LOK JUMBISH - RAJASTHAN

Lok Jumbish was unique because it tried to reach out to children –– especially girls ––who were being effectively kept out of the formal school system. A very conscious effortwas made to address the educational needs of children from poor and underprivilegedcommunities. It is therefore a matter of concern that such a unique and path-breakinginitiative is being wound up. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the bottom-upprocess it developed is being reversed and replaced by the familiar top-down approach.Can competing models coexist?Some commentators argue that there is no space for alternative/competing models in thesame area and that it is administratively more efficient to have some degree ofuniformity. Paradoxically, given the wide diversity and staggering inequalities thatcharacterise such areas, most educational practitioners agree that no one model canrespond to the situation effectively. While the rhetoric of decentralisation and people’sparticipation has grown louder, bottom-up processes that genuinely empower people toplan for themselves are finding fewer advocates in the larger community of developmentplanners and administrators in Rajasthan. Lok Jumbish continues to be cited as anexemplary case in bottom-up planning –– yet the very process of empowerment itengendered emerged as a formidable challenge to educational administrators and localpower elites.Did the project carry with it the seeds of self-destruction?Those who have been closely following the evolution of Lok Jumbish argue that the seedof its demise was inherent in its very conceptualisation. To begin with, it was positionedas an entity outside the government, a programme that competed with and challengedmainstream structures. Secondly, identification of any large-scale programme with a fewpioneers carries with it the promise of its own destruction, especially when thesecharismatic leaders/pioneers fail to create a sense of ownership in the mainstream.Officials who created the LJ structures argue that bypassing the mainstream wasnecessary to ensure both greater flexibility and tighter financial control. The smooth flowof funds, greater flexibility, genuine decentralisation and the appointment of committed(and not just experienced) people matter, and are difficult to achieve within themainstream. They also argue that as long as mainstream system remains inflexible, thecreation of autonomous structures like LJ is unavoidable.The experience of different state-level structures reveals a disturbingly mixed picture.While innovation, flexibility and responsiveness are hailed as the hallmark of thesestructures, they continue to remain outside the mainstream. For example, the MahilaSamakhya Societies created by the government in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujaratand Uttar Pradesh have been able to reach poor rural women and involve them inempowering educational processes. But their interaction with the mainline EducationDepartment is minimal, despite the fact that they have the state’s Education Secretary astheir chairperson. Similarly, with their emphasis on instituting a process-orientedLok Jumbish Case Study Page 26 1 August 2003