INTRODUCTION

Sudhaar was formed in 1995 and is focusing on the improvement of quality education. It is operating the multiple educational models that include working with the rural schools, urban schools, government schools, municipality schools, private schools and non-formal education system. 

Kasur-Urban

a)       Started: Feb 1995. Three non-formal education (NFE) centers called “Chaanan”. Combined enrolment ~ 550 including 55% girls & 40% working children (both boys and girls). Working children trades: tannery workers, power loom workers, carpet weavers, brick kiln workers, domestic servants, workshop assistants, domestic workers. NFE centers go up to primary level. Objective: provide education but do not compel them to leave jobs. Try to wean them away by making NFE centers attractive thru recreational activities and better teacher attitudes. Families pay token fee and buy stationary. In the last one year, 210 children have been facilitated entry into government and municipal schools on merit and their families are now bearing full costs of education. Mainstreaming is the linkage between NFE centers and formal schools. Future plans include pre-vocational training and linkages with technical training.

b)       Started: Jul 1998. Improvement in quality of education in 25 municipal and 9 government schools in Kasur city. Covers 6000+ children and 200 teachers. Interventions: strengthening of school councils, improvement of physical infrastructure, teachers training, education system monitoring, reforms in official management such as merit based system, reforms in examination system, develop model schools, capacity building of education department, establishing teachers resource center, recreational activities. Initiating work with private schools and providing common platform for government, municipal, private and non-formal schools, promoting community involvement at every level of schools management. Plan to replicate municipal schools program in three Punjab municipalities and Karachi (South) district by supporting local organizations. Implementation of Karachi (South) municipal schools programs already started by Karachi based organization “Roots for Equity”.  

Back

Sialkot-Rural

c)       Started: Feb 1998. Improvement in quality of education in 120 rural government schools in Sialkot district. Covers 17000+ children and 350+ teachers. Interventions: strengthening of school councils, improvement of physical infrastructure, teachers training, education system monitoring, developing 30 model schools, supporting district education department, establishing resource teachers pool, capacity building of education department, recreational activities.  

d)       Started: Aug 2000. Six non-formal education (NFE) centers called “Chaanan” for children in surgical workshops. Combined enrolment ~ 220 including 90% working children (all boys).  NFE centers go up to primary level. Objective: provide education but do not compel them to leave jobs. Try to wean them away by making NFE centers attractive thru recreational activities, pre-vocational training programs and better teacher attitudes. Communities contribute in kind but no cash. Future programs include linkages with government schools including mainstreaming, and linkages with technical training. Program being implemented in partnership with local NGO called SAHE-Sialkot.  

Back

Gujranwala-Rural

e)       Started: Apr 2000. Fifty-five non-formal education (NFE) centers called “Chaanan” for children in carpet weaving. Combined enrolment ~ 1900 including 79% working children (majority girls).  NFE centers go up to primary level. Objective: provide education but do not compel them to leave jobs. Try to wean them away by making NFE centers attractive thru recreational activities and better teacher attitudes. Communities pay token fee and buy all stationary.  Future programs include linkages with government schools including mainstreaming, full program with government schools on Kasur pattern. Program being implemented in partnership with local NGO called OPD-Gujranwala.

Back

Essential points of Sudhaar’s approach are:

        §         Providing education meeting minimum quality standards is the primary responsibility of the government.

§         NGOs do not have the capacity to provide viable and quality education on a large scale.

§         Making a parallel structure of education is not the solution.

§         NGOs should concentrate on demonstrating workable models, work with government institutions to improve the system, take uncompromising position on principle issues yet learn to live and work with government institutions, develop linkages, and promote merit at all costs.

§         NFE systems must be linked to formal government schools.

§         Making rehabilitation centers for the so called “elimination” of child labor is uneconomical and non-viable. While some rehab needs to be done, the real solution is prevention thru improving the government system and working towards raising the value of education.

§         Do not campaign for children to stop working but create an environment where it becomes feasible for children and families to pursue education.

§         Negotiate program themes and agendas with donors and refuse to accept handouts.

§         Quality is the only way of, and reason for, sustenance.

§         Replicate people, not projects.

Born 1957. Qualification: Electrical Engineer. Jobs in private sector from 1981 to 1994 in engineering, planning and system analysis. Working full time with Sudhaar since Nov 1994. Currently Chief Executive of Sudhaar. Major responsibilities: HRD, Writing, Coordination, Planning. 

1.                    I started working voluntarily for WAR (War Against Rape) Lahore in 1992 while I was doing a full time job elsewhere. I also volunteered during my off days for a number of NGOs in Lahore primarily on children issues. That is where I developed an interest in child labor and education. In Jul 1994 I founded Sudhaar with eight other people I knew in different capacities and have been working with the organization since Nov 1994 on a full time basis. On my experience of working with NGOs, I think that most NGOs are extremely insecure with borrowed thinking and very few original ideas, extremely mandated and inflexible, very defensive, pugnacious if it comes to territorial overlaps, generally as good or as bad as any other sector. None of us dropped from the heavens, we just changed garbs. We are only marginally better than government agencies when it comes to efficiency, effectiveness and service delivery. When we go to scale, most of us go belly up. Despite the loud claims of participation and democratic credentials, most of us rarely practice what we preach. Participation is carefully “guided” by most of the NGOs lest it go out of hand and “control”. Barring a few exceptions, NGOs really do not have the muscle to challenge the government on major issues. Most of NGO positions are for the benefit of the media and yet ironically the media has happily and successfully disregarded the NGO ballyhoo. The NGO sector has grown quickly in Pakistan to suit the demands of donors rather than communities so it will take a longtime to mature. The civil society that NGOs tout is only a fragmented veneer. This is the good part. The worse is that what other choice do we really have to try and accomplish anything meaningful? My experience of working with the NGOs is not to take them seriously on their word. And yes, do not rock the boat until you are firmly entrenched otherwise they get to you fast.  

2.                    As for most of the donors, and especially the big donors, credibility is a four letter word. The big donors, and the bigger the worse, themselves suffer from a lack of credibility. How could they consider NGO credibility an issue? Most of the donors know quite clearly the practices of many of their partner NGOs but they dare not lift their little finger because it would hurt their own interests and expose their won rackets. So we can simply ignore that most of the donors would have any problems with credibility of NGOs. Any NGO with some track record that is willing to become their extended service delivery arm is good enough regardless of the degree of its credibility or its proven corrupt practices. I am yet to see a single NGO being reported because of corruption. Some may have been blacklisted for speaking out their minds, but credibility is certainly no big deal. As for NGOs, the primary task for any organization is not the interventions and activities it has to undertake, or the social mobilization it has to do, but it is establishing credibility. Half the efforts are geared towards that because unless NGO credibility is established all the work that it does goes to naught. NGOs generally have a very negative impression especially among the communities. They are considered “progressive” in a negative sense, having no regard for tradition and religion, and generally considered to be immoral, and corrupt. Credibility is thus critical for NGOs and communities. Unless NGOs are genuinely able to win the trust of communities, their work however useful and well intentioned will never be owned or sustained. NGOs need to figure this dilemma out and account for the efforts, resources and time required to build mutual trust with communities before they hope to accomplish anything worthwhile.  

3.                    On surface most donor agenda tunes in well with the local needs and priorities. This in fact is an expertise of the donors that they keep inventing and promoting jargon that looks acceptable on its face value. The fact that most donor agencies have their own priorities and viewpoints which are given far more serious attention than even the semblance of any real development. International NGOs are usually worried about the mileage and coverage that they get in covering specific sectors and in taking positions. Still there is enough room to negotiate, argue and even challenge established agenda. Importantly, methodologies and approaches can be overhauled and changed since international agencies have to keep at least an appearance of participation and ownership. UN development agencies on the other hand are extremely protective of their agenda down to the letter, the spirit not withstanding. Most NGOs usually succumb to donor pressure and work on approaches, methodologies and objectives which they know are inherently wrong or unworkable to start with. In this manner, the very soul of many NGOs is corrupted by the donors. NGOs need to understand that they can challenge donor agenda. They need to have conviction in their approach and understanding of issues. We had to refuse a Rs. 12 million plus program during the pilot stage simply because the design was completely distorted because of donor dictates. A month later after several veiled and not so veiled threats, the donor came back to the negotiating table and agreed to modify the design. In another program, it took us eight months to convince the donor that improvement of government institutions be made a part of the package. In yet another program, we were thrown out because we challenged the design, resource allocation, approach and utopian targets set by the donors. Unless NGOs start challenging the hegemony of donor agencies and their unrealistic plans, we will continue to tow their line. I can assure you from my experience that it is far easier to work with Pakistani bureaucracy rather than with the dictatorial bureaucratic and spiritless structures of many big donors. We would rather say no to them. 

4.                    I can’t say which sector the big donors will fall in love with next for they set the tone and the tune for development funds to flow in. Political empowerment and gender arte still hot, civil society institutions strengthening is another. Unfortunately we the NGOs become overnight experts in anything that the donors tout. I think we should stick to whatever little we know in sectors that we have worked in. Funds will keep coming in provided quality is there. Regardless of donors top of the pops chart, we will continue to work on education and child labor issues in future and use the platform to continue to develop human resources. We would also like to support relevant government agencies and departments by working in coordination with them, promoting merit and making attempts to influence their work positively. That is the crux of our program.