Linking grassroots effectively to the development process

By Zakir Md. Hossain

As the conventional development approach does not imply to this linking process, so redesigning the concept may start from redefining out the “Grassroots”. Whether it refers to organization, institute, initiatives, people, community/Somaj and self-help group. Unfortunately, vast number of grassroots already has been contaminated with “project greed”.

It seems so far, that the desire of connecting grassroots to development hierarchy is largely driven by exploiting the resources- rather than exploring the knowledge, know –how and of course the emotion. The emotion of local people’s feeling to the locality development. As a result, development strategy is something reluctant globally for investing on grassroots, but forming an umbrella like structure. This concept of exploring the grassroots potentiality turned into exploitation. So the hope in this process, to consider the grassroots as a development partner had been evaporated. However, the following proposals can be considered to connecting grassroots with community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR):

• Dealing with grassroots is a delicate process of nurturing the “struggling mode” of symphonic rhythms present in it. This process deserves to be slow, steady, continuous and flexible.
 
• When a grassroots put some seeds here and there around the homestead, it might seem to be nonscientific to an agricultural expert. But the same expert must be surprised to enjoy the multi-layered garden formed as the result from scattered seeds. The perceptions of a uni-sectoral expert must be synchronized with the multi-sectoral grassroots layman. This sort of adaptation initiative should be identified and recognized.
 
• Freeing grassroots from “beneficiaries only” and exploring the scopes of integrating into development hierarchy is an important issue. In this process they will be free from blame of “cause of development failure” due to non-participation or motivation.
 
• Economic investment on grassroots is always a risky business. It certainly can change instantly the “innocent” face of a grassroots. Rapid dissolution even might result into the same. It is better to adopt “reward” procedure of the past activities. So that the grassroots will habitually re-invest a part to future endeavor. It is interesting that a single grassroots initiative is closely linked to some other initiatives. Cumulativity often minimizes the investment and reduces risk of total failure. By considering this, joining hands to a single ongoing initiative will rhythm up other activities. So the grassroots will be able to yard sticking its sustainability.
 
• Rights, responsibilities and capacity for eliminating “fear” of losing unique characteristics of the grassroots itself largely fall into academicians and researchers first. Grassroots’ philosophy for locality development largely differs from that one of conventional development discourse. Grassroots’ initiatives always explore the deeper insights, policy and emotion of the locality itself. This view is to be rationalized for eliminating disbelieve and distrust among the policy makers, researchers, funding partners and grassroots.
 
• It is also necessary for the grassroots to be respectful to the wish of “emotional attachment” with locality development from the development partners’ side. For disaster issue, “emotion” refers to life and death of local ecology (includes human).

Finally “Hope” refers very often to its rival “frustration”. So let’s sprinkle some “wish” on the journey, where the goal is to be the “Happiness”. Development is a byproduct- less in quantity but heavy in quality. But still then the universal question remains unanswered “Why the rural must be envisioned to be developed as urban like?”