MS partners in general make an effort to involve Dalits in their work, but their participation is not equal to that of others. That is the general drift of the findings of a study on Dalit participation in work done by MS Nepal’s partner organizations. A report on this study was conducted and submitted to MS Nepal by Sille Stidsen in August 2002.

The study was carried out with the overall objectives of assessing the participatory strategies employed in Danida supported projects and programs and the actual participation of Dalits in these projects and programs, and also to identify constraints to participation by Dalit groups and suggest recommendations to improve the participation.

An interesting, albeit secondary, finding of the study is that perhaps it doesn’t make much sense to people in the villages to talk about Dalits, and that it is the development business that needs the term more than the people whom NGOs are trying to help. More on that later.

Using three case studies , i.e. NEWAH Banke, WWA Palpa and JAYC Kapilvastu (reflecting the geographical diversity of the country and the diversity of the partner organizations themselves), the study set out to look at Dalit participation in programs and activities in a meaningful way. NEWAH [Nepal Water for Health] is a large NGO dedicated to providing safe drinking water and hygiene education in rural areas. WWA [Women’s Welfare Association] is a women’s organization which used to have very few Dalit beneficiaries. JAYC [Jana Adarsh Yuba Club] gives a picture of the cooperation between Dalits and others in an organization where Dalits form an important part of the beneficiary members.) The point of departure was that looking at participation in terms of quantitative data on Dalit membership, attendance at trainings, etc. (how many) would give only a limited picture of the actual ‘place’ Dalits have in organizations. Another layer needed to be added to this, namely knowledge on how Dalits participate, as compared to others. The findings point in various ways and at various levels to a phenomenon of Dalits not getting an adequate break.

Inferior participation: Dalits involved in grass-roots groups find themselves in an inferior position in their groups and organizations. The standard way of talking about their involvement is that they need others’ help. They are in the groups to learn from more advanced group and organization members. Dalits involved in MS partners’ work are not defining own development objectives. Dominating people in the organizations’ leadership know what they need, and teach them accordingly:Whatever we teach the community, they can’t understand immediately. It takes time, we have to teach again. They can’t express their needs immediately like we can, as a senior staff in one of the organizations put it.

Dalits are mere receivers of what the leadership finds they need. So, while more and more of them have been in the beneficiary groups, not much has been done to break up the unequal social structure which to a large extent determines their marginality socially, economically and politically. They find themselves in the same inferior position inside the groups as outside. If Dalits are involved in MS partner organisations’ work only to become inferior members, they are actually just being locked into the same inferior position they were in before, only in a modern context, ie. Development NGOs. Having organizations working for the poor, but without any representation of the poorest section of the beneficiaries in the organizations’ top level, is an inadequate way of trying to address these people’s needs. A very first step in securing a more genuine approach to working for ‘upliftment’ of the Dalits and other poorer sections of society, would be to make sure that these very people are represented at leadership levels of the organizations.

Inferior benefits: In terms of ‘kinds of participation’, ways of using one’s group membership as well as being part of a larger organization, Dalits clearly benefit less than others. They attend fewer trainings than others, they cannot use savings or credit to the same extent as others, they sometimes find it hard to attend the meetings at all because of their heavy workload. Status determines decision making power inside the group in the same way as it does outside. One example is a group at JAYC, which is dominated by poor Muslims but has a person from the only high caste (and rich) family in the village as president and decision maker. The same structures of oppression that Dalits and other poor people experience outside groups play a role inside.

MS Nepal’s vision: The vision, as stated in MS Nepal’s policy paper, is that ‘Nepal evolves into a democratic, plural, just and humane society’. This is one of three elements. The other two are centered on ‘improving living conditions’ and ‘greater global sharing’. Democracy and pluralism are both concepts that have major significance for Dalits. From their position at the bottom of local social hierarchies, Dalit beneficiaries in MS’ partner organizations would probably be happy to learn that the organization (MS Nepal) their own local organization is cooperating with, has this as its vision. Democracy is about ensuring equal opportunities to play an active role in politics at all levels, and is thus interesting for Dalits who often have a long history of deprivation and lack of access to political power. In short, a ‘plural, just and humane’ society is probably what many Dalits dream of.

Capacity building, advocacy: The policy paper mentions two programme themes, which will guide efforts at pursuing programme goals¹. The themes are ‘capacity building’ and ‘advocacy’. Looking at these themes, the following shortcomings are revealed: the policy paper defines capacity building as educational, health-wise, political and economic empowerment of the target community, namely poor people. As part of this, an aim of ‘enhancing self respect’ is mentioned. The approach is first and foremost support to local organizations and initiatives. It is to be observed that the support MS is giving to local organizations is not necessarily reaching Dalits and other poorest of the poor very efficiently. Local organizations are supported, and they do talk about equality, democracy, self respect, etc.. But often the local organizations work for poor people rather than represent them. There is a distance to the poor themselves, and the attitude towards them is more charecterized by a status quo compassion than promoting self respect and democracy.

The other programme theme, ‘advocacy’, suffers from the same shortcomings: if the weakest sections of society (Dalits and others) whom one wants to work for are represented in MS mainly through others who want to work for them, how is one to advocate their rights? Advocacy that isn’t rooted strongly at the grass-roots level is not worth much.

Shortcomings along the same lines are revealed if one takes a look at the implementation strategy.

Partnerships: An important component of the implementation strategy is the partnership approach. By working in close cooperation with local organizations MS wants to ensure that the target group is reached. Partners are selected according to criteria like common vision with MS Nepal, willingness to operate democratically and transparently and willingness to honor existing commitments. It is MS Nepal staff’s responsibility to prepare partners for the partnership, and ensure that partners understand the agreement made with MS, and share the vision etc.. Observations suggest that this could be improved considerably. Partners did not show a very convincing willingness to give the target beneficiaries equal opportunities for playing a role inside their organizations (and thus did not operate as democratically as MS might have expected). Neither did they ‘honor their commitments’ to the extent one could have hoped.

Cross-cutting issues: Cross-cutting issues such as ‘development by people’ and ‘pluralism’ which underlay all MS work, touch Dalits’ interests quite explicitly. ‘Development by people’ is again about strengthening local organizations and local dialogue. As mentioned above, it is hard for Dalits to get heard on an equal footing with others in the local organizations. This needs to be improved. One of the aims of having ‘pluralism’ as a cross-cutting issue is defined as ‘(to)ensure inclusion of the disadvantaged groups in MS Nepal supported activities’. Observations suggest that this is not enough: the disadvantaged have to some extent been included, but the next very important step is to give them access to equal participation.

Dalits in partnership agreements: Partnership agreements generally mention ‘poor and deprived communities’ as target beneficiaries. This will often in practice mean Dalits. The agreements do not elaborate very much on the closeness or distance between the organizations’ top and the beneficiaries worked for. By leaving this gap unmentioned MS misses a chance to demand real (equal) Dalit participation in partner organizations. This is a serious shortcoming, and an issue which MS should pay more attention to in the future, in partnership agreements as well as in the ongoing dialogue with partners.

MS influence on work with Dalits: During discussions with the top levels of the organizations, WWA and JAYC both said clearly that partnership with MS had influenced their working style. At WWA a board member said that in the beginning it was natural for the organization to work only in Brahmin communities, since all the founding members were Brahmins themselves. After working with MS, they got more interested in Dalits and started working in their communities as well. At JAYC board members said ‘we learned (from cooperating with MS) how to go to the communities’ and ‘we have to work according to a given place’s needs, we cannot repair a hole in a white shirt with black cloth’. These statements show awareness about the need to search for specific solutions to specific people’s problems and that dialogue with MS does have an impact on partners’ approach to their work. It is very important that MS takes quite seriously the responsibility for which kind of impact it has.

MS jargon: There is a tendency in partners to talk about Dalits and other poor beneficiaries in a way that MS would like to hear, in phrases that fit the MS jargon. Partners know that they are influenced by MS. It is up to MS to take on responsibility for this influence, and make sure it is not only verbal but also practiced.

Attitude: Another way of looking at things is in terms of attitude. If field staff, board members, trainers and others meet the beneficiaries with an attitude of having to teach them how to live better lives (using themselves as role models), not much has been gained. It has long since been realized that development that matters is development done by people themselves. We talk about participatory approaches, but too often we forget that true participation begins with people’s own realizations and identification of their needs. If we approach our work by going out and telling Dalits and other poor people that they are backward because they never went to school (‘send your children to school’), because their hygiene is bad (‘wash you hands’), because they drink too much alcohol or play cards too much, what have we gained?

One achievement, however, is the widespread awareness of the importance of equal opportunities for training. Attending trainings along with people from other villages, from other castes, is something that impresses villagers. Many beneficiaries speak about having eaten together with people belonging to other castes in trainings and workshops as significant experiences. Even if it is still difficult to eradicate old customs in one’s own village, it is something to have experienced outside that things can be different than they are at home. Maybe our grass-roots organizations’ most significant contribution to eradicating old forms of discrimination against people of lower castes is that they provide a necessary space ‘outside’, in which experimenting can start. While cities may have played this role for a long time, grass-roots organizations differ in that there is a stronger connection between the ‘organizational space’ and village life, than between ‘city space’ and village life. The organization is represented in the village itself, many people from the organization belong to the very same village.

Dalit concept: There was some confusion in various organizations when they were asked, What is a Dalit? Many were not quite sure. Somebody said it is poor people. Another said it is the people we don’t take water from. Like all the villagers in that Muslim village down south, said someone else. Others then protested that Muslims are not Dalits. In the end people agreed that Dalits are poor and underprivileged people. No one tried to define the group in terms of caste. Their answers suggest that the concept does not make much sense to most people living in the context of everyday Nepali village life. They did not use it themselves. Maybe it just doesn’t make much sense to people in villages and organizations to talk about Dalits? Perhaps it is the development business that needs the term more than the people out there that MS is trying to work with? Observations suggest that whether or not the very concept Dalit makes sense to people outside the Kathmandu based NGO and INGO offices is a question that needs looking into, if one is to learn more about how Dalits are addressed in the various development interventions that take place.

Caste interaction: Older organizations and beneficiary groups had learnt the rhetoric ‘we have no caste discrimination’. When asked more specifically about recent events, or interviewed individually, however, they admitted that discrimination was taking place. In newer groups, in areas where no particular development (NGO) activities had taken place until recently, people talked about caste discrimination and taboos as something completely natural. When asked about caste interaction, they said right away ‘we don’t take water from each other’, ‘we don’t go to each other’s houses’, etc.. They were not trying to hide the facts behind development jargon. If working with Dalits is reduced to learning and then teaching a ‘modern’ rhetoric of ‘no discrimination’ but the actually lived practice continues to be the same as always, how much have we gained in our struggle to create a more equal society?

Recommendations: To conclude, here are some ideas on steps to take in order to ensure Dalits’ equal participation.

Dalits should be involved at an organization’s leadership level (this should be specified in the partnership agreement). They should also be involved in program design. Look at Dalit needs when specific activities are designed. Do they have the preconditions to benefit from the activities? Would there be other activities that would suit Dalits better?

MS should make an effort to discuss Dalits’ place in the partner organizations, getting beyond just involving Dalits as beneficiaries, and giving them a say in the organization. If we want to promote social change we have to recognize the people who need the change the most as actors in their own right, not mere beneficiaries. Partners learn our rhetoric and seem to think that that is what their work is supposed to be about. If we don’t ask more of them, we haven’t done much to ensure Dalits’ real and equal participation. Program officers’ monitoring of partners’ activities should involve talking directly to poor beneficiaries. They are the ones who can tell us if the work makes a difference to them or not.

DWs (Danish development workers), another core element of MS’ implementation strategy, should be thoroughly prepared to understand the complexities of Nepali social structure.

Finally go for a pro-pluralist employment policy, employ a Dalit if she is a suitable candidate for any upcoming jobs at the country office.

Back to Contents