Voluntary Organisations and Rural Development in South Asia: Assumptions and Realities 9811662924, 9789811662928

Citation preview

Umakanta Mohapatra

Voluntary Organisations and Rural Development in South Asia Assumptions and Realities

Voluntary Organisations and Rural Development in South Asia “Here is a comprehensive volume providing evidence-based knowledge on various critical issues germane in the collaboration between Government and civil society actors in bringing about the equitable as well as sustainable development. The author has brought in ample conceptual clarity about working styles of voluntary organisations. The book contains empirical minutiae on the issues of effectiveness and credibility of voluntary organizations engaged in different tasks of rural development. The author puts forth an actionable way ahead both for policy formulation and academic research in South Asian context. The volume is quite helpful for academic pursuits, policy making as well as field action. And in that it is quite a helpful handbook for a wide array of interests.” —Asit Tripathy, Principal Advisor to Chief Minister, Odisha and Chairman, Western Odisha Development Council; Ex-Chief Secretary and Chief Development Commissioner, Odisha, India “Dr. Umakanta Mohapatra’s book offers audacious analysis on the nature, contradictory character and complex realities of voluntary organisations and their role in rural development in South Asia. The book is incredibly informed and theoretically fascinating to ponder from the perspectives of people. This book would be a great companion to both academics and activists.” —Prof. Bhabani Shankar Nayak, Director of MBA, University for the Creative Arts, UK “The present Volume is a perceptive illustration of the role, effectiveness, community base and public image of voluntary organizations in the developmental landscape of the rural area. The author very aptly has assessed the GO-VO equation at ground level along with the strength, challenges, present dynamics and future trend of the grass root VOs. The book presents a beautiful confluence of the theory with empiricism in the South Asian context both at the macro and micro level. It is a repository of the issues and insights for students, teachers, research scholars, NGOs, policy makers and executives engaged in the task of rural development.” —Professor Navneeta Rath, Department of Sociology, Utkal University, India “The book by Dr. Umakanta Mohapatra is an insightful and wholistic study on the role of voluntary organisations in rural development. The theoretical precision, conceptual clarity and an innovative methodology are distinctive features of the book. The analysis is an appropriate interface of the theoretical perspectives and action-frames in South Asian Context. Enriched with the academic and empirical juxtaposition, the volume is a treasure trove for the students, research scholars, NGOs, policy makers and executives.” —Dr. Dipti Ranjan Sahu, Professor in Sociology, University of Lucknow, India; Former Secretary, Indian Sociological Society

Umakanta Mohapatra

Voluntary Organisations and Rural Development in South Asia Assumptions and Realities

Umakanta Mohapatra PRO to Chief Secretary Government of Odisha Bhubaneswar, India

ISBN 978-981-16-6292-8 ISBN 978-981-16-6293-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6293-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Dedicated to My departed Mother Bipanee Devi who shaped my early childhood for higher education. And Noble soul of my Father Udayanath Mohapatra who strived hard for my higher education forgetting all comforts of his life.

Preface and Acknowledgements

The longing for an equitable and coherent community life captivated my imagination from the living experiences of my childhood in a tradition ridden stratified village community. With my immature perceptual horizon of that time, I could see two trends of life in my village community: one—the life of impoverished in perpetual poverty and literacy; other—the life of landlord and money lenders in lavishness and conspicuity. They and their children spent lavishly with heavy wastage of food and other eatables in the so called ritualistic celebrations for showcasing their wealth and dominance. I was bewildered that if the rich could spend and waste so lavishly in the name of tradition, then why they could not support the poor children for food, dress and study material? But then the tough challenge was how to motivate the affluent and how to put in place a robust structure for continued support to the poor. The so-called guardians of culture in the village community including members of the village club were so much accustomed with the generation old stratified and subservient pattern of living that they accepted the prevailing condition as normal and unchangeable law of living. The intensity of the quest kept on increasing as I studied Sociology, started my profession as a teaching faculty in Sociology; and subsequently joined as Cadre Officer in State Public Service. It always haunted my thinking-cap as to why in spite of the well-designed plans, financial provisions (often borrowed by State as loan) and good intentions for implementation, the level of development was not up to the expected level in the rural community? Why operation of the agricultural, water supply and sanitation projects came to a gridding halt just with closer of Government financing? Why people could not keep the projects running which they needed most? Why people did not own the Government-led projects, and why the Government could not involve the people in planning, implementation and maintenance of the projects? Who should identify opportunities for the poor—the Government, an outside agency or the poor themselves? How can Government and people operate together, and who can negotiate partnership between the two? The learning from path-breaking world conferences ranging from the RIO summit of 1992, RIO+20 summit of 2012 to the Localisation of SDGs in 2016 by UN Assembly of World Leaders showed the way of bringing civil society actors in to vii

viii

Preface and Acknowledgements

the core team of developmental interventions for filling the critical gaps relating to people’s acceptance, citizens’ involvement and community ownership. It was often assumed that the community-level VOs, who operate in the native socio-cultural setting of the poor, can better work out the local approaches for breaking the poverty cycle. Then after the challenges came up: what the voluntary organisations can deliver in developmental space, which are those organisations and to what extent they can be depended upon in catering to the varrying needs of a diverse population in the developing nations? The present volume is the outcome of such searches. It aims at establishing an evidence-based body knowledge on the basis of which Government organisations (GOs) and VOs can be brought into the orbit of a virtuous circle with an evergrowing adaptable spine towards perfection. The volume proceeds with two broad contents—(i) discovery of socio-historic and socio-cultural contours of voluntary movement, and (ii) exploration of the empirical variables that deter or facilitate the functioning of voluntary organisations. A multipronged standardised analytical frame with quantitative and qualitative tools has been applied to arrive at a wholistic picture of the reality about the effectiveness and credibility of the VOs in developmental landscape. As the learned readers traverse through Chapters 1 and 2 of the volume, they will discover the sociological dimensions of sustainable development, the civil society space in South Asian region and discourse on non-Government voluntary sector in South Asian nations like Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives on the backdrop of the literature from other developing nations. Chapter 3 devises and applies a standardised methodology for the empirical quest. The readers will discover the hitherto missing links of voluntary sector in the social history of rural community, causal connection of the socio-cultural impulses with voluntarism along the historical timelines, the present trend and the probable future course of voluntary movement in this part of South Asia in Chap. 4. Chapters 5 and 6 primarily provide the evidence-based information about the type of activities in which grassroot VOs have made observable impact and the tasks in which their performance is far below the common assumptions. The credibility and public image of the VOs have been assessed from perspectives of the VOs themselves, people’s perception, media reflection and the elite rating derived from a comprehensive survey and analysis. Chapter 7 presents the summary findings about the nature and growth of grassroot VOs, their community base, credibility, strength and challenges. It deciphers the GO–VO equation at ground zero level, internal dynamics in the voluntary sector, the life-cycle of grassroot VOs, and the present trend in the voluntary sector having great potential to shape the future course. The learned readers will also find actionable way forward to bring the GO and VO into the orbit of a virtuous circle for building a mutually reinforcing partnership between these two principal actors. The empirical minutiae about voluntary organisations will provide guide points for strengthening the social legitimacy of the VOs. The book also specifies related thematic areas for future research and incubation along with the concrete and doable suggestions for policy interventions. The wrapup script illustrates that the State and civil society are relative terms, and one finds

Preface and Acknowledgements

ix

its relevance and growth in relation to the other. It shows the way for converting the ongoing incremental changes to the transformational growth in rural setting through appropriate GO–VO equation. The intellectual and social debts that I have incurred in course of the study are numerous. The preface will remain incomplete without mentioning the eminent personalities and premier institutions to whom I owe many debts. At the outset, I am indebted to the great scholars and authors whose words and ideas I have quoted in the present work. I owe my debt to Prof. Achyuta Samanta, Founder KIIT and KISS University; Dr Sudarshan Nanda, Professor Eminence and Research Chair, KIIT University; Prof. Navneeta Rath of Utkal University; and Dr. Sucheta Priyabadini of KIIT University who extended their untiring support for completing an independent research project on the voluntary organisations before writing the present volume. The inspirations from Prof. D. R. Sahu of Lucknow University, India; Prof. B. B. Mohanty of Pondicherry University, India; Prof. T. N. Pandey of California University, USA; Prof. Annapurna Devi Pandey of San Jose State University, Santa Cruz; Prof. Irina L. Pervova of Saint-Petersburg State University, Russia; Prof. Leandro Morais of State University of São Paulo, Brazil; Prof. Bhabani Shankar Nayak of University for Creative Arts, UK; Prof. Anup Dash of Utkal University, India; Prof. Bimlesh Pathak of Utkal University, India; Prof. Ranju Hasini Sahu of I. G. National Tribal University, India; Sri. Asit Tripathy, IAS, Principal Advisor to Honourable Chief Minister Odisha and Chairman Western Odisha Development Council; Dr. R. Balakrishnan, IAS, Chief Advisor to Honourable Chief Minister, Odisha; Sri Suresh Chandra. Mahapatra, IAS Chief Secretary, Odisha; Sri. Bijaya Kumar Pattanaik, IAS, Ex-Chief Secretary, Odisha; Sri A.P. Padhi, IAS State Election Commissioner, Odisha; Sri G.C. Pati, IAS ex-Chief Secretary, Odisha; Sri Pradeep Kumar Jena, IAS Additional Chief Secretary and Development Commissioner Odisha; Dr. Mona Sharma, IAS; Sri. Deo Ranjan Kumar Singh, IAS; Sri. Bishnupada Sethi, IAS; Smt. Anu Garg, IAS; Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, IRS; Sri Saswat Mishra, IAS; Dr. Saurabh Garg, IAS; Dr. Arabinda Padhi, IAS; Dr. Usha Padhi, IAS; Sri Arabind Agrawal, IAS; Smt. Roopa Mishra, IAS; Dr. Satyapriya Rath, OAS; Sri Dilip Routrai, OAS; and many others have gone a long way in completing the present volume even against the competing official engagements in a top-level office of the State. The focused discussion with civil society stalwarts like Prof. Mahammud Yunus, Noble Laureate (during his visit to Odisha in May 2018); Philanthropist Azim Premji, Padma Bibhusan and Knight of Legion of Honour Awardee (during his visit to Odisha in March 2018); Sri. Jagadananda, Founder of CYSD and Ex-Information Commission, Odisha; Dr. Bhagaban Prakash, Former Chief Advisor, National Social Service Scheme (world’s largest youth programme) and Former Advisor to Election Commission of India; Sri. Panchanana Kanungo, Ex-Minister, Government of Odisha; Sri. Subrat Tripathy, Chief Executive Officer Ports of Adani Group; Mr. Liby T. Johnson of Gramvikash, Odisha; Mr. N. Sahu of Joy Bharati Sathi Samaj, Odisha; Smt. Lalitanjali Das of Jyotirmayee Mahila Samiti, Odisha; and many others has added insight and meaning to my empirical observations on different facets of the voluntary organisation. I stay thankful to these stalwarts and learned personalities for sharing their observations with me. I am also thankful to the officers and

x

Preface and Acknowledgements

librarians in charge of Central Library, KIIT University; Harekrushna Mahatab State Library, Bhubaneswar; Odisha State Archives, Bhubaneswar; Odisha State Museum, Bhubaneswar; Centre for Youth and Social Development (CYSD), Odisha; Maritime Museum, Cuttack; National Library, Kolkata, Odisha Space Application Centre, Bhubaneswar; D. S. Library, Kendrapara Autonomous College, Odisha; Jayadev Bhawan Library, Bhubaneswar, Odisha; Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies, Odisha; and many other premier institutions for giving me access to their books and documents for the present pursuit. As I write this acknowledgement, I am reminded of the cordiality and cooperation extended to me by executive members of the grassroot VOs, bureaucrats at different levels of administration, elites and the household respondents without which the present work might not have met its objectives. I am immensely thankful to Springer Nature Publishers (India), Senior Editor Satvinder Kaur, the editorial board, the production board and their team who have taken the pain of doing due diligence for publication of the work on a global platform. I will fail in my duty without mentioning the contributions of my wife Bandana along with two daughters, Publi and Purnima, who bore with all the difficulties for years together as I had to divert my domestic hours towards this pursuit after finishing ten to eleven hours of official engagements almost on a routine basis. Bhubaneswar, India

Umakanta Mohapatra

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The New Face of Voluntarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 The Unresolved Qualm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Experiments with Rural Development in South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Sociological Dimensions of Sustainable Development . . . . . 1.3 Emerging Developmental Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Entry of New Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Conceptualising the Voluntary Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Voluntary Organisation, an Evolving Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 5 7 9 10 11 14 15

2 Discourse on Voluntary Organisations in Developing Nations . . . . . . . 2.1 Third World Backdrop of the Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 South Asian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Commonalities Among South Asian Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Civil Society Space in South Asian Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Noted Studies on VOs in South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Local Specific Context-Odisha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 19 23 25 27 28 47 51 54

3 The Empirical Quest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Theoretical Backdrop of the Micro Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Methodological Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Operational Construes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Micro Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Socio-cultural Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Historical Light Posts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Developmental Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 59 60 62 64 67 69 71 76 79 xi

xii

Contents

4 Voluntarism: A Socio-historic Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Substratum of Voluntary Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Regional Level (South Asia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Voluntarism up to the Turn of Seventeenth Century . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Voluntarism during Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Voluntarism in First Part of Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Voluntarism in Post Independent Era (Second Part of Twentieth Century) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 The Summoning of VOs to Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 Contemporary Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 State Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Voluntarism during Ancient and Medieval Times (up to Fifteenth Century) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Sixteenth Century Jerks to Voluntarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Voluntarism at the turn of Eighteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 Revival of Voluntarism during Nineteenth Century . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Voluntarism during Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6 Voluntarism in Twenty-First Century Odisha . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 The Luminaries of Voluntarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Voluntary Organisations in Post Independent Era . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Major Activities in Voluntary Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 81 83 85 85

96 101 102 102 107 116 118 119 120 123 123 127

5 Role of the Voluntary Organisations: VOs’ Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Jaya Bharati Sathi Samaj (JBS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Genesis, Growth and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Visions of JBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Structure and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.4 Performances of JBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.5 Financial Strength of JBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.6 Expertise and Innovations of JBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.7 Interaction with State Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.8 Major Problem Encountered by JBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.9 Self-Assessment of the Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Jyotirmayee Mahila Samiti (JMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Vision and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Structure and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Performances of JMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5 Financial Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.6 Expertise and Innovativeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131 132 132 133 134 135 142 144 145 145 146 146 146 147 147 148 150 151

86 88 90 92 94 95

Contents

xiii

5.2.7 Interaction with State Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.8 Major Problems Faced by JMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.9 Self-Assessment of the Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151 152 152 152 155

6 Role of Voluntary Organisations: People’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Image of VOs in People’s Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Performance of the VOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Rural Housing and Livelihood Asset Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Social Security Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Eradication of Illiteracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Promotion of Primary Education and Dropout Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 Implementation of Drinking Water Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.6 Rural Sanitation (IHHL) Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.7 Promotion of Sports and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.8 Conservation and Upgradation of the Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Rapport of VOs with Government Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 VOs and PRI Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 VOs and Local Bureaucracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Credibility of VOs in people’s Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Portrait of VOs in Media Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Resonance of VOs in Elite Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157 158 158 161 162 163

7 Encompassing Conclusions and Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Voluntarism: A Socio-historic Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 The Nature and Growth of Grassroot VOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Effectiveness of the VOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Community Base of the VOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Public Credibility of VOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 GO–VO Equation at the Ground Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Major Challenges of Grassroot VOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Present Dynamics and Future Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

164 165 166 166 167 168 169 170 170 171 174 177 181 183 186 190 192 192 193 195 196 197 200 205

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

About the Author

Dr. Umakanta Mohapatra, presently serving as Public Relation Officer to Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha has around ten years of teaching experience at graduate and post graduate level both as a regular and guest faculty. He has wide acquaintance with developmental administration, management of peoples’ perception, and, activities of the grass root voluntary organisations. To his credit, Dr. Mohapatra has research articles published in Scopus, Copernicus and ISSN indexed journals. He has delivered lectures in UGC cohesive programmes; co-authored the books Social Change: Themes and Perspectives and Rural Sociology; co-edited the books The Wonder that is Kendrapara and Angul District Gazetteer; and, has authored the book titled An Introduction to Indian Society. He has also guided evaluation studies on the impact of NGO interventions launched by CYSD, a leading CSO.

xv

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2

South Asia geo-physical boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frame of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The universe under study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maritime sea route from Kalinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of voluntary fund to total fund over last seventeen years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funds from Govt. versus voluntary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of JMS’s voluntary fund to total fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JMS’s funds from Govt. versus voluntary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLE versus CLE rating of VOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicator wise rating of SLE versus CLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 62 66 66 96 143 144 150 151 178 178

xvii

List of Tables

Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table A.1 Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table A.6 Table A.7 Table A.8

Matrix of people’s discernment about performance of VOs . . . . Sector wise segregation of people’s discernment . . . . . . . . . . . . Reformist voluntary efforts during nineteenth century . . . . . . . . Royal Titles awarded by Kings for voluntary militarism . . . . . . Important vernacular printing presses established through voluntary efforts of the native intelligentsia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leading Odia journals published during latter half of the nineteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generic fields of voluntary activities in Odisha at the turn of nineteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of voluntary organisations in Odisha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Registered voluntary organisations in the universe under study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activities of the VOs existing in the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159 160 208 209 211 212 213 215 216 219

xix

List of Boxes

Box 1.1 Box 5.1 Box 5.2

Emerging developmental landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visions of JBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategies of JBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 133 134

xxi

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract In recent years, voluntarism has come to occupy new spaces in developmental scenario of all aspiring nations—from Asia to Europe from America to Africa. Voluntary commotion is no more a mere philanthropic charity or social activity, it has acquired politico-administrative and diplomatic dimensions as well. The role of voluntary organisations (VOs) is now wedged in a triangle of unresolved qualms. The present chapter while lighting upon the new face of voluntarism in the post-cold war era succinctly presents the basic doctrines of these debates and tries to arrive at an acceptable consensus. The analysis of the chapter has been enriched with learning from the trial and error experiments done with rural development in South Asian nations. Going beyond the commonly held economic parameters, resource threshold and environmental components of sustainability, the chapter has tried to figure out the social dimensions of sustainable development. It is a sociological truth that unless the behavioural and social system determinants of rural development are taken on board from the beginning, the sustainability remains a smart-slogan. It is within this broad framework of sustainability that the present chapter examines the emerging developmental landscape in rural setting and tries to identify the entry of new nonstate players like market, corporates and pluralistic civil society bodies like VOs, NGOs and other forums of the people. From among these new entrants, VOs and NGOs seem to hold more promise because of their numerical strength, social capital and cultural techniques. Owing to such importance of the VOs, the chapter has tried to standardise meaning of the term VO with definite connotations. The chapter has also elaborately shown how the concept of voluntary organisation remains evolving because of many internal and external dynamics, and how in actual use, it becomes a bundle of the concepts.

1.1 The New Face of Voluntarism The post-cold war era frequently inflicted by social tensions arising from system failure, conflicts, recessions and global uncertainties has created new spaces for civil society bodies in the developmental landscape of all the aspiring nations—from Asia to Europe from America to Africa. Voluntary organisations (VOs), as vanguard of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 U. Mohapatra, Voluntary Organisations and Rural Development in South Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6293-5_1

1

2

1 Introduction

this civil society which is essentially pluralistic in nature, have become more explicit, forceful and flashing in these nation states. RIO conference in 1992 followed by the institutionalisation of Civil Society Advisory Committee (CSAC) by UNDP in 2000 has triggered fresh look at them in the world community. VOs and NGOs are now getting directly connected to the world community in alliance with INGOs. Voluntary commotion is no more a mere philanthropic charity or social activity, it has acquired politico-administrative and diplomatic dimensions as well. While Liberals view it as a natural ally of the Government (Kamat, 2002), the Leftists view it as an imperialist strategy for pacifying the growing dissatisfaction of an aspirational society. Yet, progressive thinkers from both these streams acknowledge the social strength and potency of the non-Government voluntary movement.

1.1.1 The Unresolved Qualm The role of non-Government voluntary organisations in rural development is now wedged in a “triangle of debates” (Mohapatra et al., 2018). On one angle, there is civil society view formed on the bed rock of growing public discontentment against the State, its bureaucracy and its institutions of authority. This view is based on a kind of blunt reactionary self-help philosophy. The scholars in this school of thought recommend larger role and autonomy to the voluntary sector on the presumption that they can make society more humane, innovative, democratic, expressive and delivering (Frumkin, 2002). VOs can realise participatory management, encourage local initiatives, and reach the poor effectively (Bebbington & Riddell, 1995). At the other angle, the pro-State thinkers argue that it “would be wrong and dangerous to put the State on the back burner and set civil society to work in its place” (Beteille, 1999). If “basic functions of State” are subverted or “undermined, the civil society itself will wither in its bud. This will amount to reduction of faith in the State and democratic institutions leading to anarchy and chaos” (Mohapatra et al., 2019). Advocates of civil society may recognise that as “every soil is not equally conducive to the growth of open and secular institutions it is not equally conducive to growth of civil society associations” (Beteille, 2001). The modern cultures of new life, liberty and opportunities have been projected by the State and can be protected by the State as well. At the third angle, there is inquisitive view point that “NGOs are turning to sleeper cells working against the public interest and plotting against the Government in potential collusion with foreign powers” (Singh, 2017). NGOs are steered by foreign funding agencies, and “their entire existence, not merely dependency is on donor money” (Ziadi, 1999). They are “favoured child” and “handmaidens of global imperialism” (Edwards & Hulme, 1996; Karat, 1988). NGOs often fuel the “competing factions in the conflict” (Slim, 1995). Because of money and technology muscles that flow to them from foreign power houses, they gather the strength to exert influence on Governments in developing nations. Some scholars have also indicated about potential threat of INGOs in undermining the sovereignty of developing democracies.

1.1 The New Face of Voluntarism

3

Almost in the similar but less offensive vein, some scholars like Ghosh (2009) and Mohapatra et al. (2019, op. cit.: 3483) with their own observations about voluntary sector opine that “though VOs seem to have potential to reach out to the poor and needy; in reality, many of them do not “qualify the distinction”. The activities of the millions of NGOs have failed to meet people’s expectations. Probably, “the hype about VOs is exaggerated” (Ghosh, ibid.: 230) and they are not certainly panacea for all ills. Pointing to erosion of values in the VOs, some scholars have gone to the extent of labelling them as “false alternative” and concluding “nothing doing about them” (Kabra, 1984; Sen, 1984; Ziadi, 1999). While these three trends of opinion harp on their own logical citations, the structural functionalists opine that improving the functioning of democracy and the delivery of State promised public services needs enlivening of civil society (Kothari, 1998; Swain & Blomkvist, 2001). Local-level VOs are “harbingers of silent revolution” empowering the poor with a “sense of collective force” (Forde, 2017; Sharma, 1992). NGO projects provide forum in which both the Government and people, by understanding each other can work together in solving the local problems (Cannon, 2004). Even the “the three horsemen of global apocalypse poverty, environmental degradation and population growth” (Fisher, 2003) can be dealt through conjunction between Government and NGOs. Mighty problems of poverty and unemployment can be reduced to “zero” by activating the citizens and civil society through the systems of social business and “social banking” (Yunus, 2018). Thus, the debate on VOs remains inconclusive between the celebrators and disparagers of the voluntary movement. A perceptive reading of all these three trends of opinion make us believe that this newly emerging collective force of civil society needs to be constructively utilised in meeting the societal need of sustainability and cohesiveness. The social scientists from both the liberal and communist regimes, by realising the growing size and perceived influence of the voluntary sector in civil society space, more or less subscribe to the view that VOs can contribute towards deepening of democracy and provide people a “channel of collective expression” (Frumkin, op. cit.: 1). VOs can be vehicles of social entrepreneurship and can act as agents of social development. Moreover, United Nations’ Millennium Declaration on right to development1 juxtaposed with international focus on sustainable development and protection of human rights have reinforced the importance of non-Government voluntary sector in developmental space.

1.2 Experiments with Rural Development in South Asia Many evaluations about developmental outcomes in rural society of South Asian nations report that the quality and quantum of development is far from satisfactory. The national objectives of husbanding natural and human resources have not progressed anywhere near their potential or to the appreciable level, especially in the context of the resources applied till today. A number of plans, programmes and

4

1 Introduction

projects have been tried by putting the scant resources and borrowed capital from various international agencies. Asian Governments have experimented with an array of developmental schemes and programmes on trial and error basis. For example, the Government of India, after independence, has hurled many programmes starting from National Extension Service (NES), Community Development Programme (CDP) to Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) and finally, delegation of power to Panchayati Raj system, Prime Ministers Rojgar Yojana (PMRY), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PAMY), Din Dayal Upadhyaya Gramin Kausal Vikash Yojana (DDUGKY), Mission Shakti in form of self-help group(s) are on their trial.2 In the process, there have been frequent shifts in approaches and strategies of rural development. Indian CDP was a marked failure. As a result, the need was felt for a shift in method and approach of development. From that time onwards, the method has been shifting from limited purpose to target sector approach, target group approach, investment in the areas of quick return, development of the poorest, promotion of local indigenous resources through package for enhancing the productivity, cluster approach, and identification of activity clusters, etc. Now, the alternative means of partnerships and collaborations are being searched for fastening the process of inclusive growth. Similarly, Sri Lanka has tried with subsidised food programme on rationing basis, Janasaviya (self-help) programme—a targeted income transfer programme, Janasaviya Trust to extend credit facilities for rural industrialisation; and, Samurdhi (prosperity) programme. Samurdhi programme one of the largest Government-sponsored poverty eradication programme in Sri Lanka. Recently, Sri Lankan Government is implementing the programmes like Gemidiriya (village strength), Maganeguma and Gamaneguma. Gemidiriya project aims at enabling the rural poor to perk up their sustainable livelihood and improve their quality of living. It is a community development and livelihood improvement programme. Maganeguma targets at development of road and communication in rural areas. Other programmes under implementation in Sri Lanka includes six-year programme with a number of Agriculture Development Schemes, Paddy land Act-1956, reducing dependence on import, establishment of model industrial estates for creation of employment opportunities, exportoriented agriculture, a number of regional development projects (like Mahaweli River development project, free trade zone project), integrated rural development project, etc. Bangladesh has tried with different programmes for containing population growth, village agricultural and industrial development programme (V-AID), Comilla model for small farm growth, farmers’ cooperatives, group-based community projects, Integrated Rural Development Programme (Swanirvar), market liberalisation, spreading of NGO projects, participation in shape of GO-NGO projects, Ektee Bari Ektee Khamar, Char Livelihood programme, comprehensive village development programme, making markets for Jamuna, Padma and Teesta Chars (M4C), micro-credit and social entrepreneurship programmes, etc. The list can be lengthened with similar additions from other neighbouring countries of South Asia.

1.2 Experiments with Rural Development in South Asia

5

These trial and error strategies of rural development, in the process of their implementation, have faced some formidable dilemmas which may be summarised under following heads. • The dilemma between rapid economic growth versus resource sustainability and ecological balance (Dube, 1988; Kothari, 1985). • Dilemma between State/elite ordained versus people-led developmental process. • The dilemma of central control versus decentralisation, supply-driven versus demand-driven development model, etc. The endeavour to get out of these dilemmas has led to a paradigm shift in the rural development planning and strategies in these nations. New highlights like societal equilibrium, quality of life, inclusive growth, effective access of the poor and middle class to higher-quality public service and “reduction of income and health inequality” (Banarjee et al., 2019) have come to adorn rural planning. The approach of identifying the “poverty trap” (Banarjee & Duflo, 2013) where it really exists, and responding to it with “low-cost easy to toss and test interventions” (Banerjee et al., 2016) have added new workable contours to rural planning. The terms like equitable growth and sustainable development are central theme for developmentalists and social scientists today. The new term sustainable development is gradually replacing its predecessors like social development and inclusive development that gained prominence in nineties.

1.2.1 Sociological Dimensions of Sustainable Development Sustainable development (SD) is commonly defined in terms of economic and environmental components. The narratives of sustainability warn about belligerent economic exploitation of nature at one extreme and degraded nature at the other extreme. SD commonly refers to consistent income while operating within thresholds of the nature. The report of World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) known as Brundtland Report (1987) says “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs”. It is in this intergenerational perspective that many go-green economic models of sustainability are suggested. The economic models of SD though are backed by some scientific rigour, fail to put on table other imperative behavioural and social system components without which sustainability remains a smart-slogan. The bigger challenge is to address the basic survival issues of the more than 734 million people who merely exist with meagre amount of less than $1.90 per day (World Bank’s estimate of Global Poverty by 2015); the majority of whom live in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, North Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific regions. The global socio-economic wreck caused by the unprecedented pandemic of COVID19 has added more dimensions and gravity to survival their issues. The percentage of world’s poor is expected to rise by two to three percentage points compared

6

1 Introduction

to pre-COVID situation. World Bank in its April, 2020 estimation projected that additional 40–60 million people would be pushed below the international poverty line (IPL) of living with $1.90 per day because of the COVID recession. Updating April projection in June 2020, World Bank approximated this range to about 71– 100 million people who would be pushed below poverty line (Burrer, 2020). It also predicted that every region of the globe will have “substantial growth downgrades— South Asia will contract by 2.7%, Sub-Saharan Africa by 4.2%, Europe and Central Asia by 4.7%, and, Latin America by 7.2%” (World Bank, 2020). The UN Women in its report about impact of COVID-19 on women in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa mentioned that the pandemic would affect the women more in the age group of 25–34 and would push around additional 47 million women below poverty line, among whom 54 million would be in Central and Southern Asia and 24 million would be in Sub-Saharan Africa. This would reverse the decades of progress.3 The warranting need is to locate the poverty trap in social life. Many of the logically designed and firmly administered programmes fail to bear the desired result simply because they failed to address the poverty trap in their social contexts with the right model of development. One prerequisite of sustainable development is improving the life and living conditions of this deprived section of humanity and “creating the conditions so that benefits endure under changing conditions” (Fowler, 2006). Still bigger challenge is curtailing the apocalypse of “unbound consumerism” for personal satisfaction and contended life of few top classes of social pyramid. The policy makers need to recognise that on the surface of economic and environmental contours, sustainability essentially has underplaying social determinants, which if not addressed from the begging, will leave “sustainable development goals (SDGs) as a beautifully drafted charter of unfulfilled wishes” (Satyarthi, 2019). The human action and economic want need to be linked with refilling and regeneration capacity of the nature. The environmental programmes also need to take into account the human and social needs with their emerging trends. To be more specific, the social components of SD entail: (i) Identifying the “poverty cycles” and poverty traps in their socio-historic contexts, and, responding to those with resolute, flexible and step-by-step approach through maximum use of local resources; (ii) improving the conditions of living by way of inclusive food security, social protection and health assurance nets; (iii) reducing vulnerability of seasonal unemployment and unexpected trauma; (iv) empowering people with improved sense of common participation and developing a societal eco-system that invokes people’s participation at all levels; (v) resolving the intra-group and intergroup conflicts through a consensual balance between intermingling exogenous and indigenous traits; (vi) regular updating of the social adaptive system for peaceful coexistence of diversities under changing and stress conditions; (vii) developing an intra-system interactional strategy that would prevent incubation of what some presage as “inevitable clash among civilisations” (Huntington, 1996) for the limited resources of nature; and (viii) accomplishing scientific consumption parameters screwed with the value systems of different cultures for ceiling the global apocalypse of irrational consumerism.

1.2 Experiments with Rural Development in South Asia

7

In perspectives of the above cited indicators of SD, the focus of rural development can be reoriented towards six interrelated processes—(i) empowering the people with knowledge and capacity to continuously work for their own as well as public welfare; (ii) identification of the “poverty trap” and the low-cost indigenous interventions that are easy for acceptability and experiment (Banarjee & Duflo, p. 398); (iii) linking of human and societal need with refilling threshold of nature; (iv) revamping of society’s institutions for meeting human needs through people’s participation at all levels; (v) enriching local and global practices with appropriate system linkages; and, (vi) adopting appropriate exist policy wherein the change agent either Government or non-Government body should wrap up and withdraw from direct action at the right time allowing the community to nurture and grow what has already been induced. There are many evidences to uphold the empirical fact that sustainability is essentially concomitant with “people’s authentic participation” and “ownership of the processes needed to bring it about” (Fowler, pp. 21–22). Of course, timely oversight and assistance should be a part of the exit policy It is in this perspective of sustainable rural development that the strategic role of non-Government VOs and CSOs become almost indispensable.

1.3 Emerging Developmental Landscape The emerging world trends during post-globalisations period juxtaposed with neoliberal ideologies have made it clear that that State-sponsored schematic development, though necessary for certain vulnerable sections of population for certain period cannot lead to sustainable growth and shared prosperity. The debates over growth driven by competitive market mechanism versus subsidy-based State welfarism burdening the public exchequer has merged into the consensus that the former should get precedence over the later. The other competing doctrines that are gaining rapid popularity in rural development planning and advocacy, as elsewhere mentioned by me, include—(1) “Positivism and proprietorship referring to trust and confidence building, mastering of entrepreneurship, channelising collective social force, building resilience to shocks and market dynamisms; (2) partnership indicating joint ventures in terms of dovetailing of funds and sharing of resources for quality improvement; (3) performance pointing to accuracy, adequacy and pro-activeness in service delivery, and, time framed accomplishment of developmental targets with definite degree of public accountability; (4) knowledge sharing emphasising the need for academia and executive interface, industry and university interaction for incubation, innovation and trend setting; (5) citizen and community ownership with bottom-top approach through empowered organs of people’s participation” (Mohapatra, 2014); and, (6) Social Eco-System for promoting sustainability (discussed in preceding para of this chapter). Among all these, growth through partnership, and, social eco-system for sustainability are the anchor doctrines that “encompass the core essence of other paradigms” (ibid.: 123).

8

1 Introduction

The strategies of faster growth adopted by Asian Governments under the sway of “tiger club economies of Asian Tigers”4 during early part of twenty-first century (Lee et al., 2008) have resulted in much heightened aspirations about development and service delivery. People’s expectations have reached unprecedented heights. Today, there is a greater desire to access information about citizen rights and developmental entitlements. There is fervour among people to claim accountability from service delivery systems. The State is shifting its role to that of a facilitator. Once again the doctrine of globalisation, abandoned in 1960s with the blames of economic colonisation, has started dominating developmental thinking in Third World nations; of course, this time with assuring promises of partnership (Mohapatra, 2012). The developmental landscape in aspiring Asian nations is taking a transformative shape which may be construed along the lines of Linderberg and Dobel (1999) in Box 1.1.

Box 1.1 Emerging developmental landscape Escalating private sector

Neo liberalism Global economy

Market driven competing models

Shrinking sector

public Extending voluntary/civil society sector

Declining efficiency and capacity

Social advocacy and pressure group strategy Projecting best practices

Eroding credibility of Heightened public democratic expectation institutions Growing dissatisfaction Privatization and Increasing demand of outsourcing accountability from public institutions

Against this backdrop, development experts advocate that people can no longer be considered as mere “consumers” or “beneficiaries” of developmental process. Development to be sustainable must partner with the people for whom it is meant. The conceptual formulations like participatory development, public private partnership, people’s participation, micro-level participatory planning, and community ownership are seen dictating the developmental treatise. The processes of decentralisation, deregulation, administrative reform and liberalisation has been brought to focus to facilitate and accommodate these dictates.

1.3 Emerging Developmental Landscape

9

1.3.1 Entry of New Players Against this new backdrop (as narrated in preceding paragraphs), rural development is no more the exclusive domain of Governmental machinery. The new players have registered and demonstrated their role in it. Nowadays, business, industry and corporate houses are not only for profit. The canons of corporate social responsibility, compensatory action plan, consent-based rehabilitation, environmental regeneration, peripheral development, restoration of eco-system, etc. are now enforceable under the law. In addition to this people’s organisations, professional consortiums, occupational associations and common interest groups are emerging as new pressure groups and developmental agents. The entire developmental process is now a collaborative exercise among Three Principal Actors: the State represented by Government; the market personified by the corporate, industries, business houses and financial institutions; and civil society encompassing the entire galaxy of non-Government public forums, non-profits, VOs, NGOs, public media and so forth (explained in succeeding paragraph). The latter two new entrants have their own domain expertise so far as rural development is concerned. The market and corporate sector has the financial muscle and economic capital. They can provide finance and bring in competitive affordable technology. The civil society sector has the social expertise and “social capital” (Putnam, 1993). The civil society itself is a heterogeneous group consisting of diverse associations, organisations, professional bodies, voluntary organisations, corporate houses, business federations, non-banking micro-financial entities, political parties, neighbourhood groups, religious bodies, caste associations, trade unions, human right associations, citizen forums; and the new “organs of people’s participation (OPPs)” (Mohapatra, 2012, op. cit.: 79) like self-help groups (SHGs), common interest groups (CIGs), Farmer Producer Organisation (FPOs), etc. Even, Putnam (1993) uses newspaper readership, choral societies and sports clubs, etc. as one of the indicators of the strength of civil society in northern Italy. “In the Third World, NGOs are only one part of the independent sector” of civil society (Fisher, 2003, op. cit.: 7). All these constituents of civil society have their influence on socio-political life, either direct or derivative. From among them, the VOs and NGOs are emerging as the most promising actors in the field of sustainable development because of their size and strength and social skills. In course of human history, the voluntary sector has earned a niche for itself in social environment. Presently, VOs are extending their frontiers of action to innovations in social field, interaction among fragmented groups, information for empowerment and social advocacy on developmental issues. They are emerging as a major player in rural development and are entering into the “autonomous space between State and citizenry” in the context of a democratic polity (Beteille, 1999, op. cit.: 2588).

10

1 Introduction

1.4 Conceptualising the Voluntary Organisation The sector is viewed from different ideological perspectives in various regions of the world. In western developed nations, the term usually means the autonomous nonGovernment organisations (NGOs) operating as civil society bodies with their own grassroot NGO network in more than one country. They are generally called NGOs or INGOs and are viewed mostly from their developmental and democratising value. These are better explained in Habermas’ (1991) theoretical frame of “bourgeoisie public sphere” for rational and critical debate, having its roots in “free laissez-faire, free market and pre-industrial order of liberalism ranging from late eighteenth to midnineteenth century. In transitional countries of Europe and former Soviet Union, it tends to mean all charitable and non-profit organisations”. In the developing nations of Asia and Middle East, these bodies are ideally called voluntary organisations (VOs); and, are generally viewed from Tocquevillean (Kumar, 1993) and Gandhian (Sharma, 2014) perspectives of value-based public welfarism viz self-less service, humanism, charity and mutual help for public well-being. Today, the conceptual boundary of this third non-Government sector covers the whole gamut of the “area between the family and the state, or the individual and the state” (Kumar, 1993, op. cit.: 383). In simple terms, the voluntary sector denotes the groups and associations that are fundamentally independent of direct Government control primarily operating for humanitarian goals. They are known by various labels such as voluntary organisations (VOs), voluntary development organisation’s (VDOs), voluntary agencies (VAs), non-profit service organisation’s (NSO), non-Government organisation (NGOs), non-Governmental development organisation’s (NDGOs), social change organisations (SCOs), grassroots support organisations (GSOs), community-based organisations (CBOs), etc. The term NGO has become so much a fad that new acronyms have come up prefixing NGOs. These are Donor Organised NGOs (DONGOs), Environmental NGOs (ENGOs), Northern Non-Governmental Organisations (NNGOs), International Development Cooperation NGOs (IDCNGOs), Support NGOs (SNGOs), International NGOs (INGOs), Government operated NGOs (GONGOs), Technical Assistance Non-Government Organisations (TANGOs), Transitional NGOs (TNGOs), Market Advocate NGOs (MANGOs), Quasi-autonomous NGOs like ISO (QUANGOs), etc. All these bodies, though are different in their philosophy, purpose, programmes and modus operandi, they are commonly identified as social collectives outside the Governmental fold, operating independently for social and civil causes. In the contemporary literature, all these heterogeneous collectives have been brought under the umbrella concept of civil society organisations (CSOs). Voluntary organisations have been treated with multiple theoretical visualisations by different branches of social science, each one scanning them through its own lens. Scholars from Sociology, Social Psychology, Public Administration and Organisational Studies have defined it in the context of their own theoretical visualisation. Sociologists study these organisations as part of the larger social system; Social

1.4 Conceptualising the Voluntary Organisation

11

Psychologists deal with voluntary organisations as an environment for individual members; Political Scientists view them as public actors at local, national and international levels; and the scholars from Public Administration view NGOs/VOs from the angles of the strategies of rural development. Etzioni (1975), the organisational theorist, designates voluntary organisation’s as a special type of “normative organisation” deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific goals. He explains, when “coercion is the basis of authority, the compliance is alienative; when remuneration is the basis of authority, compliance takes calculative turn; when authority base is normative, compliance is moral”. He further adds, “All voluntary associations have a similar nature, they are primarily social, using in addition varying degrees of pure normative power”. Banton (1968), a social anthropologist, describes voluntary organisation as a group” organised for the pursuit of one interest or several interests in common”. Sills (1968), a sociologist, defines it as a group of persons “organised on the basis of voluntary membership without State control for the furtherance of some common interest of its members”. Smith and Freedman (1972), a social analyst view voluntary organisation as a structure “formally organised, relatively permanent secondary grouping as opposed to less structured, informal, ephemeral or primary groupings, identified by the presence of offices filled through some established procedures, periodic scheduled meetings, qualifying criteria for membership, and some formalised division of labour”. Beveridge (1949), a progressive social economist, opines that voluntary action refers to the actions in private section not under the directives of any authority wielding State power. It is performed for public purpose—social advance—for improving the conditions of life for him and his fellow beings. “A voluntary organisation, properly speaking, is an organisation which, whether its workers are paid or unpaid, is initiated and governed by its own members without external control”. Hasenfeld and Gidron (2005), in their attempt to explain the voluntary organisation, refer to the classification of the constituents of civil society to “Civil Society-I and Civil Society-II” as made by Foley and Edwards (1996). The first category (Civil Society-I) consists of the “volunteer run associations, networks of civic engagement and production of social capital in fostering collective trust and in strengthening democracy”. The second category (Civil Society-II) consists of the movements, networks and organisations that challenge the authoritarianism and dictatorship in a particular regime or State. These organisations also flag the issues like human rights, peace, environmental degradation and ecological balance. Further, Hansfeld and Gridon add that Civil Society-III includes the groups, associations and organisations like interest groups and lobby organisation’s that “reinforce the State regimes and policies through their programmes and activities”.

1.4.1 Voluntary Organisation, an Evolving Concept The concept of voluntary organisation remains dynamic and evolving. Its meaning and nature keeps on changing over time. As an evolving concept, it is dependent upon

12

1 Introduction

three dynamics—(i) The dynamics of the social capital the very base from which it emerges and grows; (ii) the internal dynamics of the voluntary organisation itself; and, (iii) the external environ consisting the authority structure of concerned society and politico-economic dynamics both at the national and international levels. As pointed out above, the social scientists maintain that in between State and citizenship there exists an autonomous space of civil society and mediating institutions. These mediating institutions draw their essence from social capital which in itself, refers to the body of social values, cultural practices, pattern of relationship and degree of social as well as mutual trust that prevails in a society. It is this social capital that stimulates or deters people to work collectively for pursuance of shared goals aimed at public good. The body of social values, pattern of relationships and degree of mutual trust keep on changing in the broad process of social change. In accordance with the changing social capital, the nature of voluntarism and voluntary organisations also keep on changing. The dynamics of voluntary organisations are related to the changing need of the community and cliental group to whom it serves. Moreover, the changes in politico-administrative setup, international diplomacies, interface between society and industry and nature of interaction between market and family keep the voluntary organisations in a state of transition from one phase to another. VOs have been treated from different angles at various points of time. It has been regarded as an essential feature of democracy; an active agent of development in terms of its functional complementarity to State action; a pattern or form of organisation in relation to social activism or societal action; a process of development; a technique of development; a strategy of developmental planning; a channel of carrying the developmental benefits to the people who are in most need of it and so on. Voluntary action takes shape in a process of three stages. At the first stage, it originates from the social conscience that recognises the discomfort and deprivation of a section of population. At the second stage, a group of socially committed people get organised to serve the people in discomfort. At the third stage, there emerges organised activity among the target sections of the population for whom the actions are meant. The membership in these groups cuts across caste and occupation and other traditional social boundaries. The perception of discomfort and emergence of target group are always relative. They vary from one society to another and even from one phase of time to another in the same society. They also change with rural urban characteristics of a place. Another internal dynamics of VOs lies in voluntary approach itself. Generally voluntary approach is perceived as a dissent against prevailing system. It has an internal current of discontent, whether expressed or not, about prevailing conditions which motivates the likeminded people to work together for solutions. Among the VOs one can detect two types, those who are non-conformists striving for a new order and those conformists working for reform and gradual improvement of the existing order. Voluntary organisations have their origin in the motivations for a new and better order. This basic impulse keeps them evolving with changing developmental scenario.

1.4 Conceptualising the Voluntary Organisation

13

The debate between the concepts of no-profit and non-profit is yet to be defined in voluntary sector. The dilemma is the resource contribution of the VO in implementation of a project versus the sustenance and logistics support to its staff, workers and organisers. The question is whether a volunteer has the requirements of his life or not? From where he should meet these requirements if he has to devote his time and energy for the voluntary service? From where voluntary workers should meet expenses towards the travel, documentation for official transaction and other logistics that are required for the project work? If he is expected to devote his disposable resources only than voluntary action will continue to remain as a leisure activity of the elite. In that case, what happens to the enhancement of efficiency and professionalism in voluntary sector? These and many other related questions are yet to be resolved within the matrix of social legitimacy. The voluntary sector will alleviate itself to the next higher phase as the resolutions to this dilemmas gain social sanction both at the macro- and micro-levels. The voluntary organisations themselves are also in transitional phase from relief and philanthropy to advocacy and people’s movement. Voluntary organisations, as Korten (1990) says, have evolved through four generational terms viz. First generation mostly engaged in “relief and welfare”; the second generation engaged in development; third generation striving for “sustainable system”; and, the fourth generation entering to “people’s movements”. In present-day context, shared vision, collaborative partnerships and collective leadership are basic essentials of the existence and growth of VOs (Ekeland, 2004). Collaborative partnership is a dynamic relationship among diverse actors. Partnership as a strategy and practice also remains ever changing. The process of implementing shared leadership is “a dynamic, ever-changing and never-ending journey” (Jackson, 2000). Autonomy, another vital feature of the VOs also remain constantly fluid. The degree of autonomy ranges from absolute autonomy to conditional autonomy as one form of organised activity within the larger Government system. The voluntary organisations, in their process of operation, find themselves at different points of this range which give rise to necessity of further change both in the social system and the voluntary sector. The other external environs relate to the structural issues like social hierarchy, relative deprivation, authority pattern and process of social conscientisation etc. During most part of their existence, the VOs often move back and forth, “especially as they respond to macro-social, political and cultural factors” (Hasenfeld & Gidron, op. cit.: 111). Such dynamisms and debates require examination of a series of concepts to understand the changing nature and functions of voluntary organisation in a particular society. It is because of this complexity that the concept of voluntary organisation has come under a number of theoretical and empirical debates. Even within the voluntary sector itself, the scholars have been segmented into different viewpoints viz. Social Movement theorists (Durkheim, 1897; Goodwin et al., 2001; McCarthy & Mayer, 1977; Mayer, 2004); Civil Society analysts (Putnam, 2000; Smith, 1997), and, nonprofit sector experts (Anheier, 2014; Gronbjerg, 1993; Salamon, 1995). Many such debates are due to the new contours of development itself, and, new experiments

14

1 Introduction

being made with non-Government sector by the developmentalists. One can hope that these controversies will be progressively resolved with gathering of the experiences, standardisation of scientific studies and academia-policy synergy. But at present, the concept is an evolving concept. Using the words of Prof. M. N. Srinivas, we may call it as a “bundle of concepts”.

1.5 Chapter Summary Readers may mark from above discussions that though different schools of thought have lighted upon the voluntary sector profusely; there are many unexplored or underexplored thematic areas with regard to the partnership among State, people, community and voluntary sector. Different opinions, floated by the scholars, can broadly be categorised under two trends. One trend of thought highlights that the developing nations need more of the State intervention for harnessing country’s developmental potential. Other trend of opinion leveraging the philosophy of neo-liberalism emphasises on limited State intervention. It calls for partnership and collaborative approach with people and people’s organisations like VOs/NGOs for humanising the process of development. But actual implementation of the partnership doctrines requires a lot of interactions among heterogeneous organisations, amendments in the existing system, reformation of the normative order and setting up the new institutional framework. A well-designed multipolar normative system needs to be put in place for allowing both the ease of governance and ease of collaborative partnership for development. Each of these two has its own importance for a nation state, and, one cannot be undermined in interest of the other. Besides, the capacity, efficacy and credibility of the VOs in catering to diverse developmental needs of a pluralistic society within constitutional framework of a democratic polity pose formidable problems; requiring rigorous scientific scrutiny on the basis of a reliable body of knowledge for building an effective partnership. There are also many unexplored or underexplored thematic areas with regard to the dynamics of voluntary sector; and, the partnership of VOs with State, people, community and market. As an academic practitioner and subsequently as a Government Executive in State bureaucracy, I have always felt the need of a dependable body of scientific knowledge about the voluntary sector for utilising this potent social force in accomplishment of much needed inclusive development, and hence, the present study. The study aims at empirical examination of some such vital under explored themes with a view to locate the role of VOs in rural development, particularly in a coastal region of Indian Union. Before we proceed in this direction, it would be worthwhile to look into the discourse (important scholastic reflections, observations, studies and findings) about role of VOs in the context of neighbouring South Asian nations for placing findings of the present study in its global perspective.

1.5 Chapter Summary

15

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

The UN declaration on Right to Development proclaims that all people are “entitled to participate in, contribute to; and, enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development”. In Millennium Declaration of 2000, world leaders showed their commitment to promote democracy, strengthen rule of the law, uphold human rights and respect people’s right to development. www.ngoplus. org/article social (Accessed on 12 April, 2018). India got political independence from British Colonialism on 15 August 1947. Adopting the approach of “planned development”, the new Government set up Planning Commission of India in March, 1950. The Commission in its First Five Year Plan launched CDP in 1952 and NES in 1953 as major schematic programmes for rural development. The Commission formulated twelve Five Year Plans and interim annual plans in succession. Presently, the Commission has been substituted with National Institute for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog from first January 2015. NITI Aayog now serves as “Think Tank” for Central and State Governments. UN Women in its report titled “From Insights to Action: Gender equality in the wake of COVID-19”, released in September 2020, argued that the impact of the lockdown and shutdown because of the pandemic is not gender neutral. It would affect more women than men in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. More details available at www.unwomen.org. The countries namely Hong Kong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco nomy_of_Hong_Kong), South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan (https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Taiwan) are known as Asian Tigers because of the rapid industrialization and high growth rate. By the early twenty-first century, economy of each of these four nations ushered into high-income category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank_high-income_economy) at par with developed countries. Their success stories served as role models for many aspiring nations in Southeast Asia which came to be known as the Tiger-Cub Economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Cub_Economies).

References Anheier, H. K. (2014). Nonprofit organisation’s: Theory management, policy. Routledge. e-book ISBN 9781315851044. Banarjee, A., Gethin, A., & Thomas, P. (2019). Growing cleavages in India. Special Article Economic & Political Weekly, 54(11), 34–44. Banarjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (Noble Laureates). (2013). Poor economics, rethinking poverty & ways to end it. Penguin Random House. Banerjee, A. V., Duflo, E., & Kremer, M. (2016). The influence of randomized controlled trials on development economics research and on development policy. In The State of Economics, the State of the World, Conference at the World Bank, Conference Proceeding Volume. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kremer/files/the-influence-of-rcts-on-developme ntal-economics-research-and-development-policy.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2010.

16

1 Introduction

Banton, M. (1968). Anthropological aspects of voluntary organisation’s. In International encyclopedia of social sciences (Vol. 16). Collar MacMillan. Bebbington, A., & Riddell, R. (1995). The direct funding of southern NGOs by donors: New agendas and old problems. Journal of International Development, 7(6), 879–893. Beteille, A. (1999). Citizenship, state and civil society. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(36), 2588–2591. Beteille, A. (2001). Civil society and the good society. Sociological Bulletin, 50(2), 286–307. Indian Sociological Society, Sage. Beveridge, L. (1949). Beveridge report on voluntary action. Monthly Labor Review, 68(4), 427–429. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41831774 Burrer, J. (2020, September 6). How global recession can impact extreme poverty. Borgen Magazine, World News. Retrieved from www.borgenmagazine.com Cannon, C. (2004). NGOs and state: A case study of Uganda. In D. Eade & J. Pearce (Eds.), Development, NGOs and civil society. Oxfam GB. Dube, S. C. (1988). Modernization and development: The search for alternative paradigms. Vistar Publications. Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide. Free Press. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organisation’s. World Development, 24(6), 961–973. Ekeland, T. P. (2004). Voluntary organisation’s: Commitment, leadership, and organisational effectiveness, pp. 375–381. Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492192 Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organisation’s. Free Press. Fisher, J. (2003). Non governments-NGOs and the political development of the third world. Rawat Publication. Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7, 38–53. Forde, B. (2017). Civil society is important—But not a magic bullet. The DRUK Journal—Civil Society in Bhutan, 3(2), 5–14. ISSN 2411-6726. A Bhutan Centre for Media and Democracy Publication. Fowler, A. (2006). The virtuous spiral—A guide to sustainability for NGOs in international development, South Asia ed. Earthscan Publications Ltd. ISBN 1853836109. Frumkin, P. (2002). On being non-profit: A conceptual and policy primer. Harvard University Press. Ghosh, B. (2009). NGOs, civil society and social reconstruction in contemporary India. Journal of Developing Societies, 25(2), 229–252. Retrieved from http://jds.sagepub.com/content/25/2/229 Goodwin, J., Jasper, J. M., & Francesca, P. (2001). Passionate politics. University of Chicago Press. Gronbjerg, K. A. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social services and community development organisations. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 1555425380, 9781555425388. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (pp. 175–177). MIT Press. Hasenfeld, Y., & Gidron, B. (2005). Understanding multi-purpose hybrid voluntary organisation’s: The contributions of theories on civil society, social movements and non-profit organisations. Journal of Civil Society, 1(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448680500337350 Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and remaking of world order. Simon and Schuster. IBSN-978-0-684-844441-1. Jackson, S. (2000). A qualitative evaluation of shared leadership barriers, drivers and recommendations. Journal of Management in Medicine, 14(3/4), 166–178. Retrieved from www.emaraldin sight.com/journal Kabra, K. N. (1984). Why go for a false alternative. Yojana, 28, 30–39. Kamat, S. (2002). Development hegemony—NGOs and the state in India. Oxford University Press. Karat, P. (1988). Foreign funding and the philosophy of voluntary organisation’s: A factor in imperialist strategy. National Book Center. Korten, D. (1990). Getting to the twenty-first century: Voluntary action and the global agenda. C.T. Kumarian Press.

References

17

Kothari, R. (1998). The future of voluntarism. In M. L. Dantwala, H. Sethi, & P. Visaria (Eds.), Social change through voluntary actions (pp. 182–189). Sage. Kothari, S. (1985). Ecology versus development. Lokayan Bulletin, 3, 4–15. Kumar, K. (1993). Civil society: An enquiry into the usefulness of an historical term. British Journal of Sociology, 44(3), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/591808 Lee, J., LaPlaca, P., & Rassekh, F. (2008). Korean economic growth and marketing practice progress: A role model for economic growth of developing countries. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(7), 753–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.09.002 Linderberg, M., & Dobel, J. P. (1999). The challenges of globalization for northern international relief and development NGOs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector, 28, 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 089976499773746401 Mayer, D. S. (2004). Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110545 McCarthy, J. D., & Mayer, N. Z. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464 Mohapatra, U. (2012). P.R. Approach in inclusive growth: The need for a paradigm shift. Odisha Review, 77–80. ISSN 09708869. Mohapatra, U. (2014). Emerging paradigms of development in Odisha: A space for GO-NGO partnership. Odisha Review, LXX(9–10), 122–133. ISSN 0970-8669. Mohapatra, U., Padhi, S., Pryabadini, S., & Rath, N. (2019). Troubled terrain of NGO credibility in public arena—A need for technology application. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 8, 3483–3488. ISSN: 2277-3878. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.C6662. 118419 Mohapatra, U., Priyabadini, S., & Rath, N. (2018). Genesis of voluntarism in Odisha: A socioarchaic trace. The Eastern Anthropologist, 71(1–2), 209–232. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press. Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. The Johns Hopkins Press Ltd. Satyarthi, K. (Noble Laureate). (2019, September 26). Key to sustainability. Orissa Post, Tuesday, Bhubaneswar, p. 8. Sen, M. (1984). No, no nothing doing with them. Yojana, 28, 23–28. Government of India Publication Division. Sharma, A. K. (2014). Gandhian philosophy of voluntarism. Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd. ISBN-13: 978-9351250760. Sharma, S. L. (1992). Social action groups as harbingers of silent revolution. Economic & Political Weekly, Special Article, 27, 2257–2261. Sills, D. S. (1968). Voluntary association: Sociological aspects. In International encyclopedia of social sciences (Vol. 16, p. 363). Collar MacMillan. Singh, R. K. (2017, April 9). Charities are the new terror sleeper cells. The Sunday Standard, The New Indian Express. www.newindianexpress.com/2017,1591518. Accessed through Google Search. Slim, H. (1995). The continuing metamorphosis of the humanitarian practitioner: Some new colours for an endangered chameleon. Disasters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1995.tb00362.x. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley. Smith, C., & Freedman. (1972). Voluntary association: Perspective on the literature. Harvard University Press. Smith, D. H. (1997). Grassroots associations are important: Some theory and a review of the impact literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(3), 269–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0899764097263002

18

1 Introduction

Swain, A., & Blomkvist, H. (2001). Investigating democracy and social capital in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 36, 639–643. World Bank. (2020). The global economic outlook during the COVID-19 pandemic: A changing world. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/feature/story Yunus, M. (Noble Laureate). (2018). His lecture on world of three zeros. In 16th Lecture of Odisha Knowledge Hub delivered on March 11, 2018, Bhubaneswar. State Lokseba Bhawan. Available at Planning and Convergence Department, Government of Odisha. Ziadi, S. A. (1999). NGO failure and the need to bring back the state. Journal of International Development, 11(2), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199903/04)11:2