Visualising synthesis

So after some extended efforts at progressing with my synthesis paper this morning, I set off to share what I had done with my class. Not an easy task. When it eventually came to my turn to present something I really wondered how I would condense countless words into a short 8 minute space. Words, it seemed just wouldn’t be enough. And so I prepared the following:

A reproduction of the diagram I made in class

Disturbing as this may look, it is actually something I am rather proud of. In essence it shows me (the ugly eye on the left) going in to my year of field work (follow the red line) which starts in Jan 2009, meandering in a seemingly chaotic manner towards my exit in Dec 2009, and then emerging from the experience to find myself looking back on it all (the ugly eye on the right). The little green boxes ‘AP’, ‘LP’ and ‘RE’ refer to my Analytical Paper, Learning Plan and Reflective Essay respectively. The dot-to-dot is a collection of the key events, moments or micro-narratives that I will use to construct the overall story of learning and change in as much of it’s complexity as I can manage. The purple lens-shaped-thing is my overall context (i.e. India, Seva Mandir) and the thinner bands that compose it are the micro-contexts (NREGA, Balwadi, Delwara, Restructuring, Youth, etc.). You can see how I zipped, twirled and cavorted from one band (micro-context) to the next as I undertook my so-called participatory research.

Just for clarification, my working definition of a micro-context is something like this (from my working draft):

the patterns of communicative interaction held together by certain critical themes (such as NREGA, Balwadi, Delwara, etc.) – typically the assumed reason for the interactions. [...] It includes: the various actors; their particular roles, attitudes, identities, relationships and activities/behaviours; the variety of social-physical spaces within which the interactions happen; and the particular network of framings (and their interpretations) that gave meaning and form to the nature of the work being pursued.

Each micro-contexts context is fairly complex in its own right. Dynamics, that is to say patterns of communicative interaction, can be observed between individuals in the organisation at various levels: interpersonal, group, project, programme, community, organisation and at the interface between any or all of these. Of course, these categories are merely a matter of convenience and it is hard to stress how unsatisfactory it is to use them so liberally. As Stacey argues, there are only interpersonal interactions – the rest are just abstract references to non-existent ‘wholes’. I still hold that while this may be the case, there remains considerable utility in talking about them this way.

I will begin my paper, looking outward (with the benefit of hindsight, of course), fill it up with stories, theoretical material, experiences, observations and insights, and end it looking back to see what emerges from it all that may be of relevance to others who seek to contribute to positive change in organisations and society more generally.

Back at university, synthesising…

I’m back now, at IDS. It’s a good feeling. To have the time to ponder my experiences and to reflect on my research material, to read almost endlessly and make music on my guitar and laptop whenever I choose. It was also a little strange coming back to university in the middle of the year, with new faces all around – but familiarity develops quickly here! My optional course, Science, Knowledge and the Politics of Development is proving to be a good choice. Plenty to think about on a subject that is of great interest to me.

Meanwhile I have started piecing together my Synthesis Paper. This is supposed to bring together the core strands of my research over the course of the last year, to bring theory and practice together in a paper that yields insights into organisational learning and social change. This is by no means an easy task. First, the research itself is very unwieldy straddling multiple themes, levels, internal and external dimensions. What should be the focus and what can be dropped? How to choose this? What is the paper really trying to communicate? To whom? For what purpose? Second, the work is sensitive. It deals with an array of controversies and complexities that characterise the inner life of both ‘communities’ and development ‘organisations’ – interpersonal tensions, differences in ideology, power relations, identity, voice, dissent, conflict and ways of relating or behaving that may be hard to acknowledge. Of course, my research is full of people. People to be named? People to be left anonymous? And then, of course, my own voice. Who am I? From what vantage point am I recounting the unfolding processes? How implicated in them am I? How do my own biases shape the narratives I relate?

There are no easy answers to such questions and yet as I strive to produce a coherent whole, these are all questions that I must answer. Somehow, I find myself unable (or unwilling?) to engage with these questions. Instead, my hands tap away at the keyboard and an unlikely assortment of tones, styles and positions flow out onto the page: a mixture of theoretical review, distant narratives of change and engaged accounts of personal frustration or satisfaction. What is this paper that I am ‘composing’? Rather than ponder it in advance it seems that I am at it’s mercy! As I type, the words flow out and take their own shape, jostling with what has already been written, taking form in relation to it. As I write, questions or insights emerge and lead me to jump back and forth, to reread a passage here, edit a paragraph there or maybe add an entire section somewhere!

I imagine that as I gradually move towards my quota of 15,000 words, I will find myself beginning to tighten my belt: I will do less pouring out of words onto the page and more reading and re-working. As I review the mass of stuff I have produced, at times from close-up and at times from afar, I will notice patterns. I will be drawn to strings of examples that tell a more coherent story. I will discover that certain important background elements have been omitted or that other sections have become unwieldy. Perhaps an entirely new conclusion of sorts will emerge from this all. For now, I really have no idea how I will conclude my paper. This, I suppose, is the joy of writing papers!

private property, the commons and post-statism

Just read a manifesto for reclaiming the commons – definitely worth checking out here (here for pdf) – hat tip to P2P Foundation for this. This is probably one of the most significant causes around at the moment. Private property and an array of public policies (all enforced by government) is no substitute for for a culture of mutual responsibility founded on a recognition of global human interdependence and the fact that life (and it’s thriving) depends on the commons (think atmosphere, the carbon cycle, the hydrological cycle, knowledge, culture, etc.). The difficult bit is that for the relatively wealthy, all we know now is private property. The idea of having a personal responsibility for any kind of commons is pretty much alien. After all without appropriate institutions how can the commons be managed? And institutions means not us, not individuals. Actually, for that matter what does ‘institutions’ mean? Is it government? Is it the UN? Is it culture? Is it the market? Isn’t marriage an institution? There is a need for people to engage with these kinds of questions. What are we even talking about when we use the terms we use every day to describe and rationalise the world around us?

Anyway, the basic problem is that to reframe our understanding of our relationship with the myriad resources (natural, human, etc.) that we draw on in creating the kinds of lives and societies that we live – from one based essentially on private property to one based on the notion of the ‘commons’ – essentially demands rewriting our entire philosophy of economics. And that means overturning ideas that have become so much part and parcel of our present institutions – both politically and culturally – that it is no walk in the park. Perhaps the biggest challenge that we face is the lingering belief that the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess will get us out of it. All we need to do is clear away the corruption, educate the people, get government to enforce some progressive policies, etc. and we can avert (or reverse?) the disaster that lies before us.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I support progressive government policies! But I really wonder just how progressive government policies can be so long as the underlying socio-economic philosophy is based on rational individualism and private property rights which deny the fact that all human activity is embedded in, draws on, and either cultivates or saps the manifold commons of their capacity to sustain the very systems that we humans have created from them. Yes, I am saying that we are undermining ourselves through the way we think about the way the world works and the way we have chosen to order it, socially, politically and economically.

One of our great errors (and there are many) is to have conjured up a notion of the state as being an external actor which acts upon the economy to produce different kinds of outcomes. The level of analysis is the problem. There is no inside or outside. The state (say, for example, its particular form at any point in time) is as much a product of the economy as the economy is of the state. Inseparable elements. But what is the state really? The state, we could even call it government, to me, seems like (so far) a pretty bad attempt at creating a governance mechanism for managing the economy (and society) through the formulation and enforcement of certain laws and policies (protecting private property rights being one of the key ones here!) . The creation of these laws and policies have historically tended to favour certain groups and interests over others.

The truth is that we tend to make distinctions between state, market and society somewhat thoughtlessly. These are easy categories to take for granted because they are so common. But is there not a level at which these elements are actually all profoundly interconnected? Can we really draw neat lines around each element? This is where market starts and society ends? Or the state ends and market starts? Such notions of purity are dangerous as they fool us into believing that we can think of each element somehow as a distinct system with its own internal logic and laws that are somehow not themselves shaped by other factors – be they cultural, political, social – or perhaps more usefully institutional. One way of thinking about institutions is that they structure the way we think about, relate to, interact with and act on the world around us – including people, things and ideas. We exist within multiple, intersecting, overlapping institutions.

Private property is an institution. In some places, so too are the commons. But more often than not, the institutions of the commons are being dismantled as private interests strive to grab onto every remaining patch of marketable resource – whether this be human, biological, cultural or anything else. Technological advancement has vastly expanded our capacity to colonise the commons. With our present economic set-up our lifestyles depend on this colonisation of the commons. Typically the links are so hard to fathom, the absence of ready alternatives so strongly felt and the sense of individual insignificance so great that we mostly sit coil into a sense of hopelessness, cynicism and apathy – even if we recycle our glass bottles and use CFL lightbulbs.

There is, of course, a counter-movement, still very much on the margins but, perhaps, discovering itself, connecting to itself and becoming ever so slightly stronger. Government cannot make this counter-movement go away. It can weaken it (ultimately through violence if this can be justified). It can also strengthen and support it (primarily by not obstructing it). But government itself is not really an actor with its own autonomous capacity for operation. It is, rather, like a software that can perform certain functions depending on how it is used by its users.

Government, taken – if you will permit me – to its logical conclusion is, essentially, a common resource and it therefore demands the same kind of response as other forms of common resource. Well-managed, based on principles of collective ownership and responsibility, it can be a catalyst of great change. Neglected, becoming a free-for-all, it easily gets captured by powerful interests and this sets in motion a process (albeit gradual and hard to perceive) whereby it undermines not only its own capacity for change but also, given its hegemonic status in modern society, other common resources that sustain life and all that is good. A failure to engage with the state in a process of institutional transformation that encompasses and extends far beyond it, spells disaster for humanity.

The critical point here is that rather than suggesting that concerned people ignore the state and struggle autonomously, I propose that they see the state as something less monolithic, less rigid, less fixed. That they see institutions as flexible and dynamic. That they see the government as a common resource over which ownership is to be claimed. And just like the great free operating systems that are accessible across the world, the very source code of the state be opened to hacking and re-hacking along with all our other institutions – the market, private property, and the list goes on… This demands engagement, not cynicism, opposition or rejection. We need to rethink our very notion of what the state is and can be.

I am not anti-state. I am post-state.

Initial reflections on the past year’s work…

Well, I’m back in the UK and it’s been quite a year.  I have had the opportunity to carry out my work and research in/with Seva Mandir across a range of programmes, processes, contexts, issues, scales, and so on. I have engaged with diverse theoretical perspectives and an endless stream of questions emerging from my ongoing practice of working on learning and change at both organisational and community levels. Ahead of me lie three months of studies plus reflection on my experiences over the course of the last year. I wonder whether what I have been doing amounts to research. I wonder about my data. I wonder about questions of validity. I wonder about my findings. The next three months – while I grapple with all this – are going to be quite an experience!

There have been successes – of this there is little doubt. My conversations with co-workers and citizens have revealed that I am not alone in recognising some of these positive changes. However, there are also many changes that I have not been able, yet, to elicit feedback on. Changes that are only just beginning to emerge, for example. Or changes that are actually ‘just’ the creation of a new potential for some more visible change to come about. At some point I will need to list out the kinds of changes that I have witnessed across the various processes that I have been involved in. And I will need to find ways of classifying these changes, categorising them in some manner. For example, changes reported by others, positive changes, negative changes, changes that are contested, changes that are visible and changes that are not. There are also a great many questions without any answers – many more than when I set out. Some questions signal an attainment of greater clarity and insight. Others reveal only more uncertainty.

Each process that I have been involved in has had its own unique configuration and dynamics that shape what can and ‘could’ be looked at (and how). Each process has provided me with opportunities to construct unique roles and identities as well as sets of relationships with my co-workers and co-researchers. But each process has not occurred in isolation! Insights from one process have fed into others in a continuous process of cross-pollination and, to some extent, ‘triangulation’. And it seems to me, at this early stage, that there has been a way in which cross-pollination (that is conversation across divides) – even through informal spaces – shapes the unfolding of organisational changes in its own indirect manner. Indeed, anecdotal evidence gathered in one process has served as ‘data’ to shape conversations in others, typically in unpredictable and hard to gauge manners.

Some of the questions surfaced through this process of participating as an action researcher in multiple processes of participatory inquiry and change have been quite profound. I have kept getting the sense that I am close to a nerve. That the walls of a particular ideology or mindset have been revealed. That some contradiction or logical inconsistency becomes visible. That I have to tread softly. That the shortest distance between two points is not always what at first sight appears to be a straight line. When the terrain itself is rugged, the path through it must be winding! I suppose this resonates with an earlier post on transgression. The notion that something is not right may not be adequate to make rising up and fighting it immediately a worthwhile course of action. If I want to infiltrate a terrorist network I would not do so by stating my purpose up-front. The same rule applies to organisational change. I do not come along and say that I want to change things around here. Rather, in the spirit of an ‘institutional entrepeneur’ I must learn to work simultaneously with multiple institutional logics. To play multiple games. To know how to apply multiple logics in the diverse contexts that I work in with diverse others. In fact to play a game which looks like it follows the old rules but actually doesn’t – and undermines and rearranges them in the process.

Taking detours appears to have been key in my own work here at Seva Mandir over the years, whether it was moving out to Delwara when I wanted to work on monitoring and evaluation at the organisational level (after – and quite possibly partly as a result of – which I was called back to the head office to facilitate the strategic planning process), or getting called in to work on developing monitoring and evaluation processes for the work on gender (3 years after I had first tried, quite unsuccessfully). The curious thing, is that these detours have often turned out to be some of the most important parts of my experience, leading to profound learning, shaping my identity, opening up new opportunities… Perhaps the truth is that these detours are the key to organisational learning and change. I have inquired incessantly over the years, questioning everything. I have remained – pretty much – perpetually open to almost all opportunities presented to me for collaborating on different processes. I have communicated my thoughts fervently with anyone I felt I could share my ideas with and simultaneously asked others for their own perspectives. I have floated controversial ideas in sensitive ways during large-scale meetings in an attempt to put hard-to-swallow propositions ‘out there’ in the collective domain. I have avoided (not always successfully) holding grudges against those whose ideas and behaviours have seemed wrong to me. I have sought and struggled (not always successfully) to scrutinise my own biases and assumptions. And I have tried to use whatever I could to shake things up as much as possible – though often in small ways – while all the time trying to make sure that things don’t risk falling apart completely.

As I embark on the process of making sense of my experiences in the coming months, I really find myself wondering where, what or who I will be when I emerge as a post-graduate. I have officially reserved the coming months as a time for unbounded reflection and questioning, a time to engage with ideas, dreams and opportunities that I have had to keep at the margins. I think it’s going to be exciting!

economics, state, power, the people, oppression and transgression

I recently revisited the idea of anarcho-syndicalism and am coming to the conclusion that I have a good deal of affinity with its political and economic philosophy. An ongoing critique of (a certain kind of) community development that I am trying to piece together seems to be leading to many anarcho-syndicalist conclusions. Is that perhaps because this position already informs my thinking?

One things is clear… I am completely disgruntled by the way that dominant theories of economics see it as a science independent of human power and thought. Where is the engagement with the innumerable factors that shape people’s behaviours? Where are the critiques? Where are normative statements. OK. No ranting. But in any case, a more expansive, thoughtful form of economics, one that sees itself as just one of many important domains of our existence is sorely needed. Behavioural economics may be making some headway here but at times it runs the risk of merely trying to better accommodate ‘irrational’ human behaviour into its framework. That framework is typically the dominant economic one which continues to prioritise rent-seeking, profit-maximising, and growth ahead of everything else. Other fields of economics such as ecological economics may provide more fundamental critiques of dominant economic thinking and practice. ‘Political economy’, actually a precursor to modern ‘economics’, which considered structural relations of production and consumption in addition to ethical considerations may still have much of value to contribute in making critiques of the contemporary de-politicised positivist field of ‘economics’.

What happens when the insights gained from various inter-disciplinary critiques of mainstream economic thinking and practice are merged with a critique of community development (as failing to address the structural and contextual factors inherent in a capitalist economy enforced or protected by a state power with a monopoly on violence within an already divided and unequal society that undermines an ecologically sound high quality of life for all)? Alternatives are badly needed in our patterns of economic, social and political organisation. Power, as an underlying element that shapes social, political and economic orders, needs critical attention. But people cannot engage actively with abstract ‘powers’ or ‘forces’, even though they may speak out against them. They can engage only with embodied power: power living in the relationships between the things, people, events, processes and ideas around them.

Community development seeks to create a culture of cooperation and mutual upliftment based on an equal distribution of power within the community. It includes attempts to create committees of representative-leaders who can be kept genuinely accountable to the people. This is good. But what about the powerful, who will often, thanks to the prevailing logics of the games they are playing, feel they have little to gain by helping along community development efforts (though they may be prepared to become patrons of certain activities that reinforce or establish their status and power)? Who are they? How do they derail community development efforts? In an Indian village, who are the powerful? Where is power concentrated? What about the influence of powerful actors outside of the community on shaping local realities? This last question needs to be handled with caution as macro-critiques must not be permitted to undermine micro-action – for example, by leading to an over-investment of time and energy in protest and policy advocacy. Engaging with locally embodied power must be a central feature of any efforts at social change because shouting into the wind is often ineffective. Indeed, it is quite probable that protest and policy advocacy efforts that emerge through and within direct practical engagements with local embodied/manifest power will be better targeted, more timely and generally more effective.

In a context where the only hope of reversing environmental degradation, ending absolute poverty (I.e. not enough water and food for a healthy life) and creating a vibrant local economy is through massive investment (time, energy, money and resources) in the restoration of natural resources (or the establishment of ecologically sound enterprises and industries) – surely the question of who controls the funds for such investment (and of course, what they do with it) becomes pivotal to the future of the locality. Aside from private wealth and the resources mobilised by NGOs, the financial resources of the State, large amounts of which are made available through local government in the form of schemes and policies, cannot be ignored, simply because it far exceeds any other available source (though there are other very critical reasons to be considered, such as the fact that the state can be, and often is, used as a tool by those with more power to consolidate this power, for example, by using or legitimising the use of force).

And so, this calls the State into the game. The State: that bizarre, ever-present, looming yet inaccessible ‘thing’, that network of relationships and meaning that has special powers vested in it, supposedly, ‘by the people’. Anarchist critiques of the state present it as a massive obstacle to liberation of the oppressed and exploited because of the role it plays in either directly supporting or, as the agent with a monopoly on legal violence, simply turning a blind eye to both oppression and exploitation. But somehow, I can’t see the state just closing down one day. How do anarcho-syndicalists relate to the state? What is the relationship between syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists? Can an initiative be anarcho-syndicalist at its core but, given State-infested circumstances, find itself necessarily making compromises on its anti-State position – at least in practice?

I think this ties in closely to a question that really tickles me: is it really possible to ‘claim’ spaces and make them into ‘people’s spaces’? Can ‘the people’ encroach, claim, re-claim or hi-jack formal institutions of government – especially at the local level? How would this change the very essence of the State? Would a claimed State still be a State or would it become something else altogether?

And who are (or what is) ‘the people’? Are ‘the people’ a united group who have signed a contract with the State? Are they fragmented? Do some dominate and exploit others? Do some have more control over the state ‘machinery’ than others? ‘The people’, in my view, needs to be unpacked to avoid its reduction into a seemingly homogeneous entity when in reality it is internally complex with unclear boundaries. Otherwise meaningless propositions and conclusions will be made that do not serve to deepen our understanding of reality but rather reinforce idealised and ungrounded notions of reality based on abstract concepts.

Unpacking ‘the people’ through a ‘power lens’ would reveal ‘it’ (it, of course is not really a discernible ‘thing’) to be a complex and internally heterogeneous patterning of power relations. Those ‘with power’ are those with the most control over the means of retaining and accumulating power with respect to others in society. Clearly, those who gain the most at present are not likely to want to lose their relative position of advantage with respect to others when they are not the ones who have to pay the price for it. Without a more equal distribution of control over the means of retaining and accumulating power amongst (or within) ‘the people’, a more socially and ecologically just outcome is unlikely to be forthcoming. More specifically, those with power are unlikely to want to let anyone take it away.

Talk of ‘the people’ taking over local government, therefore, demands first a proper formulation of ‘the people’. Which people? The answer is, broadly speaking, those with less power. The losers. Those whose lives are getting (absolutely or even relatively) worse or harder instead of better. Those whose exploitation through the complex machinations of the modern economy undermine their sustainable livelihoods and replace them with money, worsening environmental conditions and an increasingly hard to maintain quality of life. You were born in this family so you must toil in the factory. There is no question of ethics in any of this. Things just are how they are.

So essentially, we are talking about the disempowered and marginalised claiming not just a greater share of power in local government, but striving for a more equitable and flowing distribution of power within society in general. With respect to local government, this refers to a process in which the pattern of power relations between (and amongst) the people and their representative-leaders changes from one of excessive concentration in the hands of leader-representatives (and the puppet-masters for whom they work) to one of more distributed power, in which leader-representatives are held accountable to the people by the people. Experimentation with alternative forms of power relations is, therefore, essential at the level of the locality. No doubt participation in alternative power relations in spaces outside the locality, or in alternative, created spaces, can provide an experience of different power relations and the dream of enacting them in more familiar spaces.

Familiar spaces represent something familiar to our minds and bodies and, perhaps unsurprisingly, often invoke familiar responses. Enacting alternative forms of power relating – which don’t take long before they stick out like sore thumbs – is difficult. Not only does conditioning or the internalisation of roles, power, relationships, practices in the form of habitus (and the fear of reactions to deviations from what is ‘expected’), come in to play but so too does the active response of those around one who may not feel so enthusiastic having the established order challenged. All the more so when the very power of these individuals vis-a-vis others is derived from the established order.

What might be the factors that encourage people to cross a line and challenge power relations? For an SC woman to pluck up the courage to perform a dramatisation of open defecation (her present reality) in front of a crowd of 700 fellow-villagers? Or to stand up and challenge an influential local politician in front of the same crowd? For a harijan to sit on a the same jajam as a brahmin (or vice-versa)? How do the ‘power relations’ internalised or imagined in one’s mind shape the way an individual behaves and responds to ‘power signals’ received from others (whether they were sent intentionally or not)? While all this warrants further inquiry, it is clear that such changes happen. In my observation, the following points seem to be key, though by no means a complete list of, factors:

• Individual concern for a particular issue
• Participation in a social network that gives strength and confidence
• Participating in/experiencing alternative power relations in alternative spaces
• Practicing alternative power relations in different kinds of spaces (household, neighbourhood meeting, local government meetings, government offices)

It seems critical to recognise that not all changes in power relations – indeed, not most – are likely to entail what may appear to an outside or casual observer as a significant shift in or challenge to established power relations. What is important to recognise, however, is the symbolic significance of the ‘transgression’ in the eyes of the transgressor, those whom she ‘transgresses’ with (or on behalf of) and those who are ‘transgressed’ against. Thoughtful transgression against established oppressive political, economic or social orders, in which transgressions emerge through a process of interaction, collective meaning-making by a group of interdependent individuals sharing common purposes and identities (whatever brings them together), must, therefore, lie at the heart of any significant process of change towards a more just society.

Of course, the future is unclear and the fruits of efforts made today should not be expected tomorrow. I would hold that so long as a social process is founded on these basic elements of thoughtful transgression and continuous interaction with a widening array of ‘others’, they are likely to head in the right direction. There will be failed attempts, mistakes, collapses, turn-arounds and all the rest of it. There will also be successes that help to lay the foundation for the emergence of radical new social institutions that are co-created more transparently and pro-actively by those who live them. New norms (patterns of interaction) will begin to emerge through the myriad transgressions that are made on a day-to-day basis.

The real questions we have to work on, as we deepen our understanding of the complex matrix of oppressive relations within which we exist, are which transgressions to engage in, which to support, and which to avoid – and this forces us to consider critically the ethical dimensions of our particular ideology and the practices it legitimises. Is the transgression against one’s own internalised power relations (my habitus)? Is it carried out ’symbolically’ in a ’safe space’ as an act of secret deviance to create collective meaning? Is it carried out openly in the face of the ‘other’? And if so, is it identified as a transgression by those present? How is it dealt with? How is the way the transgression is enacted and perceived linked to what follows? What happens if the transgressors get co-opted? These are some of the questions that any individual, group, organisation or movement truly concerned with bringing about profound change needs to engage with.

State employment, economic and environmental justice, growth and political organisation

Is the National Rural Employment Gurantee Act (NREGA) simply government handouts or is it really an upliftment programme. What does it mean that the government is giving employment to people? Is this an ideal model? Is state ‘employment’ a permanent feature? How is payment by the state exchanged for productivity? What are the terms of the relationship between the employer (the state) and the employed (the people)? Does participation in national productivity secure an equal share of national productivity? Or do certain sectors get valued over others so that some industries – or for that matter professions – are accorded a higher value? What is the ratio of that higher value to the lower values? What is the state’s role in calibrating this? If the state pursues a growth agenda then what are the implications for those it employs?

Here the question comes down to what growth entails. If growth entails potentially irreversible environmental damage and increased poverty – which there is evidence to suggest that it does, even if it is exported overseas – then can it be achieved without the state using its power to coerce workers to undermine their own quality of life? Does the only way to maintain a ‘quality of life’ become to seal oneself off in air-conditioned apartments surrounded by high walls and guarded by a security guard? Is this a good quality life? And what is it’s cost to others who by the time and location of their birth find themselves in a worsening condition?

In letting the questions flow I know that I have toyed with a lot of ‘assumptions’: for example, that growth entails irreversible environmental destruction and increased poverty. Three key elements need attention here: ‘growth’, ‘irreversible’ and ‘poverty’. First, while I recognise that it is the particular pattern of growth that creates a particular pattern of consequences in environmental and social domains, I am not yet convinced that endless (’sustainable’) growth can be achieved without undermining important ecological and social processes that allow all people in all places to thrive (rather than have some suffer so that others can ‘thrive’). Second, the risk of the change being irreversible itself – or at least very costly to reverse – should be caution enough not to disregard the ecological foundations of the economy. Third, poverty should be understood not as a having a low monetary value but rather as a worsening overall quality of life. For example, a farmer who is able to operate a productive farm, even if small, may face less drudgery in the process of meeting his/her basic livelihood needs, without having to handle any money. At the same time, a landless labourer may have to toil for long hours in strenuous conditions only to be subject to hazardous machinery, abuse and exploitation, the vagaries of the market which could see reduced employment or an increase in food prices at any moment. Which would lead to a more stressful, vulnerable life? Of course, farming is not easy and is subject to its own vagaries – rainfall, for example. But a mixed farming practice, combined with sustainable local water management technologies could provide a significant degree of security – even against variations in rainfall, pests. Let alone the potential for a far more nutritious and healthy diet that would reduce health problems and costs!

It is worth clarifying that this is not a rant against industry, which no doubt can have its place, provided it goes through susbstantial revision both in terms of its social relations and its relationship with ecology. Just a call for a radically different form of industry.

But back to the earlier question about the NREGA. My sense is that employment by the government is a sub-optimal arrangement because unless the government and its agenda truly emerges from the people (rather than getting captured by ‘powerful’ interests) then the risk of a growth agenda undermining the quality of people’s lives seems ever-present. Especially given a global economic obsession with competing for high growth figures!

Is it possible to think of the state and its relationship with its employees (through NREGA-like schemes) as much the same, in principle, as the relationship between a business or industrial employer and his/her (statistically, more probably his) employees. Do the ‘workers’ of the state, that is to say its citizens (in some sense), need to unite and organise themselves so as to take control of the means of government? Because surely to do so would be to create a major shift in power relations in the primary institution responsible for upholding the kind of structures that permit a capitalist growth agenda (with all its consequent negative ‘externalities’). I can see this as the dream or vision for the Gram Panchayats, India’s ‘3rd tier’ of democratic government. But creating a policy document, building offices, employing secretaries and hosting elections does not amount to creating a functioning, participatory democracy. And there are a significant number of people who gain from the present arrangement. Most notably they are not the poor or the marginal.

I think the kind of work that Seva Mandir’s is doing is fundamental to the promotion of community self-governance through participatory democracy. Perhaps what I feel most strongly, however, is the need for Seva Mandir to really engage with the formal structures and mechanisms of the state and political power. If the citizens do not claim the Panchayats as their own, then they leave the most basic and accessible ‘organ’ of the state, and most certainly the rest of it, free to run its own reign. This doesn’t bode well for creating a new economy founded on social and ecological principles. While there are arguments for indirect and long-term benefits of the work that is carried out without involvement of the State, there is also the very real risk that governments make decisions that may ignore, undermine or render inadequate the efforts that organisations like Seva Mandir are making. Of course, Seva Mandir-like organisation faces their own internal problems too  – but that is something to be explored elsewhere.

Strong communities (highly networked, responsive, mutually accountable, etc.) appear to be an invaluable element in terms of holding ‘the government’ to account or even making it broadly responsive to their needs. So community development is a precursor or else means to local self-governance. But only, however, when it steps outside of its comfortable ‘community’ domain and begins to engage with the state as another common resource whose proper and sustainable management depends on the active participation of people who are familiar with the principles and practice of community development.

PS. this was a ramble and so apologies for the long, somewhat incoherent title (and quite possible contents)

almost 3 months… and no blog post

The last few months or so have been full-on. Work, leisure, learning, illness, love, loss – and now that muddled up feeling of not being sure whether I’m coming or going…

• I travelled to a beautiful place with my girlfriend for 10 days;
• Some old, old family friends fell out with my parents over some disturbing antique with radically different sentimental value;
• I have seen greater-than-expected changes on the ground in Delwara (where citizens have become better organised and capable of making their voices heard);
• I have been an active participant in the complex interactive patterns of meaning-making in Seva Mandir (and gained countless – not always complementary – insights in organisational reality and change;
• I have had an array of realisations regarding community development, the nature of change, the need for an alternative sustainable economics for local development and the fact that the dominant political and economic logic of the present order continuously and systematically undermines it;
• I suffered from a not-too-severe bout of malaria…
• Countless other work-related things
• and now the bewildering fact that I have to go back to the UK to complete my studies.

In its own right the last point is not really bad. More of an issue is the fact that I have no idea what will happen afterwards – which I suppose is exciting. I realise I’m putting a lot of hope into my opportunity for really digesting my experiences here over the last year – the combination of my work on the ground the participatory research I have been doing, my engagement with new theoretical material, my intensive efforts at making ongoing-sense of what is going on around me, the questions that this has surfaced and re-surfaced that make me completely unsure of where I should be channeling my energy. Sometimes the thought of a PhD looms large. I realise there is so much stuff out there and so many ways to look at it that it is almost mind-boggling to decide where to start.

I have for a long time now stood in direct opposition to adopting pre-made ideologies which involve a polarised perspective or straight-jacket themseles by failing to adopt an eclectic theoretical foundation. But then why have I become increasingly excited by anarcho-syndicalism? While reading up on it I was particularly taken by the fact that the organisational International Workers of the World has taken an ecological turn with the incorporation of the following (italics my emphasis) in the preamble to their constitution:

a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth. (http://www.iww.org/culture/official/preamble.shtml)

…thereby overturning the long-standing assumption that the working class lack environtmental concern or sensitivity.

At the same time, while I find class (and most other reifications like it) to be a dubious category, I do appreciate the usefulness of dividing society into broad categories defined by the relations between them and the particular traits and behaviours they each display. But the capitalist state system, does not consist only of employers and the employed. It also includes the self-employed. Take for example the poor farmer, not covered by government schemes and subsidies and unable to access credit because of his starting condition (low-landholdings, no collateral), or perhaps even worse, taking loans to invest in genetically engineered cotton which demands such huge and expecnsive chemical inputs that the farmer falls into a spiral of debt which ends with  suicide? And what of those employed by the state? Not only the government officers and bureacrats but also those who are covered by employment schemes (such as the Indian government’s NREGA?).

The idea that all businesses should run as cooperative, worker-owned, worker-run, democratic organisations whose function is broadly understood as extending beyond the production of goods, profit and employment to liberating society and ‘living in harmony with the environment’, sounds quite wonderful. Does it work in practice? Do we have examples? I need to look into this more thoroughly. But clearly, organisers are required. Who unites the workers? The association of workers? Does an NGO, then, have any legitimacy in this process? Can we have a pluralist approach in syndicalism? Can anyone with the right intentions help workers (manual producers) to organise themselves? And how does all this curb the growth drive – the desire for more material wealth? I don’t know what the answer is but I can see very clearly that without a radical restructuring of the economy – and the political relations which support the present order – we are all pretty much destined for worse not better. Will radical new peer-2-peer forms of economic relationship facilitated through new insights into the effectiveness of networks in an increasingly knowledge-driven economy (supported by the boundary-less infrastucture of the internet of course) be a major part of the answer?

And, ultimately, how do I decide what to do with my time and energy? What do I invest it in? Do I continue working away in Seva Mandir? Do I try to build my new questions into the ongoing action research I am engaged in here? Do I venture further afield to see what else is happening, what has been achieved, what has failed, why and how? Questions of the state continue to haunt me. I can’t seem to figure out what to do with it. I suppose I am tolerant of the ‘State’ but not very enthusiastic about it either. More than anything, I can see that it is present and the only way its going away is by becoming something other than what it presently is… But that doesn’t necessarily make it ‘not State’… Perhaps some simple participatory decision-making infrastructure that facilitates learning, knowledge-sharing, and cooperation in general.

But maybe this is losing touch with ground realities. Perhaps it doesn’t matter what injustice is being fought against, what oppression, what corruption, what exploitation. Perhaps it is simply important to be sensitive to all these wrongs (as opposed to rights?), to help people to recognise them in their own lives and contexts, to discover the benefit of cooperation and collaboration as the basis for a healthy individual and social life. Perhaps the rest works itself out from there. It doesn’t help me choose, however, which set of injustices to focus my energies on though – or where or how to do it!

The International Rural Network Conference, Udaipur 2009

participants reflecting at the end of Day 1

I had the privilege last week of co-hosting the International Rural Network 2009 Conference, which, magically, was held in Udaipur this year, about 5 minutes down the road from my house. Initially I was asked whether I would like to present a paper or organise a workshop – but I wasn’t able to get much sense of what I could really do there. I eventually got in touch with the organiser and she asked me to help with planning the overall timetable. I immediately noticed that there were not many spaces in the conference for people either to interact with each other in a semi-structured manner, to create their own agenda or to reflect on the insights and questions that would surface over the course of the conference. While I was back in the UK, in June and July, I pondered over the design of the workshop and eventually came up with something that would combine a mela (festival) kind of layout for the first day, with space for discussion, jotting down ideas and questions, connecting with new people, and interacting with people from the various local organisations who would be hosting field visits for the conference attendees. The rest of the conference would combine traditional pre-planning with an open-space inspired approach to enable participants to construct their own agenda over the course of the conference, to have conversations outside of the more formal paper presentations and workshops. Processes for weaving together at the end of each day were also incorporated.

Once back in India, I quickly got tangled in all kinds of ongoing work – most notably the Citizen’s Day in Delwara. I somehow managed to make time to keep engaged with the IRN process, and had a series of conversations – particularly with Lakshmi, Manish and Fizzy regarding the design of the event. I was really lucky to be surrounded by such cooperative, can-do people. I saw my ideas translating into design almost faster than I was able to really take on board. The whole event was going to be a new experience for me and there were a great many questions and doubts in my mind – even regarding the very sessions I had been proposing. Everyone was encouraging and supportive so that by the time the conference had begun I was very much in the middle of a flowing river.

Turnout turned out to be much less than expected – 70 as compared to around 150. Although this was a disappointment at some level, it also came as a relief. Somehow, the idea of handling even more people seemed daunting. Later I also was able to observe the high quality of interaction that was taking place between people – and perhaps the low numbers helped enhance the depth of connections taking place amongst participants.

discussing knowledge hierarchies in an open session

Overall the event was a great success, as far as I can perceive. The whole event proceeded smoothly. The Milan Mela worked out well – a good buzz was going, people were relaxed as they walked around chatting to each other, drinking tea and writing down ideas and questions around each of the four sub-themes. I was hyper-active. Some people proposed conversations they wanted to have, and some of the open sessions started to fill up. The first day proceeded well, albeit with excessive – though possibly necessary – rushing around on my part. With the first day cleared, and a realisation that a big part of my situation was due to the fact that neither I nor the other participants really understood the venue. By the end of the first day, we had all just about overcome this challenge.

The conference unfolded over the next few days – and the vibe seemed really positive. Almost everyone I spoke to was quick to appreciate the various ‘innovations’ that had been introduced – whether by me or Lakshmi or anyone else for that matter. There were a good number of meaningful, engaging conversations. I was a little disappointed to begin with by my own session – with small numbers and without the energy (probably a lot to do with me but also the short time of the session) to get people engaged in drama to explore power relations in partnerships.

I remember being generally irritated at the low participation of local NGO staff. The opportunity of having such a conference locally just seemed so great, that I could not understand why more people were not present. It would have been great to have more local people both sharing their own experiences and innovations and also getting exposure to others. However, once the numbers were established it seemed pointless to lament the situation… So I got on with what I was supposed to be doing.

On Thursday, although the weaving it together session lost its slot to the AGM which overran its time-slot (we were running a little late that day), the AGM itself included a space for reflection on the conference design and experience. I was really happy to hear John Bryden (now president of the IRN) mention and seek feedback on the various innovations that had been introduced as a result of my efforts (and of course all those who I have been collaborating with). I was even happier to hear the positive responses from the conference participants – both from those who were more familiar with such open-space types of conference and those who were not. It was decided that subsequent IRNs would adopt these innovations in their future design. I can’t really imagine a greater marker of success – from an innovators perspective.

The conference raised some really important questions. The keynote speakers, the various sessions and the charts that had been put up on the first day had gathered some really important insights and questions around the four sub-themes: (1) Partnerships; (2) Adaptation and transformation; (3) Innovation and Sustainability; (4) Leveraging Resources. Some of the key messages that I took away and incorporated in my closing speech – which I don’t even know if I was supposed to give or not are given below:

• the urban-rural divide: while it seems that there are debates about whether or not such a divide exists (a debate I do not think is particularly helpful), my sense is that it is the particular way that the urban and the rural influence, shape or structure each other that is of greatest importance. There is a tension here between rural and urban – ideas, aspirations, expectations, relationships with the natural world – and all of these need to be explored in greater detail if meaningful sustainable betterment is to be achieved in either rural, urban or in-between areas and societies.
• innovation and sustainability: here the message was clear – “be the guinea pigs” – we can’t just leave ourselves out of the picture when it comes to sustainability and innovation; these are not just for poor people in rural areas. Experimentation and being open to new ideas or ways of doing things is key; we have to be ready to make mistakes and to understand these as an integral part of the learning process. Critically, innovation is not just about new technology – it is also about institutions and culture. Are we innovating institutionally and culturally? Are we innovating with more cosmologies – our understandings of our place in the universe – that are more oriented to a sustainable society?
• partnerships: does this word simply obscure the complex qualities of the relationships that exist between ‘development’ actors, the kinds of interactions that are taking place and the way that they are structured? Are there structural inequalities in the relationships and what is being done to overcome them? Many relationships – such as those between the mass media and the people, or often between government agencies and citizens – are one-directional gesturing process – there is no control over how people will respond and there is no real sensitivity to local diversity. This is the same pattern found in ‘top-down’ technical dissemination which doesn’t allow for context-specific customisation, dialogue and meaning-making amongst the people concerned. In any case, innovation will always be required in response to any policy: what will the response be to a new policy directive? New policies? Or new collaborative efforts to change structural inequalities and support shifts to a alternative paradigms for understanding knowledge and defining meaningful, positive and inclusive social change.
• One point that came up throughout the conference was the need for concerted but also diverse efforts for building the human capacity (read this, for my views on capacity and capacity development) that is required for enacting the kinds of changes that are desired. It’s not about top-down or bottom-up – these concepts are not really that useful. There is a need to engage across the whole society, working with people at various levels, forming linkages, engaging in joint action and sufficiently shared understandings of concepts, issues, and reality itself. What are the real issues and what are the overlaps in our interests and capacities that we can take advantage of in order to add more energy to the change process.
• And so, in my eyes, the biggest challenge remains finding ways of working together more effectively, overcoming fragmentary, dualistic, us-them, either or mind-sets. But it’s not just mindsets – there are institutional and cultural barriers. We are not dealing with merely intellectual barriers (though these too may be great), but rather the very way that we are living – our ways of being in the world, of relating to each other and also to nature; both what is known and that which is not. And so, opening up to new ideas and experiences seems critical… and that, I suppose, is what the IRN is all about!

So all in all, I had a good time, learned a lot and feel pretty alright about everything. I have a long list of thanks due to all those who made this work as enjoyable as it was – particularly Fizzy, Manish, all those from other organisations in Udaipur (including Seva Mandir), the participants who attended the conference and last but not least, Lakshmi Murthy – for giving me this opportunity! I hope everybody found it as interesting as I did! More information about the event can be found on the IRN website (here).

Nagrik Diwas (Citizen’s Day) @ Delwara

Nagrik Diwas Seva Mandir’s work in Delwara is directly concerned with encouraging responsible citizenship and local self-governance. The journey so far has included an extensive range of activities with the citizens of Delwara through which Seva Mandir has sought to engage citizens in dialogue and action around issues of local importance. These issues have included water scarcity, sanitation, livelihoods, solid waste management, health, heritage and education – all of which emerged through conversations with various groups of citizens. Central to Seva Mandir’s involvment in Delwara has been actively facilitating the emergence of new organisational and relational forms within the community. However, while it had been possible to bring diverse groups of citizens together – either based on various identity groups or around certain common issues, occasions for the whole township to come together, take stock of their journey so far, experience their collectivity, and reflect on key issues and questions regarding responsible citizenship and local-self governance.

With Seva Mandir’s involvement in Delwara already dating almost 6 years, and with considerable change having taken place, the time felt ripe for bringing all the citizens together on a larger platform to celebrate the journey so far and to engage with the various possibilities, issues and questions that have surfaced along the way. As an initiative, the idea of a holding a citizen’s day event was first floated by Bhatiji some 2 years prior to the date when it actually occurred. A wide range of issues had meant that the intervention could not get implemented earlier, However, it was finally planned that Nagrik Diwas should be held this year in 2009. The date selected for the event was February 22nd – in order to commemorate the formation of the Citizen’s Forum on that day in 2004. However, lack of support for the event amongst the leadership of the citizen’s forum meant that it had to postponed.

Interestingly, one of the main reasons for not going ahead with the event was the fact that there was no confirmed guest from the government willing to come on that occasion. There were extensive debates at the time about whether it was a Citizen’s Day or a Minister’s Day that we were supposed to be celebrating. Trying to plan the event purely around the participation of various ministers did not seem to be very much in the spirit of creating a citizen-centred event – one that would be by the citizens, for the citizens. But it was too late and the date had lapsed.

The following month, the women of Delwara decided to celebrate International Women’s Day. The event was planned in a participatory manner by the women members of the Mahila Jagriti Manch. The women also wanted to invite an influential or prominent minister to attend their event. However, discussion revealed the women’s resolve to hold the event regardless of who would show up that day – after all, simply getting all the women together in a single location, talking about issues of concern to them and celebrating their journey so far seemed worthy in its own right. Thus, despite unsuccessful efforts to bring the Women’s Minister (Girjya Vyas), the women ended up conducting a two-day event – combining fun and games (matka races, tug-of-war, jalebi races, etc.), with group discussions, presentations, speaches and awards for women who have shown exceptional leadership. Some 350 women from across the township attended the event.

Beyond its significance to the women of Delwara, the women’s approach to the event also clearly signalled the determination, attitude and priority of the women – and their confidence in their own capacity and importance. The fact that the women did this, and managed most of the event by themselves (for example, deciding on the programme, the themes for group discussions, distributing the invitation cards, going to call chief guests, etc.), suddenly threw the men – because of whom Nagrik Diwas was delayed – into a questionable position. The men then agreed to organise the event and to prioritise the citizens rather than the ministers.

Although all this took place in March 2009, it was not until August 2009 – 5 months later – that Nagrik Diwas was eventually held, with the support and backing of the leaders of the Citizen’s Forum. Nagrik Diwas was held on the 20th of August and was attended by some 750 citizen’s from Delwara, about 60-70% of whom were women. Preparations for the event had been going on for a considerable length of time. Conversations about Citizen’s Day had started in earnest in January 2009 and so, by August, the concept had been thoroughly churned by many citizens.

The design of the event was a synthesis of ideas that had been bubbling for the past four months. The plan was to take up an entire afternoon from 12pm to 6pm with a range of different activities. There would be displays of photographs, charts and videos on local issues made by the youth. There would be stalls for each of the key citizen’s bodies (the women’s group, the youth group and the citizen’s forum) and the local government to interact with citizens attending the event. In addition to this, there would be a main function on the stage with speakers – including citizens, representatives from Seva Mandir and the government. Both men and women would be on stage, from a range of different communities, leaders of the citizens’ forum (old and new), mohalla committee representatives; and they would be speaking on the journey so far, the issues and challenges faced and offering their own advice and encouragement regarding how to proceed together. Members of the women’s group and female mohalla group members would also be performing plays on the local issues – particularly water, sanitation and solid waste management in front of the crowd, as would youth from the youth centre. A discussion session was also planned with four key questions for the citizens’ of Delwarae, to be followed by presentations back to the larger group. But, unfortunately, there was no time for this. Almost all of this unfolded beyond expectations.

Perhaps one of the most symbolic moments in the whole event was when Rukhmini Meghwal – a member of the women’s group – stood up and challenged Rameshwar Khateek – the Up-pradhan – over the government’s lack of responsiveness to citizen’s needs. In many ways, this was a first. Though women from Delwara – most notably, those involved in Sadhna – have been known to rise up to address injustice, Rukhmini’s leadership had blossomed (or come to light?) through the women’s group, rather than Sadhna. The image was of a little lady in a simply, yet bright, yellow sari standing up with a sea of women sitting behind her while she challenged the up-pradhan (an influential and powerful local political figure). While the particular issue was to do with a request for water supply, and the up-pradhan was able to somehow get someone to bring a photocopy of the sanction letter that indicated the work would be taken up, the event was very symbolic – and many participants afterwards were found commenting. I like to think that if we had strictly followed the programme and forced the group discussions into it, then this kind of symbolic interaction might never have taken place…

Otherwise, those who spoke, spoke well. When the up-pradhan declared that there was a war going on between the Panchayat and the NVM, the president of the NVM responded with a very clear message in his own speech. He said that there was no such war, that the NVM and the Panchayat have to work together and that there is nothing more that the citizens want than a strong and vibrant panchayat (my words!).

In addition, the women who spoke about their involvement and their thoughts regarding various ongoing change processes, including those who presented their experiences and their ideas through drama – did so very well. I was saddened under the cirucmstances that I could not give a space to women from both Bhil mohalla and Khateek mohalla because of the changes in the programme. I chose Khateek mohalla because at the time, this seemed like the best idea as it touched clearly on three major village level issues. After all the time and effort put in by the women from Bhil mohalla, however, I couldn’t help feel that this wasn’t a fair decision. All the same, it went down well and with a bit of improv (I suddenly became an actor mid-way through the play, playing the role of the project coordinator) the message was conveyed. I will need to pay a visit to Bhil mohalla to apologise for all this and to think of ways of putting the women’s effort to good use.

The charts and photography displays gathered quite a throng – with viewing conducted before the main session under the tent. Youth and children seemed particularly interested by the photographs, which they discussed amongst themselves avidly, occasionally pointing or giggling at the pictures. There was also a room where videos made by youth from Delwara were being screened and quite a crowd of youth had gathered to watch. We also almost succeeded in making the event polythene free, with chai served in earthern cups and the food packets being contained in paper. Unfortunately, the caterers providing lunches had used plastic bags, and the photos were packed with plastic wrapping and polystyrene.

Perhaps one of the most significant elements of the entire event, from my perspective, was the incredible amount of time and energy that went into making it happen. Some 40 to 50 citizens – youth, women and men from various communities, a few staff but most of them not – were actively involved. Some were distributing invitations to the households in their neighbourhoods, others were preparing charts or photo-displays, some were rehearsing plays, dances and speeches, while others still were organising the tent, sound system and stage. And of course, the 750 citizens who attended the event – a remarkable turnout overshooting the 500 that we had expected – deserve appreciation and recognition for their participation.

Finally, there has been much to learn from the experience of helping to organise this event. There are countless small improvements that could be made – and the clearer idea of what is possible will help to spur us on to an even better event the following year. One very clear area for improvement is increased interactiveness of the main event – a clear call for fewer speeches was made by several members of staff and citizens. However, I sense that the speeches given were all important, particularly in terms of clarifying to the citizens the collaborative relationship that appears to be emerging between the Nagrik Vikas Manch and the district and block administration.

As I got ready to leave that evening at the end of the event. One of the local youth that I often bump into in Yadav mohalla came up to me and said he wanted to write down his reflections on the event. I remember thinking at the time that this was a kind of impact indicator – to inspire someone to volunteer to write their reflections seems like a sign that something significant was achieved. I told the young man that I would love to read his thoughts and that we could even put his piece in the local newsletter, Apni Patrika. The rest of the leaving process was full of hugs, pats on the back, smiling and chattering about the event – its highs and lows and thoughts about what could be done differently. Not wanting to leave the atmosphere behind, I reluctantly climbed into the jeep and a group of us set of for dinner in Udaipur.

Monday & Tuesday: learning from drama and women

Monday and Tuesday were spent in Delwara, mainly working with members of the women’s group and some women’s mohalla level representatives preparing plays on stories of change. Three mohalla (neighbourhood) committees had come together – all of them amongst the poorest and traditionally most excluded sections of society: the Bhil tribals, the Bhoi (vegetable farmers), the Khateek (butchers). The women were in groups of 4 to 10 women each. I explained to them the concept of putting on a performance to share stories of change and the experiences and challenges associated with them. The women were enthusiastic and it wasn’t long before each group of women was in a separate room, deciding how to put the story together. Stories focused on issues related to water, sanitation and cleaning – all top issues on the women’s agenda. The energy and competence of the women of Delwara never ceases to inspire me. Many of the women are quick-witted and spritely – often despite their considerable age. They have a great sense of humour – are quick to laugh together, always have something to say – an opinion, a suggestion – and they are eager to learn from each other. Over the course of the two days I was able to witness some really powerful moments of interaction and insight, which I am attempting to capture here.

women performing a play on water and sanitation issues

As the women were deciding what stories to incoporate into their plays, there was an initial sharing session in which all women were present. A group of women from the Bhil (tribal) mohalla group were talking about their system for managing the community water tank – and more specifically about the contribution process. In their community every household contributes Rs.30 per month to cover water and cleaning fees so with 50 households that amounts to Rs.1500 which is more than enough to cover bills for the water pump and a small sum for the citizen they have chosen to operate the pump and the taps in the mornings and evenings. Suddenly, the women from Khateek mohalla burst out – “Rs.30? In our community we can hardly get 15 of the 70 households to contribute just Rs.10 every month!” An intense discussion then broke out between the women on this issue. Observing the horizontal learning enabled by even the most simple form of story-telling was truly wonderful – I really felt that I was witnessing a manifestation of the true potential for social change that organisations like Seva Mandir can bring about.

While this conversation was going on, another group of women who had earlier been complaining that no-one in their neighbourhood listened to them when they tried to organise the community around solid waste management issues, suddenly changed tack. I overhead one woman say to another: “You see, they’re just like we are in our neighbourhood. And these women are in the same position as us trying to solve these problems.” The tone of the voice conveyed a renewed sense of commitment – hearing others’ stories brought energy through, I presume, the feeling of solidarity. We’re in this together, we can’t just give up because it’s difficult.

life before the community water tank

Later on I asked a group of women how they had become so good at acting. I actually asked this question twice to two groups of women and both gave me the same response. The first group I asked, I couldn’t fully understand the answer because it was in thick Mewari – and I didn’t properly check at the time what it meant. The second group I asked, responded in Hindi and so this time I got it properly: “Yeh natak nahi hai, yeh hamara anubhav hai!” which translates as “this is not a ‘drama’, this is our experience!”. That’s when the first group piped in saying “that’s exactly what we said!” And I realised just how lucky I was to be working with these women. When it comes to working with different forms of knowledge, it really seems to me that these women get it and may even be getting liberated by it. Moving from experiential knowledge to presentational knowledge and all of it has a strong bearing on practical knowledge – understanding how to get things done and how to be in order to make this possible. And these plays show it all.