The scathing censure of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) by the Supreme Court on Thursday might force the organize to change its name to “NBA Bachao Andolan.”
While the court’s strictures were aimed at the NBA in particular, it indirectly ensures that other credible pressure groups will now be looked at with suspicion.
Eulogised by the media, the andolan, spearheaded by social activist Medha Patkar, had achieved an iconic position in civil society. Politicians and celebrities, intellectuals like Arundhati Roy to celluloid stars like Amir Khan flocked to align themselves with NBA at some time or the other.
Praying for a cause
Patkar became such a celebrity that she was invited to lead many other protests, while some protests were even run using her name, without her endorsement or knowledge. The intention was two-fold: one, to browbeat the authorities with the credibility that her name brought, and of course to attract media attention to their cause.
Even those opposed to Patkar or her NBA could not dismiss her lightly. The NBA’s agitations, particularly Patkar’s hunger strikes (or Jalsamadhi Andolans) shook various state and federal governments, forcing them to offer compromise after compromise.
Any organization that achieves such stature is bound to have opponents, critics and controversy. Most organization leaderships make allowances for this. The NBA too had its share of criticism from the government and other quarters.
In April 2006, a popular blog called ‘Prajatantra’ posted a strong critique of the outfit titled “Narmada Bachao Andolan” se bachao (Save us from the NBA). While accepting its basic demand for proper compensation and rehabilitation of families affected by the mega-dam project, many others criticized it for the ways and means promoted by the outfit to press its cause.
But its mass credibility and popularity ensured that the NBA balance sheet always had far more assets than liabilities.
But all it took for that to turn turtle, like the erstwhile Sathyam balance sheet, was a few strong words from country’s Apex court. Admitting that it’s credibility had led the court to accept some of its arguments without challenge, it said: declared: “In the instant case, it (the NBA) stands discredited totally in the eyes of this court.”
This is not a jolt to the NBA alone, but for civil society as a whole. Because now, the claims of every civil organisation will be examined under a magnifying glass, particularly by the judiciary. Regardless of whether the cause is human rights, pollution, poverty or corporate malfeasance, all claims made by social outfits will now invite suspicious scrutiny.
Of course, the NBA is not the first powerful social movement caught fudging its claims. At the international level, Greenpeace and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had made exaggerated claims on oil spillage and the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Both had to eat their words, with IPCC lamely blaming a ‘printing error.’
Some two decades ago, a leading social activist from Maharashtra’s Thane had accused a religious trust, against whom he was agitating, of carelessness while distributing free utensils and blankets to tribals, leading to a stampede which claimed five lives. The incident never happened. Releasing the news to media without verification led to the leader and his organization losing its credibility, painstakingly built up over years.
Pressure groups and social activists must understand that in their fight on behalf of the common man and the poor, credibility is their strongest weapon. That is the one and only reason why the media and the civil society rally behind their cause.
Making exaggerated claims, knowingly or not, to buttress their cause not only jeopardizes them and their leaders, but every social group or civilian agitation. Even genuine causes will be looked at suspiciously.
And in the end, it is the poor and the oppressed who will suffer.
No comments:
Post a Comment