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.

Sunday: from riots to unity?

Meetings all day from 11am to 9pm… Lakshmi on IRN – covered ground and had a really good rice-flour chappatti with dry (south Indian) chutney… it rocked (thank you!). Then met Arvind and talked about the seminar he wants to host – nice idea but not my area of interest or capability… I agreed to try and find out a bit about what is going on with this… Then a meeting with Bhatiji and Gulabji at Seva Mandir – talked about Nagrik Diwas – by and large it was good – I have some nice notes on it… Then off to the talk at Vidya Bhawan about the riots/strikes in Udaipur… This was an interesting conversation – and it was linked by many to prevailing issues within the NGO sector in Udaipur more generally…

Some of the conversation dwelled on whether or not the aim of the rioters was good or not (for example by talking about who would and who wouldn’t benefit from it), others talked about the means used – can violent and destructive means ever be the right course of action… Almost all the participants took a strong stance against the riots, many referring to the fact that even civil society organisations such as SM and Astha had been victimised… Some pointed out that this is what was required to wake the NGOs up to just how troubled the sector is. There were references to the fragmentation within the sector and how this prevented the NGOs from ever speaking up with a common voice. I felt good about the idea that some of the big NGOs were finally finding a meaningful rallying point… There were questions about how to take the agenda forward… Some of the main suggestions were to do with trying to take the dialogue forward with the various parties involved (whether as instigators, victims or just by-standers – or combinations of these) – the ‘lawyers’, the government administration, the police. There was also a feeling that some kind of common position needed to be taken with respect to the issue, a way of making clear ‘where we stand’ and to convey this message to the government. There were calls for pressuring the government to take stronger action to prevent such riots in the future rather than being complicit by-standers trying to avoid the issue.

I am quite certain that dialogue is a critical part of engaging with the issues. There is a great need for a great deal of dialogue on many levels, involving many people – all the concerned stakeholders. One group that I didn’t hear get mentioned, however, was the (disaffected) youth who end up being the front-line perpetrators of the violence. Who are they? Where do they come from? How do they get into these kinds of thoughtless thuggish acts? What is being done to limit the extent to which this happens? For some reason, I feel a high level of scepticism about trying to achieve powerful change without looking to the condition of the people who end up carrying out the rioting at others’ behest. It’s a bit like trying to improve the Panchayat in a village by only working with the position holders in the Panchayat but not doing anything to enable the citizens to be more responsible and active.

The summarised story, as I understand it from fragments of various statements made by participants in the meeting, is as follows. Lawyers – most of whom are not at all properly trained (except in extorting money from clients) – expect to get more money if a high court bench gets set up in Udaipur. They have strong linkages with local politicians who also have strong links to various religious groups (such as the baj rang dal, the shiv sena, etc.). Together they decide to stir up some noise (violence and fear) in order to get what they want (including vandalism of some NGO property). Neither the government nor the police responded in a way that the discussants felt was appropriate. One example was that when Seva Mandir went to the police office to report the vandalism of its property it was discouraged from lodging a complaint because it might lead to more trouble. Another is police standing by while groups of youth set fire to stacks of tyres located at major junctions, releasing clouds of dirty black smoke into the air. Many of the participants put forward a strong case that the chances of the high court bench benefiting the poor is highly questionable. Most of the poor people’s cases don’t ever end up in the high court in any case. This is the plot synopsis that I was able to take away.

A number of really important points were made that stuck in my head. The first is that what happened should be thought of as a terrorism. The methods of the rioters and those organising them are clearly intended to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the common people who are threatened with violence for refusing to close down their shops or offices. So how is this not terrorism? And if it is terrorism, why is it considered so acceptable by the state and the police? The second point that struck me, was to do with the extent to which the NGO sector is resilient and vibrant enough – or even has the required commitment and focus – to engage with such issues in any serious or meaningful way. Apparently such strikes take place from time to time… but in the past NGOs have remained unaffected – with one speaker essentially accusing the NGOs of only taking interest now that they had come directly under attack. I think this raises a lot of important and interesting questions about the way that change takes place within a field such as Udaipur’s NGO sector – no doubt a field that is thoroughly worthy of deeper study (and I might just end up studying it one day – if I am not thrown out for trying!).

It seems that there is something taking place – some kind of underlying structure to the dynamic of change within this isntitutional field – especially when one decides to examine the NGO sector in Udaipur more generally… The rise of Seva Mandir – it’s breaking off into myriad organiastions many of which ended up being in a bad relationship with Seva Mandir, and now large external threats sending a signal that there are bigger differences (and dangers) to be addressed than those amongst the NGOs themselves. Differences that can only be addressed through a more cohesive and collective response. And lets admit it: if the NGO sector in Udaipur got its act together it would (could?) be a rather mighty force. Even Seva Mandir alone could be mobilising some 3-400 village groups – with all their women’s groups, youth groups, etc. When I think of 200 of Delwara’s women sitting peacefully together in Delwara on International Women’s Day, it becomes easy to imagine an even more broadly-based movement of people taking a stand against injustice, exploitation, corruption and oppression. The NGO sector could play a catalytic role in this process if it could once again engage in the kind of dialogue that is so fundamental to making meaningful change possible. Let us see what we have in store.

exit interviews

Just recently one of my housemates gave in his resignation, no longer willing to work at Seva Mandir as a variety of frustrations had built up to the point where he didn’t want to be here any more. In traditional Seva Mandir style this decision was subject to extensive debate with other housemates. This entailed extensive and often rather severe critiques of many problems with which Seva Mandir is afflicted. Some of the major issues that surfaced were to do with inequality in the treatment and payment of staff – and in particular the elitist bias which appears to exist in the sense that those coming in from ‘more reputed’ educational institutions get salaries double (or even more) the amount of salary as compared to those from ‘less reputed’ ones. This spawned a range of conversations about whether an invdividual is payed according to their capacity or something else and what constitutes just payment for work. The conversation also dwelled extensively on some of the dilemmas faced by Seva Mandir in figuring out where it stands – struggling to balance its ideals of voluntarism and the realities of the larger market context within which it is embedded – and who gains and who loses out in the process and what this does to reinforce or transform structural inequalities – both within Seva Mandir and, therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, within society more generally. Clearly there were no easy answers. Dilemmas abound and the manager’s job is no peice of cake.

I shared a story from the Balwadi programme about the use of performance measurement to try and keep track of how many visits are made by field workers to the Balwadi centres (this is as much as the lengthy formats are really able to communicate meaningfully) – as a tool for monitoring and, supposedly, control. This format was eventually scrapped during one of the Balwadi team meetings with the general consensus that these formats were not proving helpful in terms of bringing about improvements in the running of the centres. Meanwhile, a new form was being piloted (albeit rolling out rather slowly). Recently, a presentation was given about the use of the organisations MIS database and the Balwadi programme was reported as not having data because it was developing new reports. This became a cause of concern for the programme in-charge and so we had a meeting to discuss the status update. During the meeting a very clear tension emerged around the format. At the same time there was the need to have some kind of data that could be presented in case questions arose: “If people ask me, and I can’t even tell them whether visits are being made to the centres, then what can I say?” At the same time, it was clearly acknowledged that having this data (visits to the centre) was not enough to bring about quality improvements, even if it created the illusion of control. The real question, I ventured, was to what extent the right kinds of conversations were taking place about Balwadi centres (a) between the block and zone levels; and (b) between the zone and community levels of the organisation. The challenge of course, is to decide between efforts that focus on generating data that creates an illusory sense of control, of ‘knowing what’s going on’ (even if the data tells us little of value from the perspective of learning and change), in order to comply with prevailing institutional logics, or whether to focus energy and attention on the quality of conversations taking place in the context of the Balwadi programme, which may yield a different form of data that is less valued within the organisation but could be instrumental in learning how to be more effective in bringing about changes in the quality of the programme. The pressure is clearly on the manager to make these decisions, to take risks, and the end result, at best, usually ends up being a sort of compromise – but will this be enough to really help change to happen?

We talked about the inability of front line field staff to express themselves, to say what they felt about the issues they faced, and the considerable level of demotivation that had taken hold at the field level. We questioned the potential for the field team to ever effect change in these relationships autonomously, without any support or coordination in this direction and ended up doubtful that anything would happen on its own, given the entrenched and internalised nature of the unequal power relations at play. It was a good conversation, wide-ranging, with each individual putting forward some of their own theories of change. It challenged people to think about the extent to which they were really committed to the critiques they raised – whether their own behaviour displayed a real desire to try and bring about change or not.

But what is all this about? Well, regardless of the conversation that we had, my housemate was set on his resignation. He was asked to participate in an ‘exit interview’. This entailed him sitting down with the HR manager and sharing all of his frustrations and concerns, justifying, in a sense, his decision to leave the organisation. It suddenly struck me that there is something bizarre about exit interviews – mainly the fact that we only try to understand what motivated someone to leave after they have made their decision (which is, by the way, not usually a quick or easy decision for anyone – rather it is contemplated for an extensive period of time prior to happening). Surely it would make more sense to have these interviews with staff every few months? If staff were invited to share their experiences in, reflections on and suggestions for the organisation on, say, a 3- or 6-monthly basis, in a confidential manner, wouldn’t this help to generate a fairly sizeable set of data about the main issues affecting the organisation? Wouldn’t this help managers to think about what kinds of changes they might want to make to the way things are done in order to secure a higher level of retention and to generate a more satisfying work environment?

My proposal is for confidential periodic update interviews, in which after the interview, participants are asked to provide key summary points of the main issues that concern them in their particular contexts so that they can be used to inform management decision-making… Could such a system work?

the (almost) 1 month retreat

I was excited to be heading back to England, with a whole bunch of things spread out across the roughly 1 month break I took from Udaipur from mid-June to mid-July. When I arrived in London I took the tube from Heathrow to Arsenal where my brother came and picked me up. We had dinner together and chatted back at his place for a bit. The next morning we travelled up to Norwich for my dad’s birthday, which we celebrated quietly with much talking and a good meal. After a couple of days at home of just relaxing, reading, thinking, talking and eating, I was back at the university, catching up and connecting with my classmates. After a quick initial get together we had a few days to prepare our presentations for the upcoming seminar. I spent these days thinking, writing, talking, cooking (a good collective experience), eating, going for walks and, eventually, working on my presentation.

The presentations started the following Monday but I was scheduled for Wednesday so there was not too much of a rush. Each day there were various activities – specifically workshops – to attend. This included a forum theatre workshop in which we explored emotions at work and got the chance to share many insights based on our experiences. I really appreciated this experience as I have been thinking about putting it into action in Seva Mandir for work on relationships. On the second day we had the chance to participate in a workshop with Skip which explored change (primarily) in higher educational institutions but more generally, from a perspective informed by ideas drawn from systems thinking and complexity theory. After a brief introduction we were all on the ground drawing pictures of our own models of organiastional/institutional change. Then each participant explained their theory and it was really interesting to see the variation in conceptualisation expressed through drawing. Definitely opening up people’s diverse framings to exploration!

I’d managed to put something together for my presentation, which I actually rehearsed a couple of times and timed for fear of having to much to say given the 30 minutes time constraint. But there was a lot to say, and putting the presentation together proved to be a very positive exercise in making sense of what I had been doing over the course of the last 6 months. Although I had been thinking about my work from a variety of theoretical perspectives, it had not been easy for me to single out key insights or dimensions of my inquiry. Neither had it been easy to really understand how everything held together, and this lurked as a question in the background.

I aimed for a mix of process description with limited in-depth theoretical material and a good spattering of anecdotes in an order that I hope just about managed to retain some sense of the progression of time, culminating in my last few days and the important interactions that took place then: both the intense entanglements in the adverse effects of imbalanced power relations and the way that this allows subjective reality to be seriously distorted/selective, and sharing my research process, theory and findings with the executive committee and the strange silence it evoked. Although I got feedback from my tutor I didn’t get much feedback from my classmates. At the same time, I must admit that I didn’t give any written feedback to any of the others in the group (except for one, by email, because a stream of ideas came to me on the evening after his presentation) because I didn’t know what to write on the evaluation forms. Somehow it seemed impossible to focus on the presentations, give useful comments or ask emerging questions and also write comments in the highly structured evaluation form, which seemed targetted towards a rather traditional or formal evaluation structure. At least that’s what I blamed it on! I did manage to say quite a few things during the discussions, however, and I do hope that they were helpful.

On the last day our class had the chance to interact with Jaques Boulet (Borderlands, Australia) and the conversation focused heavily on the topic of relationalism as a way – not just of seeing or doing, but of being. This resonated well with me given my increasing interest in relational ways of understanding human societies or configurations and it felt energising and inspiring. Some questions about technology and how this often adversely affects our relationships caused me to ponder but it’s a difficult ones and clearly a line is required somewhere. I always feel that it can be unjust to blame technology for things going wrong when the same technology holds the potential for great good and enormous bad! Surely the question is more to do with the interaction between power relations and technology use?

One of the most valuable sessions – or at least one of the sessions that most rocked my foundations – was the final session with the class in which we explored our biggest concerns or questions and our ideas for how to address them/go forward meaningfully. Here I allowed my frustration juices to flow and thought about the issues that most perplexed me or troubled me in moving forward with the emerging action-inquiry. First up were questions about the extent to which it would be worth my while to continue putting my energy into trying to resolve complex inter-personal dynamics in the Delwara programme. Then the questions became deeper and I started wondering about whether I felt I had the skills required to undertake the kinds of relational/learning and change oriented sessions that I envisaged. Then I wondered what would happen if I unleashed a pandora’s box… what if I couldn’t control what was coming out of the process – how responsible would I be if things went wrong? And this led, finally, to the question of whether I have the right to initiate this kind of a process or not… Even though I proposed being bolder about engaging all these issues as the core of my solution, the cloud of doubt had developed. And it is with my mind bubbling full of more questions than I came with, and greater self-doubts that I left IDS.

First stop was an old friend’s wedding – the fanciest event I think I have ever been to in my life and a really great opportunity to see friends from back home – some that I hadn’t even seen in 7 years… A really great experience: quite surreal but really goood – so much had changed and at the same time so little. Yeah. Then a couple of days later I was back with my family celebrating my own birthday, officially 27. Clearly neither old nor young but definitely rather confused. I enjoyed spending time with my family as it’s been a long time since we all lived together. Looking back it seems kind of surreal the transition from childhood into becoming a semi-independent sort-of-adult. Somehow being with parents makes one forget one’s age a little… I used my days to read up on all kinds of random things from quite primal Babylonian love stories to Hindu philosophy and the works of various relational theorists. My holiday ended with a few days with my old friends in London, lots of chatting, learning about the worlds of some of my friends and sharing some of my own tales.

Back in India, my first few days were spent in Delhi where I hung out with Devangana and visited a slum site where she was involved as an intern with the NCPCR working on the SSA (‘Education for All Campaign’). It was interesting to talk with the youth and to see the energy and enthusiasm that had been garnered for working on education… But I couldn’t help provide a dose of reality when I asked the youth about their dreams for change and they said they wanted their slum to be like America. I asked them what they knew of America, whether they knew about its present economic predicament, whether they know how it acquired the wealth that it has today, that it is one of the most unequal countries in the world… I explained that to gain large shares of wealth, someone usually gets dominated or exploited in the process… That this is the way of greed. Who will these youth exploit in order to become like that? On whose back would their dream stand? I told them to be more creative, that I am not opposed to the idea of making things better, only that the youth may find more realistic dreams than the American one; dreams that are based on what is right from a moral and ethical perspective. I don’t know if this kind of conversation carries at all but I like to think that is was a valuable experience – not least for me.

When I eventually reached Udaipur I was down with a cold/cough and this left me bed-ridden for a couple of days. Luckily I was well looked-after and I took a variety of western and traditional medicines. It was frustrating, however, not to be able to get back into work (because of my cough/cold). When I eventually made it into work I immediately got involved in all kinds of conversations, trying to make out what had been going on over the course of the last month. It felt good to finally have a proper grounding for exploring the questions that had surfaced during my time in England.

I managed to get a conversation with the CEO, whom I had always felt to be a little stand-offish with respect to my research. I decided to just share my questions and doubts up-front. I received a response that seemed at the same time very positive but also somehow disappointing. I was told that the organisation was as much mine as anyone else’s and therefore there was no formal boundary on how I chose to contribute. If what I was doing would help Seva Mandir, was in line with its purpose and identity (my words), then why shouldn’t I have the right to experiment and involve other staff in the process. However, nothing could be forced, it was up to me to find ways of engagin others – which seems to constitute an important dimension  of my research… At the same time, I felt that there was a little scepticism regarding whether this kind of an approach could even work. Perhaps I expect too much!

But this experience, and countless conversations – especially with Fizzy – have proved to be quite catalytic in helping me to get my bearings and come up with a renewed sense of purpose and excitement about the research. I will write more about some of these initial experiences in the next posts…

where should we go from (here)?

though the truth may be elusive
revealing itself in fragments and glimmers
its purpose is not to be held
but to be a guiding light
which illuminates the path
toward what is right
that you may go down
when it is time to go down
and up
when it is time to go up
and not go down merely because that’s where others go
or because they tell you so
or because you are afraid of what they’ll say
or because you can’t see any other way

to go where you ought to go
you must learn to read the flow
of the currents you are caught up in
and those that reside within

in the space
where the two of them interact
that is the place
from which you should act

the ground beneath my feet

the world is not what it was yesterday
nor what it will be tomorrow
the truth I argued for last year
seems out of place today
and the reason I behaved the way I did this morning
may no longer seem justified next week

the ground beneath my feet
I love to feel it shifting
it tells me that all is alive and flowing
it tells me without my even knowing
and should I mistake it for a problem
I might miss the doors it opened

to see the familiar in new ways,
is to create new universes in one’s mind.
doing it together
creates new realities in our universe.
and that is why it is said
“seek and ye shall find”

silence

It has been an empty few months… absolutely packed full of thoughts, emotions, experiences, conversations, interactions and meaning. But there has been nothing to post. How can so much be going on and yet the urge to communicate anything about it all be so reluctant to emerge? Why the silence? This is a question that has come up time and again for me during my relatively brief life (so far) in the blogosphere. Why the silence? Why are there those moments when there is nothing that can be communicated. And why do these moments tend to come in such sizeable chunks? It’s not as though I’ve been thinking or feeling the same things for the last few months… No! There have been multiple and often radically divergent states. But is there something that characterises them? Something that draws them together… other, of course than the silence itself. Is it something to do with the nature of this outlet? Is it a reluctance to put out there in the world critiques and criticisms that I fear could be harmful or painful (whether honest or not)… Is it doubt about the conclusions I am reaching or is it living so much with an absence of conclusions that I feel there is nothing I can just type out and say… or at least not anything that would make sense to anyone else… Because, like I said… a lot has been happening. Many things have ‘progressed’ though what this means and who’s yardstick gets used is not at all clear to me. Is it possible that as things ‘get better’ (what does that even mean?) – like as we slowly get deeper into engaging with the issues that matter – the feelings, emotions and reactions that accompany this transition get less and less positive? and not just other people but my own? is it the feeling of anxiety of digging into those sensitive areas that are all covered up which hurts? why did I feel so lost and purposeless when Seva Mandir finally decided to wholeheartedly jump on the NREGA bandwagon (now that’s an overstatement, I admit… but it’s at least relatively wholeheartedly!)… why did I feel so frustrated and disconnected when my attempts at using stories to expose people to some of the underlying social dynamics in Delwara were completely misunderstood… because these kinds of incidents and the countless other little stories like them get right at my sense of purpose, of who I am and why I am here… Which strongly suggests that that very sense of purpose is part of the problem… because I create in myself the reaction that I experience by setting myself up for it… by creating the expectations I create in the particular way that I do. By working towards the creation of situations based on logics that just aren’t harmonised with reality. So perhaps this just points me to the fact that I should be stepping back a moment, contemplating, breathing… rethinking how I am integrating what I am setting out to do into the ongoing flows and forces around me… which I may be succeeding in at times… but not so much at others… It’s almost an issue of style… a kind of pre-thought establishment of general approach to responding to what is going on around… that becomes part of the background against which thoughts and deliberations emerge into being as part of the ongoing unfolding interactional experinence of being and changing with others in an organiastional context. maybe this is a really good time to be heading back to IDS for some deeper reflection – alone and with others…

toward liberating patterns of interaction

One of my key areas of interest in understanding organisational learning and change in Seva Mandir is the intersection of power, ideology and identity in the patterns of communicative relating that take place amongst those working here. In particular, I am interested in the way that meaning, patterns of inclusion-exclusion, intentions and actions emerge through these dynamics and reproduce or transform the patterns of interaction that constitute the organisation. Without looking at what this means at the community level, this would be a hollow exercise. Thus my inquiry is concerned with the multi-directional way that patterns of interaction (i) within Seva Mandir, (ii) at the boundary between Seva Mandir and the community and (iii) within the community (or society, more generally) reproduce and transform each other in different ways.

In this process, I am particularly concerned with what gives form to the patterns of interaction and how this formation takes place. Following Stacey’s lead, I strongly believe that it is the very patterns of interaction which either reproduce or transform themselves over time. In particular, it is the interplay of particular ‘organising themes’ – including ideology – and their intersection with power, identity, etc. that characterise these patterns which lead to the reproduction and transformation of existing patterns.

Stacey’s take on organisational learning is also worth considering here. By moving away from a systems-based model, the idea of learning as taking place at different levels or even, for that matter, as involving some kind of vertical progression or growth is abandoned. Instead, learning is equated with changes in patterns of communicative interaction. Indeed, Stacey argues that we cannot learn without changing our patterns of communicative interaction, whether in the singular (mind) or plural (group) form. The advantage with this way of thinking about learning is that it takes us away from overly abstract notions of ‘deeper’ learning and invites us to focus instead on the nature and quality of the interactions in which we are routinely involved (including our interactions with ourselves, our own internal conversations) and to understand how we can bring about significant or meaningful changes in these very interactions. Learning then takes place as we engage directly in working through these very issues of how to interact together locally in novel ways that enable new and more liberating patterns to emerge at the global level.

What do I mean by liberating patterns of interaction? A question asked to me by my supervisor. ‘Liberating patterns of interaction’, to me, is connected with the kind of notion of freedom articulated by Hayward (2001) in De-Facing Power. Hayward, redefining power as ‘the network of social boundaries to action’, argues for a political and positive notion of freedom as the only meaningful way of thinking about freedom: the freedom to participate in shaping our institutions and the norms, beliefs and practices that constitute and sustain them. Thus, for me, patterns of communicative interaction are liberating when they enable people to question and transform the institutions, norms, beliefs and practices that constitute their reality. This necessarily entails questioning and transforming the local (here and now) patterns of communicative interaction in which they routinely participate as it is through these that practices, beliefs, norms and ultimately institutions emerge. In addition to this, in order to be liberating, these patterns should enable all people to engage in this process equally as it is precisely those who are least aware of power’s effects (which may well, ironically, be those who are generally understood as being more powerful) who are, in this particular view, the least free (i.e. able to question and transform their institutions) and, therefore, the most likely to reproduce unequal power relations through their interactions with those around them.

In all this, one critical element that makes changing these patterns so elusive is that of the unconscious, and in particular the social unconscious. The idea that people are not fully conscious of how they are interacting (and how their interactive processes are being shaped by power, ideology, identity, etc.) is well known but often overlooked. People’s interactions, then, are shaped by both their conscious and unconscious processes of internal conversation (mind). The conscious part is the part that they think about as they do what they are doing. The unconscious part, if you will, is why they end up doing what they end up doing. It is also the intended and unintended consequences of what they did that they didn’t consider, the unquestioned assumptions, beliefs, etc. on the basis of which their conscious thoughts were formed. The unconscious is typically considered as something restricted to individuals, a kind of well-spring out of which unique, individual urges emerge. However, there is an alternative perspective that argues that as much as there is an individual unconscious, there is also a social unconscious.

The social unconscious, it is argued, exists because mind itself emerges through social – that is to say interactional – processes of relating. To the extent that our own mind is formed through our conscious and unconscious interactions with those around us, then our own interactions are shaped by the ’social unconscious’: the particular set of unquestioned, taken for granted, unperceived aspects of our communicative interactions that exist for a particular group of individuals constituting the social. What is problematic is the way in which the social unconscious, by its very nature, remains broadly out of reach of regular thinking and conversational processes. It effectively constitutes an invisible force which structures our thinking and our interactions and creates the impression that these very thoughts, our very own processes of interaction are what they are and that’s that. Indeed, in causing the nature of our patterns of interaction to be taken for granted, the social unconscious is integral to our understanding of our own identity, our position in society, and therefore the complex pattern of power relations in which we are entangled (that produce or transform us and that we, in turn, reproduce or transform). This, in turn, shapes and is shaped by (reproduces or transforms) what we believe we can and can’t, should and shouldn’t do, regardless of the feelings of anxiety that may arise within us as a result of the interactional processes we are caught up in.

But what is all this in aid of? Are we simply trapped within the limits prescribed by a social unconscious that we must remain, forever, unaware of? I do not believe that this is the case. Rather, I believe that the social unconscious is something we can come to know, and indeed must if we take the idea of cultivating liberating patterns of interaction seriously. It requires that you and I take our participation in patterns of communicative interaction seriously by gradually exploring and questioning that which is taken for granted (the ‘mundane’ and the ‘normal’), by politicising it, by inquiring into and reflecting on it, by seeking to actually change it through intentional modifications in our own behaviour. And if all we get is a deeper understanding of the paradoxes that we face as we go about doing what we do, a deeper sensitivity to the ways that power and identity, patterns of inclusion and exclusion, shape the way meaning is created for those around us and therefore the way that they must feel, the intentions that they form and the way they end up participating in patterns of interaction with ourselves and others, won’t that make us more able to transform ’stuck’ patterns of interaction, enabling ourselves and those with whom we interact to change in the process, and thereby participate more effectively in the co-creation of more liberating patterns of interaction?