The issue that sparked off a debate was the objective of the club.  Representatives of about a dozen NGOs were evenly divided on whether the club should serve essentially a social purpose, or fulfil a more serious one. 

The possibility of networking an NGOs linking up on issues of common concern are provided in the NGO club charter which also has provisions that point to the need for members of the voluntary sector to meet informally – instead of at workshops/seminars where everyone is keen to stress the importance o their point of view and the remarkable work that their group has done – and form a “relaxed understanding of each other’s work. For the diverse nature of the fields of endeavour that various groups are involved in has yet to be appreciated . There are those that are into animal care while others are working with the handicapped.  They have no “meeting ground” with NGOs working in say the environment/development field.  The club would provide and opportunity to interact. And if that leads to strengthening the voluntary movement – there were several who were convinced that it would – then all the better. 

Ranjit Sinha expressed surprise that NGOs had even thought of forming a club because they were such a self-centered, self-righteous lot that they could never spend more than ten minutes in amity. Rishi Jindal observed that such a pessimistic view was not warranted since a score and more people were present and getting along quite nicely, thank you. 

The agenda for the meeting to be tackled before the fun and frolic began included: registration of the club, obtaining club premises, election of office bearers, and the venue of the next club gathering. 

Most were in favour of registering the club since this would enable it to raise resources to provide premises and where among other things.  NGO activities such as audio-video presentations, talks on topical issues of common concern, and so on, could be organised.  A body of opinion was firmly of the view that the club should remain unstructured for else people, or NGOs, would seek to control it for their own ends. This fear was particularly directed at the larger NGOs and is best expressed in a letter to the NGO club co-ordinator, by Sapan Garain, lecturer at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, who states:

·      Another club aspirant, N.K. Jain, of JAC (only the acronym has been given in his letter) from Gurgaon expressed reservations with the remark that he agreed to on the NGO club provided that it was not a “club of consultants” masquerading as NGOs. 

The above and other letter began to be received shortly after the NGO club charter was published in the newsletters of VANI, Development Alternatives and CAPART’s People’s Action. By far the largest number were from small, grassroot groups including Sri Laxmi Mahila Mandali, Khammam (Andhra Pradesh), Jana Seva Parishad, Kendrapara (Orissa), Social Welfare Centre, Tiruvarur (Tamil Nadu), Manav Seva Sansthan, Deoria (U.P.), Stri Sisu Seva Samiti, Machilipatnam (Andhra Pradesh), Rural Community Trust, Mugaiyur (Tamil Nadu), and Unemployed Young Workers’s Society, Sreepali (West Bengal). 

In this context, the suggestion of Pranab Chaudhary and Dr. Srabani Chakrabarty, both from a Bihar based voluntary agency attending the club meeting, was particularly apt: they stressed that all efforts should be made to involve the grassroot groups in the club for their sharing of experiences would be of help to all; and they were the ones who most needed to interact with others; it was essential that the club was not dominated by city based NGOs. 

Anil Singh of VANI, who seconded the idea, is well placed to promote it, as he is with a networking NGO that is in touch with a host of grassroot groups. 

Shyam Chainani of the Bombay-based NGO, Bombay Environment Action Group (BEAG) felt that the club would attract members if it was able to “prove itself”.  Only then, he emphasised, would it get a place at the “Habitat centre”, or wherever, to operate from.  He was among those who came to scoff but remained to drink. 

There were those who breezed in and breezed out such as Mallika Chauhan, a Jabalpur-based lawyer, Shaina Subramaniam form Fluid Head Films and Govind Menon of WWF-India  Others, addicted to Indian Standard Time, came in an hour after the stipulated time. Yash Pal, a free-lance journalist landed up when the items for discussion on the agenda had been exhausted.  But he contributed seriously during the “fun and frolic” period listed on the agenda. Though no media persons were invited, Rakesh Aggrawal of Down to Earth sauntered in looking for “grassroot stories” (he belongs to t he grassroots editorial group of the magazine) and he could not have been altogether disappointed as there were a few grassroot groups present (Bihar NGO members, for instance). 

Despite the casual, informal approach, some work got done. The venue for the next meeting was fixed, as well as NGO co-ordinators appointed – Neeti Bhatia, phone: 689-4071(R), 662-253(O), Raka Sinha, phone: 461-7414, 469-2612(O) 689-4811 (R) and Begum Monisha Khan, phone: 382-238(R).  The amount that each member will contribute towards hospitality the next round over was also decided upon as also the NGO club mailing office.  Until such time as the club acquires its own premises, the administrative functions will be performed/co-ordinated by DRAG, 75, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 57, phone: 602-383 and 674-146. 

There were some interesting discussions that this writer overheard while moving from group to group of the 20 odd people who assembled for the club meeting.  While Priya Sen was dialating on the delights of teaching the children at Kusumpur Pahari (a migrant/slum colony on Delhi’s Vasant Vihar ridge), Shyam Chainani cut her short with “do you have long term plans?” For a while Priya looked askance, her face showing that she had given little or no thought to this aspect of her work in the slum.  Even as she was formulating a retort, Chainani said belligerently ”In that case you should not continue for your half-baked approach will do more harm than good…” 

Since most of the NGOs present were Delhi-based, it was no surprise that several of them were represented on various government committees.  One of the non Delhi NGO member'’ was attacking the obsession of the Delhi-wallahs seeking a place on these committees enabling the government to co-opt the NGO, while the defenders maintained that by accepting a position on the committees they provided expertise to the government which it lacked and hence influenced policy…. 

The two non-Delhi based NGOs at the meeting were BEAG (Bombay); the rest were from Delhi and included Angaja Foundation, Institute of Social Science, Conservation Society of Delhi, Development Research and Action Group, KARE and bonsai Association.   q

Back to Contents