ACTION FOR SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT, JHABUA, MADHYA PRADESH

“Its yesterday once more”, the famous song of the Carpenter’s whirled around in my head as we drove from Udaipur to Jhabua. Eleven years ago, IRMA had sent twelve of us, wide eyed and curious students to Jhabua for an ‘induction’ into the world of rural development. We discovered when we returned to IRMA, shorn of all romantic notions of rural India and village life, having survived on what Harish termed biodegradable frisbees aka makki ka rotla, that we had lived for these two weeks in one of the poorest areas of the region, perhaps in the entire country. Much has changed in Jhabua, that’s what the record books claim. Jhabua is in character more a continuum of Southern Rajasthan than western MP where it finds itself. Though it still retains its position among the poorest areas of the country, it is touted to have witnessed unique efforts at regenerating of the land and livelihoods through efforts in watershed development and afforestation under a former “progressive” Congress government. While still widely acclaimed, there has been some criticism that there are dark shades of brown and grey beneath all the superficial greenery, which is the creation of “a dream machine” (Amita Baviskar 2005; The Dream Machine – The model development project and the remaking of the State) We were not able to make much of judging the effort ourselves, but did figure that there are miles to go in terms of conditions of poverty and deprivation in the region. This distinctive position also ensures that the region is a cash cow, like we have witnessed in Kalahandi and Bolangir, attracting vast amounts of resources each year from the government. And we suspect that, like in Bolangir and Kalahandi, a very small percentage actually goes to achieve what it’s meant for. It is under such conditions that one of my first mentors into the arena of rural development, Ashish Mondal and G.Jayanti gave up their secure jobs with a rather bureaucratic NGO programme (which incidentally had hosted our induction) to set up their own NGO – Action for Social Advancement – registered as a Society in 1995. Scope of work ASA has undertaken work on community based natural resources development and management in villages of Jhabua district since 1996. These villages fall in the basins of four seasonal rivers Dohi, Panchi, Mod and Bhansi. In the nine years till 2005, a variety of works have been completed with support from different government and non-government sources. A large portion of the work has been under two schemes of the Government – Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) and Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP). Three watershed projects have been undertaken with support from Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai. In addition ASA has channelled funds from agencies such as Aga Khan Foundation, CASA and CIDA for smaller projects. It is also working with the district administration of Jhabua in implementing the National Food for Work programme in its operational area. At ASA’s request, we conducted a short assessment of ASA’s CBNRM work In Jhabua during our visit. We visited five villages where ASA has supported the implementation of watershed development projects. Our interactions with the villagers were primarily centred on getting their opinion and perspectives about the works that had happened. We also had a very useful half-day session with several village volunteers and Secretaries of Watershed Committees. What are the benefits? All the people we met were unanimous in their assessment of benefits in terms of increase in water table, increase in land productivity, conversion of fallows into productive land, reduced soil erosion and reduced migration. From further discussions with field workers we gathered that of the 31 villages where watershed work have been completed (EAS, DPAP I, DPAP II and SRTT), these benefits have accrued to about 16 villages. In the remaining villages, it was said that, the work done was not adequate to generate large-scale benefits as in these sixteen. More than anything, lack of interest on the part of villagers was cited as the cause for not being able to take up work in a substantive manner. The benefits are clearly visible in villages like Badi Sudi, where people demonstrated high acceptance of the programme and built over 80 wells with ASA support (there are currently over 100 wells in the village), where a majority of farmers now grow more than two crops and a few enterprising farmers have diversified into vegetable cultivation. Even so, they were not able to save the current Kharif crop from failing due to absence of rains during crucial periods. Despite wells having sufficient water, it could not be used because of erratic supply of electricity. Building talais in the Pitol area has increased the land area available for cultivation, and this has made it possible for villagers to increase production of paddy, even up to three times. Migrating to urban centres, mostly is Gujarat, continues to be an important source of livelihood for the people. However, the duration of migration has reduced in many villages after the project was implemented. Many people now migrate only after Holi, while they used to leave after Diwali in earlier years. Income earned from migration which earlier used to meet survival needs, now contributes more towards asset building. Due to the increased employment opportunities during the project implementation period, migration had reduced even further. Works taken up by ASA in the summer of 2005 under the National Food for Work programme prompted people to stay back in their villages. Another benefit that was pointed out, particularly by the field workers, was the increased sense of unity and organisation among villagers. It was also clarified that good results have been achieved in those villages where the WDC and their leaders were active, accepted by all and accountable to the villagers, and where the villagers displayed a greater sense of unity. What were the difficulties and challenges in carrying out the programme? The following issues were identified as difficulties and challenges faced by the villages during implementation of watershed development works. Managing work at sites – WDC office bearers often found it difficult to manage work at the sites, as more people than what was required would turn up to do the work. Turning some people back was always a contentious issue. Lack of awareness/understanding among people – In village Dedarwasa, we were told that, land bunding works could not be done because people thought that their land would be damaged with all the digging. In the same village, there was an earlier instance of the patwari providing support for land bunding and later asking people to pay back the money. They understood the watershed project also to be a similar scheme and if they did any work, they would be asked later to pay back the cost. We were told that this issue was common across many villages and despite efforts put by ASA staff and WDC leaders many people remained unconvinced. Cases of farmers unwilling to let go of parts of their landholding, for works like building of talavs, were cited. Villagers in Dedarwasa narrated how a farmer who initially agreed to give some land later refused to do so, as a result of which a talav could not be built. It is worthwhile to note that at least two cases of successful negotiation of such disputes had taken place. In Badi Sudi, a woman whose land was to be submerged by a talav was given compensation raised by the villagers. For each labour day, Re.1 was set aside and a total of about Rs.7000 was paid to her. In Ratmalia, the WDC president himself collected compensation for land he had lost, in a similar way. Interference by dominant groups – People with no direct interest in the works happening would often ask the WDC to pay them a share. We were also told the cases of Kolyabeda and Dekakund villages, where successful efforts had been made to vacate encroachments on village common land for growing fodder grass. These were destroyed by fires set on standing grass in Dekakund and at the storage place in Kolyabeda. Efforts in preserving commons were not revived in these or other villages. Participation of women – Field workers said that, often at sites, it was the women who would turn up in more numbers than men to do the work. Meetings to decide on the works however, would largely be a men’s affair. Those managing the works would occasionally face problems on the site as the women would question the work being undertaken. Lack of consensus in the WDC – WDC members representing their respective hamlets sometimes had differences about how work should done, where etc. These differences affected effective functioning of the WDC and led to delays, non-completion etc. Conflict with Gram Panchayat – The Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat played a negative role in several villages by instigating villagers against the project. In villages where the Gram Kosh and Vikas Khata had been handed over by ASA, the role of Sarpanch (a signatory to the bank accounts) was not found to be encouraging. Several villages could not withdraw money from the Gram Kosh to carry out repair of structures. What are the perspectives on the future? In all the villages we visited people were clear that more needed to be done in terms of physical work. In Badi Sudi, work done with resources available in DPAP-II was supplemented with resources from AKF. Even so, two hamlets have still not benefited from the works completed so far. It is interesting that there are no representatives in the WDC from these hamlets. The WDC members and villagers we met in Badi Sudi were unanimous in their opinion that new projects are needed to take care of these two hamlets, as well as digging more wells in the village. In Betwasa, people were looking forward to a check-dam being built across the stream. In Kalapan too, people were interested in undertaking more works in two hamlets, where not much had been done. However, they were unsure as to how they would be able to do all this, if ASA did not come forward with the necessary support. As far as maintaining existing structures, people said they would use Gram Kosh funds to take up repairs etc. on community structures. Farmers themselves would do it for private structures. In Kalapan where the Gram Kosh had been exhausted, people said they would ask for support from the government to take up repair of common assets. People were unanimous in the view that the ASA way to doing things with WDC in control is much better than the Sarpanch’s way of implementing projects. There was also the feeling that WDCs would not be able function effectively without support from ASA. It was pointed out that as long as projects ware underway, WDCs were very active. After completion projects WDCs do not meet regularly and have ceased to be working entities. The field workers pointed out that leadership development of WDCs is a crucial issue to be taken care of in future. They also highlighted the need for representation from all hamlets in a village, in the WDC.

An assessment Based on these discussions and our observations during the field visits and interactions with staff, we identified certain factors as positive aspects of ASA’s work and some issues it must resolve as it grows. Positive aspects of ASA’s work Demonstration of high quality natural resource development work The quality of work speaks for itself, and is effective demonstration of wise use of available resources. It is commendable that ASA has been able to achieve such quality standards in all physical works, within the constraints of a government-funded programme, overcoming scepticism and disinterest among villagers and bringing professionally trained technical people to work in remote villages. General improvement in quality of life A very significant aspect of ASA’s work in the region has been the general improvement in the food and income security situation of families in the villages, with increased productivity and intensification and diversification of cropping practices. Families are now able to focus on building assets of a longer term nature as their struggle for day-to-day survival has be eased, to a great extent, by the improvements in the natural resource base. Goodwill of the villagers The quality of work, as well as the way ASA staff have dealt with people, have created a great amount of goodwill among the villagers. They look up to ASA as a friend and guide, and vest a great deal of affection and trust in them. Enhanced capacities in the villages ASA’s work has resulted in significant enhancement of capabilities among the villagers. Ø Skills and knowledge related to natural resource development works, management of institutions, maintaining accounts and records, conducting meetings etc. form one set of such capabilities Ø Positive changes in attitudes as well as motivation towards a different path of progress, based on collective decision making and effort, accountability, etc forms a second set of capabilities ASA has also been able to develop a cadre of local youth with NRM specific technical and management skills as well as an orientation towards community mobilisation and collective accountability. Creation of collective decision making processes The WDCs facilitated by ASA as well as its insistence on common understanding of issues before arriving at decisions have helped in creating a new culture of decision making in the villages. Issues to be resolved Project specificity ASA’s work seems to be project-specific. This has created a sense of discontinuity, particularly in terms of retaining lessons learnt, in an institutional way. New generations of staff have very few avenues to understand past activities and experiences and this affects the way they relate to the work and people. The same can also be said of village level institutions. The WDCs were created with the specific purpose of managing the watershed project works. On completion of these works WDCs have no active role and in several villages have become defunct. In order to fully achieve ASA’s goal of sustainable livelihood security and institutional development, it is necessary that these forms of collective action be part of a longer-term vision and mandate, which sustain beyond project frameworks and deadlines. Dependence of ‘professionals’ It is to ASA’s credit that it has been able to bring a wide base of ‘professional’ technical and managerial talent, to such challenging environs as Bori and Jobat. There is however a flip side to this. Very seldom have these ‘professionals’ been able to identify fully with the cultural and idiomatic specificities of the people they worked with. Even when they were sensitive to these issues, they did not stay long enough to make a substantial difference. For such work to move beyond the immediate gains from technical interventions to areas of developing institutional sustainability, it is necessary for those involved to have a good understanding of the local cultural and lifestyle idioms. It is in this context that the local cadre of WDC secretaries and volunteers become important. Here again, ASA’s absorption of three such people as regular staff is commendable. However, beyond this one step, engagement with the local cadre has been rather project/ target-specific. It would be useful for ASA in the long run, in the region, if the local cadre is engaged in more pro-active ways. Steps like regular meetings of these people, discussions on their successes and difficulties and small pecuniary benefits would contribute substantially towards developing positive and long-standing commitment among these people. Institutions and leadership in villages As said earlier in this report, effective results from NRM works have been achieved in villages where strong leadership existed. Our understanding is that ASA has relied on traditional leaders in the villages while forming WDCs and selecting its Presidents. The post of Secretary has by default gone to an educated youth, who in many ways reflect the new generation of leaders. We did not, however, get a sense of any pro-active efforts aimed at developing qualities of existing leaders or widening the base of leadership in villages. The issue of project-specificity and role of WDCs has already been raised. It is important to view certain new developments in the villages in this context. In Betwasa and several other villages, ASA has started the process of forming several new committees to fulfil requirements of a new project supported by CCF. How different would these committees be from the WDCs in terms of membership? What purpose is served in organising more than one committee in a village without investing either in developing new leaders or preparing the ground to manage leadership conflicts that will arise? Would it not be more relevant for ASA to helped mobilise and organise one Village Committee – call it WDC or VDC (or whatever name the donor wants to hear) – and develop the capacities of its members? What is the message being sent to people when ASA makes a demand for multiple fora for engagement? It is our contention that strong institutions are built when the community is viewed as an organic whole, rather than through sectoral lenses. This issue of a “Village Institution” is also relevant in the context of new schemes and new facilitating organisations entering these villages. Badi Sudi has been selected for implementation of the MPRLP project, facilitated by the Janpad Panchayat at Udaigarh. The villagers or the WDC leaders are not sure whether the new project and the ASA-initiated WDC will relate to each other at all. Participation of women One could not get a clear sense of how women were involved in the project, other than their representation in the WDCs and as labourers. Experiences of SHGs in the watershed villages have also not been encouraging except where they are now involved in the ASA micro-finance programme. The latter, however is a stand alone intervention, dissociated from the NRM activities. Our experiences suggest that clear spaces need to be provided for women to enable to engage effectively in development processes. While saying so, one is also aware of the contextual peculiarities – dispersed settlements, inconveniences in meeting together often – that makes such work difficult.

In conclusion ASA is probably a lonely warrior in the politically and bureaucratically convoluted development environment in Jhabua. It has managed to establish a credible way of functioning, earning good will among the people and grudging respect from the ruling class. It has also demonstrated wherewithal in standing up to challenges to its integrity or commitment. Scaling up of the work, as ASA proposes, presents its own set of challenges, not in the least in consolidating gains already made.