Citizenship by Design V: The Vaagdhara Samagam

This is a long newsletter - if you are impatient, scroll down to the recording about halfway down and listen to the conversation.

Citizenship is much talked about and rarely supported because it’s seen as an abstract concept that doesn’t matter to our daily lives. Or because you could get into trouble with the authorities. But citizenship isn’t just an abstract concept or a moral label. It’s a practical concept that works - we believe ‘distributing the capacity to solve’ is the most robust response to wicked problems that even the most powerful organizations can't handle alone. By empowering people to solve problems, we increase the chances of effectively and fairly tackling the challenges faced by Indian society.

In our recent partnership with Vaagdhara, a 20 plus-year-old grassroots organization working with indigenous Bhil communities across three states in India, we saw Climate Citizenry come to life in a co-designed Citizen Jury format we named Jan Manch (The Citizen’s Stage), embedded within Vaagdhara’s annual convening, Samagam. Vaagdhara works in 1000 villages across the western states of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh with 100,000 families. One hundred and four representatives of these communities came together to deliberate, first with experts, then with their community and then amongst themselves, on the various aspects of the climate crisis in a day-long process and made a list of recommendations that they deemed fit to respond to this ongoing crisis.

About Vaagdhara

Vaagdhara draws its name from the region it works in, “Vaagad”, and the Hindi word Dhara, meaning stream. The core value of the organization is “Swaraj”, self-reliance, which is a philosophy popularized by Mahatma Gandhi during the Indian Independence movement. However, they recognize and acknowledge the role the latest developments in technology can play to improve the lives of indigenous communities. Therefore, they envision creating nurturing, vibrant institutions of tribal communities in their catchment area where new-generation technologies and indigenous practices, as well as knowledge, can help ensure sustainable livelihoods for all. Their efforts towards this are bucketed under three domains -

• True Farming - focusing on food and farming sovereignty
• True Childhood - focusing on community-based child protection and child rights initiatives
• True Democracy - working towards ensuring entitlements for the most marginalized and their participation in governance.

They have classified the 1000 villages they work in into 26 clusters known as Krishi evam Adivasi Swaraj Sangthans (KASS) units. Each of these units comprises 35-40 villages across the three states and has 20-member committees that form the connection between Vaagdhara and the communities along with their field staff. Eight to nine of each of these clusters are further bucketed under three units called - Mahi, Hiran and Mangarh.

Given their value systems that place indigenous people and nature first and their large outreach in these communities, Vaagdhara formed a natural ally for Socratus to prototype our idea of Climate Citizenship. As is true for indigenous communities across the world, the Samagam communities have played almost no role in causing the climate crisis the world currently faces. However, they are bearing the consequences of this planetary change in their everyday life in the form of erratic rains, extreme heat, pest infestations and so on. Along with this, the pressure to migrate to cities for sustenance and the growing aspirations of youth have resulted in newer challenges for the people left behind in the villages. The push and pull between their everyday reality and aspirations for a better tomorrow in a world that is talking about decarbonising and reducing emissions is a wicked problem worth engaging with.

You can read more about the Samagam here; but since this is a series about the design of citizenship, the rest of this newsletter is on how the Samagam helped us refine our designs for citizenship, based on a conversation between Alok Shrivastava Amiya Chaudhuri , Amshuman Dasarathy, Smriti T. and Rajesh Kasturirangan .

Notes from a Conversation

In their article “Inclusive Citizenship beyond the Capacity Contract,” Donaldson and Kymlicka argue that:

Citizenship in the modern era is usually territorially bounded, both vertically and horizontally: vertically, to be a citizen is to have a certain legal and political status vis-à-vis a territorially bounded state; and horizontally, to be a citizen is to be a member of a territorially bounded ‘society’, ‘people’, or ‘nation’.

In our work, we have emphasized the horizontal aspects of citizenship, of ways of being with others members of the same society (as opposed to engagements with the nation state). But we are also experimenting with more radical departures from the traditional constructs of citizenship:

1. That there may not be a fixed people/society/nation in our exploration of citizenship, that being a citizen in tribal areas of Rajasthan is related to but not identical with being a citizen in Bangalore,
2. That political relationships (whether vertically with the state or horizontally with other members of society) are only one aspect of our lives - we invest the same emotions (say, love or hate) in our political lives as well as our aesthetic or family lives.

The second is particularly important: we may want to ask what citizenship means in a family context, for example. Politics, and even more so, economics, dominate our lives, but they aren’t the only forms of social existence. Religion, family and friendship are among the other choices we have on how we devote our time. Keep these thoughts in mind as you scroll below, where, by the way, you have a choice:

1. Listen to the audio recording (press the blue button!)
2. Read the notes based on that recording, starting with Question 1.
3. Bonus points: if you’re a real champ you should listen AND read.

Here’s the recording:

and here are the notes:

Question 1: If citizenship is a form of public wisdom, how have you seen it being evoked in your work at Socratus?

Smriti began her reflections by noticing the challenges in understanding how citizenship is enacted in Bangalore. There, people identify with their immediate neighborhoods but struggle to connect with broader administrative areas like wards. The team is striving to build this broader sense of connection to encourage people to consider climate and other issues at the ward level. They face a practical issue: people are reluctant to engage in activities even slightly outside their immediate area. The goal is to make participation in these broader community activities both viable and exciting.

In discussions with ward residents, a significant point of concern is the lack of unity and community spirit in urban settings. People tend to focus more on their own affairs, a stark contrast to the neighborly bonds that used to be more common. This change in social dynamics has altered how communities function in cities.

Alok observes that society is currently in a transitional phase, influenced by economic growth. People are becoming more self-reliant and independent, viewing themselves as individual units within families who can meet most of their needs through the market. This shift is particularly evident in urban areas, where regular community engagement and planning for the future are less common compared to rural areas, where people still gather to discuss and shape their futures. These insights about the differences in community engagement between urban and rural settings have been crucial learnings from their recent work.

Amiya emphasizes that it's more than just attending ward meetings and voicing demands. Active citizenship also involves advocating for the rights of those who cannot represent themselves. This means understanding and empathizing with the diverse socio-cultural identities within the ward. In the context of Bangalore, where they have engaged with various social and cultural groups, this perspective is crucial. They have met active citizens who advocate for initiatives like a zero-waste ward, but Amiya questions whether these advocates consider the needs of all community members, such as those living in slums. For these residents, basic necessities like clean water, shelter, and food might be more pressing than a zero-waste initiative. Therefore, true active citizenship involves not only vocal advocacy but also empathy and understanding of the broader community's diverse needs.

Amshuman reflects on how his perspective on citizenship has evolved through his work. He initially viewed citizenship primarily in the context of a nation-state. However, his experiences at Socratus have led him to appreciate more contextual forms of citizenship. He observed that while the people involved with Vaagdhara did not explicitly use the term "citizenship," their actions conveyed a strong sense of doing something beneficial for their community. This observation has led Amshuman to recognize the importance of acknowledging and valuing these varied expressions of citizenship.

Question 2: how do you see citizenship being enacted by the communities you met at the Samagam?

During a mock jury session on their second trip, Amshuman recalled feeling like strict school teachers, demanding attention and silence from the participants. This went on for several hours. However, during a bathroom break, they observed something interesting. While moving around, they noticed other people also taking a break and engaging in conversations. To their surprise, these individuals were actively discussing the issues at hand, not just casually chatting. This observation was significant because it demonstrated genuine investment and interest in the subjects being discussed. The speaker contrasted this with urban settings, where political engagement often seems more superficial and distant, suggesting a deeper level of engagement in this particular setting.

Expanding on the previous point, Smriti highlighted the sense of responsibility and commitment they observed. For instance, during a group deliberation session, the participants collectively decided to implement biogas units and solar panels. This decision emerged organically, without any specific directive from the moderators. It was an unplanned outcome, a pledge made by the group during their discussion.

This level of engagement and commitment was not an isolated incident. Smriti has noticed similar sentiments in their work with farmers and rural communities, where the issues discussed were deeply personal and relevant to the participants' daily lives. This contrasts sharply with the experiences in urban settings, especially with city youth discussing topics like waste management or green entrepreneurship. In those cases, there seemed to be a disconnect; participants could mentally disengage once they left the discussion room. In rural settings, however, the issues are part of the participants' everyday reality, leading to a deeper investment in the process and greater appreciation for the platforms provided for discussion and decision-making.

Alok stressed the presence of political motivations in rural areas, noting that while individuals in these areas are committed to community welfare, they also attend events to build political influence. The situation in rural areas isn't entirely free of political agendas, as some individuals seek to gain benefits from their political roles.

Additionally, there's a stark contrast in the pace of life between urban and rural areas. In urban settings, there's a sense of alienation from local problems and a feeling of being overwhelmed by systemic issues. For instance, addressing simple matters like garbage collection becomes daunting due to bureaucratic challenges and the inability to hold local officials accountable. Furthermore, urban residents often lack the time to actively participate in community events and discussions.

Conversely, in rural areas, people seem to have more time and resources to engage in community matters. Through strong community networks, they manage to find time for important discussions, arranging for childcare and other domestic needs while they participate. This kind of engagement with local governance and deliberation is challenging to replicate in urban environments, where the pace of life and social structures differ significantly.

Amiya strikes a cautionary note, clarifying that their description should not be misconstrued as an idealistic portrayal of rural life. While urban residents often feel disconnected from their immediate needs, leading to a less engaged form of citizenship, this doesn't mean rural areas represent a perfect alternative. In rural settings, citizenship feels more direct and urgent, but this isn't necessarily ideal. In fact, many people in rural areas aspire to move to cities, seeking a form of citizenship that isn't as intense or pressing in their daily lives.

Question 3: How did you experience the political agency of the communities you met at the Samagam?

Smriti acknowledged the difficulty in assessing the situation due to their limited interactions, but she focused specifically on women's participation. Engaging women in these discussions was challenging. During a jury discussion, the topic of women attending local panchayat meetings was raised. Smriti found that most women in the room had not attended these meetings, often because they were not taken along by their husbands. Domestic responsibilities like childcare and food preparation often limited women's participation in such meetings. The Samagam was unique in making food and childcare arrangements for the women participants.

Alok felt there was a disconnect between the community's discussions and announcements made by political leaders. It seemed as if the leader's visit and announcement were independent and somewhat arbitrary, not really connected to the ongoing communal discussions. This gave the impression that the political leader had arrived with a preconceived plan, which was announced without genuinely incorporating the decisions or inputs from the community's deliberative processes.

Amiya reflected on a specific moment where a significant disconnect occurred. This moment was during the drafting of a charter that was to be presented to political authorities. Amiya observed that in translating the people's demands into formal language suitable for public and political discourse, something essential was lost. This experience highlighted a fracture between the people’s genuine needs and how these needs were perceived and represented in the political process.

Amshuman shared a metaphor used by Deepak, the facilitator in their jury room, to describe a concept they had been discussing. Deepak suggested that for a jury to effectively deliver what they termed a "verdict," it needed to possess political maturity. He likened their current situation to using a sieve to separate rice from its husk - this jury is just the first shake, but it will take several more before the rice is fully separated. Deepak emphasized that reaching the level of political maturity – although Amshuman was uncertain if "maturity" was the most suitable term – required much more than what they had accomplished at this early stage. This metaphor highlighted the journey and effort needed to develop a fully mature and effective deliberative process.

Question 4: What worked, what didn't what was the gap between what we thought we would do and what actually happened?

Amshuman: What we were definitely able to achieve is that, we were able to organize this massive event where the voices of thousands of people could be channeled in this charter. The tougher question is what what it could bring about.

Smriti: I think we've been able to imbibe in people the fact that this is really about the citizens and nobody else. So it's not about the experts, it's not even about Vaagdhara, this is their space and their platform, whether it's in the design of the space, whether in how much time anyone gets to speak, or what's going to happen. We really leave that mark on people that we are able to say that this is designed for them. Not by them, but definitely for them. And that really gets across and in all the bites that we hear afterwards as feedback

What didn't work and we could do better is plan the deliberation process more systematically because it was quite intense for people.

Alok: we are still solving for problems that the communities are experiencing now or have been experiencing for the last few months or years. So rather than actually actively thinking of something and having foresight and solving for and designing for that, we're solving for the problems in the past.

Amiya: in terms of what we could have done better there's of course many things we can talk about. For example, making sure that the juries were more representative of the people we were talking about, for example, actually having youth on the youth panel and getting women participants to be more active, but what stood out to me as our big success is the process itself.

This whole process of collaboration, this whole process of speaking for others, speaking for the needs of people who aren't in the room, even the jury selection process. So the cast leaders thinking actively about who can be a good leader of the community. And I think, just curating that experience of citizenship was something we did really, really well. And the outcomes may vary: some are in our hands, some are not in our hands, but the experience itself was, I think really well done.

Question 5: What comes next?

Smriti: older kids form a bridge between the previous generation and the younger generation. Can kids find solutions for their problems amongst themselves. Can there be peer to peer learning? This would be for me something interesting.

We plan to take this Samagam format to different other tribal regions in India, work with different partners and experiment with other forms of the samagam, which we hope to do over the coming months, and have a national convening in August.

Alok: I feel whatever we're doing right now seems very serious. It's driven towards policy solutions. We should incorporate some play and fun elements into these spaces, perhaps by organizing games between different villages and different communities, and then so we can use those spaces for for children to think about what they want to play and how they want these to be organized. There could be other things which are outside of the political realm, ways for us to embed this way of operating into the culture.

Amshuman: we should change something because I think it'll go stale if we go to the same geography and do the same exact process again. I think we did our best job in that mode and as a team. I think it would lose that excitement maybe as an organizing team.

Amiya: I'm thinking if we can adapt this idea of the expert, because having this expert come in from outside and present their solutions works for a large event like the Samagam in terms of the logistics and things like that but won’t work for smaller events. So I'm just thinking if the expert can also be, say someone like a local political leader, someone who's hoping to represent the community, run for elections or even say a local school teacher who wants to secure some funding for the school.

We will cover the Rural Agenda in a similar fashion next week.