The System is Asking Us for Trust.

 

Sometimes it feels like the system is not asking us for another “program”… the system is asking us for trust.

And I feel this every single time I sit with government officers—whether it’s Delhi, Punjab, or Uttarakhand. There is always a quiet heaviness in the room: too much work pressure, too many expectations, and very little time. On top of that, there is a constant “performance” burden—targets, reviews, reports, compliance. Officers are living inside that weight every day.

So when a civil society partner enters the system, the system’s first question is not really, “What will you do?”
The real question is deeper:

  1. Will you understand our reality?
  2. Will you stay with us?
  3. Will you become one more project that leaves?

Because the system is tired of ideas.The system is tired of pilots.The system is tired of fancy words.

What the system needs is companionship. It needs saath—someone to walk with it.

Most of the time, when civil society partners come in, we come with our best intentions: SEL, life skills, thriving, wellbeing, facilitation, narrative shift. And yes, these are important. But for the system, the first layer is not the framework.

The first layer is always the relationship.

The system is silently checking:

  1. Can you listen without judging?
  2. Can you stay comfortable with complexity?
  3. Can you hold the work without impatience?
  4. Are you here to “fix” the system—or to understand it?

Because the system can quickly sense when a civil society partner is using it instrumentally—only for reports, donor narratives, and scale stories. And when the system feels used, trust breaks. And once trust breaks, even the best intervention cannot become “owned” by the system.

One thing I have learned on the ground: trust does not mean “yes”.

We often misunderstand this in our work. We think: if the officer agrees, there is trust. If the officer is critical, it means resistance. But on the ground, I often see the opposite.

Sometimes stakeholder's “no” is actually trust—because they are telling you the truth. They are sharing their real tension.

Trust doesn’t mean the system will always accept what we propose. Trust means the system can share its stress with us without fear and real change becomes possible only when the system is able to share its tensions openly.

There is also a big concern inside the system: “We will be left alone.”

In places where interventions face budget constraints, delays in approvals, and slow processes, officers carry a simple but deep worry:

What if the civil society partner gets frustrated and leaves?

That’s why the system observes us—through small things.

  1. How do you follow up?
  2. Do you use blame language or responsibility language?
  3. Do you disappear when tensions rise or do you stay present?
  4. Do you demand deliverables or do you hold dialogue?

“Aha—this is where trust plays its role.”

In my facilitation journey, I have seen this clearly: systems don’t change because of prescriptions. Systems move because of dialogue.

When we enter the system only to “train” it, the system becomes defensive. Training can silently communicate: “We know, you don’t.” And stakeholder's already live in pressure, judgement, measurement—so they naturally tighten.

But when we invite the system into conversation, it opens up. Because conversation gives the system agency. Dialogue gives the system dignity. And without dignity, transformation doesn’t happen.

That is why narrative shift doesn’t happen through posters. Narrative shift happens through safe conversations. This is where civil society partners must shift their role—from Expert to Companion.

The system is not asking us for expert solutions. The system is asking us for companionship. The biggest shift for a civil society partner is this:

“I am not here to correct the system. I am here to walk with the system.”

But companionship is not easy.

  1. It needs patience.
  2. It needs humility.
  3. It needs the ability to hold strong emotions.
  4. It needs the practice of regulating our own ego.

And above all, it needs the courage to stay present even when results are not immediate. Because there is no hack to build trust. The only way to build trust is:

  1. Consistent presence
  2. Deep listening
  3. No shortcuts
  4. No performance
  5. Long-term intent

The system needs civil society partners to come out of “project mode” and enter “relationship mode”. It needs civil society partners not just to bring agendas, but to bring safety. Safety that even when approvals are delayed, budgets are stuck, decisions are slow—the civil society partner will not disappear.

When I pause and reflect on my work, I feel the system is asking us only a few honest questions:

  1. Will you stay with us when results are not immediate?
  2. Can you tolerate our contradictions?
  3. Will you treat our limitations with dignity—not judgement?
  4. Can you help us feel what thriving means?

The system is seeking trust. And trust comes when the system feels:

“The civil society partner is with us… not above us.”



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conversation and Safe Spaces: The Best Medium to Develop Understanding

Conversation and Safe Spaces: The Best Medium to Develop Understanding In teacher capacity-building workshops or trainings, if we truly want to empower teachers or bring about small shifts in them, we need to create more spaces for dialogues or conversation and a safe environment. When we are able to provide such an experience, only then will teachers see themselves as capable and effective in carrying this experience back to their classrooms. Most trainings are such that the PPT becomes the primary medium, limited only to sharing information. The trainer or stakeholder assumes that a training has been “done.” Through pre- and post-tests, it is also concluded that the training went well, because the questions are only based on the information provided. But in this, there is no real space where participants can share: 1. What did they feel? 2. What insights did they gain? 3. With what questions are they leaving this training? Now the question is: 1. Are we able to see or understand whet...
Read more

मैं हूँ...(I am From)

Image
मैं हूँ अधूरी बातों से जिन्हें सुने बिना, मुझे गुनाहगार बता दिया। मैं हूँ टूटे ख्वाबों से जिन्हें फिर भी मैं बुनता चला गया। मैं हूँ उलझे विचारों से जिन्होंने मुझे कविताओं में ढाल दिया। मैं हूँ मेरे अपनों से जिन्होंने दर्द में भी मुझे हँसना सिखा दिया। मैं हूँ अपने जिगरी यारों से जिन्होंने हारी हुई लड़ाई भरोसे से जीता दिया। मैं हूँ तेरी मोहब्बत से जिसने नफ़रत भुला दिया। मैं हूँ तेरी शख़्सियत से जिसने सिर उठाना सिखा दिया। मैं हूँ हक़ की लड़ाई से कुछ अनुभव से, कुछ पढ़ाई से, कमज़ोर रहे ना कोई, जिसने भलाई सिखा दिया। मैं हूँ लंबे इंतज़ार से जिसने धैर्य सिखा दिया। मैं हूँ ड्रीम अ ड्रीम से जिसने खुद को खुद से सुनना सिखा दिया, प्रोसेस को प्रोसेस करना और  ठहराव (pause) का महत्व अनुभव करा दिया, तुमको मुझको सुनना सिखा दिया। मैं हूँ अभी आभार से उनका  जिन्होंने जीवन समझा दिया! ~luvone CTS 2025
Read more

A Reflection from My Journey This Year

Throughout this year, one question kept showing up in almost every training and workshop—not as formal data, but as a lived context shared by teachers. Nearly every batch had teachers who carried this question with them. And honestly, I never felt it was wrong. It comes from their lived experience. They are the ones who stand in classrooms every day with children. We facilitate trainings and return, leaving behind a space—one where teachers slowly feel ready to go deeper into the question, sometimes in silence, sometimes with discomfort. The question usually sounds like this: “The government provides meals, uniforms, textbooks, and scholarships. Still, children don’t want to come to school. Why? ” As soon as this is said, many teachers nod in agreement. As the conversation moves ahead, some add: “Parents don’t value education.” “They don’t understand the purpose of schooling.” As a facilitator, I placed my own question in that space. I said: “I agree that these provisions exist. But if...
Read more