Youth Programmes in India: A Critical Review published in the book titled ‘Youth Development: Emerging Perspectives’, ISBN: 978-81-7541-821-9, Shipra Publications (Year:2015)
Youth Programmes in India: A Critical Review Malaya Padhan and Rita Mishra Youth Development Practitioners at Patang
[email protected]
Abstract The current paper makes an attempt to understand the dominant approach followed in youth work in India. This paper tries to explore whether the dominant approach to youth work in India restrain holistic development of a young person? While capturing various features of the current model which is practiced in India, this paper also talks about another approach called the ‘youth development approach’.
The youth development approach refers to processes which are youth centered and focuses on the young person. It recognizes the need to engage with youth as individuals with unique identities and a desire to learn, explore and understand their own potential as active volunteers / citizens. This approach neither sees the young person as a ‘problem’ that has to be addressed, nor a ‘passive recipient’ of services; rather it sees the young person as a partner in addressing developmental problems while nurturing their potential as change agents. It uses different strategies to support their personal transformation and develop the skills of young people to become responsible citizens.
This paper critically examines two large scale programmes run by Government of India namely: National Service Scheme (NSS) and initiatives by Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (NYKS). The paper is based on primary and secondary data. The data has been analyzed using youth development framework. The paper argues how well intent programmes may not serve the very 1
need they are intended to serve if they fail to articulate the perspective behind the programmes clearly and do not reinforce them during implementation.
Key words: Youth Development, NSS, NYKS, Youth programmes 1. Introduction: This paper examines two large scale programmes run by Government of India namely: National Service Scheme (NSS) and initiatives by Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (NYKS). The National Service Scheme (NSS) was formally launched in 1969 with the purpose to create opportunity for students to participate in national development (NSS Manual, 1997). Two years later, in the year 1972 the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sanghathan (NYKS) came into operation for non-students rural youth. The prime objective behind formation of NYKS was to encourage involvement of rural youths, other than students in the process of social, economic, cultural and political development of India. Impact evaluation of these programmes has been undertaken at various points of time. This paper does not examine effectiveness of these programmes; rather assay to understand how far the objectives of these programmes are in alignment with the youth development perspective.
2. Overview of the Topic: Youth work in India has received a huge impetus in last one decade. This has forced practitioners and academics to shift their focus towards perspective behind youth work. In this section, effort has been made to capture the dominant perspective which is guiding the youth work in India. This will be contrasted with the youth development perspective which is getting renewed attention.
According to Mishra (2014), “The dominant approach to youth work i.e. youth for development, looks at young people as means to an end. She cautions us saying that “youth may be instrumentalized and seen as the means to achieve developmental goals without their own specific needs being addressed”. It is argued that “The seemingly good intended youth for development programmes neither recognise the needs of young people, (as most of the programmes have pre-determined goals and methodology and top-down in their planning) nor do 2
challenge structural inequities. On the contrary, these programmes reinforce inequalities and maintain hierarchy” (Mishra, 2014).
The other approach in youth work is the youth development approach. “In India, this approach is being influenced by both deficit and asset perspectives. The deficit approach seems youth centric in focus but assume that young people lack the required skill, information and knowledge. It gives rise to preventive programmes. "Many youth development programmes b1elieve that by simply preventing problems we cannot prepare young people to lead adulthood” (Small and Memmo, 2004). “The youth development approach from an asset lens emphasizes that young people have the potential and we need to nurture their potential, broaden their understanding about issues and build their leadership skills so that they can become changemakers. It refers to processes which are youth centered and focus on the young person and his or her development” Mishra (2014). This approach neither sees the young person as a ‘problem’ that has to be addressed nor a passive recipient of services; rather it sees the young person as a partner in addressing development problems while nurturing their potential. It uses different strategies to support their personal transformation and develop the skills of young people to become responsible citizens. However, it will be erroneous to assume that programmes designed from the youth for development approach do not bring any positive change. This approach helps large scale involvement of youth, building awareness about the issues and impacting them (Mishra, 2014) Dominant Approach • •
•
Process
• •
Focus on task accomplishment Outcome oriented
Feeling
• •
Helped, Contributed and Used Completed the task
• • •
Supporting Youth to develop their potential Youth are ‘taking’ away new learnings and ‘gaining’ skills through experience and exposure Focus on building potential of young people Learning oriented Learnt and grown Followed one’s passion
Change
• •
Led by NGO / Programme Officers • Leadership is limited to project / • campaign • Initiated to bring a change
Led by young people Leadership is a way life Taking initiative leading to personal transformation
Perspective
•
Youth as ‘means to an end’ Youth are ‘giving’ time ‘sharing’ skills
Youth Development Approach
and •
•
Source: Patang, 2012 3
Principles of Youth Development (YD):
The YD approach does not see young people as ‘means to an end’. On the contrary, according to this approach, they themselves are the end. The YD approach is all encompassing and therefore has a wider reach. It is not target oriented. It works with youth from an “asset” perspective rather than from a “deficit” one. Thus, it focuses on what young people have and what they are capable of. It believes in creating an enabling environment for young people to experience change and succeed. It suggests youth should not be viewed as problems to be fixed. On the other hand, they should be seen as partners of change. It emphasizes on young people as contributors and active shapers of their communities. The outcome is not measured solely by what has been accomplished by the youth, rather by how it has been accomplished and how it has enriched the youth’s life.
3. Literature Review: The huge youth population in India is termed as ‘Demographic Dividend’. According to Mohmmad and Matin (1995), “Indian youth is very large in number and this huge human power needs to be properly utilized for the socio-economic development of the country”. While youth as a productive labour force was recognised in the larger discourse on youth engagement, the need to invest in them was always emphasized. “Youth work has a great deal to do with personality development of young people. It might be said that youth work is to prepare the youth to be the instruments of change. It is not wholly a matter of transference of skills. It also involves training of young people to work through groups of their own” (NSS Evaluation Report: 2008-09, p. 48). Today Indian student community is without direction and ideology (Altbach, 1971; Choudhury, 1989) and it requires credible youth movement. According to Quinn (1999) programmes that are designed to foster youth development build on the strengths of young people, recognizing their need for both ongoing support and challenging opportunities. However, in the Indian context the effort to understand perspectives behind youth work is gaining momentum only recently. 4. Methods:
4
This paper critically examines two large scale programmes run by Government of India namely: National Service Scheme (NSS) and initiatives by Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (NYKS) using the youth development framework. This paper is based on primary and secondary data.
5. Discussion and Conclusion: A deeper look at these programmes suggests that both the programmes aimed at engaging with youth from an understanding that youth energy could be channelized for nation building. The question arises, are the needs and aspirations of young people getting addressed while involving young people in the nation building processes? Are the objectives in alignment with the youth development perspective? A critical examination of some of the objectives of NSS suggests that the objectives outlined by NSS a) understand themselves (refers to volunteers) in relation to their community b) identify the needs and problems of the community and involve them in problem solving process c) develop a sense of social and civic responsibility d) utilize their knowledge in finding practical solution to individual and community problems e) develop competence required for group living and sharing of responsibilities f) gain skills in mobilizing community participation and g) acquire leadership qualities and democratic attitude, are in alignment with the youth development principles outlined earlier. The fact that these programmes aim at supporting volunteers to identify their potential, develop their skills and involve them in problem solving process in order to make them socially responsible citizens make us argue that these programmes have a clear vision for the volunteers’ development. Initially, it was envisaged that the NSS’s paramount objective would be to embark on converting the energies of the student youth into development inputs with special focus on ‘rural development’. However, experience revealed that “the programme also motivates the student to achieve complete development of his/her personality” (Hasan, 1976 cited by Chantia, 2008). Therefore, in the 1980s, personality development and the enhancement of the social perceptions of the student volunteers were added to the original goal of doing while learning. Similarly, one of the objectives outlined by NYKS is to develop the values and skills of rural youths with a view to make them productive, responsible citizens of modern technological nation. This objective again is very much in agreement with the youth
5
development principle. It could therefore be asserted that the objectives of these programmes are in alignment with the principle of youth development. Are these programmes target driven or all encompassing? NSS has reached out to 33 lakh students. Similarly, NYKS has about 8 million non-student rural youth enrolled through 2.62 lakh youth clubs/mahilamandals. The mere size of these programmes and the diverse youth they involve make them all encompassing. These programmes are not target oriented in the broader sense of the term. However, what is worth exploring is whether the large scale enrolment is enough to claim that they are not target driven. Let us try to elaborate this with the support of a few examples. The ‘University Talks AIDS’ programme and ‘The Red Ribbon Express’ were two huge programmes within NSS. Were the NSS volunteers targeted through these programmes because of the assumption that young people are vulnerable and at risk? It could be argued that while these programmes aim at reaching to a large number of youths therefore not target driven, it would be erroneous to conclude that the activities and interventions are not guided through a deficit lens.
Are young people in these programmes seen as means to achieve developmental outcomes? According to NYKS Evaluation Report 2002-03 (P. 20) “youth is a very strong and powerful instrument of change. It is necessary to utilise and channelise their energy for nation building”. The question arises, is it possible for these programmes to be youth centered while being based on this belief?
In a study titled “Awareness Regarding Activities conducted by NSS: An Appraisal” Chantia (2008) have found that “Cleanliness was the major activity conducted in the community followed by health awareness programme” under the NSS programme. While studying involvement of NSS volunteers in environmental protection Chantia (2008) found that maximum respondents (85%) were engaged in plantation work, followed by (10%) in social forestry and 5% in pollution control. The above data suggests that young NSS volunteers were engaged in various environmental protection activities. But were they critically analyzing the debates around environment and how environmental protection is not possible only through eco-friendly attitude 6
and behaviour? While a lot is talked about how young people have contributed through NSS, very little is known about the efforts made by the programme to broaden their understanding about issues. With regard to awareness about objectives of NSS, Chantia (2008) found that maximum students think that the objective of NSS is voluntary service in the community. A small percentage (13.5%) said that NSS helps in the development of the personality. This clearly shows that the focus has not been on their development. Similarly, evaluation reports suggests that while NSS volunteers are engaged in health awareness programmes very little attention has been given to address sexual and reproductive health issues of the volunteers. One of the reasons for this misplaced attention may be because the programme implementation is not centered around youth rather it focuses on what could be achieved through youth. In a study conducted by Mishra and Patel (2004) it was noted that volunteers who were engaged in the Pulse Polio campaign were not aware of the fact that whether polio vaccination was taking place through injection or drop. While their own health needs were neglected their involvement in campaigns was superficial in many occasions.
According to NSS Evaluation Report 2008-09 (p.5) “Through these activities both NSS and NYKS have a significant potential to contribute in the social sector; especially literacy, health campaigns and disaster relief stand out as meaningful intervention”. The above findings are in alignment with the assumption that young people can bring change. But the critical point is that no serious attempt has been made to assess impact of these activities in the lives of the youth volunteers. A large number of District Youth Coordinators (DYCs) in NYKS stated that “various objectives of various schemes of NYK were to create awareness and to implement projects having a bearing on development” NYKS Evaluation 2002-03, (p. 170). This again supports their clear articulation for youth in development action.
Kulkarni (1988) cited in the NSS Evaluation Report 2008-09 argues that education and training are key to youth development. Nair (2015) reiterates the importance of life skills education for the development of youth. The fact that there have been processes to develop lifeskills of volunteers in both the programmes cannot be overlooked. However, it would be an 7
overestimation if we conclude that these programmes do not look at young people as instruments of change. The emphasis in these programmes are on conducting activities or ensuring learning? Does activity lead to learning? Can learning be transferred? Experiential learning theorist David Kolb recognized the role of facilitation for optimization of learning. The focus on learning is minimal in NSS and NYKS. This concern has been raised in the Annual Report 2013-14 while discussing about evaluation and reporting. It states that the focus in reporting is on the “number of youth participated and community people reached out”. It is suggested that “evaluation and monitoring of the programme should be related to the objectives of the scheme and it should contain not only quantitative reporting but also qualitative substance of the programmes. (NYKS Evaluation Report 2002-2003, p. 188) Inadequate qualitative documentation of the work done by NSS has affected the scheme’s standing (Hans, 1995 cited in Chantia 2008).
The focus has been to report youth-led developmental outcomes such as 3,79,374 units of blood were donated, 160 houses have been constructed for the needy people, 252410 children got immunized etc. (Annual report 2013-14, MYA). It is inferred from the above discussion that the reporting and evaluation process do not focus on volunteers’ journey, personal learnings and transformational experience. They also ignore analysis and reporting of impact of various activities on volunteers’ knowledge and skill. It has been argued that “for the programme to run successfully the Government should develop activity mapping and benchmarking tools on regional and local basis to evaluate the programmes” (NSS Evaluation Report 2008-09, p. 20). Facilitation of learning has taken a back seat in these programmes and attention has been on conducting activity and utilizing funds. Nation building sans building youth leadership From the above discussion it is gradually becoming clearer that both these programmes are huge and dreadfully centralized. The irony is that these programmes aim at nation building through youth without making ‘building youth potential’ their central purpose. A programme like NSS which used to play a transformative role has received a secondary status in all walks of life. Over the years it has become a volunteering certificate issuing authority. The challenges in front of the youth and the skills they possess in the twenty first century require youth programmes to be 8
innovative. The secondary status of NSS in the larger context of education has not done any good to it. These programmes need complete overhaul in order to live up to the objectives and in order to align with the youth development perspective.
References: 1. An Evaluation Study Of NSS In India, 2008-09, Conducted By Tata Institute Of Social Sciences, Mumbai For The Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports, Govt. Of India, New Delhi 2. Annual Report 2013-14, Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India, New Delhi 3. Chantia, A. (2008) Awareness Regarding Activities of National Service Scheme: An Appraisal, Anthropologist, 10(4): 289-296 4. Evaluation of Nehru Yuva Kendra Scheme- A Quick Study, March 1991, PEO Study No.145 5. Evaluation of NYKS in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat, Karnatak, Maharastra, Tamil Nadu – A research study report, undertaken by Tirpude College of Social Work and sponsored by The Planning Commission, Socio – Economic Research Division, Government of India, New Delhi 6. Mishra, R. (2014), Rethinking Youth Work in India: Does Youth Development Approach Make Sense? A chapter in the book “Social Entrepreneurship: A livelihood option with social transformation”, p. 36 – 40. 7. Mishra, R. and Patel A. (2004) NSS Study (Not published) 8. Mohammad N. and Matin A. (1995), “Indian Youth: Problems and Prospects”, Ashish Publishing house, New Delhi 9. Nair, R (2015), Yawning skill gap cause for concern, The Hindu, 21 January 2015 10. National Service Scheme Manual, (Revised), 2006, Government of India, Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports, New Delhi 11. Quinn J. (1999), Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for early teens, The Future of Children, 96-116
9
12. Rhodes J.E., Spencer R, Keller T., Liang B. and Noam G, (2006) A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development, Journal of Community Psychology, Wiley Interscience, Vol. 34, No. 6, p. 691-707 13. Small, S. And Memmo, M. (2004), “Contemporary Models of Youth Development and Problem Prevention: Towards an Integration of Terms, Concepts, and Models”, Family Relations, Vol. 53, No.1
10
