Report: Understanding Discourse Around Active Citizenship in India

Key Questions

What are the major interests and online discourse around the four pillars of active citizenship—volunteerism, co-creation, claim-making and resistance & mobilisation in India?
What are the key influences and impacts of online and offline volunteering?
Which topics in citizen-led co-creation are dominant on social media, and what platforms are citizens and CSOs using for co-creation quantitatively?
What kind of structures are created by government institutions for claim-making using social media?
What is the quantitative reach of online national issues as compared to local issues? And what is the life cycle of hashtags linked with the event of online mobilisation, and do they translate into offline action?

“Citizenship” is most commonly associated with electoral participation, tax jurisdictions, and travel visas. However, citizenship and civic identity is a much deeper experience, where members of society exercise voice, agency and rights in myriad ways to affect change in their localities, cities, States and, indeed, the nation.

Citizens observe things in their neighbourhood that need improvement and often participate/volunteer to make those improvements. Citizens keep track of the promises made to them by their elected representatives and interact with local government to claim their benefits and entitlements. Citizens are employed in civil society organisations where they work alongside the government to help other citizens that are vulnerable or marginalised. And very often, samaaj (which is a collection of citizens) becomes the greatest ally of sarkaar and bazaar as it takes up services from the two and provides dynamic feedback on what is working and what is not.

In order to understand how these identities are expressed in both offline and online spaces, Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies, in collaboration with Porticus Foundation, supported a digital ecosystem analysis conducted by QUILT.ai.

The objective of the analysis was to arrive at a clearer picture of how multiple types of civic identities are expressed online – what kind of volunteering opportunities do people look for (online) and how? how do citizens covey their demands at elected representatives or express satisfaction related to civic issues in their locality? How does government communicate with citizens through online platforms, and what issues get the best traction? What are some demographic trends when it comes to civic engagement online?

This report captures the results of some of these queries and improves the resolution of the current image of active citizenship and civic engagement in India.

Key Takeaways

The shift to online volunteering during the pandemic is reflected in the rise in both searches and social media posts related to volunteering online. The main activities conducted include online classes, tutorials, and workshops.
Digital co-creation led by citizens indicates three major categories of created content: journalism, awareness & education, and structural reform. Additionally, government institutions use Twitter as a medium to scale up the outreach and adoption of government initiatives and schemes through citizen-led co-creation. CSOs focus more on co-creation-related action for more local issues in the community, such as floods, cleaning, local vaccination drives etc.
Social media has become one of the leading avenues for citizens to express their grievances online. Claim-making through Twitter was predominantly observed in urban areas as opposed to rural areas.
Evidence of online mobilisation translating into offline action could be observed on Twitter for the studied events. However, a correlation between the two does not suggest a causal relationship. Further research is recommended to gauge causation.

Report | Hum Log: Active Citizenship and Civic Engagement in India

Key Questions

What is active citizenship and how do members of society participate in civic issues in big and small ways?
How do different stakeholders interact one another and what are some positive outcomes of such civic expressions?
How can it be catalysed in the Indian context?
What can the state, philanthropies, and civil society organisations do to promote active citizenship?

These fundamental questions lie at the heart of every democratic society. Global narratives usually focus on the role of governments and markets, but the role of the citizenry in shaping their own futures also requires spotlighting.

Active Citizenship is a layered and nuanced concept. It is difficult to codify and equally challenging to quantify. It requires frameworks and critical analyses. This report draws out a representative framework to navigate the complex space of active citizenship and what active citizenship means to all stakeholders.

Hum Log: Summary deck

The report is structured into six chapters:

The first chapter explores what it means to be an active citizen and how citizenship builds resilient societies. Chapter 2 maps the landscape of samaaj – people, civil society organisations, and social enterprises that are fostering active citizenship in India. The third chapter reviews the role and potential of sarkaar (government) in driving active citizenship. Chapter 4 looks at bazaar (markets and companies) as active citizens and the evolution of good corporate citizenship. The fifth chapter studies the catalysts for the active citizenship ecosystem in terms of philanthropy, technology, research, and media. Chapter 6 highlights many reflective questions on the state of active citizenship in India.

Hum Log: Full report

Key Takeaways:

Societal belonging, harmony and common progress can only be achieved when samaaj, sarkaar, and bazaar strike a delicate balance.
Active citizenship can help maintain this balance by building a feedback loop between all three pillars.
Active citizenship can increase accountability, improve representation, and build a resilient democracy.

This report is a result of collaboration between the Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies and Areté Advisors LLP (as of January 2022, Arete Advisors has merged with Bain & Co.).

Report: What’s it like being a young man in urban India today?

Beneath the apparent privileges that boys enjoy, there is immense pressure to perform. The societal expectations are set for them, irrespective of economic background.

Men are an equal half of the societal dynamic. For behaviour to shift, we need to acknowledge the anxieties and motivations that propel actions. This understanding is relevant not just for the sake of our girls, but also for the development of boys.

The world of boys in urban India.

Life is defined by responsibilities. Investment in boys – education and wellbeing – is seen as an insurance for old age. Expectations are high and rising around securing stability, success, and status.

Ambition is important. But not at the cost of the family harmony. The world is theirs to explore. But it comes with the expectation of adhering to family values and loyalty.

There are all sorts of checks and balances to rein in the wildness of childhood. Young men are driven towards a few chosen professions, with proven results. Boys face intense competition, constant peer comparison, and physical punishment. All this is intended to make sure they don’t waver from the path of responsibility.

The scrutiny of society is designed to tame the transgression. It sets them on a path towards achievement–to make the man laayak, or worthy.

Men and their relationships.

Mothers are the nurturing life force for boys – the person they feel closest to in the family. She is the one who balances both – protecting him from the anger of the father and reinforcing patriarchal norms.

The father is the silent role model. He is a shadowy presence in the boy’s life, often out at work. The father’s absence reinforces the importance of duty-first. The interaction is limited. But the boy sees the lack of expression of emotion and internalizes it. Norms around masculinity are handed down to one more generation.

The most defining relationship is probably the one they share with their friends. As a part of the gang of boys they discover their identity. It shapes and reinforces their ‘masculinity’. Teasing, roughhousing and even bullying is the norm.

While these relationships imitate a pattern seen over decades, the relationship that is evolving is the one with the opposite sex. Boys are confused – some welcome the shift, while others are fearful of the modern, empowered woman. They are more educated, earn for themselves and have opinions. This is a new dynamic. They are still figuring out their role in the relationship with this new woman.

This study attempts to understand the world of boys – expectations, anxieties, and their role in relationships. Young men and women from Mumbai, Delhi and Bengaluru participated in this study. The research involved eight online focus groups with participants from across the socio-economic spectrum.

Read full report

The Dialogic Method & Uncommon Grounds: Dialogic Processes for Dispute Resolution in the Social Sphere

Can the Dialogic Method be a means of empowerment, dispersed capacity for conflict resolution and problem-solving, and a way of creating community-oriented, win-win-win solutions?

These possibilities emerge from a recent (2022) research conducted by VikasAnvesh Foundation for Kshetra / Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies. The study, titled “Dialogic spaces for dispute resolution in the social sphere,” aimed to map an indicative and representative array of traditional and non-traditional community dialogic spaces in Indian society.

Covering a variety of institutions that aimed at resolving conflicts through the use of dialogue in formal and informal spaces designed for the same, the study used a combination of literature survey and field research to study Gram Buras in Assam, Tribal communities in Odisha and Maharashtra, Khap Panchayats in Haryana, fishers community in Kerala, Flood affected communities in Bihar, Trader communities, Working Group for Women and Land Ownership (WGWLO) in Gujarat, Self-Help Group Federation in Jharkhand and Legal Services to migrants by Aajeevika Bureau.

While a host of positive features were observed, of particular interest are the limitations of dialogue spaces in the Indian social sphere – alongside the questions of whether The Dialogic Method can be a means of overcoming such limitations.

Positive Features

Focus on community goals

Traditional dialogic spaces often operate on principles of preserving stability, social cohesion, social structures, and the continuation of norms for the community’s well-being. In addition, given the intimate nature of these communities, social harmony and peaceful living are also given importance. In the case of non-traditional spaces, such as the Aajeevika Bureau, flood-affected communities, or the WGWLO, the goal of the promoting organisation or group is considered the broad community goal. It remains the focus of the dialogue space.

Participative Process

The resolution process, in most cases, involved calling the affected parties, giving them opportunities to share their viewpoints, and creating an environment where other participants in the meeting could present their points as well. These spaces function to create a conducive environment where compromises can be reached without any threats and enforced using the social-cultural norms and principles of community.

Individual convenience

From individual parties’ perspectives, ease of access and cost-effectiveness emerge as significant conveniences. However, where personal interests may conflict with the social group norms – for instance, as was observed in the functioning of Khap Panchayats – the individual often has no choice but to conform to social mores.

Binding Nature of Outcomes

The traditional institutions are central to the communities they exist in and command respect and reverence among the people. This gives them the authority and power to decide on the issues brought to them for resolution, and the decisions are binding to the parties in dispute. In addition, social force, collective community strength, and the threat of social sanctions and ostracising play a role, especially in non-traditional spaces such as the SHG federation.

Limitations

Adversarial nature

In most situations, the dialogue space is activated only upon an aggrieved party’s institution of an objection in some form. Thus, latent tensions between individuals or groups may not be taken up for transformation in these spaces, no matter how disruptive. This also implies the kind of issues brought up for the dialogue and may preclude broader community-welfare cases, with the focus remaining on inter-personal disputes.

Adjudicatory process and outcomes

The conclusion or outcome of the process, while often aimed at restitution, justice and maintaining harmony and good relationships between the parties, is still like an adjudication. This introduces binaries of right and wrong and limits the possibilities of parties co-creating sustainable solutions to the problem. The adjudicatory nature also requires the presence of a judge and facilitator, often a person considered to be in a position of power. However, the source of this power is usually exclusive and based on considerations including but not limited to gender, caste and economic class.

Non-inclusive spaces

Despite the stated focus on community goals, the communities are limited by their definition and inclusivity. For example, some spaces excluded (menstruating and non-menstruating) women from holding adjudicatory or facilitative positions and prohibited them from participating in the dialogue. Even where the aggrieved party is a woman, restrictions and conditions remain. Again, caste and class considerations also come into play, with positions of adjudicatory or facilitative power being held by members of certain castes or by force of economic superiority. In addition, caste, class and gender also determine the relative representation of parties in these spaces.

The Dialogic Method as a means to overcome the limitations of current dialogic spaces

The Dialogic Method is a framework for designing using three fundamental principles: Value Creation, Non-binary Approach, and Self-determination, all of which come together towards creating sustainable solutions by parties to a problem situation. Value creation allows for exploring aligned interests to develop new forms of value instead of conventional justice approaches that seek to distribute weight fairly. In addition, the non-binary system, creating space for multiple views and perspectives to co-exist, allows different parties’ interests to be satisfied and augments value-creation by constructing a sum of parts that is greater than the whole. Finally, a self- determination will enable parties to willfully participate (or not) in creating solutions to the situation rather than merely assenting or dissenting to proposed options. Self-determination is essential in and of itself and ensures that solutions are sustainable, given the parties’ commitment and interest in seeing the solution into action. In addition, the Dialogic Method is a dispersible, versatile and multifunctional framework. It is simple and accessible to use across structured and unstructured situations and can result in outcomes from conflict resolution and transformation to collaborative problem solving and community mobilisation. As a result, the Dialogic Method holds potential not just as a means of creating more dispersed dialogic spaces for resolving conflicts and co-creating solutions to problems but also, in the context of India’s social fabric, it can emerge as a means of empowerment of those who lack access to existing dialogic spaces – formal and informal.
Furthermore, dispersing the ability to transform conflicts and resolve problem situations at the individual and community levels can, in the long run, result in systemic change by creating individual and community-level change agents. This then reduces reliance on top-down systemic approaches to justice, favouring a bottom-up approach to social change. In a country where both judicial and quasi-judicial justice mechanisms are not only cumbersome but also expensive and laborious (sometimes impossible) to access for a broad segment of the population, the ability to engage in and enable conflict resolution can be a game-changer in the lives of many.

Report | Uncommon Grounds: Dialogic Processes for Dispute Resolution in Social Sphere

PPT | Uncommon Grounds: Dialogic Processes for Dispute Resolution in Social Sphere

Networks of Care: Partnerships for Relief and Support during the COVID-19 Second Wave in Karnataka

Abstract

In 2020, India witnessed a national lockdown to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, heavily impacting access to food and livelihoods, particularly for the country’s most vulnerable groups. An estimated hundred million workers lost their jobs between April – May 2020 due to the imposition of the lockdown. In 2021, the second wave of COVID-19 further ravaged India with an increase in the infection rate, symptoms and severity.

In this report, we first map the landscape of relief provided in Karnataka during the second wave. Owing to the sudden lockdown, relief during the first wave was majorly focussed on providing dry and cooked food. During the second wave, however, the most significant demand was for health-related facilities, such as beds, oxygen concentrators, medicines, etc. Triage and teleconsultation services were also offered to minimise infection transmission. Other relief efforts involved setting up of COVID Care Centres, vaccination camps and conducting education programmes in public schools and anganwadi centres.

During the second wave, in Karnataka, similar to the first wave, government agencies and non-governmental organisations came together to address the surge in the demand for relief. The nature of relief efforts provided by the government and the NGOs in Karnataka and their interactions during the first wave has been previously documented through a report by the authors, GIZ, and the RDPR department. The full report may be accessed online here. In this report, we analyse the nature and efficacy of ad-hoc networks created to manage both information and material flows during relief operations. NGOs, CSOs and volunteers along with government departments coordinated the implementation of relief efforts, created awareness materials, collected data for dissemination and set up processes for teleconsultation. Various trust-building measures were also initiated by the government to improve the work processes between the government and the non-government actors. There was an increase in the use of technology to improve relief efforts. Though WhatsApp was mainly used for communication, the Sankalpa platform, created by the RDPR department, was used for gathering relief requirements and displaying public documents.

The severity of the second wave caused immense emotional and psychological strain among the relief providers. A common challenge highlighted by the interviewees was the fatigue and the emotional stress during the relief efforts. Rapidly spreading misinformation, lack of real-time information and unequal resource availability were a few other challenges that hindered the immediate supply of relief.

The analysis of the relief efforts in the report underlines the need to make the sharing and access of information and resources more equitable. There is an urgent need to improve capacity in the system to deal with such a public health emergency. Building resilience among the community and strengthening institutional processes to deepen collaboration between actors must form the foundation for future disaster preparedness. Institutional processes can be strengthened through specific SOPs for public health emergencies; providing adequate public health training to medical professionals; strengthening existing actor networks; and putting in place mechanisms to generate actionable data.

This is a research done by Fields of View supported by Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies.

View Publication

Understanding Movements

We often hear of the word “movement” in social change but what we have struggled with is the depth of the idea.

A movement is much more than collective confrontational action. A movement offers an approach to social change that is different from and complementary to programs and collective impact. It encompasses shared, bottom-up action by a diverse collective of participants to bring wide-scale change. It often commits to shifting norms, attitudes and policies, thereby transforming the field in which social and political change happens.

In this brief and presentation on “Understanding Movements”, we explore:
What are movements?
What is their relevance in social change?
What are some of their defining features?
How do they differ from programs or collective impact?

Today’s challenges require ‘samaaj’ (society) to lead the conversation and the ‘sarkaar’ (government) and ‘bazaar’(markets) to listen, understand and engage with them. We see movement-based approaches build a muscle in ‘samaaj’ to play their role in the change process.

We have put together this understanding by conversing with change-makers in the Indian context and referring to research on movements at a global scale. We are curious to know your views on it.

Report | Understanding Movements

Deck | Understanding Movements

Report: Build the Field. Build the Movement. Engaging Young Men & Boys in India.

While the good work for the betterment of women and girls in India has to continue, the work in gender equity shall remain incomplete unless young men and boys are brought within the ambit of interventions. We need to onboard men, not only for causes of women such as achieving goals of women empowerment and zero violence against women but also for men’s own development.

India has 200 million young men, bringing to mind certain questions.

How will they be liberated from the identities that patriarchy, religion, caste and society have defined for them?
Do they have safe, shared spaces to explore questions and discover themselves? How do they use their human potential?
What gaps in their education do they want to fill and how will they do that? • What kind of pressures does the role of ‘the primary breadwinner’ impose on them?
Given that the meaning of work and the nature of jobs are going to change dramatically in the next few decades, are we going to continue to define men by these parameters?

When a movement towards addressing these issues is put in place, there will be a holistic integration of men and boys into the movement for the rights of women and girls. Over the past three years, RNP has partnered, through “learning grants”, with ten organisations that either exclusively focuses their work on Young Men and Boys, or include men and boys in the gender empowerment efforts for girls and women. This blue book intends to present a snapshot of the models and approaches being taken by RNP’s partners, and serve as a public resource for others who might be interested in gender-transformative work.

RNP invited niiti consulting to observe the operating models of the ten grantee organisations, and record the challenges faced, along with approaches adopted for mitigation of these. The intent was also to record the implementation, monitoring and measurement programme templates, the narrative of the results and the change in young men and boys. The experiences of each grantee organisation could be drawn upon by implementing organisations, governments and funders across the country for inspiration, guidance or refinement of their own interventions for young boys and men.

Read the Full Report

Uncommon Ground | Playbook & Manual

Uncommon Ground is a movement co-created by Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies and the CAMP Centre for Arbitration and Mediation practice, that is centered around the value that the balance between samaaj, sarkaar and bazaar (society, government and business) needs to be reestablished through processes of dialogue and exchange that are embedded as a way of working into the fabric of society itself. Such systemic changes require not only a different way of doing things, but also of thinking; they require a shift in shared abilities and beliefs and approach, to view disagreements as opportunities for engagement, and in seeing conflict as having the power to reiterate similarities rather than differences. Uncommon Ground aims to build a societal muscle for transforming problems and dissonance into creative impetus for change, by serving as a conduit of shared know-how and competencies.

Playbook: This document is intended to introduce the Uncommon Ground initiative, as well as serve as a reference for the various approaches, frameworks and models used to guide strategy and activities.

Facilitators’ Manual: This document contains the details on workshop curricula and content. The broader aim of the Uncommon Ground initiative, and therefore also the curriculum is to take participants through a stage-wise journey which invites them to examine their attitudes, change their approach, and develop relevant skills; towards culmination in changed practice and behaviours.

Manual

Playbook

Working with Young Men and Boys – A Landscape

This landscape study provides a high level view of the efforts being undertaken to include boys and men in gender based work. It includes a snapshot of Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies own work in this space.

In order to realize a gender equal society, it might not be enough to empower or work only with women. Increasingly, it seems imperative to include boys and men in this vision too – place on them the equal expectation of living out gender positive values.

At the same time, working with Young Men and Boys (YMB) has revealed the unique needs of, and risk factors for boys and men, and this framing has allowed the unveiling of nuances around how boys and men struggle to meet their fully realized selves. It recognizes that the framework of patriarchy restricts men too.

The report is a call to action as well as a bid for further inquiry.

PDF

Build Together 2021 Event Summary

Build Together 2021 Key Takeaways

Identifying Climate Adjacency – key findings from four case studies and a synthesis

More often than not, people are aware that their work and actions have climate adjacencies. Farmers agree that the excessive use of pesticides and fertilizer reduces the soil’s ability to remain fertile and makes farming more vulnerable to rainfall changes. Pastoralists are finding it hard to cope with the increased climate stress, partly attributable to growth in livestock populations and sedentarization. And organizations working with farmers and pastoralists realize that some of their interventions that improve livelihoods also cause an increase in emissions.

Despite this, climate change, as a sector, is seen in isolation. To make people take cognizance of the climate linkages that exist across sectors and projects, Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies partnered with DESTA Research LLP to make these linkages explicitly clear. Through a series of workshops, DESTA helped field partners identify climate linkages in non-climate focused projects.

Mapping a project’s influence on the local ecosystem and livelihoods helped agencies understand how they related with the adaptive capacity of people to deal with climate change, reduced emission sources, or improved sequestration. Such mapping brought out the implicit connections between project work and climate change that existed in people’s minds more explicitly.

This report is the synthesis of that work, with broader implications for the climate space.

PDF