I have had now so many conversations with people including my friends who thought, and many of them have also acted on that thought, of switching from their corporate jobs to ‘social sector’ or choosing to prepare for UPSC (Union Public Services Commission) civil services exams. All of them begin by saying that they are not happy with their current job or they never wanted to be, in most cases, engineer and now want to explore other stuff or they want to serve the society, and many such statements. We all throw such statements, at so many points in our lives, as coming out of a eureka-moment of self discovery. I having listened to the same statements from others previously find it funny most of the times, and irritating as well. However, I keep those ‘sentiments’ to myself. Because, only the outcome statements are similar, the narrative of reaching to those statements is so human.
Last week, a friend who has just graduated from a NIT called me and put up the same dilemma. He has graduated only this year and is into his job for just few weeks. He told me, “This is not what I am”. And, then he continued saying that how he always wanted to do something for the society, bring change etc., and not just sit in front of a computer writing some weird codes and making ‘gas’ storyboards. Like all other similar conversations this also was a mixture of ‘gyan’, anecdotes, some dramatic and verbose statements, and some degree of common sense. However, as a young researcher who is learning the trade, I tried to present to my friend a broad picture of “The Social Sector” into three categories.
First of all I told him that I consider the phrase ‘social’ or ‘development’ sector as pejoratives. In my opinion in the foundation of a separate sector for the alleged social and developmental purposes, is the abdication of professional responsibility and standards of public service delivery by every single profession. I also relate this to the so-called anti-intellectualism. Common people do not get to interact with university professors or scientists on daily basis. However, they do interact with doctors, teachers, lawyers, bank clerks, lower-level bureaucrats etc. And, these are the class of professionals who instead of giving right advice to the people are often hell bent on fleecing money from them. These are the class of professionals, who because of the virtue of their access to ‘expert’ knowledge and professional status in the society have a duty to care for the public service, which they don’t. Therefore, if there is angst, backlash, and mistrust against the ‘claims of truthfulness of knowledge’ then these classes of professionals are also to be blamed in good measure. Having a separate sector for serving the people is not the solution but to reform the existing professions and bringing back the commitment to public service is. Well, I now turn back to the categories which I shared with my friend.
I suggested an aspirant or an early entrant of ‘the sector’ (in India), can look at it into three broad categories viz. public service, development consulting and social work, and research. The public service category comprises giving UPSC or other state public service commissions’ civil services exams to become bureaucrats at different levels in the government. Here again I cautioned my friend that becoming a bureaucrat is not becoming a social worker. I explained to him that a bureaucrat gets some protections and privileges, but ultimately a bureaucrat is an employee of the state, who is hired to work for fulfilling the objectives as decided by its employer, which is the state. Undoubtedly, the actions of the bureaucrats at any level of the state have huge public impact. And, therefore, the bureaucrats’ job should be considered the one with more responsibilities and duties, and not a social service.
The second category of development consulting and social work comprises working in some development or public projects vertical of consulting company or in some NGO working on delivery of some services and goods. There are many new consulting startups in ‘the game’ and many new NGOs as well. These are the non-state actors which have emerged post 1990s after the ‘implosion of the state’. Within this the development consulting and social work can be considered as two sub-categories. The third category which is research comprises working in some think-tank or joining some University as PhD researcher. Here, a qualifier is required for the think-tank. I am not referring to the think-tanks which have mushroomed as the centre for lobbying.
What I intended to highlight to my friend through these three categories is that none of these categories are social service in the sense of ‘service’. All of our actions in public sphere which includes our actions as professionals have social outcomes that are outcomes for the society of which we are also a part. An IAS officer’s job is administration. A development consultant’s job is producing a certain kind of knowledge which fulfills an agenda. A social worker’s job is similar to a field level bureaucrat which is delivery of services and goods. A researcher’s job is using the valid methods to discover the truth and present it to the academic community. I acknowledged to him that I do not wish to take away his romanticism, but it is essential to realize that switching job from corporate sector to ‘the social sector’ is still remaining in the same structure.
And, it is my personal advice to everyone else as well that the yardstick which you should be using to judge this sector is that does it reduce inequality or it perpetuates it and somehow prevents the collective political action by the people? The resignations by the young IAS officers, recently and earlier also (by the likes of Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander), tells us that there is no pride in being the employee of the state and enjoying the protections and privileges of that job, if your employer, the state, is perpetuating injustice. Likewise, the business of philanthropy and development consulting is institutionalization of inequality and injustices.