Re:Alternative view of Kerala PSH a fact sheet

[Guest guest]

The True side of Mr. Satheesh Chandran's (President, Partners Forum Kerala)

(PFK) PSH fact Sheet

Hello friends,

I do not understand on what scientific basis Mr. Satheesh Chandran is

boasting of achievements of PSH programmes in Kerala. Print media has

already exposed their 760 million rupees scam in the name of HIV/AIDS

prevention in Kerala for the last few years. I personally request the

international community and funding agencies like DFID to visit these so

called much boasted PSH programmes in Kerala, and know the reality. Kerala

State AIDS Control Society and SMA forms axis of this wide spread corruption

It would have been better if at least one of these 53 projects worked

benefit of people. Words of Kerala’s Health Minister Sri. P. Sankaran it

self is best evidence for this corruption.

I challenge Mr. Sateesh’s claim of behavioral change (safe sex) among the

high-risk group. Come up with references and facts than howling from top of

roof, Mr. Sateesh. Have you ever addressed the most high-risk group of more

than 500 intravenous drug users in the periphery of Thiruvananthapuram city,

from where all these projects are being managed. You people just blinds away

and say Kerala has no intravenous drug use. Each and every one of you is

bluffing Keralites in the name of HIV prevention and will be the responsible

if an outbreak of HIV infection occurs among them.

Friends, if you seriously look at the functions of these PSH programmes, it

is well clear that rather than having a well furnished office and employing

10-20 individuals, doing some magic in the name of IEC at the periphery,

noting is being done.

We have concrete proof on the basis of recent survey conducted by KSACS on

the awareness level of general population about HIV/AIDS, and you know, Mr.

Sateesh more than 100 thousand Keralites across the state participated in

this. And if you look at the results you will sallow your words that

Keralites are aware of HIV and your “tremendous change”. And also I want to

remind you Mr. Sateesh, Keralites are NOT passive listerners to your

herculian blunders, but will respond.

With concern

Dr. Anand Pillai

A health care provider for PLWHAs

___________________________

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

This is in response to Anand Pillai's comments on Satishchandran's

letter. I do not think that all the 53 PSH projects are waste or the

whole money is corruptibly spent as some media highlighted. There are

some positive impacts made by PSH projects viz

1. Creating general awareness on HIV/AIDS among public.

2. Generated discussions related to sexuality issues.

3. Facilitated organization of PLWHA in Kerala.

But it is high time to critically evaluate the PSH projects in Kerala

in the new context of influence on development policies by

International agencies. In this era of globalization, it will be

foolish to think that each state can decide their own policies and

programmes without the interference from International agencies. Not

only that, In different issues International agencies like U. N.

could take much progressive positions than individual countries.

This will have a positive influence on individual states in many issues

like human rights. There is a universal acceptance of some

progressive and democratic high sounding concepts like people's

participation in development, participatory approach, sustainability,

participatory evaluation, gender equality and so on.

These ideas are developed as a byproduct of people's struggles in

different levels in different places over time for their survival.

Many success stories forced the policy making bodies to accept these

and include them in the development dictionary. Now these are widely

used in all development programmes. But this will be meaningful only

when their use conveys what they intend to convey. For that there

should be real participation of people in the whole process and

continuous watch on the process by the people. Here people means

those who are oppressed at a particular context and not to mean the

general mass.

DFID funded PSH projects failed in this at least in

Kerala. This was not the case in the initial period of the project

when DFID was negotiating with committed organizations. The shift

happened when they started linking the projects with the Government.

We were always happy to implement programmes through Government since

we believed that it represented people. But through experience we

know that there is play of power politics and bureaucratic stale that

destroys the core of democracy and people's participation.

We welcome the intervention of external agencies if it helps to

deepen the democratization process within the state. Yes, we have

been solicited by the presentations of DFID, like Partnership, gender

equality, enabling environment, sustainability, rights of sexual

minorities and so on. But the unholy alliance with the State changed

the meaning of the whole thing. The new NGO culture schemed by new

economic policies favored it. That is why the PSH projects present

themselves as a figure of self mockery, While it was intended to

prevent HIV through targeted intervention for which the key issue is

creating an enabling environment for the most vulnerable groups. This

is nothing but, removing their stigma, decriminalizing sex work and

addressing the human rights issues.

This only can create an enabling environment for HIV prevention. This is not an

easy task and possible only through collectivization of sex workers. But here,

we were searching for easy ways which led to the pathetic situation. Of

whom? Not of the project partners and other stake holders, but of the

primary stakeholders. They were further exploited and used for

developing a new class of professionals.

We had much expectation when DFID started sexual health projects in

Kerala because of their advanced concepts. It is for the first time

open discussions about sexuality of modern Kerala , rights of sex

workers and and sexual minorities were generated here. There was a

potential for bringing the most stigmatized and marginalised into the

mainstream of society.

This would have been a start of a cultural change in Kerala society which is at

stake with old paradigm of development models. Rights based approach could have

liberated many other oppressed too. Instead of this what has happened is very

interesting. The inception of these projects helped in the social

mobility of a new class of social workers and similar mediocrity and

it totally neglected the socially isolated and oppressed groups of

sex workers and sexual minorities who were supposed to be the primary

stake holders.

The concept of enabling environment is translated here

as making pappads and pickles, which has meaning only in the case of

other women. These programmes itself shows how insensitive they are

to the life situations of sex workers.

Capacity building and training are a couple of major areas of these

projects. This of course help the project staff to have better job

opportunities. I am not against it. But it should not be at the cost

of the primary stakeholders and should not be the prime concern for

the project people.

I have stopped attending the meetings of the partner's forum, because I felt

shame in attending such meetings. In this forum often the sustainability of the

project staff were discussed instead of the ethical issues of primary stake

holders. It is not that staff should not try for their professional gain but it

should be secondary and a byproduct of our committed activities for

the primary stakeholders whom we live upon.

Here, State AIDS control society is formed as in other states. Why a

society is formed? If it is to avoid buearucratic hassles, it is not

happening here. If it is to represent the partners too, who are the

representatives and are they really represent the vulnerable or their

spokespersons?

The PSH project is administered through Dalal consultancy? We have a very good

example of West Bengal sexual health project which had a different approach

where the collectivization of sexworkers had a crucial role. The situation of

Kerala is different and since we do not have red street areas here, it is not

easy to mobilize them. But any body can see that a rights based approach is

the most suitable to address such an issue and a management approach

as in the case of constructing buildings is not at all suitable in

this case. So, what would be the interests?

Regarding evaluation also I have much diappointment. What is

evaluation for? Is to give some fees to the evaluators? If you call

it as participatory evaluation, it should be done in that way. Most

of the time it is a harassment. The evaluators do not have a

background of working in such projects or idea of the life situations

of sex workers.

Here the issue to be looked into, is the following.

When International donor agencies like DFID are compromising to the

power-centred politics and bureaucratic approaches, violating their

own ideas, do the people (Oppressed and marginalised) need to co-

operate with their programmes? If so, to what extent?

In Kerala we have good examples like control of diarrheal diseases in coastal

areas, through people motivated programmes, for which external funds

were minimum. We have to receive external funds and policy

intervention only if it liberates the oppressed groups. Otherwise why

should we?

Regards,

Dr. Jayasree

E-mail: jayasree@...

______________________________