Thirteen of Fourteen: Consensus, a Grazing Ground and a Deadline
A district sarvodaya federation holds Rs 60 lakh from a corporate social responsibility fund for a two-year 'sarvodaya village' programme in 14 villages: a watershed pond, a drinking-water scheme, a balwadi and a grain bank in each. Gram sabha resolutions were passed in 13 villages. In the fourteenth, a Bhil hamlet of 210 households where 38 households hold about 70% of the land, the landholders refuse to give 4 acres of common grazing land for the pond, though the pond would irrigate about 90 acres and the federation's engineers say there is no alternative site within 2 km. They offer Rs 2 lakh in cash instead. The federation's rulebook says every decision must be by consensus; the project officer argues that 13 of 14 is 93%. The funder will release the second tranche of Rs 25 lakh only if all 14 ponds are built by March.
1. Should the federation proceed with 13 villages and treat the hamlet as a separate case? Reason from sarvodaya's idea of consensus, not from project management.
Read the worked answer
Consensus in sarvodaya is not a super-majority. Vinoba's argument was that method and goal must match: a programme built by outvoting 38 households reproduces exactly the majoritarianism that sarvodaya exists to oppose. The figure of 93% also conceals a choice - it counts villages, not people or land. Counted in households, 38 of 210 is 18%; counted in land, those 38 hold 70%. Both figures are true and neither settles the question.
Gandhi's test was that no one should be compelled to obey a decision he sincerely believes to be wrong. Consensus means the objection has been answered, not overruled or bought.
But consensus is not a veto either, and here the objectors are a minority in number and dominant in land. Proceeding with 13 is defensible only if it is honest: run the programme in 13 villages as phase one, name them, spend their proportionate funds, and record the fourteenth in writing as 'in dialogue'. Refuse to sign any completion certificate that says 14, and never use the hamlet's name, quota or photographs to claim success.
2. How do you test whether the refusal is a genuine moral objection, a bargaining position, or fear of losing grazing rights, without using pressure?
Read the worked answer
Separate the objectors from the objection. Meet the 38 households individually and in small groups and ask each to state the objection in writing in their own words. If the reason keeps changing, it is a position; if it stays the same, it is a principle.
Apply three tests. Consistency: does the objector accept a cost in order to hold the position? Movement: does the price move when a concession is offered - genuine dissent does not have a price, a bargain does. Dissolution: does the objection disappear once grazing is secured elsewhere? If so, it was fear of losing fodder, not a moral claim.
Offer, without pressure: an equal or better 4 acres in exchange; a seasonal grazing arrangement or fodder from the pond's embankment; or a smaller pond on 2 acres.
Do not accept the Rs 2 lakh. Taking cash for a refusal converts a right into a transaction and sets a price for every future refusal in all 14 villages.
Finally, let the women, the landless and the other households speak first in a gram sabha where the 38 are not the only voices - this is not pressure but a correction of who has been heard so far.
3. The deadline is real. Set out what you would tell the funder and what you would do if it refuses to relax the condition.
Read the worked answer
To the funder, in writing: the facts, the reason, and a revised milestone - 13 ponds by March, the fourteenth by September, with the Rs 25 lakh tranche released against the 13 and the hamlet's share held in escrow or returned. Explain the funder's own interest plainly: a pond built on contested grazing land will be litigated or damaged, and a 'sarvodaya' project that overrode a gram sabha is a reputational liability, not an asset.
If the funder refuses: three options in order of preference. First, a fresh survey for an alternative site with the 38 households' consent - the engineers said 2 km, not none. Second, build 13 and return the fourteenth share in writing with a statement of reasons. Third, decline the tranche rather than break the method.
Do not fudge - no certificate for 14 ponds, no pond built at night, no 'temporary' occupation of the grazing land.
The deeper point: a programme that cannot survive a six-month delay is not self-reliant, whatever its budget. The federation's rulebook is not red tape; it is the pledge that brought the 13 villages in. Break it once for Rs 25 lakh and every future gram sabha will know that consensus is a formality to be got around.