A Social Movement

I have a lasting memory of a message from an advertisement that I had seen long back. It used to air on Doordarshan, the government-owned, free-to-air channel, which for many years was the only channel on Indian television. It was a social advertisement persuading people to stop using silk products, primarily sarees, in order to save the lives of silkworms, huge amounts of whom are killed in the silk-making process. Without getting into the moral and ethical considerations of the appeal, what struck me was how the advertisement sought to hurt an industry by impacting its demand, by appealing to the user base, comprising a large population. Another similar example is the appeal to verify that the diamonds one purchases are not ‘blood diamonds’ so as to prevent ruthless mining of such diamonds in poor African countries by terrorists and mafia in order to fund their ammunition. Such mining involves severe child and human rights abuse. Here too, given the social, political, and economic challenges and the bloodshed that would entail in solving the problem directly i.e. by confronting such mafia/terrorists, the more peaceful and certain solution is to cut the demand itself.

Both the examples solicit commitment of a large group where the members do not know others but are bound by a common behaviour and are thus being mobilised to achieve a common goal. I call this a ‘Social Movement’ and I find it to be a powerful yet peaceful tool to achieve a common good. Importantly, it is not a mob where individuals would come together physically to achieve a purpose, mostly nefarious. Because members of the group are not physically together rather connected by virtue of being user of a product or service, such a movement thrives on an individual’s choice irrespective of how the other members choose. If everyone starts to think that: “Why should I respond to the appeal, nobody else may be responding”, the movement fails all together. That is what makes such a movement difficult to take off. It requires people to abstain, to sacrifice something and most people would resist being the only one to sacrifice. It requires an individual’s moral commitment and conscience regardless of any peer support or validation.

Around me, I see numerous situations where I feel such a social movement can be applied and could achieve astounding results. One ready example - near my home a vendor of street food puts his portable stall every evening on a busy side street adjacent to a busy main road. The peak traffic time is also the best time for his business. People of all kinds - in cars, on tw0-wheelers, or even cycles stop at the stall. Over time, it has become very popular. The stall itself obstructs one lane of the two-laned street. In addition, those visiting the stall park their vehicles either on the main road or on the street. All this causes traffic jams and chaos, with those having nothing to do with the stall bearing the brunt. I find the state of affairs deplorable. I am sure those parking their vehicles at the stall are to be blamed, but the root of the problem is the vendor himself who has no business being there. Another instance involves a fruit juice vendor near a bus stop, effusing fumes, waste-water, and litter - all for consumption of those waiting at the bus-stop. And then there is the case, not of a small-time vendor looking to make a living, but instead of a big sweet-shop. The shop has monopolised the service road as well as the pavement separating it from the main road. Throughout the day, these spaces are filled with materials of use to him - packing stuff, raw material for his sweets, trash bags, vehicles which take hours loading and offloading, rendering the pavement and the service road unusable for common public and vehicles.

All examples are of somebody exploiting public spaces and resources for personal gains, in the process causing harm and discomfort to common users. I am sure there are plenty such instances across this country. Invocation of the judiciary is one way to curtail this menace. But I think some representatives of the legal system are taken on board by the perpetrators. Thus a complaint by a well-minded citizen like me may not have much effect - in fact I may invite trouble for myself by doing so. So for those, who like me, are weak to approach the legal system, the social movement I highlighted above can be useful. At personal level, I have vowed never to buy products from any of the vendors I have mentioned above. My argument is that I am not giving business to people who follow unethical or illegal practices.

As the examples show, I am not directly getting impacted by the perpetrators, at least not materially. Still I take this stand - for the sake of it. This can be an important aspect of the social movement - one takes part irrespective of whether she is directly impacted. Also, this movement requires a tacit understanding, an invocation of the moral conscience of the society It requires people to be conscious without having to be roused. Of course, one (say I) can actively mobilise the movement by appealing to people, distributing pamphlets, letting the word spread etc., instead of relying on the self-realisation and activism. But I feel challenged to do that.

I persist with this movement at my individual level, and I have found many applications. So I refuse to consume products from company where I know that the promoters have been corrupt and malevolent; refuse to watch movies of actors who are facing judicial enquiries for some crime; can’t support sportsmen or sports bodies with corruption charges. I find it difficult to support any political party because I find all of them tarnished. I agree that some of these instances take idealism and self-denial to exaggerated proportions, but my conscience is more comfortable. I am also conscious of the fact that I may be unconsciously consuming products or services of entities which may not agree to my exacting standards and that it may be difficult to survive by following the dictum accurately. That I should be doing a thorough due diligence before buying or supporting anything. But I do what I can.     

Self-realisation to a common goal for a large population without being brought together requires highly evolved social structures and thought process, the kind very few, if any, society can boast of. What I am talking about is a situation where the law enforcement is ineffective and the society decides to non-violently and economically punish wrong-doers, a form of Gandhian non-cooperation. I know I am likely to witness disappointment in this expectation - no wonder I have seen the food vendor and the sweet shop flourish.

PS: after posting this piece, I read somewhere that in choosing between morals and economics, economics would always win. I agree and that is why I accept that social revolutions as I have postulated here will not work for many issues where competition is from economically beneficial choices (meaning cheaper, easier, faster). At the same time the instances I have given here do not necessarily pit morals with very superior alternatives. In most of the examples, if people were to stick to some morals, they would not be too worse off. Slightly inconvenienced yes, but nothing significant. It is more of a social lethargy. That is the crux of my issue - we cannot pay even a small price, or take the smallest of leaps for big social gains.