Socio-cultural Impact in Times of CSR

Editorial:
A public hearing has been called for another hydel project [Teesta Stage-IV], and recently the Chief Minister pulled up the wilful disregard of the socio-cultural sensitivities of the people by project [hydel and industrial] developers. There is no denying that development always comes at a cost, but what needs to be reiterated for the present scenario in Sikkim is that when “development” earns more profits [material] for the developer than the host society, stricter guidelines need to be framed to ensure that the socio-cultural intrusions are minimised. The Chief Minister was speaking of the manner in which local names have been mangled by developers, and in some instances, nouns alien to Sikkim used to name new localities.
This trend is the most disturbing example of the superiority complex which afflicts project developers when they arrive in remote locations. They refuse to learn or understand local customs and way of life and see themselves as deliverers of not only ‘development’, but also ‘civilisation’. This repulsive attitude manifests in their refusal to train their tongues to pronounce local names properly and in their pretence of being interested in “social work” in local areas when all that they are doing is settling the books to reflect expenses towards corporate social responsibility undertakings they are now bound to. Some of these organisations are so flagrantly obvious in their disinterest towards local concerns that they have floated their own NGOs to spend what is earmarked for CSR activities. They decide for themselves what the “natives” require and this has led to situations where everyone appears to be obsessed with eye-care, some are routinely distributing soap to wash hands and others are dispensing inoculation which the State agencies should have delivered. The lack of genuine concern and absent understanding leads to overlaps and delivery of unimportant services. It is hardly a surprise then that not just place-names, but even people’s names are frequently misspelled, and in the case of labour-intensive projects, swamp out the original.
Project developers would not, however, have been able to deliver such damage and get away with such superficial commitment if the people, their representatives and the public servants had been more involved and responsible. In a scenario where people find their representatives and government servants regularly siding with, or covering up for, the “developers” [it is not rare for people who demand better from project developers to get branded anti-development], they too grow disinterested [after the initial dejection]. With no agency interested in keeping watch over the developmental process, it becomes a bull-dozer running amok.