A glimpse of the future

In a sharply polarising election campaign there is one story of contrasts that is rich with the promise of India’s future.

Meera Sanyal, formerly the CEO of a multinational bank, and Medha Patkar, a veteran social activist, are both contesting the Lok Sabha elections from Mumbai as candidates of the Aam Aadmi Party.

If we look beyond the obvious differences in their backgrounds, we can see a glimpse of the potential role India can play in redefining globalisation.

Sanyal, the daughter of a naval officer, holds an MBA from a school in France and is a silk and chiffon clad member of the South Mumbai elite. Patkar, born to a socialist trade union leader, studied political science and is known for her aesthetic austerity.

Twenty years ago they found themselves on opposing sides in a famous battle that was fought in the early years of India’s shift towards globalisation. Sanyal was with ABN Amro, the multinational bank that was handling the Enron power plant in Maharashtra, while Patkar was leading the agitation against the environmental damage and loss of livelihood that would be caused by the plant. However, Sanyal went on to oppose the bank’s plans to fund the Enron project and refused to sign the paperwork on the grounds that it went against ethical and financial norms, even though the decision cost ABN Amro a substantial amount of money.

For much of the last two decades the worlds that Sanyal and Patkar represent have been perceived to be at war. Patkar’s activism in favour of communities threatened by displacement is regarded by many as an obstacle in the path of rapid industrial growth.

In particular, Patkar has been pilloried for her dogged opposition to the Sardar Sarovar Project in Gujarat, a large dam that people from that state regard as a lifeline. It’s a position that has come back to haunt here in this election campaign where she has been publicly heckled as a ‘desh drohi‘ (betrayer of the country).

However, among slum dwellers, tribals and landless peasants Patkar is a legend. It was her sustained agitation against the dam that compelled the World Bank to institute the first-ever independent review of one of its projects. When the bank found that people were indeed being displaced without the mandated rehabilitation it withdrew from the project.

Among those hurt by India’s push for rapid growth and globalization are private international banks, like the one Sanyal headed in India, which are denounced for putting profits above people. Yet, a slow and barely visible process of change has been unfolding. It was due to the dogged resistance of activists like Patkar that some of the world’s largest financial institutions signed a ‘Who Cares Wins’ statement in 2004. Such shifts, pushed to a considerable measure by professionals within the mainstream, also led to the establishment of the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investing in 2006.

Similarly, the international mining industry has set standards for compliance with human rights and acknowledged the rights of indigenous communities to their lands and resources.

Some industrialists and political leaders in India view such concerns as impediments to industrial growth. A rather vocal section of the Indian business community are pinning their hopes on a new government at the Centre giving rapid clearances to projects without allowing human rights issues to stand in the way.

It is in this situation that Patkar and Sanyal are poised to play a crucial and complementary role.

While Patkar gives voice to the suffering of people at the grassroots, Sanyal is articulating the key principles that could build a more equitable society or economy. These principles include equal opportunity, freedom for every citizen to develop her or his potential through enterprise and hard work, protection from discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion, caste, community, occupation or political affiliation.

Sanyal’s emphasis on individual liberty may not quite match Patkar’s vision of society through the prism of community. Patkar may also hesitate to embrace Sanyal’s confidence in an economy built on broad personal ownership. But they have powerful common cause in wanting, as Sanyal’s campaign statement says: ‘A level-playing field and a stable and fair regulatory environment that protects the interests of customers, prevents monopolistic practices, and curtails crony capitalism and corruption.’

Patkar may also be sceptical about Sanyal’s faith in markets. In turn Sanyal may have to make more room for non-market relations that are still prized in some of the communities where Patkar works. However both seem to share certain core values, as articulated in Sanyal’s statement: ‘The rules of play for the market economy must be long-term and ought to be formulated such that it is profitable to recycle, use renewable sources of energy and be economical with natural resources.’

She also firmly supports devolution of resources, power and authority to local self governing bodies in order to empower citizens to participate in local administration.’ This echoes what Patkar and the groups she works with have been demanding for over 25 years.

As always the devil will be in the details and these will not be easy to work out. But whether or not both Sanyal and Patkar become Members of Parliament they are in a position to help shift the discourse on development, economic growth and globalisation.

Rajni Bakshi is the Gandhi Peace Fellow at Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

This feature was originally published by Rediff.com on 24 April 2014.

For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact Reetika Joshi at joshi.reetika@gatewayhouse.in or outreach@gatewayhouse.in or 022 22023371.