And Dani isn’t the only blind or physically challenged traveler in the world who just wants to lead a full life in a dignified, complete manner, experiencing the beauty of the world and her people.

It pained me to no end to read this story the other day where a physically challenged person was offloaded a plane because she was considered a “security risk”. And surprised to see this issue being raised by a Spice Jet pilot, because I have been super impressed with their service to other physically challenged people who I have accompanied or seen off at the airport, totally satisfied with the level of assistance provided by their ground staff. Which makes me believe that is an instance of personal prejudice.

This isn’t new- many friends in the Dialogue in the Dark network often complain of being offloaded, made to wait for hours or de-planed minutes before take off because they are considered a “security risk”. And this isnt restricted to India alone. Friends in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Dubai have raised these complaints in recent times. In the era of these countries vying with each other to be medical tourism destinations, it seems rather silly to even discuss this issue.

The thing is its not a matter of choice or personal preferences that airlines have. IATA and its members have a resolution in place that lays out service standards for passengers with reduced mobility. The resolution specifies how airlines should communicate passenger special needs and what services should be provided on the ground and in flight. It requires that airlines have special equipment made available when necessary, calls for priority boarding to be offered and for airlines to ensure that passengers with special needs receive individual briefings on safety procedures, aircraft layouts and specialised equipment available on board. It also provides a general requirement for passengers with reduced mobility to be attended throughout the entirety of an airport transfer. The US goes a step further by actually passing a bill to ensure travelers with disabilities are allowed to lead their lives and explore the world without their handicap interfering.

Its time we give this issue the seriousness it deserves. The next time a blind or a mentally challenged or an infirm needing a wheel chair is denied his or her rightful place in a mode of transport - don’t be a mute spectator. A person feels as “disabled” as we, collectively as a society, will make them feel. As a friend told me sometime back- “I feel less blind in Sweden than I feel in Indonesia, only because I get the infrastructure and assistance to get about my life without being dependant on anyone”. It’s all a matter of perspective….and of opportunities. Lets be human, and lets make this beautiful world worthy enough to live and travel- for all.

When social meets business

Among the many inspiring chats I have had in the last few weeks, one would be surely meeting Ramin Khabirpour of Danone. He shared with me the vision Danone has for social business and how they are stitching the fabric of sustainability and social impact within Danone’s regular business. Even if one would pooh pooh much of what he said as superlative marketing, what with Prof Yunus spearheading the whole initiative, the way Danone has structured the Danone communities fund really caught my attention. In my mind, this is really an example of how business can truly contribute at a strategic level to creating large scale social impact. Just imagine if some of the world’s bigger businesses and HNIs were to come together to mentor such programmes around the world!

When social meets fun meets getting a sense of identity

Has it even happened to you that someone you meet over a casual coffee just completely blows your mind?! It happened to me a few weeks back when I met the irrepressible Mel Young at an EBS programme I was co-facilitating. Over dinner, he was this typical Scot with brilliant understated tongue-in-cheek humour. And then he told me what he does- “I run a football world cup for the homeless”, he said, casually. At first I thought I didn’t hear him well. And then the dots connected and I realized that when the power of unreasonable people is truly unleashed how magic happens. The Big Issue, a street paper that Mel started in Scotland has been described as one of the most successful street newspapers worldwide, selling nearly 300,000 copies a week and hailed as the world’s most circulated street paper. One of the main criteria for being a vendor for selling this paper is that they need to be homeless. Selling the paper gives them a legitimate income and gives them a chance to reintegrate back into society. The Big Issue Foundation supports vendors in gaining control of their lives by tackling the various issues which lead to homelessness. Mel told me proudly that one of his “homeless football stars” got selected by the Manchester United football league for an obscene amount of money recently. When I told my football crazy son about this he googled his out and told me that there are more countries participating in the homeless football due to happen this year in Mexico than the regular one! Go figure!

I think one of the issues with the term “social enterprise” is that there are inconsistencies in how people define it. And more importantly, how such organizations in the overarching context of privatization and marketization survive and operate. Are these organizations really a radical alternative model for doing business in a social and ethical way?

The present discourse and debate around the microfinance industry is a case in point. Once the poster child of the social enterprise world, the microfinance industry has come about to signify everything that’s gone wrong with the social enterprise trying to be commercially viable. Why is that? Is it because enterprises that have a social agenda can’t be seen as making profits? Or is it that they are now a force to reckon with and the rest of the market forces are just coming to terms with this new force majeure?

Having known the proponents and key players of both Grameen Bank and SKS Microfinance for a while now, I know for a fact that their intent was never in doubt. Both Prof. Yunus and Vikram Akula are visionaries who dared to dream and give a platform for their dreams to bear fruit. And they proved C K Prahalad’s theory that there is indeed a huge opportunity to do business at the base of the pyramid. So what went wrong?

I inherently believe that any enterprise, social or otherwise cannot be impactful and do justice to its stakeholders if it doesn’t become sustainable. Financially, and operationally. But its also true that this new age financially viable social enterprise is seriously altering existing consensual and sympathetic relationships between the for-profit and not-for-profit service providers. Many people, especially the NGO sector and the polity view this as an encroachment of private sector companies into services previously delivered by the voluntary and community sector.

But I also believe that its important for social enterprises delivering value to a certain community and stakeholder not to don the halo of a messiah out to eradicate all evils that are prevelant in our society in one sweep. The microfinance industry has done a lot of good in the markets they have operated. But their marketing pitch has been that of “eradicating poverty”. I do believe it was this mismatch between what they do on ground (which is significant and highly impactful in providing those with no access to any finance to become self-reliant) and what they project and are perceived. And when it comes to owning an important stakeholder, which is the “poor”, the biggest owner of them all, especially in a shaky democracy like we have in the Indian sub-continent, the politicians feel threatened. And that really has been the reason why the wings of an increasingly mature microfinance industry have been cut unceremoniously.

It’s a lesson for all social enterprises that walk this tight rope between marketization and the intent to create social impact. We need to be credible and we need to articulate what we do and position our products and services without trying to over emphasize its impact on society . It’s a classic marketing lesson that we were taught in B-schools that have acquired a new meaning in the context of social business. Also, it’s a sign that the social enterprise model is maturing. We are moving on from fledging entities led by the heroic entrepreneurial individual who performs miracles on a shoestring budget and against insurmountable odds and reaching out for an organization built with solid citizens, well-educated professionals that could run important, properly funded local enterprises efficiently.

In 20 years time, when most for-profit businesses as well as voluntary groups have a strong social enterprise subsidiary, our kids would be learning about these times in case studies of how they fuelled the paradigm change!

So when this Radiagate issue puts the spotlight on the big man himself, it pains me endlessly. One- everyone in the government and media is pretending that they are hearing the word “lobbying” for the first time. Two- in this instance, there are other business houses involved, and arguably there is greater evidence of the role they have tried to play in managing the system, but it is noteworthy that their actions have received virtually no comment.

Having spent many years in public affairs, I have learnt that every ‘campaign’ that appears publically has a good reason to happen. The only question in this case is- what is the reason why Mr. Tata seems to be getting all the brickbats, while the other more notable users of the lobbying on many fronts are virtually unscathed.

I have to admit that when disclosures of the kind that appearing in the media lately, even die-hard Tata loyalists like myself are a bit shaken. But I don’t want to be stirred. Given that our country has the ominous reputation of being the most corrupt with opaque government and business processes, I would rather err on the side of believing that the Tata’s lobbied for sure but did that to correct biases that exist in the system, which isnt unlawful, and very much an accepted business practice. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that. And more importantly, we (and especially the media- a section of who has already proved how hand-in-glove they are with wily lobbyists and corrupt politicians) have no right to paint someone guilty even before charges against them have been proven.

Besides, I would rather support a “perceived” manipulative businessman who has done more for society than many self-absorbed businesses and politicians who paint a holier-than-thou picture of themselves.

Interestingly, as I get involved more with the Palliative Care movement in Kerala, I realise that its success didn’t come from huge donations of money by a few well meaning philanthropists. In addition to a brilliantly concieved and implemented volunteering programme, a big factor in the success of the programme has come from Micro funding or small donations from a large number of people in the community (see www.concernwithoutborders.org).

This also has been a big contributor to bring in a strong element of sustainability and local ownership to community owned programs.

When programs are aided by philanthropic donations by individuals or trusts, or managed by a non-governmental organisations (NGO), generally the implementing agency takes responsibilities for procuring and managing funds and the community is neither expected to contribute nor have any direct involvement in how this money is spent. Community involvement if any is marginal and not intrinsic to the definition of success of the programme. Such programs owned by external agencies suffer from the disadvantage of being unsustainable once the agency / funder decides to pull the plug on the programme.

A programme that has ground-up support and has demonstrated effectiveness can also be more easily integrated with the mainstream programmes run by the government, and impact a larger policy and implementation decision.
For example, in Kerala, the 300 odd palliative care units are organized and supported by Community Based Organizations (CBO). Most are independent units, but some are based in government and private hospitals. The CBOs are mostly supported by local communities and are self-sustaining in terms of manpower, funding and other amenities. In many places, the Local Self Governments Institutions (LSGI) have come forward to work with these groups in providing home visits, outpatient service and free drugs for the poor. Recognizing the need of palliative care as a primary health care and the importance of home care services for patients with long term/ incurable diseases, the Government of Kerala recently brought out a Kerala State Policy for Pain and Palliative Care Services. The National Rural Health Mission (Kerala) has initiated a major project in Kerala this year to facilitate the development and expansion of community owned palliative care services in collaboration with Local self Government Institutions in the state.

In many ways, microfunding is the opposite of microfinancing where individuals take small loans to initiate a small set up to be self reliant.There could be so many initiatives in education and healthcare that could take a cue from the micro-funding model and make a big difference, just like micro-financing has demonstrated.

I can quite understand the frenzy the book “Eat Pray Love” has evoked. It makes for easy reading and makes all the right noises about emptiness and the need to find a balance in life- all buzzwords for women who lead stressful lives trying to be superhuman in wanting the best career, the best lover, the best shoes and still be normal! A kind of book one could take on a holiday to the beach or the hills and finish off in one or two sittings. Like I did. And forget about it.

However, to look for an inspiration to find a new meaning in life by reading the book seems a little too far-fetched, despite the superfluous reviews by the likes of Oprah! The captains in Vatican needn’t have wound themselves up in the belief that the book will encourage people to look towards the East for peace and ignore Western religious beliefs, as the book in my opinion was little more than a common Western fetish towards Eastern mysticism and spiritual sensibilities. I did like some of the author’s explanations of how spiritualism really means that one needs to practice flexibility in one’s religion and that really is the only way to finding peace, and to her credit, some of her experiences of struggling with finding that balance did make one relate to her. I also liked her long-drawn descriptions of a simple mozzarella cheese pizza that all but made me drool!

But the issue with the book is the author’s obsession with herself and her ability to find perfection even in her explanations about her apparent imperfections. The four months she spends in each location almost always seem to have the perfect prescribed ending, and for someone who seems to be on a pursuit to find a balance and accept imperfections, it seemed a little too contrived and fake. I am happy for her if she managed to sample the best seafood ravioli and the thinnest chewiest pizza in the world and the best wines, learn to communicate in a foreign language, experience divinity, learn to dodge and ignore mosquitoes, and have a fairy-tale ending to her love life all in the course of one year, each part compartmentalized in neatly divided boxes of four months! Do I smell of smoking hot envy? You bet I am! I wish most of us had at least some of that fortune. Especially to have an all-expenses paid year long vacation that is destined to get you the finest food, a brush with the divine, and a too-good-to-be-true lover!

I am now looking forward to reading her sequel to this book…….but before that I need to plan my next beach holiday!!!