‘Needs based’ or ‘Rights based’ – Two sides of the same coin?

In our encounters with development organisations and movements, workers and activists, we have come across a wide range of responses. These have been shaped by the socio-economic and political contexts, but also to a great extent by the proclivities of the leadership which initiated these responses. Over the years, these have grown in size and their ‘impact’ is visible in varied hues. What is often intriguing is the projection of self by these interventions, the claims vis-à-vis the people/ communities involved, the scale of impact, etc. Such claims have often been the basis for classification of interventions into broad boxes of ‘needs based’ and ‘rights based’ approaches. Interestingly, there is often a noticeable sense of antagonism/ scepticism between the actors and institutions involved, especially those operating within the same region.

Such classification is fuelled by the academic discourse on development, especially in the West, which influences to a great deal donor positions and responses. A cynical view would be that the desire by different interventions to project a certain image is fuelled by the need to attract scarce donor resources. Often these labels are applied by donors themselves to justify who they fund or ‘partner with’ to be politically correct, and who they do not.

Our view after travelling through several states across the country, and seeing in close proximity, a range of interventions of movements and organisations, is that if ‘needs based’ and ‘rights based’ approaches are indeed two ends of the spectrum, the bulk of interventions would fall somewhere in between. Several interventions also left us feeling that the ‘needs based’ and ‘rights based’ approaches are not exclusive and parallel, but ‘two sides of the same coin’ at best.

Shades of rights
In our effort to understand what is generally meant by rights based approaches, we came across a wide range of literature. The broadest definitions of rights based approaches bases itself on ‘human rights’ rather than ‘legal rights’. This got us very confused, because from what we have seen, all interventions we came across are geared towards development or restoration of ‘human rights’. Most of the so-called ‘needs based’ interventions are geared towards restoration of ‘human rights’, providing access to education and health care, or enhanced access and control of economic resources, etc.

PRADAN for instance is viewed as an organisation which works towards augmentation of livelihoods through techno-managerial solutions – a clear example of ‘needs based’ approach – promoting poultry, mushroom, silk rearing, etc in Kesla, MP. The confidence of Savitribai, associated with PRADAN’s activities for over a decade and a leader in her own right, in addressing social wrongs and inequities within their communities, and even making efforts to claim their legal rights, had us wondering about the classification of PRADAN’s interventions as ‘needs based’. Would it be correct to say that an economic intervention, done well, builds capacities and confidence of the women to address other issues affecting them as well, and even claim their ‘rights’?

Gram Vikas in Orissa builds community institutions around water supply and sanitation – another case classified as ‘needs based’. These institutions are eventually able to ensure that Panchayat funds are properly utilised, government schools are properly functioning, etc. Seva Mandir in Rajasthan, through its interventions over three decades has built robust institutions at the village/ community level which are able to ensure effective management of common resources, and can protect their rights against vested interests. The level of effort by Gram Vikas or Seva Mandir in consciously promoting awareness of ‘rights’ is limited, but the strength comes from enabling communities to meet basic needs – enabling ‘dignified’ survival, and building community institutions which are sensitive on issues of social and gender equity.

The other end of the spectrum has, for instance, NBA, a movement for claiming rights, which mobilises and educates people of their legitimate entitlements. For over five years people rallied around and have blocked construction of the Maheshwar dam. In mobilising communities around the Veda dam however, they have acknowledged the need for ‘constructive action’ in addressing livelihoods issues. As Bhgawan bhai, a long term activist with NBA summed up – these are two sides of the same coin. In SWRC, the effort to engage people in the Right to Information campaign bases on rainwater harvesting structures initiated or supported by SWRC. Ramkaran ji acknowledged that while people can be made aware of the provision of ‘rights’, mechanisms and capacities have to be developed over a period of time to enable people to make use of it. The Koriya Initiatives is an interesting case of a ‘rights based’ approach, basing on the mitanin (health worker) programme to improve access to government health services. The success in this is leading on to working towards better functioning of ICDS, PDS, etc.

So is it a question of differing in methodology rather than differences in output that characterises ‘needs based’ and ‘rights based’. In either case, catalytic action is essential to enable people challenge existing socio-economic and political structures and assert their rights. In ‘needs based’ approaches catalytic institutions engage proactively with communities to deliver tangible benefits and build communities around these, leaving communities to use their collective strength to determine which battles they want to fight, and proactive role of catalytic institutions in enabling CBOs in claiming ‘rights’ from the state is often limited. The catalytic institutions take responsibility for mobilising resources and implementation of programmes. Community institutions that are nurtured are localised in their action often at the village/ Panchayat level.

‘Rights’ based approaches are based on mobilisation of communities on specific issues – resistance to dams, transparency in utilisation of public funds, effective functioning and access to government services – health centres, PDS shops, etc. Interestingly, while people/ communities coalesce, often in loose formations, for these rights, it does not necessarily translate to a broad spectrum collective action for all rights. For instance, in NBA areas, it was evident that women were active only in some areas. Most of the activists themselves are men. Collective resistance to the dam, did not mean that they stayed together to ensure proper functioning of schools, or that girls attended, or that PDS shops worked effectively. ‘Rights based’ initiatives are dependant on catalytic individuals, rather than institutions. The catalysts prefer to remain in the background and attempt to project ‘people’s/community institutions’. There are a large number of community level activists, who build the momentum in mobilizing communities. The dependence on external funds is limited and often strong positions are taken on these (eg. NBA does not accept foreign funds).

The size of the constituency also differs. Institutions following ‘needs based’ approaches have defined and largely stable constituencies. ‘Rights based’ approaches have amorphous constituencies, whose size varies (from five to 50,000 we were told in NBA) depending on the immediacy of the issues being addressed. They have acknowledged that if survival is threatened, and if basic needs are not met, the momentum of mobilisation may vastly weaken.

Both approaches, we felt have a great deal of complementarities and have a great deal to learn from each other. We could start, perhaps by lowering our prejudices, and beginning to appreciate strengths and finding ways of working together. The common ultimate objective – of enabling people and communities to live in dignity – should be motivation enough for working together.