It is not enough to teach people to fish when in most cases they cannot reach the river. Our experience in villages shows that too often poverty involves fundamental structural barriers that limit access to productive assets, markets and fair wages. The poor have always lived in a liberalised market economy; their wages fluctuate according to demand and the interest rates are much higher than those considered to be "market rates" by the official system. MYRADA's strategy is two-fold: Foster alternate systems of the poor through which they mobilise and manage the resources they need; these institutions form the basis for their sustained empowerment. Secondly, lobby with the official system to recognise these alternate systems in their own right and to relate with and support them. MYRADA believes that it must constantly dig deeper in order to reach the poorest. Asserting that "we are working with the Poor", results in working with the "enterprising" poor, unless direct initiatives are regularly taken to go deeper. A strategy that rests with mobilising people to participate in officially designed programmes only adds one more ring in the chain of delivery; it is not empowering, or sustainable. Analogously, striving to "mainstream" can also be disempowering of the poor since they have to "fit in" to the mainstream on the latter's own terms and conditions; as a result there is no level playing field. We believe that unless there is a sound foundation to promote equity, which is based on poor people's organisations formed and controlled by them, all investments to foster "growth" and even to decentralise political power, will tend to increase income inequality. The basic needs approach without a direct focus on promoting institutional empowerment of the poor is inadequate and could even be counter-productive. The strategy based on the assumption that the poor require only education, health and skills to break into the market is not supported by ground reality. It is not enough to teach people to fish when they cannot reach the river due to hurdles of caste, class exploitation and political systems which do not allow the poor to access power and benefits and due to entrenched systems ruling financial flows which effectively prevent the poor from accumulating capital.

We believe that our interventions should build on people's strengths not on their needs, to which they will in time respond. Therefore we do not base our interventions entirely on a participative needs based assessment, where the conclusion of a PRA is usually a list of needs; rather we use the Appreciative Inquiry methodology which uses PRA methods, but helps people to identify and build on their strengths. We believe that one of their strengths lies in their willingness to invest their time and energies to build a future through regular savings, investment, the acquisition of skills and willingness to devote time to build their own institutions as a basis of empowerment and as an instrument of social change. These institutions are also the basis of a thriving democratic system at the grass roots. Examples of such institutions are given below.

We believe in investing in children, not in isolation, but together with the mother and in the context of the family by promoting supportive gender relations and sustainable livelihoods through the dynamics of an affinity group and in a healthy surrounding environment. Our strategy takes into account the close relationship between the removal of poverty and the concern for the environment, which has been a traditional feature of India's past. Unless the rural environment is managed in a way in which it can support sustainable livelihoods, a crucial link in the strategy to eradicate poverty on a permanent basis is missing.

We also believe that:
Empowerment does not automatically follow from the adoption of participatory processes; the processes have to be anchored in appropriate institutional frameworks, whether they are self help affinity groups, watershed associations, or private limited companies. Institutions give members the experience of participating in governance. What starts small can grow in influence with the right facilitation.

Institution building is not easy but the journey, though challenging, is fulfilling. However, to encounter success, institutions have to be structurally appropriate to the functions they are expected to perform. A watershed association has to be constructed differently from a school improvement committee; a self help affinity group cannot take on the job of milk co-operative.

Money is an important determinant of power and a necessary means of sustenance. Individuals as well as institutions must have their own capital base to sustain. At some point, all development effort must also aim at the creation of wealth in the hands of people and their institutions over which they, and only they, have ownership and control.

Systems and procedures are important for the health of institutions and cannot be passed over, no matter how difficult to institutionalise they may be. In that sense, there is no difference between Myrada and its self help affinity groups - what is good for one is also good for the other; what one can do, the other can also do; if one is regarded as a professionally managed institution, the other can also be.

There is no use to criticise without demonstrating a tried, tested and workable alternative. To highlight what is wrong is easy, to find solutions is difficult. It is of critical importance to also ensure that the suggested alternative has worked on some scale and is not just limited to one or two good examples.

Staff commitment cannot be demanded, it has to be developed. There are no set ways to achieve this but creating an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect is a good starting point. Investing in the capacity building and growth of staff is also a demonstration of faith. A fair, transparent and clearly documented Personal Policy is also critical to sustain staff commitment.