[news] Divisions and missed opportunities in Bombay

[ron]

-------- Original Message --------
From: Oliver de Marcellus <elviejo at greenmail.ch>

Divisions and missed opportunities in Bombay

I generally see the positive side of things, but if we are to advance, it
is also necessary to recognise errors. Whatever its positive aspects (which
other reports have amply developed),  the WSF in India was not the great
step forward, the grand rendezvous with the asian movements, that it should
have been. And like a bicycle (or WTO), a movement that doesn't advance is
in danger of falling on its face.
This was not the impression of a friend who had (unlike me) attended the
WSF in Porto Allegre. He felt that the general discourse was more radical,
an impression that probably depends on the particular activities attended.
He also found that the atmosphere in the forum, with its constant
processions of indian demonstrators marching around the grounds, was more
popular than the more european style of Porto Alegre.
Knowing a little about the popular movements of India, I had a very
different impression. Whereas the MST of Brazil and the assembly of popular
movements apparently managed to win (after some struggle) a significant
political space in the previous forums, the most important indian movements
fighting globalisation refused to participate in a WSF that they considered
hopelessly controlled by indian NGOs having no real perspective of struggle.
The national federation of farmers' organisations, no doubt the world's
most powerful single force against WTO ( as the Indian government's
position in Doha and Cancun showed), other important peasant movements of
Asia ( Philippines and Nepal), a large part of the National Association of
Peoples' Movements (NAPM), such as the National (and World) Fishworkers
Forum and the National Association of landless and agricultural workers,
not to mention all the maoist organisations (very significant in India and
Asia) were all excluded or excluded themselves from WSF, and held various
parallel events that went relatively unnoticed by western participants.
Whatever the quality of the foreign participants, the participants of the
host country have a decisive influence in such forums. There is no doubt
that if all these organisations had participated, the WSF would have
shifted very clearly further left, since all of them (whatever their
important differences) are radically anti-capitalist. How was such an
opportunity lost ?
Responsibility seems quite shared to me.
Certainly, the principal culprits (and those who had everything to gain
from the division) were the indian NGOs organising the WSF. NGOs and
popular movements have difficult relations everywhere, but in Indian the
conflict is particularly strong. One must realise that the huge indian
peasant movements, counting their membership by the millions and mobilising
regularly by the tens or hundreds of thousands, do all this with
exclusively volontary activism and no subsidies from anyone. They are
understandably suspicious of NGOs, funded from abroad, which -while
offering comfortable salaries to their management - have an often rather
paternalistic, " missionary " attitude, when they are not more or less
active agents of capitalist " development ". WWF India, for example, was
the instigator of a scandalous law prohibiting all human presence in
national parks, parks which happen to have been the lands and livelihoods
of the indigenous Adhivasi peoples since before history. A law of "
enclosure " which of course leaves the way open for the lumber companies,
bio-pirates, etc. Exactly, the same scenario being played out against the
Zapatistas in Chiapas and in other parts. According to a very credible
source in NAPM, some of the NGOs in the WSF are actively involved in that
sort of " development ". More generally, the indian movements point out
that 13% of all World Bank " aid " for India is channelled through local
NGOs, including ones in the WSF organising committee, and for them " who
pays the piper, calls the tune ".
Certainly, the introductory text to the WSF definitely gave the impression
that its authors were astonishingly ignorant concerning the
anti-globalisation struggle. For them it was " a process that started in
Seattle, continuing in Prague, Genoa and Porto Alegre ", coming finally to
Asia ! How could any indian organisation have accepted such a totally
eurocentric piece of revisionism ? Without even making the links with the
whole anti-colonial struggle, the anti-IMF struggles of the eighties or the
mobilisation of farmers' movements (particularly in India) against the
foundation of the WTO in 1995, the current anti-globalisation movement was
clearly inspired principally by the Zapatistas and the indian farmers, who
came to Europe to propose it. Where were these people when 280, 000
peasants demonstrated in Hyderabad in 1998, during the first Global Day of
Action against WTO, when Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets where dismantled or
during the Cremate Monsanto campaigns against GMOs that so inspired the
western activists before Seattle ? Playing cricket ? Or is this ignorance
intentional ?
However, some blame also goes to the indian popular movements. If they had
presented a united front they could have dictated their terms to the NGOs,
who could not have staged a credible WSF without some of them - or done
something much better outside. But they were divided, and divided were
diddled. Apparently, they managed to win over one or two authentic figures,
well known abroad, such as Medha Patkar of the Narmada Dam struggle by
making some concessions (notably refusing the funding from the Ford
Foundation that had subsidised the previous forums). Then they could afford
to ignore the rest.
Vijay Jawandhia, leader of the farmers' movement in the state of
Maharashtra (of which Bombay is the capital) had a key interest in the WSF,
since he hoped to use the event to mobilise and strengthen his movement. He
is also a tolerant man, much more prone to linking than to sectarism. He
was the only leader of the national farmers coordination who accepted to go
into the WSF. But he told me, disgusted, that all his propositions were
rejected by the organising committee.
And indeed the WSF avoided any links with popular mobilisations of the
region during the forum. On the 19th there was a demonstration of
fishworkers, Dalits, agricultural workers and other organisations of NAPM,
which tried to block the central railroad station in protest against the
invasion of industrial trawlers, in particular. On the 20th, the farmers
organisations (several thousand peasants of KRRS having squatted trains for
24 hours to come up from Karnataka) and the maoist organisations wanted to
march to the US consulate against the war and neo-colonialism. At both
demos, there were only a handful of foreigners, people of the Peoples'
Global Action network who had been attending the parallel forums of Mumbai
Resistance 2004 and Peoples' Movements Encounters II outside the WSF. As a
result, the police managed to stifle both actions. Realising the situation
a bit late (I feel also some responsibility for this bungle !), I went to
the Media Centre the day before to make sure that at least the media were
properly informed (although the organisers had already sent communiqués).I
handed out 40 communiqués without finding one " media activist " whoknew
about it !
Which is not to say that some " movers " in the WSF weren't "informing "
about the parallel forums. Thus Agnoletto, of the Genoa Social Forum, was
caught red-handed, repeating an absurd and malicious piece of slander about
Mumbai Resistance 2004 in an official WSF press conference. He explained to
the enthralled foreign media that there were hindu fundamentalist groups
participating in it. If he had had the curiosity to just cross the road for
five minutes, he would have realised the absurdity of this, since MR 2004
consisted on the one hand of the most classical, hardling maoist
organisations (several supporting armed struggle, including against the BJP
government), on the other hand of the Gandhian inspired farmers
organisations, totally opposed to (and often physically attacked by) the
right wing fundamentalists. Challenged by a more knowledgeable journalist,
Agnoletto first refused to give the source of his " scoop ", and finally
said that it came from several indian organisers come to Europe to prepare
the WSF...
Of course it was very difficult for foreigners to understand what was going
on even within the WSF. While the big demos in town went unnoticed, there
was an unceasing ballet of colorful marchers, musicians and dancers roaming
around the Forum grounds. Most of them were indigenous Adhivasi and for
them (and other minority groups and smaller movements) the Forum was a
great platform. My indian informants (including people from NAPM who
participated in the WSF) were perhaps overly suspicious and dismissive of
these "demonstrators", whom they said were bussed in by NGOs to make a
show, without really having the possibility (if only for questions of
language) of participating in the discussions. And if they had come to
demonstrate, why did they do it there, instead of leading the foreigners
out into the streets for a real one?
Participating in the much smaller forum of Peoples Movements Encounter II,
I saw groups of nepalese, sri-lankan, and indian fisherfolk, philippinos,
indigenous and Dalit agricultural labourers of various states really
involved in discussion. After each speech, someone in each group
translated: a harmonius babble of murmors in Maharathi, Tamil, Hind,
Nepali, etc. It reminded me of the multi-national affinity groups preparing
the battle of Prague: at once frustrating and empowering to see very simple
ideas searching their way through the incredible diversity of signals that
humanity has invented. Will we finally manage to destroy the tower of Babel
all the same?
Unfortunately, not only the major indian movements didn't unite to win an
adequate space within WSF, they also ended by organising several parallel
spaces outside rather like (though on a much larger scale) the parallel
spaces outside the ESF events.
All these divisions led to others, since networks that spanned them, like
Via Campesina or Peoples' Global Action were obliged to find neutral
meeting spaces outside all the others!
Finally, some blame must also go to the foreign participants. Those like
myself, who could have better anticipated the problems and at least made
the situation a bit more transparent. And of course those involved in
organising the WSF, who seem to have - like Agnoletto - sideduncritically
with the NGOs against the real indian movements.

Unfortunately WSF in Bombay doesn't seem to have made much progress  inits
basic contradictions:
How to be open to diversity without being infiltrated by "globalisation
with a human face" (when the press announces Stiglitz as the "star" ofthe
show, it is a bit disquieting!). How to keep a minimum of unity between
moderate and radical trends. How to organise less long-winded speeches
about the horrors of globalisation and more real debate about what we are
going to do about it.

It is also high time to recognise that controlling the organisation of a
Social Forum in any country is a tempting political prize for organisations
and political parties. If we cannot invent a transparent, democratic,
international process which really ensures the participation of all parts
of the movement, the process - more decisive than unifying - will end up as
a vulgar front organisation of some party.

Coming back to Europe, we learn that the organisation of the next ESF in
London is already menacing to be exclusive and divisive... Well if the
Indians can do it, why not the Brits?

Comparing the WSF to the ground-breaking inspiration of the Zapatista
encounters or to the more focused, action oriented PGA conferences, I
wonder too how people who think that small is beautiful and want horizontal
discussion can organise such huge affairs. The rather consumerist situation
of having to choose one's individual menu in a huge global market of
discourses, most often not visibly leading towards any real action or
organisation is not very inspiring. Fortunately, like many participants no
doubt, I didn't really have to choose much, as nearly all my time was used
in the meetings of my particular network (mostly outside the WSF). In that,
the WSF is a convenient arrangement. By juxtaposing all kinds of meetings
and networks, it provides a chance to participate in several. But can it be
no more than that?
And then, as in most conferences, there are always the corridors, the
friends and the "chance" meetings with strangers... And the settingitself
must have reinforced awareness of some vital facts. (One human out of 6 is
indian, two thirds of them still live from an agriculture which their
government is pushing into bankrupcy. Meanwhile in the cities "job-loss
growth" and privatisation is also destroying thousands of livelihoods. All
this under a government that maintains itself by systematically encouraging
fundamentalist hatred and pogroms. The future is explosive: one way or the
other.)

The WSF was rather disastrously organised, but as the first great indian
revolutionary (a certain Gautama Boudha) said three thousand years ago: bad
can come out of good things, and good from bad! !<