Theory & Reality of Development Work

| by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

(October 05, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I have just come back to Australia after being with the victims of war in Sri Lanka. After my return, I read much about the issue as expressed by intellectuals. When I go to Sri Lanka, I become Sri Lankan – not because I read about Sri Lanka but because I live as Sri Lankan. When I am in Jaffna, I am Tamil because I live as a local Tamil. I am not able to connect with ground reality, any of the material as expressed by the above intellectuals. To my mind, if I cannot connect / reconcile, Sri Lankans/Tamils cannot connect/reconcile.

Administrators who do not feel connected to the folks of the local area – need to use ‘project’ approach to show the connection between cause and effect – as we show birth and death of an individual. Development money likewise, needs to be connected to the damage due to war – in various forms, including in but not limited to housing.

People of Jaffna do not feel that they are developing in any special way. They do receive some funds through the government , especially towards housing but that too does not go towards eliminating unjust discrimination – which is what the ethnic war is all about. To my mind, money in its various forms needs to represent the greater feeling of independence felt by the people, if the compensation is to bring them out of war pain and loss. It matters not in this instance – whether the Sri Lankan Government suppressed them or the Armed Opposition to the Government suppressed them. They are different faces of the same problem.

During my stay for example, I heard the parallel of the above intellectual material, from the armed forces in Northern Sri Lanka. They were speaking to a group of villagers (most of the villagers would not have gone past primary school education) about alcohol problems, domestic violence and violence against women. The speech was in Sinhalese and there was a Tamil translator. There was nothing about the ‘Grease-man problem’ that the people were using to express their fears. I said to the folks that they were their own security. One culprit was ‘caught’ by the local vigilant group due to their ‘belief’ in my recommendation. There was no advice from the Government Administrators, regarding the use of Common Facilities – especially Housing Funds. I covered this area through the special seminar about the use of :

(1) Likes and Dislikes (Body )

(2) Rights and Wrongs (Mind)

(3) Ownership Consciousness (Soul)

In terms of that particular group, Likes and Dislikes was the way of majority. This I said was alright – so long as the costs and benefits were ‘local’. The example given was the sale of clothes from Australia. This activity was one that the folks could more easily relate to than other Government Policy related meetings:

We marked the prices down to range from Rs. 10 for children’s clothes to Rs. 125 for saris. The proceeds were pooled and the name of a buyer was drawn through a lottery system – out of the names of all purchasers on that day. After the sale, I received complaints that some had not paid and that others had switched price tags. I said to them that the loss was to themselves – reflecting their own lack of commitment to paying the marked price. I said that those who were truly committed to the processes and standards set by myself – standards that they could relate to comfortably and practice, would have prevented the ‘wrongs’ that were happening. I said their ‘liking’ for their own folks was stronger than ‘doing the right thing’ by me. I said but given that I was not expecting a return for myself from the activity, the gain as well as the loss was within their own group.

Thereafter, they were more orderly. Likes and Dislikes / Emotions – would work provided the group is local. Rights and wrongs would be difficult for them to actually practice, where majority are not intellectually driven. The task before us – in relation to Government actions as well as the actions of the ordinary folks - is to reconcile Likes and Dislikes to Rights and Wrongs. Devolution towards ‘local’ / internal solutions is needed where majority are not intellectually driven and / or we are not able to do this reconciliation.

Unless therefore, Tamil Administrators and Managers of the local area talk to the people as part of that group – our advice needs to be on the basis of Common Measures to assess Rights and Wrongs. Similarly, at the Global level, our advice needs to be on ‘project’ basis – where our listeners / readers are able to see the ‘beginning and the end’ of the issue we are talking about. This is the difference between saying God and saying Jesus – Program and Project. Where we are one minded – we would successfully use the description ‘god’. Where we are not – we need to specifically say Jesus or Krishna.

Administrators who do not feel connected to the folks of the local area – need to use ‘project’ approach to show the connection between cause and effect – as we show birth and death of an individual. Development money likewise, needs to be connected to the damage due to war – in various forms, including in but not limited to housing. Summa / Idle money for housing - without appropriate connection to war damage would lead to a welfare system, resulting in depressed community when the money stops. Money would stop once the donors have derived the value they seek from the activity.

The difficulty with money distribution without a reliable system of assessment of eligibility is that it creates its own system of discrimination and adds to the evil forces of unjust discrimination – expressed in various forms. If Development work is to start immediately – it needs to be led by true believers who represent the other side of the needy and at the same time feel connected to the needy as if they are One group. Otherwise, the need to be consciously separated and managed by independent authorities.

In any relationship – if at least one side fulfils its responsibility – the core purpose of the relationship would be achieved. If Service Providers are to lead that relationship – they need to get involved here and now. If the needy are to lead the relationship - educating the needy to express their needs through Common Due Processes needs to happen before distribution of funds. Then the Government would be a facilitator and not an administrator.