Towards an Effective Language of Facilitation

Imposing developmental solutions in a language foreign to the villagers is a pitfall that Development Practitioners must avoid. True transformation happens when practitioners communicate their knowledge and wisdom in the local language and with deep understanding of the traditional culture and practices of the tribals they are engaged with

Introduction

I am an Engineer by training and I chose to work as a Development Practitioner in the rural hinterlands of India. I was placed in Bihar (Chakai block, Jamui district), which is predominantly a tribal area. Although, initially, I took time to adjust to the place, what motivated me to continue my stay there, were the visible changes in the lives of the community I was working with. I realised that I could play a significant role here. I went through many training programmes, including some on rural livelihoods, gender and natural resource management. Well-equipped with enhanced knowledge and skills, the time came for me to share my understanding with the community. The important thing was how do I transfer the knowledge I have gained, to the community. One of the primary skills required here is ‘facilitation’. How can I best ‘facilitate’ a complex community, with its social divisions and political dynamics, so as to implement the project I have been assigned?

This writing is an expression of my reflections on implementing several projects in the Chakai region. It has emerged from the contradictions I faced when the projects and our community facilitation were not always aligned. This action research work will reflect some changes in the current practices and also how reflection-in-action has served to strengthen my basic facilitation skills. Let me begin by sharing some experiences that I encountered during my interactions with the community. These experiences have led me to reflect on and re-orient some of my actions. It has also challenged two of my main skills of facilitation: empathy and building on existing culture and knowledge.

Case 1: At a concept seeding meeting in Jogiraydih village of Dulampur panchayat, which is a Santhal village. I noticed that the women were not participating in the discussion. Although I tried my best to encourage the women to join the discussion, most of them remained silent. I became very frustrated. At that time, a local trader of kendu leaves joined us and I saw the women interacting with him very easily. They were all conversing in Santali. This time, I was the one who was silent. I realised that the language barrier was a very big block between the community and me. It ruled out the possibility of my listening to them.

Case 2: I conducted a training on the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) method of paddy cultivation in Ektara village, Nouadih panchayat. The training involved demonstrating different steps in SRI cultivation. Before moving on to a new step, I would ask the participants to recall the previous one. And no one would answer. I repeated the steps many times but again no answer. I felt very irritated. My co-trainer said that the community needs more time to understand because they are tribals. He assured me that once the neighbouring village takes up the activity, the villagers here will also start cultivation. However, a while back, I had seen some of the villagers transplanting finger millet seedlings using a method similar to the SRI method. I was confused. ‘Do they know the method or do they need more time to understand? Also, what is the reason behind that?’

Case 3: I was with the SHG members of Naibadih village, Nouadih panchayat. I was sharing the provisions under MGNREGA and the process of getting works under the Act. We carried out awareness campaigns in different villages in the gram sabha. During the reflection time in one of those campaigns, Manjhli Besra, an SHG member, asked me, “Why do we participate in the gram sabha when we don’t understand the‘diku’ language (foreign language). Without understanding, we give our thumb impressions whenever required there.” At that time, I was encouraged by the fact that a didi had raised a question on panchayati raj institutions (PRI); later, I realised that this question has bigger consequences.

Through these experiences, I understood that not knowing the language is a major obstacle in facilitation. How will I empathise if I do not understand their language? How will I build on their existing knowledge if their lifestyles are already declared ‘backward’? Also, the purpose of a meeting—to ensure participatory development—is compromised if participants are forced to participate in an alien language. Only dominant members of the group speak in Hindi, ignoring those who cannot, thus excluding them. They will get included only if they can participate in developmental meetings as Santhals, taking pride in their language and culture. Yet, as evident in the next section, it is not just in group meetings but in all development spaces that the Santhal feels excluded.

The intricate relationship between language, culture and development

The government and the NGOs working in Chakai adopt a particular developmental approach. This framework, or approach for development, is often incompatible to the ground reality. In the first case, the silence of the Santhali women was not an actual silence. They do have opinions in matters that have relevance to them such as on the kendu leaf business. When SHGs were set up, they remained silent because they did not have much of an understanding of how they worked and the information flowed to them through a ‘foreign’ language. Hence, they faced difficulties.

Second, they had enough idea and knowledge about step-to-step agriculture practice, which they demonstrated when they raised a nursery of finger millet and transplanted the saplings. The steps for doing this were similar to the SRI method. Critically seen, SRI paddy gives them cereal security but is susceptible to vagaries of climate, the traditional crop, finger millet, on the other hand, is a climate compatible crop and provides adequate nutritional value in their diet. However, finger millet is less in use beyond their villages, and the mainstream development approach attributes less value to it.

Third, the community has no knowledge of the policies and schemes of the state or the central governments. The developmental approach is, thus, imposed on them and they have partial understanding of it. Only the men or the rural elite have access to the state language. This defeats the idea of reaching out to poorest of the poor. The prerequisite of developmental work excludes most of them and makes the medium of communication incompatible with them.

If one has to participate in mainstream developmental approach, one has to be educated, and the education here is in a language which is not their own. In Bihar, the tribal population is only 1.3 per cent, according to the 2011 Census, and the medium of instruction is Hindi. Today, most Santhali families I work with, use Santali language exclusively. Studies suggest that 80 per cent of the brain development happens in the neo-natal period and children acquire the language from their surroundings. It is very difficult to learn a different language at a later stage. The Santhal child learns the Santhali language. In school, the same child finds the mainstream education system in Hindi very confusing. The names of the things they know are different, for example, Ul in Santhali becomes Aam in Hindi and ‘Mango’ in English. Similarly, the numbers: ek (1), do (2) teen (3) chaar (4) paanch (5) in school is ‘mi, bar, pe, poniya, moregote…’ at home. These complexities make it very difficult for tribal children to understand the language. This, therefore, is a problem at the heart of the education system, which is intended to lift them out of poverty.