Though Rohini Nilekan‘s new book ‘Uncommon Ground’ is based on her 2008 TV programme by the same name, it instead of detracting from its importance only enhances its contribution to the development discourse by seeking to disseminate to more people the vision of a middle ground between leading industry and civil society leaders. So you have discussions between Anand Mahindra and Medha Patkar on land resources, Mukesh Ambani and RK Pachauri on energy, Sunil Mittal and Aruna Roy on livelihoods, YC Deveshwar and Sunita Narain on environmental sustainability, Habil Khorakiwala and Mirai Chatterjee on health, MS Banga and Suman Sahai on food security, Rahul Bajaj and Dinesh Mohan on transportation, and Uday Kotak and Vijay Mahajan. Nilekani, who is also chairperson of Arghyam as well as Pratham Books, talks to FE’s Rajiv Tikoo about the book and the issues. Excerpts:
Since you were searching for common space between the corporate world and civil society, why did you call the TV programme/ book Uncommon Ground and not Common Ground?
We were creating an uncommon space by bringing these people together. I played on the word common as it also means unusual. It sounded catchy too! And those who needed to, quickly understood that we were aiming for the middle path or the common goals.
Since the government has always played a bigger role than businesses and civil society, wouldn’t its inclusion have added more value to the discourse in the book?
I thought long and hard about it. I doubt that government representatives can talk very frankly on TV. They are bound to give the official view. Besides, I was very keen to explore the somewhat antagonistic, sometimes collaborative relationship between corporates and civil society organisations, because both sectors have so much influence on what the state does or does not do.
You got the best of leaders on the show. While it would not have been possible to include everyone, but still Ratan Tata is conspicuous by his absence. Any particular reason not to have him on the show?
There are so many leaders and I had designed it for only a few shows. Actually, I first looked at what are the sectors where both business and NGOs have direct experience and have played a key role in defining policy or in the delivery of public services. And that is how I found my names. You are right though, it would be good to get Ratan Tata, Narayan Murthy, Indra Nooyi and Lakshmi Mittal into the discourse.
Over the years civil society seems to have become more a partner of governments and businesses rather than play its mandated adversarial role. While it has both advantages and disadvantages, on the whole is it good or bad?
I think there is a tectonic shift happening in the third sector. In the market dominated economy, established older NGOs (civil society) that emerged in the 70s and 80s are finding themselves in a quandarysome are becoming more radicalised; others are actively opposing the state and the market forces. But many others have embraced the new challenges and are looking for solutions that are neither purely market oriented, nor are antagonistic to technology or outcome-based philanthropy. It is an interesting phase for sure. We do not know where it will lead to. As usual in india, it will probably lead to diverse resolutions. The government on the other hand is being somewhat schizophrenic about the third sector. FCRA redesign and the Direct Tax Code (DTC) are making operations tougher for NGOs. Yet, the government speaks of encouraging philanthropy. And it has this strange idea of mandating corporate social responsibility (CSR). It is most confusing. It will be a real pity if the government drives legitimate protest or alternative world views underground.
What do you think of the government’s attempt to make CSR mandatory?
To me, CSR as it has developed is important but we cannot generalise. Some companies have a good intent, others do it out of fashion. But if the government makes it mandatory, it will distort the picture completely. We do not need companies to do CSR. We want them to be socially responsible. As a society, we must have extremely low tolerance for bad labour practices and bad environmental practices by companies. But we also have to suggest how they can get better and acknowledge that it cannot happen all at once. We cannot ask them to shut down or be first movers. It is impractical. Yet there is a space for new thinking. I find the bigger companies are trying to get sensible on this. It is partly economic consideration, but it is also about image, and a new understanding of the reality. But we need to think about newcomers, medium companies, those under the radar. In India, we have to worry about those who think they are above the law.
But should not Indian companies focus more on sustainability to take a lead globally and acquire a competitive edge?
We can take the lead on sustainability. But from what baseline In some sense , much of our economy is relatively sustainable environmentally. Must we copy the West, become unsustainable and then cut back to say, see, we are doing sustainability I think not. We do not have the luxury, not I hope the stupidity to do that beyond a point. Which is why we must all talk together and explore what is possible. Young people are so different from us in their world view, in their optimism, their comfort with strange technologies. We must not assume linearity. We have to try to be less harsh of the other view because everyone is evolving. I find it very tough to do myself, I do admit. But I absolutely know it is worth trying, all the time. And thats why the attempt at the show and the book, and all my other work as well.
Source: The Financial Express
Published on 30 October 2011