Re: MSM CBO Politics in Andhra Pradesh

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM, This is in response to Mr. G. Goutham Raju, on 'MSM CBO Politics in

Andhra Pradesh'

It is good that you have written this mail, for it raises certain very pertinent

issues which I think you yourself should be looking at:

1] How is establishing new CBOs in a state that is as big as Andhra Pradesh,

with the scale of the problem it has, playing ‘bad politics’?

2] Are you saying that Suraksha Society has comprehensively reached every MSM in

the state and that there is no scope for anyone else to work there? If this is

actually what you are claiming, then I must point out that you are either

delusional about the state of the problem in Andhra Pradesh, or you are in gross

overestimation of your own success, or at the very least you are actually saying

that even after reaching out to every MSM in the state you have been a gross

failure, for the data that is coming out of the needs assessment that this

Organisation is conducting shows that the problems of MSM, on HIV and related

issues continues to persist and have not at all been addressed.

3] Do you claim a monopoly over Andhra Pradesh, in spite of the data showing

that the needs of MSM have not fully been addressed, and if so under what rights

or mandate?

4] Are you saying that INGOs and Donors should stop supporting MSM work in

Andhra Pradesh so long as it is not you that they support? If so, under what

right, authority, or mandate? Is it not simply petulance and arrogance on your

part?

5] Are you claiming that individuals who are part of the MSM communities and

networks do not have a right to choose where they work, and that if they have

once associated with you then they cannot work with another organisation? If so

what right do you have to make such a claim, or to control their lives, or deny

them better opportunities?

6] This Organisation that DFID is supporting has got this project from DFID

after an open process of bidding which was very comprehensively evaluated,

scrutinized for technical and financial viabilities, and possibility of success.

It has very strict M & E parameters built into it. What stopped you from applying

to DFID and competing for this project in this open and transparent process? If

you did not apply for this open process, or you were not successful after you

did, then isn’t this mail of yours and this litany of woes that you are now

publicly airing on a national forum like AIDS-India, at best a case of sour

grapes, and at worst playing ‘dirty politics’?

7] If Suraksha Society is actually giving technical support to everyone in the

state as you claim it is doing, what stops you from extending that same

cooperation to this organisation and to the CBOs that it is helping set up? Are

you prevented by that fact that these CBOs have effectively challenged your

hegemony, monopolistic attitudes, undemocratic functioning, and stranglehold?

Please ponder over these issues. It is easy to point a finger at another. But

every time you do so, please pause to also see what this says about yourself.

The time when a few could control their own little fiefdoms is over. The time to

replace notions of control with those of cooperation and coordination is here.

If you cannot buy into cooperation and collaboration, without getting insecure

about loosing hegemony or control, there will be groups and individuals who will

go ahead and do the work in spite of you. The problem is big enough for all to

do their bits and still not be able to solve it all. Sour grapes will not help

in the face of this tidal wave.

Best Regards

Aditya Bondyopadhyay

e-mail: <adit@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends and Colleagues

The correspondence between G. Goutham Raju and Aditya brings up another related

issue. ation and collaboration is indeed what is needed today - more than

ever before. But in more ways than one.

While existing CBOs or NGOs working with any population in any region of the

country cannot stop others from starting new initiatives, they should be

recognized for having done the initial ground work where there was none to begin

with, however inadequate it might be. And one way to give that recognition is

for new entrants (whether government, donor or voluntary) to do their homework,

meet existing initiatives, discuss the scenario with them and plan their work in

a way that would be supplementary to existing work. Perhaps even involve the

existing players. Gaps in existing work can be pointed out, criticism of

existing work can be made, but why not face to face? This could reduce an

unnecessary sense of distrust and rivalry, even if it means that egos on both

sides take a

bit of a back seat.

I'm not insinuating that the suggestions I've made did not happen in the

particular instance that relates to Aditya and G. Goutham Raju's exchange. I'm

in no position to comment on that. But I do know how new entrants tend to work

in certain segments of the HIV/AIDS field based on my experience in the last 16

years. And I would add that if they are ignored by the new entrants, the onus is

also on existing initiatives to seek a meeting with the new entrants. All

avenues of goodwill need to be exhausted (preferably with documentation

support), and then, if necessary, relevant forums can be approached for

redressal. Existing initiatives should do this for preserving their own self

respect and knowledge building, if not for anything else.

Best wishes

Pawan Dhall

Country Director - Programmes and Development &

Calcutta Office Director

Solidarity and Action Against The HIV Infection in India (SAATHII)

CD 335, Sector I, Salt Lake, Calcutta 700 064, West Bengal, India

e-mail: saathii@... / pawan30@...

91 33 2334 7329 (Landline), 91 98312 88023 (Mobile)

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM,

I have put up my concerns in AIDS forum as I am in AP and in constant contact

with most of the commuity members representing different districts. Setting up

different CBO has raised many differences amongst the MSM community, it went to

an extent that commuity is physcially beating each other due to their

representation in different CBOs.

SURAKSHA or any other organsition-(working for CBOs)should work towards

commuity builidng and we should not take up or initate any project that may

break the community togetherness. The best option would have been that the

donors or any implemeting agencies should meet and plan an collobrative work

rather than setting up different CBO in the same area where already some CBO or

community mobilization efforts are initiated. This style of working will create

duplication or conflicts amongst the members who otherwise are together.

I do not want to respond to any other issues raised by Mr. Aditya, as I am

fully aware about my role in AP.

Thanking you,

G. Gotham Raju

Suraksha Society

H.NO.11-3-362/10/1/B,

Opp Methodist Church Lane, Srinivas Nagar, Warasiguda,

Secunderabad. Pin: -500361. Andhra Pradesh, India.

Phone: - OFFICE +91-40-55542740. Cell: -0 9849349011.

E-mail: -surakshasociety@....