This is a recollection of my understanding of development as a concept and process since my early childhood days. My intention here is not to enter a philosophical discourse on the meaning of development; instead, try to show how my understanding of development took different shades in different phases of my life.
Development as an Object of Free Distribution
It was around 1962-63 for the first time I heard the word “development” meaning “Bikas” in Nepali when I was in elementary school. My cousin, after a year-long training in Kathmandu, returned to Bajhang, my home district as Village Development Worker (Gram Bikas Karyakarta). He was a rural development worker trained to carry out community development activities popularly known as Bikas. He used to talk about new crop varieties (Bikase Jat), chemical fertilizers (Bikase Mal), and agricultural tools (Bikase Aujar). I heard him talking about the distribution of improved seeds and fertilizers. It used to be free back then. I remember him saying all those inputs came from abroad (Videsh). The term Bikas was just becoming popular then. My understanding of Bikas was an act of distributing external inputs free of cost.
Development as a Package of Technology
After high school, my academic training in agriculture, and subsequent work with the government extension system shaped my understanding of development firmly. I think this builds on my childhood understanding of development as an object of free distribution. My training and organizational orientation focused on changing traditional practices and adopting new technologies developed somewhere else. It was assumed that conventional methods and practices are inferior and solution to the endemic hunger and poverty is the adoption of modern technology. Agricultural extension tools and methods grounded on diffusion theories primarily focused on the adoption of new practices by changing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of farmers. This notion of development labeled farmers in general as ignorant while nicely dressed “experts” have all the answers. Those who do not take the advice were considered “laggards”. There was little analysis of why farmers say “no” to expert’s advice. I was conditioned to believe that development will only happen if the package of technology developed by experts is transferred to “ignorant” farmers. Extension workers like me were loud on teaching and persuading the use of pesticides on crops and vegetables, enrich the soil with chemical fertilizers, and change traditional crops with modern varieties. That was development. I never thought of the resultant impact of adoption after 20 or 30 years. Now I realize this was a myopic view of development.
Development as a Complex System
During the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, there was a dominance of systems thinking in the development industry. Agriculture development was conceived as one of the components of a more extensive rural development system, which included other sectors such as roads, drinking water, education, health, etc. It assumed coordination among these sectors is critically important to ensure sectoral success and, ultimately, the development of communities. Based on this premise, integrated rural development projects (IRDPs) funded by multilateral and bilateral agencies dominated the development landscape. This development thinking subsumed the transfer of institutional blueprints as a precursor for the technology transfer process. Even within the agriculture sector, systems thinking shaped project development mindset resulting in the design of cropping systems and later farming systems research and extension projects. I think this was a big shift from viewing development as a linear process to a complex system of interrelationships. In theory, people are at the center of this interrelationship. As I remember my experience with the World Bank-funded Mahankali Integrated Rural Development Project and Farming system research project in Nepal, I was elated with the new development approach in the beginning. However, I found no difference in the way I was implementing the project. Participation emerged as a buzzword. Attending meetings, joining fairs, carrying out local verification trials were celebrated as beneficiary participation and got space in progress reports. As I understand participation now, it can be viewed in the continuum as “domestication” at one end where people are conditioned to do what they are told to do to “empowerment” where people make their own life choices at the other end. I confess I was working in the domestication segment.
Development as a Values-based Holistic Transformation
It was only when I joined Heifer International, and observed communities, I realized I was one of the actors of “development drama” over the past several decades. I now realize the transfer of technology and the introduction of institutional innovation is necessary but not sufficient condition for lasting development. It is not my intention to discredit past work; fantastic things have happened; people have seen a change in their lives in different time and space. I just want simply to underscore the evolution of my thinking process about development. In the communities, I visited there has been an unbelievable transformation in the way individuals viewed their lives. The communities trapped in the dark cloud of “hopelessness” have started to see the light of “hopefulness”. The communities subjected to an intergenerational unacceptable chain of social discrimination have witnessed a rising tide of “silent revolution” breaking those chains by fostering solidarity and social harmony in the community. This transformation was possible with the unconventional approach of working with the communities. This approach is values-based holistic community development grounded on the premise that unleashing human potential is a prerequisite for socio-economic transformation. This means human development needs to be seen from physical (relates to the quality of life), mental (relates to knowledge, skills, education), spiritual (related to values, beliefs, ethics), social (harmonious relationships), and ecological (relates to connectedness with ecosystem) perspectives. Holistic development in these five dimensions unleashes human potential triggering transformational change. When this change process is guided by positive values ingrained in the communities, “development” becomes an organic upward spiraling process. I think this process leads to the realization of genuine development. My mission towards this genuine development through values-based holistic community development continues.