Marginalized and Excluded: Interview with Annie Namala

In 2011, UNDP supported the Centre for Social Equity and Inclusion in a study of 135 civil society organizations (CSOs) led by Adivasi, Dalit and Muslim women and men in UN focus states - Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, MP, Odisha, Rajasthan and U.P. Noted social activist and director of the Institute, Annie Namala in an interview with UNDP shares findings from the study “Making Growth Just and Inclusive: Partnering Civil Society Organizations of the Marginalized” which reveals that the space occupied by civil society organizations (CSOs) remain largely segmented and mirrors existing social exclusion patterns. The study calls for investing in capacities of CSOs led by marginalized communities and for strengthening engagement between these groups.

What are some of the key findings of the study?

The study points out that civil society organizations space is also segmented mirroring the nature of social exclusion within the particular social context. Despite the fact that many of these groups have been working for more than two decades, many participants pointed out that this was the first time such a study was being undertaken. This was also the first time that issues of Adivasi, Dalit and Muslim communities and the civil society organizations from these communities were being tabled jointly. The chief functionaries reflected on challenges experienced in the development sector which were very similar to those they face in society at large. Difficulties in addressing specific discrimination and violence within their own communities in mainstream organizations had often led them to initiate their own work. Many reported facing barriers in assuming active leadership roles in mainstream networks and very few representatives from these marginalized communities can be found in these networks. The leadership of civil society networks in many ways reflects similar social hierarchies and CSOs led by marginalized communities often operated in their own networks. This limits civil society engagement in raising the issues of the marginalized and in promoting leadership from among the marginalized.

Our hope is to approach this challenge on through: Strengthening civil society organizations of the marginalized and promoting inclusive spaces and inclusion processes within the larger development space. The 12th FYP consultations by Wada Na Todo Abhiyan (WNTA) at the national and state levels and on thematic areas provided space to marginalized communities and their representatives. It was particularly encouraging to see the transgender communities also participate in the so-called “mainstream” CSO exercise.

To strengthen civil society organizations of the marginalized, our efforts are: i) to evolve and implement relevant capacity building modules and tools in various spheres and at different layers in a collaborative manner with CSOs led by marginalized communities to facilitate their engagement on multiple issues, forums and levels, ii) strengthen horizontal and vertical spaces and linkages where marginalized leaders and organizations are able to engage and interact among themselves from time to time, iii) facilitate networking and participation in larger development forums and processes.

What are some of the strategies that CSOs need to adapt to ensure greater participation?

Despite many constraints, CSOs led by the marginalized need to invest in building basic governance and institutional systems and processes in keeping with accepted norms and standards to work in the development sector. Approaches to information gathering, learning and upgrading skills on various fronts is required. These groups also need to make better use of the media to ensure issues are brought to light. While recognizing that these are not easy when confronted by every day constraints of human, financial and social capital resources, these CSOs will need to take extra efforts to sustain their work in the community through strengthening available systems and opportunities.

The study shows that CSOs themselves don’t seem to be engaging with each other. If organizations representing marginalized are not interacting with each other, then how can we expect wider inclusion?

In the study we consciously identified organizations that were not part of the same network, but belonged to diverse networks and from across different regions of the state. In addition, the study also covered three different communities as Adivasi, Dalit and Muslim and hence covered wider spectrum than focus on specific networks. The study found that the large majority of these organizations are members of state and sub state level networks, primarily networks of CSOs led by marginalized communities themselves. Some were also linked to national networks, again from the same communities and on common issues. The state and sub state level networks in many cases have not been able to gain visibility owing to their resource crunch but also because of the kind of issues they take up –like discrimination and violence against marginalized communities. By and large these networks are within the particular marginalized community and much less across marginalized communities. Their presence and participation in mainstream networks is also limited. It is true that there have not been much efforts across Dalits, Tribals and Muslim communities in networking. Perhaps this is because issues are seen to be different, locations are spread across and because this has not been explored as a strategy. It was found that while networking among Dalit CSOs was fairly strong, that among Adivasi was emerging and at a very nascent stage among the Muslim led CSOs. The need for further strengthening the inter-community engagement across CSOs led by marginalized communities was expressed strongly by participants of the study.

What has been the experience of women in establishing a presence in the development sector?

Gender adds another layer of exclusion. This study reveals that women who were interested in playing a role in the development sector had to overcome family and community barriers to come into the development sector. The difficulties were much more acute for Muslim women. Muslim women had to challenge perceptions and norms about their mobility and role in public both within family/community as well as challenge stereotypes held by larger society. The Sachhar Committee report created an enabling environment for discussing development needs of Muslim communities, thereby also facilitating Muslim women to come forward to form their own CSOs. Women constantly balance family needs and opinions with the demands of the work which is not easy. After overcoming initial entry barriers they continue to face constraints in accessing information, face difficulty in freely interacting with male colleagues in common spaces and encounter difficulty in accessing resources. Networks where women are in majority; always are in a minority position. They have to put in great efforts to get recognition for their work. Beginning and strengthening a CSO is demanding in terms of taking initiative, acquiring multiple skills of articulation/team building/fund raising/public relations, creating a wide social base, and building the ability to challenge authority and power structures both on gender and social parameters. Given the constraints in acquiring quality education or organizational information and skills, women in rural and remote areas have to struggle on their own. Women leaders reported difficulties in convincing members to be on their boards, spending long hours waiting outside offices to have their organizations registered and the long struggle to access resources to sustain their work. Several women interviewed talked about having to constantly challenge these perceptions in the development sector too. It is encouraging to see how well some of them had done in gaining respect and recognition both in the community and in the development sector.

What do you recommend should change at the policy level?

Development policy needs to clearly recognize and articulate the role and potential of CSOs led by the marginalized in enhancing development and democratic participation among the marginalized communities. This recognition needs to resonate with our approach to development, where their participation in planning and monitoring development interventions is mandatory. Partnership policies also need to be re-visited where programme and budgetary allocations ensure proportionate representation of CSOs of the marginalized communities.

What can agencies such as UNDP do to address multiple exclusions?

We need to recognize that exclusion like poverty is complex, multi-layered and dynamic, operating at group and individual levels. Our concern is for group and institutional processes such as excluded/segregated habitations, unequal access to information and development service among others that perpetrate exclusion leading to poverty as UNDP itself acknowledges. This study has put on the map ‘civil society organizations led by marginalized communities’ as a specific category within civil society space and is fast gaining attention. The journey does not end when a few CSOs led by marginalized communities become visible or participate in various forums but when they promote their leadership and agency at diverse levels, forums and issues so that they support the development rights and entitlements of the marginalized communities.

I see UNDP’s role as important in the following areas: 

At the international level, we look for UNDP support in opening up spaces and supporting marginalized communities/civil society organizations in raising these issues at UN and other international forums.

What has been the experience of CSOs from districts identified by the Planning Commission as extremist affected? 

The study found these CSOs were the only groups consistently present in these areas. They are a constant and immediate resource available to people be it for information, enabling access to government institutions for entitlements, services or to reach out to the police and judiciary in times of rights violations. In most cases, they are able to raise the real issues of the people and bring it to the notice of constitutional bodies even under difficult circumstances. In times of rights violations, these CSOs supported people in accessing relief. These networks in states such as Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and districts like Kandhmal in Odisha have helped in times of both extremist and communal violence. It is essential to recognize them as allies and for these groups and the administration to work together.