the indian express story is about last week's world social forum - india or indian social forum (isf) rather than the wider wsf whose next meeting will happen in nairobi from 20-25 january 2007. (www.wsf2007.org). i didn't make it to isf and probably will not make it to nairobi either.
the wsf charter (http://wsfindia.org/?q=node/3) spells out not only what it is against viz. "to a process of globalisation commanded by large multinational corporations and by the governments and international institutions at the service of those corporations' interests, with the complicity of national governments, and to the use of violence as a means of social control by the State and all forms of domination and all subjection of one person by another." but also what it is for viz. "globalisation that will respect universal human rights, and those of all citizens - men and women - of all nations and the environment and will rest on democratic international systems and institutions at the service of social justice, equality and the sovereignty of peoples, and to the practices of real democracy, participatory democracy, peaceful relations, in equality and solidarity, among people, ethnicities, genders and peoples" wsf describes itself as ''an open meeting place for reflective thinking by progressive civil society groups and movements.'' i guess that suggests it is the forum for the rest of us. those of us that believe there's something fundamentally wrong with the notion that a bunch of business people (well, men, really) should be "shaping global, regional and industry agendas'' (www.weforum.org) who feel, for instance, that india faces some more critical issues than "finding a way forward to ensure its process of economic liberalisation is progressing quickly enough – and that its domestic markets can be opened to more investment by foreign companies and organisations." ( http://www.weforum.org/en/events/india/IssuesinDepth/RakeInterview/index.htm ) inevitably, a group that evolved as a response to that bunch of businesspeople, would display counter-dependent "anti" stances. is that, or the fact their meetings are relatively unstructured, enough reason to dismiss their ideas? would the same apply to, say, the anti-slavery or anti-apartheid movements? On 11/23/06, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is "civil society" territory You'll get a wide variety of 1. Kellogg's activists (nuts, fruits and flakes) 2. Gravy train (people who come there for the grants and the good food) 3. Some genuinely committed people who are also diplomatic (as in "people who are more diplomatic, who think, who dont have axe to grind agendas .. and who get beyond "isms" and slogan shouting while they're not wolfing down salmon and caviar, which I saw aplenty at the IGF in athens". Oh, I forgot "putting money and effort where your mouth is" as another essential attribute. You get a lot of people claiming "X should be done because its a fundamental right of some group Y" - while not having the vaguest idea about what X is, how it should be done, what the pitfalls are etc. Udhay Shankar N wrote: > Here's a column on the WSF. I remember previous discussions about the > WSF [1], which got derailed by discussions on publicity hogs like > Arundhati Roy. I share the columnist's confusion about what exactly the > movement stands *for* - it seems like they are *against* a large laundry > list of things, but what are they *for* [2]? Ingrid (and others), want > to comment?
-- "An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex." - Aldous Huxley
