Finding the "fun" in fun(d)raising

If you are reading this blog, you probably know that Prajnya is in the middle of its annual fundraising drive. We're trying to raise Rs. 300,000/- towards this year's 16 Days Campaign against Gender Violence.

Trying to raise money is a serious affair. It's serious because money is a key instrument that enables people to do what they wish to do. It's serious because our work is serious. It's serious because one is driven by need and held back by inhibition. It's serious because asking for money is not pleasant. I read somewhere about cold-calling being hard. I think asking the same people again and again is also hard. Asking for money is hard, period. For some of us, who grew up in a time when nice girls did not learn how to talk about or negotiate money, it has taken effort to be able to ask on someone else's behalf, but it's still unpleasant. And while our greatest need is for fundraising help, volunteers will come in and say, looking at their toes, "Just don't ask me to ask people for money."

But money makes the world go 'round, doesn't it? It makes programmes and events possible. It makes it possible to purchase electricity, Internet and water. It makes it possible to anchor talent in work they might believe in passionately but not be able to do for want of a livelihood. So, someone has to raise funds.

It has to be done, but why can't it be fun?

I am sure others have read those (mostly American) comics where children and adolescents sold lemonade and washed cars to raise funds. We're in a context where children do that to feed their families, so let's return to the drawing board. In India, we see a lot of fundraising concerts. The main performers may volunteer their talent, but there are dozens of related costs that cannot be wished away. The return to the organization is minimal, and honestly, does not seem worth the effort. I prefer what we have done; used the art of the performer to try and communicate our message in a different language, and made the experience available to whoever is interested. Events during Joy of Giving Week are an attempt to make giving fun and attractive.

We have had people try to raise funds while doing something that was enjoyable--ideally, for them and for others. So last year, through the year, we had Hollaback! Fridays at Vivanta by Taj Connemara which offered us an outreach opportunity but also got us a small percentage of the proceeds of those evenings. During the fundraising campaign, Neela Thamara from Kurnool sold a special collection of shopping bags and shared the proceeds with us. The year before that PERCH contributed a percentage from the sale of the soundtrack CDs of their production, Miss Meena. 

But how do you make fundraising fun for individuals? What are ways in which a group of friends can undertake fun projects that can also be fundraisers? I turned to the Internet to look for the lists of ideas I was sure were out there. Here are some lists I found, in no particular order:

1. Signup Genius  has this list of 50 Fundraising Ideas.

Some might work in India, like:

• "9. Buy a Meal – Volunteers donate homemade meals to sell." This could work in the large IT/ITES companies where hundreds of young people live away from home and eat in food courts. It could work as a meal served in a home and also as a special 'canteen' on a specific day.

 On the other hand, this list suggests:

• "40. Spa Night – Offer to have female volunteers give manis, pedis and 5 minute massages at a Women’s Night Out for donations." Why female volunteers and why only for women? So, moving on!

2. World Land Trust lists "20 Easy Ways to Fundraise." 

I really like some of these.

"1. Get Active Choose something challenging, maybe walking 5 miles, swimming 100 lengths or even eating 50 doughnuts and get sponsored to do it." This is something that could be adapted, but finding that sponsor is not easy. It would work for bored children being challenged to do something constructive and parents who want to create a good incentive for them.

"6. Go Without  Give up something you would really miss, like sweets, TV or your mobile, & get people to sponsor you for each day that you manage to go without." This would work in our culture. The idea of giving up something as a mannat or after a life-changing event is very much part of our culture. Imagine if someone were to pay you for each day of abstinence? Especially, if they wanted you to give it up in the first place.

"19. Be Creative For those talented artists out there; design a Christmas card or other craft that is easy to make lots of, and sell them to your family & friends." This is also a great idea if you have kids at home. For the price of paper and felt pens, you could have busy kids, a full new set of custom-made stationery that they can sell to friends and family in order to donate the proceeds.

3. This Pinterest board has one idea that caught my eye; it's from another website.

 

This is a "made for India" idea. And yes, we may adapt it for Prajnya. All of us above a certain age hoard glass and plastic bottles and containers and we habitually re-use them. If the team could collect bottles, we could put Prajnya stickers on and people could simply collect their loose change and then donate the collection to us. But you know what, this could also be a project that our friends could start for us! It doesn't need more from us than the logo .jpg? Anyone who has scrimped and saved and gathered their coins for real use will tell you they do quickly add up. 

4. SheKnows has a list of 101 "Fun Ways to Raise Money."

A list that has 101 items is surely a list with an Indian soul. I like several of these ideas; they're meant for those who are running marathons to raise funds for breast cancer, but will work in other contexts.

• "45. Movie Party: Host a movie party at your house. Every time the word "walk" is said in the movie, everyone antes up 1 dollar in a donation bowl. Have pizza donated and ask for a suggested donation at the door." How can this not work? Adapt away--a Tamil film with a donation for every "punch dialogue" or even better, to raise awareness, Rs. 100 for every sexist phrase used in a film in any language. That should quickly raise a few thousand rupees and start some very interesting conversations. "54. Movie/TV Marathon" is similar but a marathon of many films/episodes.
• "46. Theme Dinner: Hold a theme dinner party for at least 10 of your friends; donation 50 dollar a person. Spend just 20 dollar per person on food and you've raised 300 dollar in donations. Better yet, have all of the food donated!" There must be gifted cooks out there and hospitable friends who can make this work.
• "57. Game Night: Host a game night; Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Scrabble, Poker, Bridge, Bingo. Serve donated food and drinks. Ask for a suggested donation at the door." A possibility!
• "74. "Loose Change Day": Ask your child's school to have a "Loose Change Day." Make a flyer
  encouraging each child to bring in loose change from their house to be donated. Encourage the 
  math classes to assist with counting, predicting and rolling the change. This is a great way to  
  involve the entire school. You can hold this event multiple times; every week or every month." This could be a class project or a club project.
• "77. Dress Down Friday: Ask your boss if you can host a "Dress Down Friday." Employees buy a button and get to dress down on an assigned day." Lots of companies already have casual Fridays but maybe that could be tweaked to be a "Wear Red" day or something like that.

Many years ago, when we started Prajnya, I read and re-read the Global Fund for Women's "Women's Fundraising Handbook," entranced in particular by what seemed like simple things one could do within the community (listed on page 8). Take a look at this resource, if you haven't seen it. I think there are several useful things in there--but it is ultimately a resource for serious fund-raising.

And what I now want is a way to highlight the "fun" in fundraising. I want people to feel like they like us and like our work, and fundraising for us would be a fun thing to do. I want whatever they do to also be a meaningful process--so I particularly like the idea of the movie night where they think about sexist language or something like that. The actual amount raised doesn't matter as much to me as that process, but yes, the process of raising funds should not be so expensive as to absorb most of the gains of the exercise.

Do share your ideas! Let's make fundraising a fun adventure rather than an onerous undertaking--because that's when it can become a community effort rather than the weary petitions of anxious non-profit managers. 

Mr. Modi's marital status

So, the big news this morning is that Narendra Modi has admitted to having married Jashodaben, the teacher who has been occasionally interviewed and profiled as his long-forgotten wife. They were married at 17 and stayed together only two weeks, according to reports.

There are three issues with this. First, that he has consistently lied about his marital status. Perhaps having lived together only two weeks, one can grant that he must not 'feel' married. However, that does not change legal reality and the word 'separated' should at least have shown up on previous declarations.

Second, one cannot overlook how tough it must have been for Jashodaben over the years. She seems to have been the iron lady here--getting an education, getting a job, building a life. Based on her interviews, she also seems to have done this within the framework of Indian social norms around marriage, thinking of herself as being married to him. Think of the cruel words and thoughtless comments a woman placed in that position would have overheard and ignored over a lifetime. Her acceptance cannot have numbed the hurt.

Finally, and for me, maybe this is hardest to understand--if you have been married before you were ready for it, if you were so unprepared when you were made to get married that you broke the marriage within a fortnight--then why, when you have power, are you not an advocate for eliminating child marriage and forced marriage? Mr. Modi should feel for this cause very strongly and put his considerable clout behind it. But as far as I know, he doesn't. This would have been a great way to acknowledge his personal reality and use it as an argument to change something that is wrong.

It does not matter to any of us whether a candidate is married, separated, single or otherwise. It should not. But if "it's complicated" because you prevaricate, and if someone pays the price for that, there is a very big problem in my view.

On election eve: What's different this time

Every Indian General Election is historic because of its scale. This election to me seems to mark a turning point in our politics for another reason.

Between 2009 and 2014, we have witnessed political mobilization on a scale rarely seen since the freedom struggle, and in multiple locations. We have seen the villagers of Odisha protest and turn back projects by multinational corporations. We have seen the villagers of Idinthakarai and Jaitapur speak up on nuclear installations in their neighbourhood. We have seen the massive crowds at Anna Hazare's rallies to demand a Janlokpal Bill. And finally, for the first time, we have seen crowds protest against the failures of governance and policing that make public spaces unsafe for women. We are now talking about law and governance, accountability and patriarchy in ordinary conversations with each other.

Social networks have amplified this change and facilitated it somewhat, but one could argue that the actual mobilization has been a long time brewing. The people who are conceptualising and leading these movements are from the real world--the old world--of social movements and political activism.

It is all these people who have allowed politics to disrupt their hitherto apolitical lives in Jagatsinghpur, in Kudankulam and in New Delhi (among other places) that are going to make this election a game-changer. Everyone seems to have a political opinion and many more than one would have ever imagined are willing to put their time and other resources behind their favourites. Many are now party workers--for the outsider parties like the Aam Aadmi Party and Lok Satta--but also in some measure in the mainstream. Joining a party is no longer something that middle class people don't do.

The entry of famous professionals and celebrities has been striking, but that does happen to some extent in every election. It is the entry of non-celebrity professionals that is interesting this time, and again, the large numbers of first-time political volunteers with them.

From tomorrow, we will be monitoring the turnout in each location, and it will be interesting to see whether the mobilization of the last few years will make a difference. Will awareness and activism translate to the willingness to come out and vote? Or will it remain at the level of social network 'shares' and 'likes,' and occasional attendance at candlelight vigils? Will there be major differences between urban and rural India?

The fate of the professionals and celebrities and the election outcome are of short to medium term interest to us. In the long run, we will want to know whether India is about to enter a phase of pro-active citizenship, where "ordinary" citizens use a variety of new and old tools to be informed and stay engaged with policy issues.

Citizens and stakeholders, nothing less

This was first published as "Lok Sabha elections 2014: Women are citizens and stakeholders, nothing less" on March 15, 2014.

“Is there no more to the experience of being a woman than the ever-present threat of violence?” In the last eighteen months, this question has been troubling me a great deal. At Prajnya, while we do other things, most of our time and energy has always been taken up by gender violence awareness work. This spills over into my academic and other writing, where everything seems to default to the fear and reality of violence. Since December 2012, all things gender equal violence in public discourse and especially media. Reflecting this, the newly released Womanifesto for the upcoming elections (which I have endorsed too) devotes a great deal of attention to this issue. This Women’s Day, to do something meaningful meant to talk about solutions to this reality and to showcase achievement meant to talk to survivors. This is all terribly important, but as someone who has lobbied for such a change, I am wondering how much is too much. Is there nothing more to my life experience than growing up with cautions about going here or there, and being groped on a bus or having family worry about my dowry?

I know for a fact that in my life, there is a great deal more. The fear and anticipation of violence are a thread that runs through my life, but it is like noisy water pipes or a loose plug point—always risky, always there—but that you get so used to, you live with it. If you survive electric shock, you find a way to move on. The rest of your waking hours are spent doing other things—mundane, creative, essential, indulgent.  Most women I know have a wide range of interests.

Even women you call “just housewives” have areas of policy interest. These women who “don’t work” have to contend with the vagaries of power and water supply. Many are financial alchemists, taking a fixed wage and turning it into an elastic resource. They are savings and investment experts, using a range of methods to put away a little money and multiply a small amount through informal schemes and make strategic investments in ways they can. “Just housewives” who “don’t work” have a natural interest in infrastructure policy and in financial policy issues. Their interests could go well beyond “lights make a road safe” and “price onions affordably.” But we do not give them the chance that we are willing to afford their brothers and husbands. Our gendered assumptions—and in the “our,” I include women—deprive women of voice on these issues and all of us of the benefit of their insights.

Women are self-employed, run small business and large businesses, work as professionals and in the informal sector. Their interest in workplace issues goes well beyond workplace sexual harassment and diversity. We are concerned about tax—income, service, professional, property and inheritance—and we have an interest in all of this being rationalised and transparent. Women care about credit, interest rates and investment incentives, including infrastructural incentives. Industry and sectoral issues are critical to women—whether that takes the form of a decision to clear pavement stalls or the development of an industrial estate.

The freedom movement and the other social movements of the time offer documentary evidence that women are concerned about political and social issues. For some, this has been a class obligation—“persons with privilege must do charity works”—and for some, this is a professional choice. But if you look closely at the majority of women who walk in those marches and sit in the rallies of our time, political activity is a political choice. And interest in politics is not confined to the Women’s Representation Bill and its predecessors and successors. Some women enjoy discussing the machinations and manoeuvres of our political class as much as anyone else. Some women have particular areas—environment or accountability—they practically monitor. As this current election season shows, women will enter politics when there is an opening. And when they can’t, they find ways to work in the social and educational sectors on the same issues. But are women political animals as much as men are? Certainly!

Women are not just interested in the areas of politics and policy labelled “home affairs” and “domestic politics.” They are also interested in military history and military doctrine. They are interested in foreign policy—in our most important bilateral memberships, in our multilateral commitments and in the debates surrounding how we should relate to the world. As international conventions and UN resolutions express a global consensus on women’s rights and participation, as well as a host of other everyday issues from immunization to labour conditions, they are stakeholders in these normative regimes and affected by India’s ratification and implementation of them.

Cultural policy has always been a realm for “ladies” but only in the sense that rustling silks and traditional hospitality rituals constitute how India plays culture. Women are also however interested in cultural policy in the way that it expresses national identity and in the consequences of that effort for citizenship. Cultural policy is also about inclusion and exclusion, about livelihoods and about lived heritage. Debates about conservation versus development, and the political deployment of rhetoric about culture, religion and civilization has an effect on women too. 

I don’t ask whether the male bank clerk understands ecology, heritage or engineering before entertaining his views on Sethusamudram. I don’t ask whether the chartered accountant understands nuclear physics or international relations when he talks about the importance of a nuclear deterrent. The male newspaper editor is an expert on cultural policy on the first cup of tea and budget writing on the second; I do not challenge his superior knowledge. The retired general is the best judge of classroom practices, based on drill experience. But when it comes to their female counterparts, I raise the bar and shut the sluice-gates. The fact of their interest and the fact that they are citizens and stake-holders is not enough for me; I want them to be “qualified.” And the only qualification I will grant them is on the narrow subject of violence against women.

We have moved from denial that sexual and gender-based violence happen to essentialising the lives of women to this one reality. What has been gained by dumping denial may be in danger of being cancelled out as a result. If the status of women (anywhere) can be defined in terms purely of the fact of violence, then it can be fixed simply by protecting women from violence. Once women are protected, their status will automatically improve and their lives will be perfect.

Now that just sounds wrong. It is wrong.

We make the case that it will take more than a paternalistic, protectionist culture to create a society free of gender-based violence. What is that “more”? It is the idea of equal citizenship and equal rights for everyone. But that applies to every kind of inclusion, and requires an openness that admits that there could be more to all of us than patriarchal or other norms dictate. We use the word “inclusion,” which sometimes evokes the image of someone opening a door and say, it’s alright, you can come in. But the world we want to walk towards is not one run by right-thinking, benevolent gate-keepers but one that is already there if we would only adopt the right lens and expect to see it. This is a world in which we are equal and live in an interdependent, mutually supportive way. And in this world, there is more to men than temperaments that need to be mentored into non-violence and more to women than the experience of violence.

I agree that today’s suspension of denial about violence is a good thing, and I hope it will not be temporary. My concern is that while we are fretting and fuming about sexual and gender-based violence, we will reduce women to nothing more than humans who are especially more vulnerable to violence—an act of violence in itself. What we really want is a full acknowledgment of the humanity of women (and other human beings), and as a corollary, recognition that they are and should be qualified to and engaged with all parts of public life.

And how does this matter this election season? Quite simply, when a party wants to prove to me that it cares about gender equality, I don’t just want to hear a few paternalistic measures and see a few schemes for protection and support services for violence survivors. It is not even enough to have a more significant number of women candidates than before; after all, the baseline is hardly formidable here. What I want is to see women in that party speak up on substantive issues and with the backing of the party. I would like to hear domain experts like Meera Sanyal speak about banking policy and I would like to hear career politicians like Supriya Sule address a range of policy questions. I would like to read that they are a part of policy think-tanks on all matters and not just on women, children, the price of onions and the safety of public spaces. Women care about society and all kinds of policy, and I want to see the words, deeds and style of political parties and media coverage reflect and respect that.

Swarna Rajagopalan is a political scientist and the founder of Prajnya (http://www.prajnya.in).