The fourth World Social Forum, the first outside Brazil, ended last week after six days of intensive discussion, rallies and cultural events. Extensively reported in the international media, less so in India, what did this event really mean? Why did 100,000 people — including 15,000 from more than 100 countries — and an overwhelming number of urban and rural poor, participate? They came because the failure of neo-liberal globalisation to provide equitable and sustainable development has become clear.There was a wide variety of views from various social movements — environmental, women’s, dalits, indigenous peoples’, workers’ — from various diverse theoretical and political tendencies. This plurality was the WSF’s strength. It was an “open space” that allowed contending opinions to be debated: from those like Joseph Stiglitz who want a liberal alternative to the ‘Washington consensus’ that dominates the IMF-World Bank-OECD thinking, to more radical critics who want an anti-capitalist alternative like Samir Amin and Walden Bello.But critics — from commentators in the Indian media to the Maoists in the Mumbai Resistance — ask: isn’t this talk shop a secular, foreign funded kumbh mela? The overwhelming majority of Indians who attended came at their own cost, including lost income from the workdays they missed, with little subsidy from their organisations. So did most middle class activists from India and abroad. The WSF decided not to take funding from agencies like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations and DFID. So the media promoted image of elite, foreign-funded intellectuals dominating the ‘rented’ crowds in Mumbai is a canard.The range of views and discussions in the WSF reflects the serious thinking among those for alternative, pro-people models of globalisation. With regional, national and even local specificities there can be no one alternative model. For instance, socio-economic alternatives in West Bengal will differ from those in Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, there are alternative ways of combating patriarchy, communalism, casteism, racism and militarism. Yet isn’t the fact that such a range of issues are discussed by major intellectuals, leaders of mass movements and activists, in audiences ranging from 50 to 50,000 unique?Yet commentators in the media, who were not there but should have known better, condemned the intellectuals who participated as “dishonest”. This shows their arrogant disregard for democratic debate and the responsibility of intellectuals to question received wisdom, no matter where it may emanate from. However, the media committed to the neo-liberal orthodoxy chose to instead play up the alleged rape by a South African judge of another South African delegate which occurred in a five star hotel miles away from the WSF event. The charge has since been withdrawn.While all harassment of women must be condemned — and the organisers of the WSF were quick to do so and rallied against violence on women the next day — was this the major, not to speak of central, feature of the WSF? Are more horrendous crimes against women reported with the same alacrity and persistence? Or was this a not so subtle attempt to deride an unprecedented popular mobilisation, larger and more diverse than in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2003? What about the discussion by feminist organisations, and noted intellectuals like Nawal al-Sadawi and Shirin Ebadi, 2003 Nobel Peace prize winner, which critiqued patriarchy and suggested alternatives to counter it?Four decades ago, emphasising the importance of the media, Marshall McLuhan predicted that “the medium is the message”. Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and others have analysed how the media “manufactures consent”. Large parts of the Indian media, with honourable exceptions, chose to defend neo-liberal economic reforms against the critics massed in Mumbai. While it is perfectly legitimate for press editorials and commentators to defend and propagate mainstream views, it is undemocratic of the media to ignore and deride internationally supported democratic alternatives.The fact that the WSF Charter stresses openness, plurality and non-violence, in sharp contrast to its ultra left critics, was virtually ignored by the media. The forum is unlikely to meet again in India, at least for this generation. The question arises then, what did this meet achieve for Asia and India? The WSF international council which met just after the event was clear that the Mumbai event, because of its mobilisation, diversity and organisation was a milestone. Future meetings will build on this experience and will take this process forward.This, ultimately, is a real, popular instance of “India shining” because this massive mobilisation marks both the broadening of the anti-liberalisation as well as anti-communal alliance. For the first time, political mass organisations, “social” movements, NGOs and intellectual activists have worked together respecting their differences but uniting on a common platform with common goals. If it continues, as is the intention, the people and the media, would have a lot to look forward to in the future.The writer is a professor at the School of International Studies, JNU. He was on the organising committee of the WSF
