Kirkspire february 2007
St Andrew’s Church Village Project
Some setbacks 1976
Murdoch MacKenzie
At the Annual General Meeting of St Andrew’s Church in July 1976 Mr E.D. Devadason, Chairman of the Project, reported on some ups and downs. Reporting on the work in the 20 villages in Ponneri Taluk he referred to the Book of Exodus and the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt. He pointed out that the Israelites preferred the stability of slavery and had to be liberated in spite of themselves. The exploitation of landless labourers in India is a kind of slavery and the Church is called to bear a cross of suffering alongside the villagers. He emphasised how Mr Subhan and his wife, Kummudini, were in fact doing this in so many ways including negotiating loans for the villagers from the State Bank of India, providing a travis at the Veterinary Centre for the artificial insemination of cattle, and working with the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital in Madras in a survey of the mental health of the local people.
But there were setbacks. The Rs. 24,500 which the church had deposited on behalf of the villagers as a 25% deposit against a matching grant from the Government for two schools and three deep-bore drinking water fountains remained unmatched. The youths who had been trained at Katpadi and at Madras Christian College Farm , like the Israelites of old, did not take full advantage of their training. But it was up to them and maybe they were right. From August till March, while there was the opportunity of seasonal work, they preferred to work as day labourers. One boy left his training because ‘he did not like the atmosphere’. Another left after two weeks because he secured a pass in SSLC and began studying for his PUC at Ponneri Government Arts College. Another left because his wife could not stay with him. One boy who actually completed his training in dairy farming decided he would prefer a job at Rs.60- Rs. 100 per month. His father heard that the Indian Bank had a scheme for sheep-rearing which he believed was easier than cattle.
Another trainee who did well, and who in many ways was the most resourceful, gave up the idea of obtaining a loan because of the 13% interest rate. He had hoped to get the Differential Interest Rate applicable to backward areas of 4%. He just could not see how he could make repayments during the dry season. Also the hoped-for subsidy to build a cattle-shed talked about by the B.D.O. was not available due to paucity of funds. He also felt the bank officials were very bureaucratic and therefore opened a tea-shop in his own village and was earning his living that way. He also found he could earn Rs. 10 per morning, fishing at Pulicat.
Amongst the other trainees one had an uncle who demanded a third of the milk should he get a loan, another committed suicide, another was sixteen and too young for a bank loan, whilst another went home for the Pongal holiday and did not return. None of them got bank loans as the surety they had to pledge was impossible in terms of land or property and this meant that others were not keen to go for the training at Tambaram.
In the midst of all this the social worker found himself running hither and thither between the local villagers, the B.D.O., the Collector, the Bank Manager, the Directors of the Training establishments, and the Committee in charge of the Village Project! But some things were being achieved in the form of developing cottage industries such as plastic bag-making, basic medical work was being done, wells were being dug, improvements in school equipment had been made, adult literacy work was being carried on, and food for work programmes including some road-work had been undertaken.
Edwin Devadason finished his report as follows: ‘It is difficult in a report of this nature to be exhaustive. The presence of our social workers has made a tremendous impact. Our effort to encourage the members of the Church in greater numbers to visit the villages has not been very successful. If we intend to bring about ‘mutual enrichment’ by contact between those who are affluent in the cities and those who are poor in the villages, we would succeed only to the extent by which the members of the Church show an inclination to visit the villages periodically and share the life of the villagers.’
Murdoch MacKenzie
At the Annual General Meeting of St Andrew’s Church in July 1976 Mr E.D. Devadason, Chairman of the Project, reported on some ups and downs. Reporting on the work in the 20 villages in Ponneri Taluk he referred to the Book of Exodus and the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt. He pointed out that the Israelites preferred the stability of slavery and had to be liberated in spite of themselves. The exploitation of landless labourers in India is a kind of slavery and the Church is called to bear a cross of suffering alongside the villagers. He emphasised how Mr Subhan and his wife, Kummudini, were in fact doing this in so many ways including negotiating loans for the villagers from the State Bank of India, providing a travis at the Veterinary Centre for the artificial insemination of cattle, and working with the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital in Madras in a survey of the mental health of the local people.
But there were setbacks. The Rs. 24,500 which the church had deposited on behalf of the villagers as a 25% deposit against a matching grant from the Government for two schools and three deep-bore drinking water fountains remained unmatched. The youths who had been trained at Katpadi and at Madras Christian College Farm , like the Israelites of old, did not take full advantage of their training. But it was up to them and maybe they were right. From August till March, while there was the opportunity of seasonal work, they preferred to work as day labourers. One boy left his training because ‘he did not like the atmosphere’. Another left after two weeks because he secured a pass in SSLC and began studying for his PUC at Ponneri Government Arts College. Another left because his wife could not stay with him. One boy who actually completed his training in dairy farming decided he would prefer a job at Rs.60- Rs. 100 per month. His father heard that the Indian Bank had a scheme for sheep-rearing which he believed was easier than cattle.
Another trainee who did well, and who in many ways was the most resourceful, gave up the idea of obtaining a loan because of the 13% interest rate. He had hoped to get the Differential Interest Rate applicable to backward areas of 4%. He just could not see how he could make repayments during the dry season. Also the hoped-for subsidy to build a cattle-shed talked about by the B.D.O. was not available due to paucity of funds. He also felt the bank officials were very bureaucratic and therefore opened a tea-shop in his own village and was earning his living that way. He also found he could earn Rs. 10 per morning, fishing at Pulicat.
Amongst the other trainees one had an uncle who demanded a third of the milk should he get a loan, another committed suicide, another was sixteen and too young for a bank loan, whilst another went home for the Pongal holiday and did not return. None of them got bank loans as the surety they had to pledge was impossible in terms of land or property and this meant that others were not keen to go for the training at Tambaram.
In the midst of all this the social worker found himself running hither and thither between the local villagers, the B.D.O., the Collector, the Bank Manager, the Directors of the Training establishments, and the Committee in charge of the Village Project! But some things were being achieved in the form of developing cottage industries such as plastic bag-making, basic medical work was being done, wells were being dug, improvements in school equipment had been made, adult literacy work was being carried on, and food for work programmes including some road-work had been undertaken.
Edwin Devadason finished his report as follows: ‘It is difficult in a report of this nature to be exhaustive. The presence of our social workers has made a tremendous impact. Our effort to encourage the members of the Church in greater numbers to visit the villages has not been very successful. If we intend to bring about ‘mutual enrichment’ by contact between those who are affluent in the cities and those who are poor in the villages, we would succeed only to the extent by which the members of the Church show an inclination to visit the villages periodically and share the life of the villagers.’
Murdoch MacKenzie
