NOVEMBER 1997 · VOLUME 18 · NUMBER 11

---

I N T E R V I E W

---

Multinational Monitor: Why did you start the National Alliance of People's Movements?

Medha Patkar: The globalization/liberalization policies -- imposed by our own politicians, a handful of elites fulfilling the desires of the global powers -- are a very major fight that the natural resource-based communities, the simple-living human communities, the common people in India, must take up. The fight cannot be isolated, either sectorally or by project. We also feel that a wholistic view of life and an alternative development paradigm is something that can become a strength in such a major, long-term fight.

We thought that the organizations that are clearly opposed to social inequality, the organizations which are clearly opposed to liberalization/globalization policies and the organizations which have at least undertaken a search for alternatives -- technology as well as value frameworks -- could come together across sectors. Together, they have the potential of expressing the strength and perspective of the civil society as against the powerful state and corporations.

This National Alliance of People's Movements evolved out of many small networking processes. It has a national conveners' committee, and state level conveners' committees also.

In 1996, we had a national tour through 14 states and 56 locations. At the end of that, we held a huge conference at which we formulated our minimal structure, decided to take on Enron as a national struggle and reached many other decisions.

We have the Gandhian to Marxist strain of ideologies coming together. But not every group of each sector participates. Some women's organizations, for example, have the common perspective and a comprehensive viewpoint. Others do not.

Right now, more than 100 organizations have become official members. There are tribal organizations, some labor organizations, fish workers. But there are many [allied] organizations which have not formally become official members, so we are beginning a membership drive. There will be at least a a few hundred organizations. We have a highly acentralized decision making, not only decentralized from Delhi.

We have a major program in January where we will denounce globalization/liberalization policy completely -- for the corruption, distorted development planning, human rights violations, natural resource base destruction and widescale disparity it fosters. We will take a pledge for alternative paradigms, and an alternative planning process. This will be evolved around the right of the village communities to natural resources. That is one major plank. The village community will be the first unit of planning.

MM: How do you account for globalization's sudden impact in India, given India's history of being relatively economically protectionist?

Patkar: India's current so-called New Economic Policy [of economic liberalization] is not that new. The roots lie in the rejection of Gandhi's paradigm, and acceptance of Nehru's model of development, which was more or less western. The first minister of finance said that "without foreign investment there will no future." And while promotion of a mixed economy was official policy, in reality the public sector and public planning became increasingly influenced by the corporate sector. Also, the way of life, which is at the crux of the development paradigm, was industrialization- and urbanization-based. The whole enthusiasm to build a new state was very dominating, and the civil society was suppressed.

In the process, a large, silent majority that does not have monetary capital but two other kinds of capital -- natural resources and human resources -- was undermined and considered "backward." Planning proceeded in this context. In this way of thinking, whether or not each village community has drinking water does not matter -- but it should have a road for the armed forces and market to reach it. Things were not planned around minimum need fulfillment agenda.

Of course, centralization within India has always helped the state, in whatever form it has, as well as those who directly benefit: multinationals through the Indian rich, as well as the economic and political elite, including the corporate sector. Through state intervention in the name of public planning, other expressions and viable alternatives -- these "alternatives" were really the mainstream, and still are today; 60 to 70 percent of the population lives on the natural resources -- were marginalized and deprived of their natural resources.

So we have seen the forces of "modernization" and their strength. But we have also seen the strength of the simple living society that remains even today. They are not really the beggars at the door of even local government. Someone who has the picture of the urban Indian may have a different impression, but even today people value their natural resources and human resources.

It is very urgent to save the seed that is there, through struggles and reconstructive work. It really is reconstructive, because many things need to be negated, and then some things to be built.

MM: But there has been a shift in policy in the last five or seven years. What accounts for that?

Patkar: The political elite, a small spectrum of the population, has joined hands with the global powers, the World Bank, IMF and the multinationals -- who are the cause and reason both. Together, working especially through the media, they have been able to create a kind of a consumer class and, more importantly, to spread the whole consumerist ideology. This helps them court increasing sections of the population, or at least make a dent in every section, including the downtrodden sections. That also we must accept. When I say there is a seed to be saved, I don't deny the fact that [western consumptionist values] have reached almost every single village and block.

And, at the same time, there is no drinking water in many places. One of our slogans is: "Not Pepsi, But Water."

It has also been important that, while voices of protest are raised when the immediate impact of globalization/liberalization is felt -- whether by women, hawkers, small artisans, etc. -- they are not raised through a strategy of powerful alliance. If that had happened when the GATT process was on, I'm sure we would have had a different impact.

If we devote two years to this process of alliance, I think we can create an image of people's politics. That would not immediately change things forever. But it would begin to set right the relation between state and civil society, which needs to be completely overhauled, even if the state doesn't wither away. Building the alliance should be our agenda for a few years. We should not immediately say we need to join a party, and defer to its decisions.

MM: What are some of the key principles of the new economic arrangement that the National Alliance of People's Movements is calling for?

Patkar: We see real democracy as coming only from an acentralized system. Otherwise there may be fora and platforms and structures and procedures, but still it is not really democracy.

Democracy matters to us not really as a formal government, but as a search for totally new forms of political consciousness.

This kind of democracy is possible only if the primary community is considered to be, or becomes, the first unit of planning -- planning relating to resources, value frameworks and technology -- and with all goals set in this context.

If the value is self-reliance, then one has to plan a very different kind of society -- something which is beyond sustainable, something that really brings out the energies within the human society. This basic source of every human action needs to be really recognized and given the first primary place. The basic faith in human beings is at the root of this whole thinking and vision.

Another thing is equity and justice. If equity and justice is going to be the goal and the value, then we have to see that minimum needs fulfillment is the first priority. What is minimum and optimum can be debated, but categorically, that is a value. It is not there in the state planning in all of the countries of the world today.

We need to start with the smallest unit of planning, and with the principle of subsidiarity -- which means that ever wider outer circles play a lesser and lesser role in the lives of the individuals and the communities at the primary level. In legal terms this should mean a right to the resources. But it is not something to have in a land title and something that would give you the right; it has to be asserted, and felt. This new kind of planning will begin only where civil society really asserts that right.

We see this different kind of development planning process as one that would necessarily redefine development, and that is what we hope for. So people will not say, "Even if we do not get drinking water, it is OK, we want some outsider to bring the drink to us." People will not say, "We want a TV; if we don't get roti, it is OK."

There will be some place for money and market. Humans and society have evolved those. But they should not be dominating of humans and the environment and natural resources, and certainly not work against the values of equity and justice. Achieving that state of affairs requires the least intervention of market.

That may mean less variety, but more creativity and the variety that goes with that. Today's kind of variety is altogether different; it is vulgar, when faced with inequality.

We don't see this vision as one that will bring desperation and squalor and poverty. It will be more prosperous.

Power to people is the basic agenda.

MM: Why did the National Alliance of People's Movements decide to make the Enron campaign a national struggle?

Patkar: At first, all of the out-of-power parties were opposed to Enron [see "Enron Deal Blows a Fuse," Multinational Monitor, July/August 1995]. Then the rightist parties came to power.

These rightist parties went into a whole exercise of "review" of the project, but under pressure so they finally cancelled the project. After the cancelation, the local and outside opponents celebrated.

There had been outside opposition, but basically it was the local organizations, and the local trade unions (because once Enron came in the members of the Electricity Board trade union would slowly but steadily lose their jobs) who led the opposition.

But then there was rebargaining. The BJP [the rightist party in power] reached a "compromise" that would let Enron back in.

All of the opposition parties except Congress continue to oppose Enron and support the people, but they were not in the field. They are Bombay-based opposition. After the "compromise," there were fewer mass actions than before the elections, though the people continued to take up some protests.

Local activists approached us and said we need support from people's movements. We -- national organizations, especially the National Alliance of People's Movements -- felt that we must not allow the local organizations to lose this battle. It is symbolic and important. That is how the National Alliance of People's Movements decided to make this a national struggle.

MM: What has happened since the National Alliance of People's Movements decided to make Enron a national campaign?

Patkar: Since March 1996 onwards, we have worked with the local leadership on everything required [for a campaign]: moving from village to village, hamlet to hamlet, mobilizing public meetings and discussions, conducting leadership training camps, preparing and distributing literature, supporting actions in many states.

On January 30, 1997, there was a mass agitation, a satyagraha. (A satyagraha is a Gandhian way of protest where you take to yourself and, even if tortured, do not violently resist. It can have different forms within that framework.) Thousands of us were arrested. Some of us were really beaten up. Some of us who were to lead the group in different places were not allowed to reach the group. We were brought together, marched to the court and then we were finally released unconditionally [see "Enron's Abuse of Power," Multinational Monitor, September 1997].

MM: An Amnesty International report on the incident was notable for emphasizing that state force was being used on behalf of private corporate power.

Patkar: We can fight the government much easier than the companies, especially the multinationals. The multinationals have enormous money power. They can also purchase security.

In India, any local group can hire police -- even a private group can hire police. This creates a very odd situation. The company pays the particular constable and the inspectors and so on; then they stand in uniform as the state police force, but they are really the company's force.

There was one situation where the head of the police was sitting in an Enron helicopter while we were being arrested on the ground.

Many of us who had been involved in the Narmada protests already understood that the state is supporting the private companies to such an extent that you cannot really call them private.

MM: The January repression led to stepped up protests?

Patkar: Yes. The people outside of the area affected by Enron joined. So it became a wider organization.

After the January satyagraha, the local and national organizations decided to have a massive campaign, with all national organizations and state-level organizations participating. Trade unions also decided to join.

People came from a number of states, and every day a new batch courted arrest. There was some novel element in each action.

Each batch was treated very badly by the police, and sent to jail for 10 to 15 days, for no reason. Generally, they should have been released the same day or the next day at the most.

My batch was on May 15. I went with 300 or 400 women. We were very badly treated. I was pulled very badly by my hair, and for 10 minutes afterwards I couldn't speak. The police were pulling all of the women's hair and using molestation -- the male police frequently use molestation as a tactic now.

We were sent to jail and then, later, brought to court and sentenced to eight days punishment. Once in the court, we said we were not leaving the court premises. We just fired the judge and sat there.

Then the punishment was released to two days. In total, we were in for eight days.

By the time we got out, there was massive protest again. When my batch came out of jail, people had prepared for a long march. One hundred twenty people, mostly women, decided to go from district to district.

In the third district we entered, there was a lot of support at the public meetings; hundreds of people attended meetings that we addressed at midnight and very odd times. Then they brought a prohibitionary order against me. We said to let the others go, but the police refused. So we all went into a bus to Bombay, where we had a meeting scheduled with the prime minister.

But the bus was taken to a police station. The police entered and we were beaten to the best of their ability. They slapped us on the face for 10 to 15 minutes, tore our clothes, dumped us on the floor and then lifted us by necks.

The next evening, we were released.

This is an example of the human rights violations that now go on. This is bound to happen [in the fights against multinationals].