudes which have redefined the paradigms of social values and have thus redefined the norms of business.

They had to take cognisance of the new forces in the consumer market, where the consumer-citizen is metamorphosing (albeit gradually in countries like India) into a citizen-consumer.

The major corporations have also realised that Cause Marketing, developmental partnerships and environmental concerns also make good business sense -- particularly in terms of recycling materials, employee satisfaction and morale, building up reputational capital and as a distinctive brand marketing tool.

The emergence and ascent of the e-economy post-1995, of an information-based technology with very little impact on the environment, and which projects a white-collar workforce and neo-entrepreneurship, brought forth a new corporate leadership which has a vision of its own, originating in many instances in morally-influenced middle class backgrounds.

Under pressure from multiple social forces, the State has formulated new consumer rights and environment conservation legislations. In India, for instance, we have the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Another significant influence was the worldwide recognition of the Japanese business norm, which emphasises the quality circle concept in place of the traditional assemblyline concept. Employee welfare is now seen to be linked to productivity and employee identity has assumed a stakeholder role.

International business now accepts the triple-bottomline concept:
i. The stakeholders in a business are not just the company's shareholders
ii. Sustainable development and economic sustainability
iii. Corporate profits to be analysed in conjunction with social prosperity.

The companies that excel today are those that restructure themselves as adaptive, resilient, creative and sustainable -- as living companies with the capacity to learn and change, said W K Shireman in his keynote address at the Asian Productivity Organisation's conference at Tokyo in April 2000.

These companies are increasing their profits by continuous innovation. They turn
waste into new products, leasing and remanufacturing billions of dollars of equipment that used to be thrown away, driving pollution and waste towards zero, and systematically eliminating products and even whole industries while continuing to provide the services that are actually wanted, said Shireman.

The successful corporations of the 21st century are therefore focusing on continuous improvement. One example is Hewlett Packard, which leads the world in the provision of office equipment while retaining the in-the-garage creative entrepreneurship of its founders.


New social partnerships

Rosabeth Moss Kanter notes in 'From Spare Change to Real Change: The Social Sector as a Beta Site for Business Innovation' (Harvard Business Review) that leading companies have discovered that working together with non-profit and government organisations to solve social problems can give them new insights and approaches to creating business opportunities as well. Solving community needs creates opportunities "to develop ideas and demonstrate business technologies, to find and serve new markets, and to solve longstanding business problems."

A recent study in the USA ‘Conversations with Disbelievers’ by John Weiser-S Zadek surveyed the evidence indicating when and how corporate social responsibility created benefits for corporations. John Weiser also mentions some examples of benefits cited in the areas of marketing, shareholder value, human resources and innovation:

1.London-based Diageo plc reported that between 1994 and 1998, 22 cause-related marketing projects helped it raise $600,000 for causes while increasing sales of tracked brands by 17 per cent.

ii. A recent study by Interbrand concluded that a full one-quarter of the world's total financial wealth is tied up in intangible assets such as reputation, brand equity, strategic positioning, alliances, knowledge and the like.

iii. Monsanto's experience in introducing genetically modified seeds dramatically illustrates the tremendous negative impact on stockholder value, brand equity, and reputation that can be caused when a company is perceived to be behaving in ways that are socially irresponsible.

iv. The National Leadership Council (Washington DC) analysed company-sponsored school-to-work programmes and found a positive return on investment in most of the companies studied. Programmes resulted in reduced recruitment costs, reduced training and supervision costs, reduced turnover, and higher productivity and promotion rates of school-to-work programme graduates.

Nike provides a compelling case in point, says Weiser. "Nike suffered significant damage to its brand and its sales when it was exposed as having poor labour standards in its supply chain. Similarly, it has benefited by embracing the cause of improving labour standards in the supply chain, and by publicising its efforts to certify compliance with labour standards throughout its supply chain."

The World Bank thinks that a positive balance of benefits and costs "can often best be achieved through partnerships that bring together, and create synergies in, the competencies of civil society and labour organisations, businesses, governments and international bodies," according to James D Wolfensohn.

The World Bank has, therefore, been exploring how these new types of partnerships can support the development process: "Our Business Partners for Development programme is just one example of our efforts. We are increasing our efforts to mainstream this way of working into our operations in many ways, bridging the traditional gaps between business and social interventions."

The UN Global Compact, created by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, also encourages partnerships between the business community and the United Nations that seek to incorporate, in organisational performance and markets, the Compact's nine principles covering human rights, labour standards and the environment (www.globalcompact.org).

As we begin the 21st century, observes Carol Cone, of Cone Inc, USA, in her essay 'Cause Branding in the 21st Century', "it is clear that the integration of social issues and business practices was not a passing fad of the 1990s, but rather the beginning of a fundamental shift in how the world's leading companies will use cause associations to position their organisations and brands for the future. Today's pioneers are turning a concern for causes into long-term brand equity."

Comprehensive social commitments at US companies such as The Home Depot, Tesco, Avon, Target and Timberland, "have become an integral part of conducting business and a core component of corporate reputation, brand personality and organisational identity. This is good news for corporations and non-profit organisations alike," notes Cone.

In 1993, the first Cone/Roper study captured America's enthusiasm for the evolving trend of cause marketing. By 1998, she says, cause marketing had become a standard and widely-accepted business practice.

According to the International Events Group, investment in cause programmes by US companies jumped more than 400 per cent from $125 million in 1990 to $545 million in 1998. Today, many of the world's largest companies are running comprehensive campaigns supported by substantial advertising and communications resources.

Today's pioneers realise that it is no longer about being just loosely associated with a cause or partnering with a non-profit organisation - it is now about integrating the concern and commitment for a cause into a core component of an organisation's business strategy.

Cone Inc believes that there are several factors driving the dramatic surge of Cause Branding today:

* Competition: marketeers today need innovative and compelling ways to build brand character,
* Women's and teens' buying power: More than other consumer groups, women and teens want to build relationships with the companies they shop at and the brands they buy,
* Consumers demand responsibility: For example, in the USA, students continue to boycott university apparel made at sweatshops,
* Internet: Companies are now more visible and more transparent,
* Protection: Companies like McDonalds's have built a goodwill bank over the years through community involvement, which protects them during rocky times.



The way forward

Corporate social responsibility offers a two-way street to companies, stimulating innovative business and technological initiatives which would open up new avenues for company operations and focus on the prospect of touching new market zones, on the one hand.

On the other hand, it would give a cleaner societal reputation and identity to
companies, involve the company and its employees in community
development and gain from being a participant in real-term national development.
Thereby providing opportunities for a longer lifespan to socially responsible companies.

A multiple discourse on the nature of corporate social responsibility and its diverse practices and possibilities is urgently needed in the country.
*We can no longer be blinkered about the earth's resources, or ignore the fact that the economy is constructed on the foundation of natural resources.
*Green-washing is an imperative priority in industrial and technological futures.
*The human rights perspective and the emergence of civil society governance
cannot be wished away. Corporations are meant to derive profits out of services they provide to consumer-citizens and must see themselves as public institutions.
*All public institutions need to be accountable to the people at large, specially in the context of health hazards, radiation, genetically modified food, the chemicalisation of the food processing industry and of agriculture.

As the MNCs are discovering, social concerns do, in turn, provide opportunities and benefits. If commerce prospers through partnership, so too will society as a whole.

Land to the Tiller:
Towards Socio-economic Rights

John Samuel


Right to land is a livelihood right. A comprehensive land reform is a step towards the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the most marginalised. It is not a coincidence of history that the Dalit and Adivasi communities constitute the majority of landless laborers. These very people who contribute to productivity and economic growth of India are among the poorest in the world. Unequitable distribution of land and the unabated alienation of tribal land are among the foremost causes of the vicious circle of poverty, rural-urban migration of the poor and the increasing violence. In the context of the new economic regime and opening up of the tribal areas for multinational corporations and development projects, the rural poor, particularly the Adivasi communities are being displaced from their land, livelihood and dignity.

The Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Acts were enacted during 1960s to further the directive principles of State policy. The Constitution of India provides in Article 39 (a, b &c) that the ownership and control of material resources are so distributed as best to serve the common good. A singular lack of political will, except in the case of Kerala and West Bengal, ensured that the very spirit of the Constitution and the policy proposal for land reforms were consistently undermined.

Despite the flourish of legislation and policy guidelines, there has been deliberate attempts by a nexus of bureauctrats and land elites to sabotage the very process of land reform in almost all states. Thus the land is concentrated in the upper strata and often upper castes of the society. In India,91% of employment is in the unorganized sector. Landless constitute a majority of the laborers in the unorganized sector. The new economic regime promised more employment opportunities and 'economic growth with justice'. However, the fact is that during the last ten years the tribal land alienation and displacement has substantially increased. The casualisation of labour has increased. As a result of migration of landless poor to the urban areas, urban poverty is on the increase. The skewed agricultural policy, lack of comprehensive price structuring, import liberalisation and the WTO-led trade regime have contributed towards the impending crisis of the entire agricultural sector. This will further strengthen the marginalisation of the landless poor.

It is in this context that the forgotten promises for Land Reforms acquire a sense of urgency. The two important steps towards a more equitable distribution are a time-bound programme for Land Reforms, and strong measures to effectively halt the process of land alienation of tribals. There is enough evidence to prove that countries with more equal land distribution experience higher rates of economic growth. The experience of China, Japan and South Korea clearly show that land reform can potentially increase agricultural productivity. There are four key factors that contribute to the increase in agricultural productivity resulting from land reform. First, smaller holdings generally outproduce larger ones. Second, on any given holding, a cultivator with ownership is far more likely to make long term capital and 'sweat equity' investments that improve and conserve the land than a cultivator with insecure tenure. Third, a cultivator with ownership is more likely to use more improved seeds, fertilizer etc. Finally, small scale , self-cultivated farms are more likely to substitute labour and on-farm inputs for hard-currency-intensive alternatives However, it should be noted that land reform will have to be supplemented by other measures like access to rural credit and agricultural support system that would enhance the viability of small land holdings.

A more equitable distribution of operational land holding will create more equitable pattern of demand. This would in turn enhance growth of rural market. Land reform can create a more empowered and confident section in the lower strata that would strengthen the political participation and substantive democracy.

Lack of land reforms has been one of the major causes of rural unrest. Many of the violent civil conflicts of this century have been due to unjust and unequal distribution of land. The increasing violence in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and parts of Madhya Pradesh clearly shows the correlation between violence and skewed pattern of land distributions. One of the reasons for the increasing atrocities against Dalit and Adivasi communities is land disputes and relatively stronger assertion of their rights by these communities. Hence, Land reform has important consequences for reducing political instability by eliminating the chances of violent conflict over the unjust land distributions.

Land distribution has a positive environmental impact. The land distribution decreased instances of landless peasants from cutting down and burning forests in search for a piece of land. Effective land reforms strengthen the livelihood of the poorest in the village and prevent millions from migrating to cities.

Thus measures for comprehensive land reforms and eradication of land alienation can provide potential opportunities for economic growth, reduction of poverty, ecological sustainability, political participation at the grassroots level, decreasing violent conflicts and the rural-urban migration.

Policy Implications:

The most effective policy strategies show that, given an opportunity, small landholders can produce their way out of poverty. Right to land, investment in rural and agricultural infrastructure, access to saving and credit institutions and protection from unfair completions are very important to make optimum impact of any reform measures. It is important to consider the following policy prioritisation for any effective Land Reform:


1. A time-bound action plan, not exceeding three years, to implement the Land Reform legislations in all the states of India. As a part of this action, all the excising land ceiling legislations should be reviewed to ensure that the surplus land goes to the landless. The present Land legislations should be reviewed to confer land rights to women. All the surplus land should be redistributed to the landless, particularly the Dalit and Adivasi Communities. There should be uniform limit of land ceiling in every state. The land for redistribution should be cultivable land.


2. All the Land Records should be systematised and computerized to avoid the manipulation of records.

3. The customary rights of tribals on forest land should be recognised.The land in possession of tribal communities, should be regularised within a period of two years.

4. There should be strict implementation of the Laws that prohibit the transfer of tribal lands to the non - tribals.


5. Instead of the proposed Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act (1894), a comprehensive draft Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, proposed by the National Campaign for People's Control over natural resources, should be considered.

6. The proposed amendment in the Vth schedule of the constitution by the present government would further marginalised the adivasi communities. Hence the proposal for the Amendment should scrapped.

7. A detailed action plan and strategy to support the small land holders, in terms of access to saving and credit institutions, agricultural infrastructure and measures to protect the price of the Agricultural products.

The Art Of Giving
A Socio-Historical Perspective

John Samuel

The art of giving is as old as human relationship and civilisation. Charity begins at home, the old Jewish saying, exemplifies some of the basic characteristics of ‘giving’ in the making of even the most primary relationship and kinship ties. The institutionalisation of giving is one of the most telling characteristics of almost all major civilisations and ethical traditions. A historical understanding of ‘giving’ shows the theological, ethical and socio-economic roots of the institution of giving. The vedic notion of daana, the Christian notion of charity, the Islamic doctrine of zakaat and the Greek idea of philanthropy and altruism point to the universal validity of ‘giving’ as a primary socio-religious need. Giving to the God and people became an inherent ingredient of religious or spiritual devotion and considered as a necessary human virtue. The growth and sustenance of the institution of giving can be better understood in the context socio-economic and political changes. The role ‘mutual aid’ in the making of human civilisation found expression in Darwin’s famous theory of ‘the law of mutual aid’. Anthropological and historical studies on gift making clearly show the important social and economic functions of ‘giving’ as a means of redistribution of social wealth or as a mode of exchanging goods in a pre-market economy.


The origins of ‘giving’ can be traced back to the very beginning of human evolution, right from the period of savagery. Studies by Darwin, Peter Kropotkin and Kesseler1 show that mutual aid formed an important aspect of the evolutionary process, for physical weakness of human beings can be counter-balanced only through their intellectual faculties and social qualities which lead them to give and receive aid from other men or women. Mutual aid form the basis of joint hunting expeditions or collective agricultural operation and provided some socio-economic security to the primitive communities. In almost all tribal cultures, the mutuality and reciprocity of aid form an important aspect of their communitarian living and collective spirit. In many tribal cultures people share the existing surplus food in the hope that they will get it back in the hour of need. In societies with a pastoral economy or shifting cultivation, gift making can be seen as an aspect of redistribution of communal wealth. Prior to the growth of personal property, the accumulation of the surplus was not meant for the benefit of an individual but in the interest of collectives. This give rise to the periodic distribution of wealth owned in common by the whole group. In a pastoral order, war was one of the chief sources of accumulating wealth. The distribution of the spoils of war among the community members by the Chieftain helped him to derive a sense power and authority within the community or tribal clan.

The sociological beginning of the institution gift making is best explained in the work of Marcel Mauss. His classic study, Essai sur le don (paris 1925) (translated as The Gift (1954) in English), shows that the exchange of gifts is the very means by which value can be taught and understood in a society; provoking people to productivity but at the same time inspiring a sense of an intangible presence in the things to be distributed. Mauss rightly pointed out that “spirit of gift exchanges is charecteristic of societies which have not yet reached the state of pure individual contract, the money market, sale proper and fixed prize”. In his sociological analysis of Poltatch, practised by Kwakiutul tribe in the North-West cost of America, the custom of an ostentatious distribution of gifts is linked to the social stratification and the perceived status or power one achieve by giving more within the community. The significance of Mauss study is that it treats the institution of gift making in totality. With considerable anthropological evidence he explain Poltatch as a ‘total’ phenomena with legal, religious, economic and social implications. Through Poltatch, the donor invested capital that gave him high status in the community. In a sense he ‘lent’ gifts to the community with the expectation that he would get back all the distributed items with interest at a future Poltatch. The distribution of gifts by a tribal chief acting as a host to the other chiefs and kins men has very strong political connotations. The traditional feast and distribution at Poltatch is almost like a squandering march, a direct challenge to those who are now obliged to repay with equal munificence or else endure a loss of prestige and power in the clan or tribe2. Such an exchange of gifts was not only an effective means asserting political power but also a mode of keeping goods in circulation in an economy devoid of the notion of money. One of the interesting aspect of a socially institutionalised form of aid is that ‘giving’ is never a one-way process. Though all gifts are supposed to be voluntary, disinterested and spontaneous, studies indicate that exchange of gifts are often motivated by societal obligation as well as self interest. This help us to get a sense of the underlying political economy of aid that continued right from the beginning of human civilisation to the highly institutionalised form of the contemporary international aid system.

The distributory function of gift making continued even in a commercially more advanced economy. In a stratified socio-economic order, the institutions of gift making also served as a sort of levelling mechanism. In the course of history, gift making in the form of charity and religious benefaction found to as an instrument of diverting some of the surpluses concentrated in the hands of very rich towards the marginalised sections. As it has been pointed out elsewhere3 “The economies of egalitarian societies are primarily organised through reciprocity; those of rank societies through redistribution, and those of stratified societies through market exchange”. In all these socio-economic formations the exchange of gift or mutual aid serve a social, political and ethical function. The historical studies by D.D. Kosambi, Romila Thaper and R. S. Sharma clearly stress the socio-economic functions of gift making as socio-religious institution. In his study of Rigveda, J. Gonda provides a sociological analysis through etymological discussions of the term ‘daana’ and explain the motives of giftmaking and its role in sustaining social relationship.


Religious and Ethical traditions

The terms such as charity, daana and zakaat have very clear theological and ethical connotations. All major religious traditions emphasise the predominant role of giving for a larger cause. The two important aspects of gift making in the religious context are : (a) gift giving is incorporated in variety of ways within the religious customs and sanctions that regulate social behaviour and (b) gift giving is an offering to deity or deities, an essential part of rituals and sacrifices. Both aspects of such gift giving signify the relationship and obligation between the God and human beings and the mutual relationship between human beings themselves.

The mutual relationship between within an society or community is perceived as an extension or reflection of the perennial relationship between the God and the devotees. The Ishopanishad puts it succinctly “Whatever in this world is HIS. Only those who have received, who has given”. The term Daana occurs repeatedly in the Rigveda and other vedic literature. In its broadest sense it means unilateral giftmaking. It denotes not only monetary endowment and gifts to monks and Brahmins, but also alms to beggars or needy travellers, the construction of vihaaras, alms halls rest-houses, wells and other works of public welfare. The importance of giving during the vedic period is evident in a verse of the Tattiriya Aaranyaka. “Everything rests on daana. Through it those who hates become friends”. Mamhati a synonym for daana is used in the Rigveda in the dual sense of “to give or to grow or increase”. One of the hyms from Rigveda show the element of expectations and reciprocity involved in the process of giving “Bounteous is he who gives unto the beggar, who comes to him in want of food and feeble. Success attends him in the shout of battle. He makes a friend of him in future trouble” (RV x.117). This idea finds greater clarity in the Dharmasaatra texts. Though during the vedic period daana was more or less confined to the occasions of big sacrifices, patronised by chieftains or Kings, later on in post Vedic period daana has become much more prevalent practise among the common people. The Buddhist and Jainist movement from the sixth century BC onwards gave rise to a large number of renounces and wandering mendicants who lived exclusively on alms. Such alms (bhikshaa) are described as daana in the early Paali and Sanskrit texts. There are extensive description about the typology and norms of daana in the early Buddhist literature. Daana is classified as dhammadaanam (gift of spiritual blessings) and aamisadaanam (gift of temporal blessings). In the process of codification of religious practices giftmaking became an obligatory religious practice. Manusmruti clearly ordains : “Let him (householder) without tiring always offer sacrifices and performs work of charity with faith”.

The motives for gift making is best explained in the ancient Sanskrit literature and Puranas. In the Mahabharata, Bhishma tells Yudhisthara “Indeed, I shall tell you , how gift should be made unto all the orders of men. From desire of merit, from desire of profits, from fear, from free choice and from pity gifts are made”. In the Buddhist and Jaina inscriptions, there are numerous indications about the motives of the donor The underlying motives of self interest and egotism behind gift making was sought to be reduced by lawgivers. Daana is classified in the Bhagavadgita into three comparable categories viz., rajasa tamasa and saattvika. While tamasa and rajasa categories imply relatively a high amount self interest, Saattvika daana imply more of self-less giving.

An important principle of Greek religion and social thought was that divinity is good and the cause of good. Neither God or man/woman can be really good without communicating goodness to others. The term charity is derived from the Latin caritas and can be traced back to the Greek charis. The Greek charis originally meant a gift or favour inspired the Charites (the three Graces), goddesses who personified not only physical attributes such as charm, grace and beauty but also kindness good-will and gratitude. In the ancient socio-religious practise of Greek, charity was perceived as a duty toward all “broken and humanity wherever found”. It was a moral and religious obligation. In the Greek as well a Christian religious tradition, charity has conceptually meant both possessive and self-less love as well as favour, grace, mercy, kindness, righteousness and liberality. The practical application of charity denotes the distribution of goods and service to the poor and the destitute.

The Christian notion of charity is greatly influenced by the Hebrew thought which itself was influenced by the Babylonian, Egyptian and other cultures of Near East. The Christian charity can be theologically understood better in relation to the Hebrew term aheb and the Greek agape. These terms theologically denote Divine Love; God’s Love for human beings and vice versa and love among human beings. Ones love for other people is a reflection of one’s love for God. The New Testament teaching stress that “love is of God ...and he who does not love does not know God; for God is Love” God’s love requires men love one another. This moral obligations arising from such theological and societal relationship can be seen as one of the motivating forces behind the institutionalised form of giftmaking. “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord and he will reward him for what he has done” (Proverb 19:17, The Bible). In the early Christian community surrendering one’s wealth to the community for equitable distribution was obligatory. Apart from general charity, the New Testament prescribes all believers to offer ten percent of income as a measure for gratitude for God


In the Islamic tradition charity include both voluntary offering (sadaqaat) and legally prescribed ones (zakaat) and good treatment of parents, orphans and the elderly. A summary of Islam’s moral code on charity is given in the Quraan’s seventeenth surah (23-39): “The Lord has decreed .....kindness to parents...Give the kinsman his due and the needy and the wayfarer....Come not near the wealth of the orphan”. As per the Islamic tradition, God is Omnipotent and human beings not only receive God’s mercy but also in danger of incurring his wrath. Hence a believer needs to serve God regularly by means good works and giftmaking.


One of the most important ethical underpinning of the act of giving is the principle of social justice and equality. The evidence from ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilisations indicate that charity in the sense of social justice was a predominant ethical principle. The reforms of King Urukagina (2400 BC) indicate that “he freed the inhabitants of Lagash from usury...hunger....The widow and orphans were no longer at the mercy of the powerful”. The ideals of giftmaking and charity were redefined from time to time in consonance with the socio-economic and political changes from time to time. Socio-political circumstances like human oppression and suffering paved way for reform movement that sought to redefine the basic religious and ethical principles and ideals. Thus with the advent of Buddhism and Jainism from 6th century onwards gave sought to redefine the concept of daana. In the ancient Egyptian tradition, the goddess Nanshe and the god Utu, the orphan’s mother and father, were the guarantors of justice, cared for the widow, sought out justice for the poorest and brought refugees shelter. Probably the first legislation on social justice was by the King Hammurabi (1750 BC) when he sought to eliminate the social inequity that had been perpetuated by the elites in the Babylonian society. An element social justice in the institutionalised form giftmaking was prevalent in the Greek as well as Hebrew tradition. The Old Testament God is a God of Justice. “If a man shuts his ear to the cry of poor he too will cry and not be answered. A gift given in secret sooths anger... when justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to the evil doers” (Proverb 21. 13-15 the Bible).

In the Greek tradition the Stoics gave great emphasis to the principle of social justice. The practice of philanthropia was accompanied by the ideal of social justice .The ideal of social justice was incorporated in the institutions of gift making partly because of ethical validity and to a large extent because of political strategy. The ethical principles are clearer in the Hebrew tradition. In Judaism, the highest form of charity is not to give alms but to help the poor rehabilitate themselves by lending them money, taking them into partnership or employing them. Charity or the act of giving was not supposed to undermine the dignity and self-respect of the recipient of gift .The strategic aspect of giftmaking, with social justice, is underscored by Aristotle as well as Kautilya. Aristotle maintained that prevalence of poverty can lead to the erosion of a democratic state and can form the basis of social revolts (Politics 6.3-4). Kautilya stressed the diplomatic function of daana for winning over the people in a newly occupied area. The strategic use of institution of giftmaking as political tool to diffuse social crisis was clear in many of the ancient Indian literature.

Historically the growth of the institutions of giftmaking is on the hand derived from the socio-religious ethos and on the other hand continuously remoulded by the prevailing socio-economic and political equations from time to time. There are number of Buddhist inscription indicating that the monastic caves were mostly patronised and liberally supported by merchants. The close connection between Karle caves and the merchant community is evident in Karle inscriptions. The growth of individualism and the institutionalised form of Philanthropy also seemed to be closely connected. The institutionalised form of gift making in the colonial era grew in close relation to the trade and process of colonilisation.

Though the basic teachings of almost all religious and ethical streams give great validity to the act of giving, one can find the underplay of power relations in almost all the traditions. While the act of giving is supposed to be a self-less act, almost all teachings emphasise the moral obligation by providing the hope that giving helps to gain more reward in the future, either from an all benevolent or Omnipotent God or from the future course of events. Charity has become almost like a means for exchanging material gifts for divine bounties. While theologically and ethically this is an effective persuasive factor, the formal institutions of almost all religious stream subverted this noble idea into a revenue earning mechanism. In the course of history, the vedic and upanishadic tradition of Daana has been subverted into a series of ritual practices and income generation for the priestly class. A formalised and politically powerful Church made it obligatory to pay for sustaining its institutions and political predominance. Particularly during the medieval period the formalised religious institutions extracted as much as they can in the name of God. It was after renaissance and the seventeenth century Enlightenment, some of the original motives and ethical streams of charity was reclaimed.


The present of international aid system seem to have assimilated both ethical as well as strategic aspect of giftmaking. The contemporary form of international aid system can be traced back to the Marshall plan in the fiftees to provide aid for the reconstruction of European nations in the aftermath of the second world war. The highly institutionalised aid system clearly reflect the tension between ‘daana or charity’ as an ethical ideal and the modern aid system as strategic political and economic tool. A socio-historical perspective of the aid system becomes important to rediscover the ethical spirit of giving in an increasingly dehumanised system of international aid.

Notes :
1. (a) Charlers Darwin - The Descent of Man
(b).Kessler - The Law of Mutual Aid
(c). Peter Krpotkin - Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution
2. Dretmeier - Kinship and Community in Early India
3. Serena Nanda - Cultural Anthropology Pg. 176