1. What did we plan?
Nalini: My expectations was that I was excited to see and learn how CLCP is applied in a different context like migration and mobility. I wanted to know the underlying issues beyond HIV, which was my plan. Want to know about the source. There can be
Anupam: What are the differences between Nepali and Bangladeshi Mobile population and how do we link, recognize, adapt and work with these differences. What can be transferred and what cannot.
Manita: I was enthuastic to learn about how people actually went about in Tangas and crossed over, the difficulties, the new learning
Anindya: Nepali and Bangladeshi Mobile population is totally different. Line listing we could see how the nepali population are actually crossing. I wanted to see how the NGO here is liaising with the spouse, border crossing problems. DIC meeting I wanted to see too.
Sandhya: I wanted to see how the meeting would be, what the problems these Nepali mobile populations faced. I learnt that dishearinging theat people loose all the earnings
Nabesh: bonding among the team, a source village interaction and the process I was looking forward to.
Surajit: How data is collected. We have monthly meetings with SSA, however, when I came I wanted to know whether actually the teams met for the cross border monthly visits.
Mukesh: Geographical situations are different Sharing between one and another on learnings
Prakash Bista: I wanted to find out from the ORW of Team India and kanchanpur to learn
Tek Suba: What are the issues, destination issues, how to reduce these issues and link the solutions to these probems.
Rafique: Knew in the morning that we would be going to see the community of returnee spouses, where the DIC committee would be conducting an information session on HIV. Also, a visit to the DIC.
Bhuwan Joshi: wanted to see if some one we contacted in Nepal had been picked up at Delhi by our counterparts.
Darinji: ;let our Indian colleagues to visit one source area, one CLCP visit.
Umesh: We are working in Source, transit and destination and how do we link between these.
2. What happened?
Mishra: giving information of HIV, Saw DIC, and field visit
Kuldeep: Field visit was having big participation, good interaction. On the DIC I expected less facilities – however, the DIC was very well done.
Anupam: How CBO will make enabling environment for mobile population? How stakeholders and rest of community work?
Manita: the border crossing was different from what I expected. Field visit was good, the stories could be linked to truth and the issues, of going to work, and the harassment at border…even though it is open border, and are in debt, when going back to India. Not many have realized their dreams of buying land after earning in India. when I spoke in Nepali, the person from the DIC opened up that she and her son were PLHIV. Acceptance not only by the community, but also by the staff.
Rafique: Initially I wanted to sit in the shop with Nalini at the back wanting to be an observer. However, I was pulled into the front and in the sun on the ground until Nabesh and me felt hot and dehydrated like dried fish. The village had high expectations of the visitors, as was evident by the large turn out, the discipline, the detailed arrangements, and the unwillingness to depart even after the meeting was over. Long after the meeting the women and the community leaders broke up into small groups and were discussing enthusiastically, probable solutions to the discrimination and exploitation while crossing the border.
Sandhya: In depth field visit with women - Mobility takes place. DIC counsellor.
Nabesh: Good interactions, Individual group meetings after the field visit, showing that the village was very interested in talking to the people. DiC video Source village or Transit village. Shows how vernacular can open the gateways of rapport.
Nalini: Not sure whether HIV information was adequately received. Women were receptive Even children, dogs, chicks, could not disrupt their attention, Until darinji and Moushmi came in there was an emotional distance between the facilitators and the community. The willingness to share was very high from the community. Got to know for the first time how to facilitate CLCP. Stengths, dreams, solutions….so quickly, Counsellor appreciated Manit’s Nepali. Through the rapport building, it became that connection that the visitors were working with the same crowd as the source who were going to destinations in Delhi.
Satish: Women interacting well. They were expressing their feelings and were open about them.
Darinji: Respect the visitors
Surajit: Open appreciation of the women folk by men about their strengths,
Umesh: DIC Committee operational
Nabesh: DIC exists, They have their own agenda and work on HIV, their meetings are held successfully,
Baghat Singh: in the DIC meeting, and in the Community meeting what we have made for the migrant in the DIC, spouses interaction, every month some activity DIC committee has representation of PLHIV, male female and involvement of them. Members of the present DIC Committee are Gram Panchayat member previously. PE were also involved in the meeting.
Tek subha: Late start, we did not prepare well, interaction was successful, though unexpected, with visitors there will be so much of opening up.
Prakash Bista: Minita’s translation into Nepali stunned the crowd and Moushmi interaction
Mukesh; Rapport building while discussing, I learnt how quickly rapport can be built. We have to motivate to get
b. Joshi: Women rapport build took time first in the village, and we had to give a lot of information.
3. What was the difference?
Mishra; I got more than my plan. for we have tough experience getting a meeting of this scale together.
Manita: Women living with spouse, spend more time in household work which is difficult in destination. I saw that we can get in the source women together, despite their work and commitments. Destination – the type of work differs, like they have to wash cars, building security, hotel staff, they go in shift system, though tin the same room, Chinese fast food people, who come back at 3 or 4 in the night, and there fore hardly any body comes to the DIC. Hence very effective. Commun ity leader was very effective. Community Leaders take hafta in the deswtination for job security from the mbile community. So most mobile community keep away from the community leaders.
Nalini: What approach we used in CLCP? Is there a plan to use the CLCP process in the meeting was not clear. How they are probing, facilitate, fast track.
Nabesh: Did not expect Strong management committee in the DIC. Or Regular activities in the DIC in this scale. DIC Committee serious about HIV. CLCP something will be done, however, when DIC process ended and CLCP started, Condoms are regularly distributed in the DIC. When we spoke first of destination it was known that many are going form Kanchanpur to Delhi. But it was so good to confirm this from the mouth of the community members. After many interactions where Nepali police, where physically assaulting Nepali men.
Moushmi: People connect up with HIV so easily in the source, which is not there in the Destination. Moonlight dinner meeting with community? As we are doing meeting only with our convenience and not the community’s.
Anupam: The issues were brought out in the open directly. However for Bangladeshi mobile population these issues are not brought out in the open directly even though we met the higher up in the security forces of the border. How do we do advocacy with those who do not accept the issues. In Nepal Self created, slef managed community group, and self driven activities. The Bangladeshis do not accept and they do not form a group, as the security think that they all have just come from Bangladesh.
Anindya: We are able to tell about HIV but not about that we are working with Bangladeshi. Think about Bengali speaking migrants – Rafique
Kuldeep: Difference in Delhi, do not want to talk, to us. People do not want to avail services, here people are enthusiastic to get services. If we probe, we are getting so much of responses which was a great difference.
Surajit: How to increase the rapport to bring out the solutions to their issues, so that they have more trust in the facilitators.
Rafique: The importance of Language in Rapport building was effectively demonstrated by Darinji, and later by Manita. Moreover, SALT techniques of exploring strengths, and dreams elicited far more enthusiastic response and discussions from the spouses of the migrants, and returnees migrants than the previous information giving session on HIV.
B. Jhosi: The major issue that the spouse of the Nepalese returnee migrants were of the harrassment at the border especially when returning from India. One man who had returned a few days ago was vocal and articulated the harrowing experiences that he had when crossing back to Nepal from India, a couple of times.
Satish: When returning the mobile population have lot of goods. Incident of 50000 Rupees being snatched by Indian BSF, community retaliation, money not returned though incident acknowledged and which appeared in the newspaper.
Surajit and B.Jhosi: Smuggling of Petrol, diesel, Kerosone, and LPG, Sugar
4. How will we do this same activity differently the next time?
Mishra: How tracking can be done, we get a system to do this next time.
Moushmi: We will plan how, who will facilitate. Men and women gender bias in seating… will not be there. Language is not a barrier that is a learning.
Anupam: The whole team will plan, the PE does not learn. Actually the impact population and their cross-learning must also occur, and maybe in this platform may not cocur.
Surajit: Stakeholders, next visit
Mukesh: Can do it better if DIC facilitators can do it through CLCP, PE do CLCP like Nari SaKSHAM
Nalini: elderly mikddle aged women, adolescent girls, relatives see the suffering and get disturbed, and after some time they go away with some one else and get married. The difference is that can we get the community in dfferent groups and discuss. Is there a way to have a separate discussion with women and girls. The INHP experience where we had so much money resources, in human resources, and it was a lost opportunity, where we could have done this. In EMPHASIS we are feeping HIV and linking allother Life issues.
Migrant population is our universe. What change has to occur in the lives. Programme focused approach how communities will look like after twenty years, for other CARE communities.
Anupam: If we can go beyond HIV, we have only CLCP which will solve HIV along with all other issues. The advantage is that we have very little milestones. We have money human resources and time to achieve CLCP Community objectives.
Manita: In Mumbai,
Mishra: More educated generation will go next time
Nabesh: We have seen one village only and could be there will be differences with Next time. We make core teams within CARE, could be outside emphasis, to look into three country initiative.
Darinji: Get CIUK, CARE-USA and SPD into the CLCP mode or their support and clarity for EMPHASIS as one of the models that we will demonstrate. How do we do this?
Rafique: One solution that came up for the harassment at the border was the formation of Watchdog Committees. Another that was explored in the ensuing discussions was that of collectivizing the Nepali Mobile Population in the Source, Transit and Destination, Subsequently, these collectives could form a federation under EMPHASIS and advocate for a railway line between Nepal and India to be laid where there were highest volumes.
The suggestions that emerged in the discussions outside the DIC with Nalini on the uptake of CLCP within our own team. How to deal with skeptics within our own EMPHASIS team. This lead to discussion on Diffusion of Innovation theory. That made us realize the need for CLCP in the project that is within the NGOs and in CARE as well as in our own home must go on. In addition, we must start in those partner organizations that do not have it. Skeptics from other projects in CARE, the big wigs, are to be included in the future CLCP visits.