New approach to 'failed' rural development in India
A prominent member of the ruling Congress Party in India Keshava Rao has thrown his weight behind a fresh model for Indian rural development. The model aims to tackle the chronic divisions between state, business and NGOs.
New Delhi: Declaring that more than 60 years of government-led rural development initiatives had “failed,” leading Congress party member Keshava Rao said that government alone cannot solve the deep-seated problems of rural India.
- Congress Party leader Keshava Rao/ Photo credit: Schumacher Centre
The Congress head for Jharkhand spoke at the India Islamic Cultural Centre in New Delhi during a ground-breaking conference entitled “Tri-Sector Partnership in Practice: Government, Business and NGOs uniting to help rural India face globalisation and climate change.” The event took place on November 4.
The international conference was the first within India to promote the Tri-Sector concept, which involves the three sectors of state, business and NGOs working together structurally as equal partners for development.
The event was staged by Delhi-based NGO Schumacher Centre, which campaigns for the marginalised rural Indian poor. The organisation argues that individualistic attempts at development by government, business ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ departments and NGOs have failed rural India, and only a unified approach can bring success. It claims that the barriers of suspicion between the sectors must be torn down.
Addressing the conference, Keshava Rao said of politicians: “We feel so cut off sitting in Delhi. We come to power in the name of people that we cannot reach or understand. We cannot see their tears, we cannot hear their voice. Natural justice requires government to break out of the mould and think of new approaches. Tri-Sector is very welcome.”
He added that we must “let government do its job,” but as a “partner and ally reaching out” to business and NGOs.
Speaking of the country’s hinterlands, Rao said: “After 60 years, we still have people who do not have one square meal to eat. Economic poverty and social oppression – these things constitute rural India.”
Commenting on the anguish of debt for India’s farmers, he said: “If I have borrowed 10,000 rupees, even if I pay it back, the humiliation that I face cannot be repaired.”
Corporate social responsibility
Schumacher Centre wish to see the concept of ‘Tri-Sector Partnership’ replace business-led ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ initiatives. The organisation argues that government-led Public-Private Partnerships – which often amount to nothing other than government sub-contracts – should also be superseded.
The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility has came under fresh examination by development and poverty experts throughout 2009.
Jonathon Porritt, the internationally respected environmental guru and former head of the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission, has heavily criticised the concept.
Commenting on his blog, Porritt has said that certain institutions involved in the near-collapse of the banking sector in autumn 2008 had exemplary CSR records, but were “simultaneously engaged in some of the most irresponsible business behaviour in the history of capitalism.”
State vs business vs NGOs
The conference followed a series of ‘tri-sector workshops for development’ which were held in Delhi over the summer of 2009. These events attended by representatives of state, business and NGOs in which participants were encouraged to air their suspicions and grievances with other sectors. The aim was to discover if these sectors could truly work together for India’s poorest.
The first event gave Indian business representatives the opportunity to share their thoughts on what their role is in the rural development process should be. The business delegates were eager to remind those from other sectors that corporate India unashamedly needs to make money. But further to this, they stated that they are acutely sensitive to the ‘Two Indias’ phenomenon.
Business representatives confessed that they viewed the role of government in rural development to be too slow and mired in red tape. In the case of NGOs, business representatives described them as all too often inefficient, weakly managed, with poor internal structures and poor accountability.
Nevertheless, business figures expressed their appreciation and need of what NGOs have to offer – including, of course, expert knowledge of rural communities and poverty issues.
The second workshop focused on the state sector. It was acknowledged that government, rightly or wrongly, currently perceives business as too much profit-orientated to contribute meaningfully in the rural development process. The state sector’s views on NGOs were similar to how business perceives NGOS – all too often dysfunctional, but holding great grassroots knowledge.
The state representatives also characterised NGOs as too impatient for change, wanting to see deep rooted social problems fixed at a speed that is not plausible. Nevertheless, the government figures were keen to emphasise that the Planning Commission is already focused on the need for cross-sector partnerships for development.
The third and final workshop analysed the civil society sector, represented by NGOs and similar organisations. NGO figures tackled the criticisms levelled at their sector, holding up their hands and accepting some weaknesses, while offering a robust defence to other accusations. NGO workers pointed out that good and bad, efficient and inefficient operators exist across all sectors.
The workshops discovered that despite the suspicions held by all sectors, there was plenty of scope for greater unity, and plenty of enthusiasm for working together to tackle rural India’s immense challenges.
Schumacher Centre is now considering plans to build a Tri-Sector network for business, government and NGO figures who want to share skills to fight rural Indian poverty.
