This
blogger had the good fortune to listen to Elinor Ostrom at ATREE Bangalore
about a month back. It was quite a brief speech. Clearly there is no approach
that fits into all needs and that precisely is the point here. The policy
makers in a country as divergent as India need realize this. It is not a
coincidence that Planning Commission is blamed for ivory tower syndrome. Ostrom
mentions “polycentric system” that is a “complex adaptive system”. Studies have
shown that monitoring of forests by local users backed by government officials
have led to lower rate of deforestation. According to her analysis “trust and reciprocity”
of the community and say in rule making are important elements that decides the
success and failure of a policy.
One
couldn’t agree more on what Ostrom has to say, her understanding are an asset
and needs deeper involvement. But then when
we think of Indian context the issue becomes quite complex. For community oriented
intervention to function the foremost criteria is that the community should itself
be egalitarian in nature. Caste and patriarchy have created entrenched powerful
interest groups. But there are exceptions, and quite predictably it comes from
Kerala (where the awareness of individual rights and community well being is
rather high). I have been reading and found
that “…fishing communities from villages around Vembanad Lake, Kerala have come
together to create Mathsyavalams or sanctuaries
that provide safe breeding areas for fish. They identify these areas by mutual
agreement and cordon them using traditional wisdom and materials. This demonstrates
that communities do prioritize long term conservation goals over short term
gains when they start talking to each other, and highlights the potential of democratic
approaches in conservation”
The Norwegian tangle
The
issue of infant children taken by Norwegian authority seems to have gained much
significance in recent time with even the foreign minister getting involved. Quite
clearly these kinds of things don’t happen in this part of the world. This
blogger doesn’t have much detail nor would take the emotional angle that is
being sought to be fed. Market media seem to be relishing in this ‘we are here
to rescue poor souls’. It is indeed possible that the parents are abusive and
not ‘aggrieved souls’, the kind of abuse that most in India mistake for “parental
love”. In a stricter sense Indian family consist of parasitic being feeding on
each other. The checks and balances I am told is what love is all about (what
do the firangis know about Indian culture!!).
Though there are many things to admire about Indian families I
would like to know what Indian authorities are doing to safeguard children from
abusive parents. Indeed most Indian families are probably dysfunctional and
crude social units when it comes to feeding children with selfishness and
narrow worldview. Market may find difficulty in accepting this as not parental
love but plain child abuse (wherein child’s inborn right to explore and understand
is curtailed) since these children are their future recruits. Parents do not own
children, nor are children property of parents. The Indian emotional family nonsense
seems to have exaggerated to such an extent that abuses are brushed aside as
personal matter, wherein the reality is that children are vulnerable and need protection.
If the parents are the abusers then the state should have a system in place to
protect.
