The Dilemmas of NGOs Today Reflecting from Eklavya’s Experience

There are various kinds of NGOs. One category of NGOs could be roughly classified as those experimenting with alternative development models. Then there are those who are focused on service delivery for regions or sections not reached by the state. There are also other kinds of NGOs that focus on advocacy, campaigns for human rights and other issues. Often NGOs combine mixed approaches.

The Liberal Phase: Encouraging NGOs and Governments Accepting Responsibility for Scale

One subset of NGOs has focused on providing alternative development models on the field for specific areas. These domains could be water, education, health, livelihood etc. If you look at the initiatives of the 1970s in community health, watershed management or education, the purpose was to provide a different paradigm, and also to show this in practice on the ground.

Kishore Bharati and Friends Rural Center started the Hoshangabad Science Education Program (HSTP) in Madhya Pradesh (MP). The purpose was to demonstrate that meaningful and liberating science education could be practiced in ordinary government schools with the same set of teachers. The objective of the Jamkhed rural community health model in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, was to show how involving the community with empathy could impact health indicators.

The Pani Panchayat model, started in Purandhar Taluka of Maharashtra, strove to evolve a model of both conservation of water and equitable sharing of this common resource as a way to meet the challenges of recurring droughts. S.E.W.A. of Gujarat demonstrated that forming large trade unions in the unorganized sector was not only desirable but feasible; women would raise issues for better wages, working conditions and gender equality.

These are just a few examples, of a long list. There were many NGO groups with different political leanings, working at the ground level, with the purpose of demonstrating a more equitable and inclusive developmental model. These are not just for remote regions but for the mass of the population, whether rural or urban. This accepted role of NGOs is now being challenged and spaces for such efforts are shrinking.

A question that is often posed is the following. While these models can demonstrate proof of concept and offer learnings, can they be scaled? Most initiatives do try to answer this question in their own way. However, the common thread is that in a welfare state execution at scale is the responsibility of government departments.

NGOs are not meant to execute at scale. For example, when Eklavya was established in 1982 to take forward the HSTP program, its main project was a collaborative program with the government. This was titled ‘From Micro to Macro’. HSTP started with 16 schools and then spread to the entire district.

When Eklavya was formed, the program was seeded for a cluster of schools in another 14 districts in MP. The goal was to eventually reach all of the state’s schools. Similarly, scalability was intrinsic for planning the subsequent initiatives for the primary school and social science programs. All of these were collaborative schemes with the government of MP. A far reaching amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Textbook Act of 1978 made possible this uniquely collaborative work.

What made it possible for earlier NGOs to strive for alternative development models in a largely indifferent and often feudal political and social climate? These groups were supported at the level of ideas by substantial liberal pockets in bureaucracy and academia. Moreover the government remarkably introduced schemes to fund innovative experiments in various sectors. This demonstrated an openness to acknowledge their own limitations and look for new ideas.

For example, Eklavya, for the first two decades, was financially supported by DST (Depart of Science and Technology) and DoE (Department of Education), while the Government of MP collaborated in the execution. All running expenses at the school level were covered as a collaborative activity. However the real challenges, hurdles and hostility that NGO groups faced was at the level of field implementation, where social and political factors played out.

HSTP expanded to a medium term scale of more than a thousand schools across 14 districts, Prashika or the Prathmik Shiksha Karyakram to a block level but not to all the schools in the state. A colleague once asked: Were we naive to think that the state would take these collaborative education programs to scale, as envisaged in our ideal of micro to macro?

One would say, “Partly no.” Because there were positive moves, and also invitations by different state governments to collaborate, that indicated a step ahead in the struggle for change. Governments at the center initiated programs such as the National Literacy Mission, District Primary Education Program (DPEP), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), NCF 2005, taking ideas and support of various groups in education.

We were partly naive. Because in many collaborative efforts with governments, the group was easily shunted out or disbanded by internal pressures on the government. Some years of work could evaporate with no institutional memories.

Did these groups rely only on the government to spread these ideas? No, since political hurdles were apparent in a few years of implementation. NGOs working on alternative models realized the social and political hurdles to execute a paradigm to scale that supports the rights of the marginalized.

Hence, many networks and advocacy groups were formed. The efforts of All India People Science Movement (AIPSM), Medico Friend Circle, Right to Food, Right to Education, Drug Action Forum, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, etc., are some examples from different sectors. Shankar Guha Niyogi’s phrase, ‘sangarsh aur nirman,’ clearly articulated this thinking.

What All Has Changed Since Then?

This atmosphere of openness has changed. The liberal support and rational debate on policies that could encourage NGOs to attempt ground level alternative models does not exist anymore. Government funding support for such experiments is no longer available. The state has undertaken a market oriented reform for industry and commerce. This thinking is reflected in other departments as well.

A large section within the bureaucracy, now view the many welfare departments such as health and education, as beyond reform. This was brought to our notice in a dramatic way during a meeting, two decades ago, with a senior official in education. He had just taken charge, coming from a different government department. At the end of our presentation, he asked in an almost innocent yet serious manner, “Why do you keep working in this area?”

It is around this time the dysfunctionality of the schools in MP had reached a really low level. Curricular reforms would be useless if basic school structures and systems had collapsed. The real challenge today is that there’s no self-belief in the administration and the political class of reorganizing or reforming these crucial sectors for human welfare.

The other view being encouraged is that NGOs’ priority role is service delivery, and more importantly, to take over delivery at scale in lieu of the government. Government’s failure in delivery is envisaged to be substituted by NGO efforts or through what is termed as public-private partnership (PPP). NGOs are considered as a parallel system for delivering welfare programs.

Typically, if the government initiates a large scheme, it looks for NGOs who can execute specific segments within this vision. Here large corporate style NGOs with layers of subcontracts are preferred because of the belief that they can deliver to scale. Along with this, no policy questions or debates would be raised.

The government and the political class are changing the notion of the welfare state in many ways. The framework of rights – whether related to health, education, employment, food or water – is being modified or undone. Providing welfare is portrayed as charity, both by the state and the civil society. Within this, delivery of schemes is showcased as appropriate philanthropy.

Hence, those whose purpose is to explore alternative development models, or to pressurize governments for implementation of a rights-based approach, are labeled as inappropriate NGOs. This stance becomes adversarial and at times openly hostile.

What Are the Implications of This Changed Scenario for NGOs?

Funding sources have shrunk substantially for those working on alternative developmental models. Most government funding schemes have tapered off. More importantly, the government thinks that they should both initiate and carry out these innovation exercises on their own.

Co-existence is difficult, when differences in views are not tolerated. Help is sought at times and in other situations NGOs are shunted out.

In the background of the closure of the Eklavya Programs was the debate within the Eklavya group regarding the ‘game changing’ possibility of the new EGS scheme at MP, initiated by the senior most bureaucrats.

It could not stand critiques, especially from those working on the ground. Eklavya programs were declared illegitimate and closed. Thus, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. (For more details, please read ‘New Beginnings,’ published by Eklavya in 2005).

Foundations and trusts are setting up their own execution teams. Hence, NGOs are not required. In the earlier phase, funding agencies supporting NGOs created both ideas and people for the next generation. However, the source of funds currently available for NGOs such as CSR and crowd funding can support only short-term programs. However, these do not provide institutional support to nurture the new and for the young to venture out.

How Do NGOs Respond to These New Challenges?

For those still looking for alternative development models and a long-term view, the only funding recourse are some foundations. These are few and not growing in numbers. It would make a difference if advocacy efforts could convince CSR funds to set up independent foundations.

They would then come up with their vision documents, focus areas and the expected social change. This would allow NGOs to dialogue on issues and help create independent long-term forums. Funding would also improve. What we need are more independent foundations, as compared to a social exchange where donors and NGOs meet.

Many have accepted the format spelt out by the government and see their role as executing sections of the delivery mechanism. Funds are available here. However, these are routed through a process of subcontracts and bidding.

Even though dialogue or debate is not encouraged, cooperation and collaboration can still be sought on specific programs with the government where there is an alignment of objectives.

Hence, delivery goals may not always portray an acceptance of a regressive approach. It would be context specific. Among the older NGOs, BRAC from Bangladesh offers insights as to how one can work on delivery at scale through philanthropy funding and maintain meaningful independence.

Other NGOs think that a form of PPP could be an answer. At the moment this is a messy terrain. Many groups, for instance, provide additional inputs for schools. But often they undermine the school as an institution. They are held up as islands of their own.

A suitable framework that specifies roles and responsibilities like that for Eklavya curricular programs in MP hasn’t evolved. They remain piecemeal and doubtful.

The realm of social marketing is growing. Funders are keen to support this space. This aligns well with their experiences in the corporate world. Accountability measures are more easily negotiated and agreed upon.

Seed capital and the learning phase is also funded with the crucial premise that long-term sustainability on one’s own funds is the goal. This is how they look at new ventures in the corporate world. Hence this is one avenue that is growing.

Another set would argue that we need to seek a move towards advocacy, networks, courts and pressure through social movements. This is laudable, but difficult to do. In today’s context, networks need to rethink and recreate. It is a difficult phase.

The overall situation on freedom of association, taking up a cause, voicing dissent, is hostile. This is not new. However, the severity, deep messaging through arrests of human rights activists, and labeling of all forms of dissenters as anti-nationals, is not some aberration.

Advocacy and pressure to increase public systems is required even more today for another reason. With the state’s neglect of welfare, the resulting fallout has been that private market forces and organizations have taken over governmental delivery mechanisms in providing access for the poor.

These could be in the form of low fee schools or registered medical practitioners providing immediate relief or private water markets with no conservation principles in sight. Regulation is ineffective. Private markets have many layers and promote inequity. However, they have a very substantial reach among the poor. There is a logjam here.

Increasing provisioning of public services, and making their systems more effective, are the only ways to challenge the role of these private markets. But that is neither acknowledged nor acted upon by the state. The challenges in this arena are the most difficult.

To stay alive in this situation is to battle for ideas of development and democracy. What makes the situation extremely complex is the state’s reliance on private market forms to reach the poor. Keeping the ability to critique policy, and exploring alternative models, is an important function in the clash of ideas.

Note: All the views expressed in this essay are personal in nature.