In remembrance of Dr. Tony Ledesma, whose first death anniversary we commemorate  and whose life we celebrate today, we are sharing this article he wrote about the origins and development of the DHRRAs.
The Seed, the Spring, the Stone
A mighty river starts from a trickling mountain spring. A massive tree starts from a tiny seed. A great edifice starts from a single cornerstone. What forces reside in the tiny streamlet that it should lead into a mighty river?  What generative abilities hide in the tiny seed that it should become a towering tree? What creative patterns where chiseled out of the cornerstone that would hold together a temple?
Today as we celebrate the 30th Anniversary of a mighty river, a sturdy tree, a shining edifice that is the DHRRA family, we pause to look back to its beginnings when it was but a fragile stream, a vulnerable seed, a rough-hewn stone.
The world of thirty years ago found Asians acting out their lives in theatres of conflict and struggle. Brothers fought brothers in the divided countries of Vietnam and Korea. Freedom for Filipinos was a bird trapped in the cage of martial law. The narrow strait between mainland China and Taiwan bristled with weaponry. Authoritarian governments in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia kept watch over what their citizens read, whom they met, what they wrote. And into this landscape of tension and uncertainties, the men and women of the DHRRAWs dared to dream of a better world where freedom and justice would prevail and where Asians would recover their lost brotherhood.

Planners of the First Blueprint
The embryonic phase of the DHRRAs started with a circle of Jesuit priests who left their countries in order to work with Asians in promoting social justice. In 1961, they formed the core group of the Socio-Economic Life of Asia (SELA), a committee under the Bureau of Asian Affairs whose president was the Filipino Jaime Bulatao, head of the Psychology Department of the Ateneo de Manila University. Its treasurer was Walter Hogan known as the American Labor Priest.
They were a multinational group. From America came Basil Price to set up a labor school for Koreans while Joe Cavanagh and Richard Becker worked in the small atolls of the Pacific. John Daly, working among Korea’s shelter-less, was to win the Ramon Magsaysay award. The New Yorker Patrick Shaules went to Taiwan to work among migrant workers and aborigines. From Germany came Karl Albrecht who promoted cooperatives among Indonesian fishermen. Some twenty years later, he was killed during the riots in East Timor.
From Argentina came Jorge Anzorena, an architect who became the second DHRRA partner to win the Ramon Magsaysay Award for his creative low cost housing work. From Spain came Juan Andres who set up a social action center in Japan which sent groups of students to work with Vietnamese peasants. From Austria came Augustine Moling who set up a study center for Buddhist students in Bangkok. From Canada came Jean Desautels who was engaged in an adult education program in South Vietnam. From Italy came Antonino de Gennaro, connected with a worldwide network of social action centers in Rome. He was to die tragically in a plane that exploded in mid-air on his return trip to Rome from the DHRRAW workshop. From England came Joseph Garland to work with trade unions in Malaysia. There were also Irish among the SELA members: John Collins who set up the credit union league of Hongkong; the eloquent Gerard Keane’s work in media made him suspect in the eyes of a watchful government that did not tolerate critics. Down under in Papua New Guinea, Australian Phillip Kurts worked with university students while Mark Raper specialized in working with aborigines and migrants. And from the dikes of Holland by way of Indonesia there came John Dijkstra – the beloved and irreplaceable father of the DHRRAs.
It was from this group of men with their brilliant array of talents and experiences, men who thought nothing of giving up country and security, men who loved and respected Asia and its culture, its mores, its struggling poor – that the DHRRAs received their initiatory identity, their inaugural energy and direction.
Preparing DHRRA’s Seedbed
The second set of co-creators of the DHRRAs were the men and women whom the SELA advisors chose as participants of the three-week 1974 workshop in Swanganivas, Thailand which launched the network and its secretariat.
Indonesian Pioneers
Among the 12 participants from Indonesia chosen by Fr. Albrecht were persons with intensive experience in rural development activities like Bambang Ismawan, founder and president of the Bina Swadaya Foundation.  After their studies, he and his wife Sylvie joined the Pancasila Movement one of whose founders was Fr. Dijkstra whom they first met in 1962. Bambang  participated in nearly all of our CIRD workshops whose discussions he enriched with the wealth of his experiences in farmers’ movements.  Soetrisno Kusumohadi was in the staff of the Solo-based CD Yakkum (Community Health Foundation). I saw glimpses of Solo for the first time riding with Soetrisno on the back of his motorcycle. He has devoted much time in planning for the growth of the network and has held key positions in the DHRRA Boards, culminating with his election as the Chairperson of AsiaDHRRA. The only woman in the group was an outstanding educator, Mrs. Soesiati Tridayat coordinator of the Pendidikan Kesejehteraan Keluarga, a family welfare education project.  Saleh Widodo, the humble but courageous principal of an Islamic agricultural school was a dear friend who brought in innovative ideas that brought renewal to traditional customs. We grieved when he died at an early age. Apih Safari of the Gerakan tani Indonesia, a farmers movement was the principal of a rural school. He became a SEARSOLIN scholar where he inspired other Asian students by his thirst for knowledge and persistence in his studies.
The Indonesian group included government officials among them were Washington Napitupulu of the Institute of Social Research and Development; Jouwe Bas who headed the Agricultural Department in Irian Jaya. Other Indonesian members of the pioneer DHRRA group were: the sociologist George Yumus Adicondro who had to go into exile after his criticisms of the Suharto government caught the anger of the military. Thaharuddin Hutasuhut of the BUTSI Secretariat, Adrian Manubelu of the Institute of Social Research and Development in Flores and who died on the first week of the workshop from an illness he carried with him before coming to Thailand; Halle Powatu of the Protestant Church in Southeast Sulawesi; Robertus Sutjipto a veteran community worker of the Lembaga Karyadharma; Mangara Simanjuntak a development worker.
At DHRRAW 1974, the Indonesian group defined human development as “a process of self-discovery wherein man(and woman) realizes his (her) dignity as an individual and as a social being, and which motivates him (her) to fulfill his (her) inherent needs, individually and in mutual cooperation with his fellow human beings.” It was in DHRRAW that the other country groups learned how to dialogue the Asian way based on the Indonesian cultural processes of musyawarah (mutual dialogue), mufakat (consensus) and gotong-royong (mutual cooperation).
Japanese Pioneers
The first DHRRA participants from Japan chosen by Fr. Juan Andres, were a mix of rural practitioners and academic professors. This composition posed a problem in a culture where the university professor is deemed superior to the rural farmer. But the goodwill and understanding of the academics and the rural workers kept this problematic from developing into a crisis. Among the rural participants was Hiroyoshi Nagadomi, a farmer and organizer of the Society of the New Life Movement and who, with his ever-handy Japanese-English dictionary, was chosen as the participant most admired at the  three-week long DHRRA workshop.
Due to the language problem, our contacts with Mr. DHRRAW became sporadic through the years, much to our regret. The other person who greatly impressed the DHRRAs was the only woman in the Japan group, Miss Ayoko Furukawa an agricultural extension officer. Her suggestions were concrete and useful, based on her long years as an extension officer in rural Japan. In our follow-up meetings where we met her once more, she introduced us to the efficient agricultural extension services in her rural area.
The Japanese group also had a youth representative in Eiji Takeshita of the Young Farmers Association. From academe were Professors Teruo Fujiwara and Yosio Yukawa of Yamaguchi University. Both professors headed the early JaDHRRA. Prof. Fujiwara, who is a water engineer expert, found time to organize the Japan Overseas Foster Parents Association (JOFPA) which supported schools for tribal minorities in the Philippines and Vietnam. Another university professor was the gentle journalist Hideo Takeichi who taught at the Jesuit Sophia University in Tokyo. He wrote about DHRRA activities which were published in local newspapers. Hajime Kikuchi, Associate Director of the Asian Rural Institute. Kikuchi-san often hosted DHRRA visitors to ARI which, like SEARSOLIN, is a training center on rural development approaches whose practical courses were attended by the staff of neighboring Asian NGOs; Rokurou Kumasaki who managed a garden where roses grew all year; Masaaki Otsubo, who was in the planning unit of the Department of Agricultural Administration, Shimane Prefecture; Hisato Tamura, an agricultural extension worker also in Shimane; Nishikori Toshio, manager of an agricultural enterprise in Shimane. Another participant was: Toshio Izu a technical supervisor of the Yamaguchi Prefectural Government;
At the end of DHRRAW, the Japanese participants gave these reflections: “Through this workshop, I found out that I was not only a Japanese, but also a member of a world community.” Another wrote: “My private follow-up contributions will be to make efforts that Japanese companies and big business do not get out of control and that Japan’s economic aid respects the will of the people receiving them and really makes a contribution to better their living standards.” And another noted: “I will always remember my encounter of the human dimension during DHRRAW.”
Korean Pioneers
To represent South Korea, Frs. Daly and Price chose a dynamic group of development experts. The director of the Catholic Rural Leadership Education Institute, Fr. Peter Byun Ki Yung was present. The husband and wife team who were to contribute much to the sustainability of KoDHRRA were there, Dr. Chija Kim Cheong and Dr. Ji Woong Cheong. The Cheongs wrote articles on rural development among women and farmer groups that drew attention in academic circles of DHRRA projects. Through the many vicissitudes undergone by KoDHRRA, the Cheongs remained steadfast in keeping it active and linked to the CENDHRRA network. Yonsuk Chung, a courageous defender of the rights of the rural poor. He was a dynamic leader in the Korean Catholic Farmers’ Movement. J. R. Augustine Kang, the internationally recognized charismatic leader of the Asian Confederation of Credit Unions; the third DHRRA partner to be given the Ramon Magsaysay award; Augustine was also an author of reflective stories that carried  practical and moral lessons and were written with humor and simplicity. His advice and example influenced not only KoDHRRA but the entire network. Sun Yo Kim, a graduate student of education in the Seoul National University.
Rev. Jae Ki Kwak, secretary-general of the rural life department of the Presbyterian Church of Korea; another outstanding leader of KoDHRRA; his church’s radio programs had a large audience in rural Korea. Yeong Chul Lim, an officer of the famous Canaan Farmers’ School. This institution was a center of innovative rural projects animated by a humanistic vision and which inspired many visitors to emulate in their countries. Miss Yung-ae Um, another activist member of the Korean Catholic Farmers’ Movement; her courageous defense of the rights of women rural workers often brought her problems with the military. Other Korean participants were: Sang-Ki Lee, consultant for the Korean Agricultural Research Institute and Jae Hak Lim an agricultural extension officer in Kwangju-Gun Agricultural Guidance Office.
The Korean DHRRAW group defined “development of human resources” as “the growing process of removing the oppressive obstacles and deficiencies existing in the given political, social and economic conditions of the area in which rural man (woman) finds himself and through education and training, achieve the physical, intellectual and spiritual completion or perfection of his (her) God-given resources so that he (she) may come to play a fruitful and effective role in his (her) community.
Malaysian Pioneers
The Malaysian group chosen by Fr. Joseph Garland mirrored the country’s racial mix: Malays, Chinese, Indian. Victor S. Basnayake was an expert on plantation economy. He was the manager of the Sabah Land Development scheme. Young social worker from Sarawak was Francesca Chai whose work is among rural communities in East Malaysia. With her was another social worker for the Catholic Mission in Sarawak, Winifred Chai. The Industrial Relations Officer of the influential National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW) was Ishak Bin Buyong who linked CENDHRRA with Malay NGOs and Islamic youth leaders. Working with Francesca and Winifred Chai was the quiet Lucas Kehing also of Sarawak. Mohamed Iqbal was an assistant director for publications of the Malaysian Centre for Development Studies. He was instrumental in introducing the network to government circles.
N.S. Anthony Muthu was the founder of the P.K.R. Social Movement whose work was focused in the plantation areas. It was Anthony’s dedication and sacrifice that enabled MasDHRRA to surmount problems in its early years. His enthusiasm for helping the needy never diminished and in spite of his physical handicap, Anthony kept working until his untimely death.  P. Sanglili Muthu was a field worker with the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW).  Sauriasmuthu Sinnappans was a social worker at the Fatima Training Center while Arokiam Santiago was also a social worker for the NUPW. The diligent and humble P. Valliamah whose parents were likewise plantation workers, was to marry Anthony Muthu. Both were to maintain the existence of MasDHRRA even during hard times. Valliamah’s priority work was in the education of plantation children.
In evaluating the three-week DHRRAW, the Malaysian group had this to say: “It is wonderful to know one is not alone – that in other parts of Asia other people are engaged in the same struggle as yours.” “I feel there was not enough stress given to conscientization and politicalization which are crucial to human development.” “Through the dialogue process, DHRRAW was able to form a nucleus of rural development leaders who can meet to discuss and assess situations and their differences with understanding.”
Micronesian Pioneers
The Micronesia group was made up of five persons who were connected with the various programs of the Jesuits who established an Agricultural School on the lonely atoll of Ponape. Among them were Deacon Korophin Kermen and Sister Dorothy Nook, who taught in the Mission School and Wendolin Sue, Narsi Kostka both farmers. They were joined by Yasuo Yamada, superintendent of Ponape’s elementary schools. For many, the trip to Thailand was their first long travel to a foreign land and at times the traffic and tall buildings overwhelmed these islanders.
In their concluding reflections, the Micronesians noted that “we have experienced things we only heard about before. Our horizon has been widened.” “I come out of DHRRAW convinced that human development cannot be restricted to measures of material progress.” “For us in Micronesia, development of people begins with an awareness of our rights, responsibilities, our talents and abilities as individuals and as a community; and understanding of our dignity…”

Papua New Guinea Pioneers
Papua New Guinea sent 5 representatives, three of whom worked in a development bank, namely: Haiveta Lavaki, Charles Ritma and Tau Vere. On the other hand, Theodore Banda was assistant director of the Department of Lands Surveys, while Karol Kisokau was with the Department of Agriculture. Their informal leader was Utula Samana. At the start of DHRRAW, Utula was a college student in Port Moresby. After graduation, he entered politics and became Prime Minister of Morobe province. His wife was more in grassroots development work as a member of a Christian church NGO. Since the original group that went to DHRRAW hardly had any involvement in rural work, the Papua New Guinea DHRRA failed to materialize.
Filipino Pioneers
The twelve Filipinos who went to DHRRAW 1974 had a core group of activists whose political ideology originated from the internal tensions related with their conflict with the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF). They were Victor Cunanan who headed FFF’s education department; former FFF officers Manuel Mondejar, Frank Dinsay, Fr. Edgardo Saguinsin. Besides this group were Luciana Alejandrino who was trained under the founder of the Rural  Reconstruction Movement and who was Training Director of Sariling Sikap, Inc. A specialist on rural health was Sr. Eva Varon. Farmer leaders were Eleno Lavadia from southern Luzon, Quirico Batilaran of South Cotabato, Ruben Bihag of Laguna, Teofisto Dahino of Bukidnon, Felicisimo Patayan  and Arturo Felisilda of Zamboanga del Sur, Emiliano Lomod of Bukidnon.
Because the activist group had a political agenda to promote which puzzled the other nationalities, the Philippine group failed unfortunately to make an impact at DHRRAW. Neither were they able to have follow-up meetings since a number of them joined underground forces. This is the reason for the delayed formation of PhilDHRRA within the DHRRA network family.
However disunited the Philippine group was in DHRRAW, they nevertheless had  reflections that were meaningful. They defined genuine human development as entailing “the liberation of every person, both individually and as a community, from the various forces of oppression and exploitation that constrict and stifle his (her) aspirations and freedom. Human development occurs when a man (woman) is liberated from the physical constraints of hunger, disease and ignorance. It also occurs when man (woman) is liberated from the spiritual constraints of egoism, irresponsibility and apathy.”
Vietnamese Pioneers
The Vietnamese group was basically a research study group working in rural communities. Its ten members had extensive field experiences in training rural leaders, dissemination of agricultural literature and practical support of rural cooperatives. They were: Doan-cao Ly, Doan-min Suu (Buddhist Youth for Social Service-BYSS), Duong-ngoc-Thanh (De Rhodes Educational TV Center), Le-van-Kiem (lawyer), Ngo-van-Xanh, Pham-huu-Thanh (Professor, Saigon Normal School), Nguyen-Ton (School of Social Work), Bui-ky-Tran (teacher), Nguyen-duc-Tuyen and Hoang-ngoc-Tue of the Farmers Duca Movement. After the fall of Saigon, the group dispersed and some made their way as “boat people” to America.
Taking into account their political situation in the 1970s, the workshop reflection paper of this pioneer group from South Vietnam had this to state: “It seems that whatever social action we have proposed and realized is but a drop of water in the ocean, the effect of which can be reduced to nothing under the weight of unchanged social structures.
The question then is whether one should start with liberation before development.” The group tackled the relationship between the individual and the community. On this topic they noted: “Needless to say, freedom is cherished by all, but this could easily lead to egoism. On the other hand, the common good of a community is deemed necessary in spite of the caution that an extreme focus on the common good can stifle the growth of the individual. But it is inconceivable to develop as individuals separately from a community, and vice versa. Thus, development is the very work of harmonizing this dual factor in the growth of persons – the individual and the community: all contradictions between the two have to be solved.”
Taiwanese Chinese Pioneers
Seven persons composed the Taiwan group to DHRRAW. Two were members of dynamic Farmers’ Associations in their locality, namely: Te-Yaun Chien and Shu-jai Wang. Others were trainers of farmer cooperatives like Chun-Ying Chang and Frank Lin. A fruit marketing cooperative representative was Jenn Shaw Liao. The Credit Union League was represented by Thomas Su. The elder statesman of the group and who through the years would be the most active in the DHRRA regional programs was Tien-Min Pu who was with the research center of the Cooperative Bank of Taiwan.
The reflections at DHRRAW of the Taiwanese group focused on the objectives of human resource development which they listed as: “a happy and meaningful life and a consciousness of mutual service and freedom in a well-balanced society…As possessors of inner resources, talents and abilities, people should grow and develop themselves under conditions of open and equal opportunities. In this manner, they will be able to meet the ever-changing aspects of life. This process of development is a life-long effort…”
Thai Pioneers
The host Thailand team had thirteen members. Among the government officials were Sompobe Ambupraphab, superintendent of the Public Welfare Department in Prachaupkirikan; Samer Jantarapoot of the Community Development unit in Bangkok; Thamrong Daungpatra, technician in the Cooperative Promotion Department in Pethburi.
With the rural life projects of the Christian Churches located in Chiang Mai were Sompong Potikom and Yapaluang Hasuwan; Pipat Chaisurine was manager of an animal bank project while Tsong Srinkeau was its treasurer. Based in Bangkok as secretary-general of the Church of Christ was Wichaean Watakeecharoen. Those with projects of the Catholic Church were: Chunchai Lekprasert, social extension worker with the Catholic Council of Thailand for Development (CCTD);  Luan Nakphansa also of the CCTD as director of its rural development unit; Fr. Suthep Namwong, head of the CCTD Project Department. Fr. Namwong was the informal leader of the group and generously contributed to its growth and survival in critical times. One who impressed all of us at DHRRAW was the farmer Na Pombehra who was impatient with theories since he himself was a man whose daily work consisted of hands-on labor in his farm.
The use of English as the workshop’s medium of communication always presents a problem to citizens from Korea, Thailand, etc. But our Thai hosts, handicapped in their mastery of English, more than overcame this difficulty by the warmth of their hospitality and renowned gentleness and courtesy.
The Circle Expands
The mandate given to CENDHRRA by the 1974 DHRRAW participants was to set up a regional secretariat and to devise ways and means to continue the sharing and dialogue they experienced in the Thailand meeting. This meant the establishment of an Asian network whose core members were the DHRRAW participants. The main program to set up this network was the CENDHRRA Integral Rural Development (CIRD) workshops which were held every six months in different countries. Organizing these workshops meant expanding the original core group to include new members.
In the course of its regional work, CENDHRRA came to know outstanding leaders from the countries where its network operated. Indonesia introduced us to Dr.Sarino Mangunpranoto, former Education Minister of Indonesia and founder of the Farming School of Ungaran. He was for Cendhrra the charismatic philosopher of the “inner man” and taught in season and out of season that man and woman’s inner growth, his creative potentials (whose source for him was the Almighty) are realized through concrete service to others, especially the poor.
Another Indonesian friend was the well-known disciple of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence approach, Ibu Gedong Bagus Oka, who started an ashram in Bali. Likewise in the 1978 CIRD workshop on Religion and Culture, we met the architect Robi Sularto and his wife Menul who introduced us to the artistic and cultural world of Indonesia. Another Indonesian contact was Dr. Soejatmoko, former ambassador to the United States and who later became president of the United Nations University.
Japan introduced us to Dr. Osamu Muro respected critic of Japanese NGOs’ anemic involvement (in the eighties) in development cooperation in Asia. In the Philippines, we enjoyed the confidence and profited from the advice of the American Jesuit William F. Masterson, founder of SEARSOLIN. He chose CENDHRRA, which had helped him set up the first follow-up training of SEARSOLIN alumni, to evaluate its programs of 25 years.
Dr. Liem introduced us to Madame Nguyen Thi Hang, then Vice-Minister of Vietnam’s Ministry for Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA). She was decorated for her defence of a strategic bridge which American warplanes sought to destroy but were prevented by the bravery of the anti-aircraft cadre led by this young rural girl. As a key official of Vietnam’s largest Ministry, she invited CENDHRRA to carry out research and training activities in Vietnam and to share with MOLISA the development approaches of the DHRRAs, a relationship of trust which facilitated the subsequent entry of Misereor’s and GTZ’s poverty alleviation programs.
The DHRRA Wheel gets a Center
John Dijkstra liked to picture the DHRRA network as a wheel. The wheel in a farmer’s cart has three parts: the hub in the center; the outer rim which contacts the road and the spokes which connect the rim with the hub. For Dijkstra, the rural people make up the wheel’s rim since their lives touch reality, come into friction with the ground. They are the most important part of network’s wheel.
Communication is the lifeblood of this network. DHRRAs are the carriers of data on how the rural poor view their life’s problems, the solutions they explore, the simple but rooted processes that their fathers have tested. The task of the CENDHRRA communication system was not to import novel farm practices which were successful in other cultures but which were alien to local conditions. This knowledge cannot be acquired by visits of a sporadic and limited nature. It takes time and a longer immersion in rural life and its often harsh conditions to acquire this sixth sense of what is suited to a local community.
The CENDHRRA staff made efforts to close the gap between theory and practice. As Paulo Freire noted, the knowledge and insights resulting from this first-hand experience are shaped and reshaped in a constant movement from practice to theory, then back to a new practice.
John Dijkstra describes this process, saying: “It is clear that in the Center really humanized experts should work, analyzing rural people’s contribution to their problems, understanding the real situation and conditions of rural people so that the ideas it produces never bypass people, are understood by them and do not ignore their capacities. It is therefore important that the action-reflection done in the Center on rural people’s process of humanization, is always shared with the people so that they themselves acquire the capacity to reflect on their actions. To endeavor that rural people move of themselves based on the raw experiences which they bring to the Center, this to me is the main and unique task of CENDHRRA.”
The Dijkstra statement was echoed by S. L. Parmar in his paper at the 5th Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Nairobi, 1975: “A society must begin with its reality. If poverty and injustice are the main facts of economic life, the potentiality of the poor must be the main instrument for overcoming them. This would be possible if people in developing countries discover a sense of dignity and identity within their socio-economic limitations. To assume that only when we have more, when we are nearer to the rich nations, we will have dignity and identity, is a new kind of enslavement to imitative values and structures.”
In the pursuit of this reality, CENDHRRA staff went to the rural areas. Remote villages isolated after typhoons flooded roads were visited by our staff bringing medicine, food and shelter materials. Research work was done in the field: in Pangasinan among small entrepreneurs operating credit union clubs; in Pampanga among evacuation centers after the massive volcanic explosions of Mount Pinatubo. Our staff regularly monitored Sariling Sikap projects among coconut farmers in southern Luzon and eastern Davao. Case studies of the San Simon farmers’ training school and of the Federation of Free Farmers were written. Evaluation studies of the Manabo irrigation system and of the farmers training curriculum of Indonesia’s Yayasan Purba Danarta provided more contacts at the village level.
In the interaction between the Center and its DHRRA partners, the thrust of the discussions was the network’s fidelity to its principles of promoting the maximum participation of the rural poor in all phases and aspects of the development process. Development programs of the DHRRA family must foster self-reliance, local control over resources, empowerment and participation of the marginalized sectors.
Through the years, CENDHRRA stood by its policy that the Center must not grow at the expense of the periphery. Thus, CENDHRRA did not channel resources towards itself as an institution with its own office building. It was determined to dwell as it were in a tent that could easily be folded up when its work was done. This lack of an elaborate  institutional infrastructure meant that the staff was free to focus on serving its partners. It was a highly mobile team that had no vested interests to defend. As a result, it was  trusted by contacts from varied ideological, religious, cultural persuasions.
But CENDHRRA’s identity is not easily defined. Its activities defy confinement in one mold. It started as a service secretariat for the DHRRA network. Then it became the manager of an NGO working with Filipino rural poor. Next it added consultation work with religious leaders on the formation of candidates to the priesthood.
Later it became a Center for the defence of human rights. In the 1990s it went into relief operations. A few years later it was the administrator of a Capital Fund for small entrepreneurs. It was also co-editor of IMPACT magazine. It became the evaluator of farmer training institutes. It metamorphosed into a training unit on planning and management methodologies for church programs not only in the Philippines but in Myanmar.
It was also a bridge leading to closer ties between North and South peoples and development agencies. Organizer, evaluator, counselor, defender of human rights, editor and publisher, NGO manager, small credit agent, bridge between North and South, political-social-economic analysts – this varied mix of initiatives and the complex web of responsibilities attached to them were implemented by a core staff that seldom exceeded 5 full-time members. Observing their team work, a German visitor remarked in what was meant as a compliment: “Their efficiency was Teutonic in character!”
The impermanence and transitoriness of CENDHRRA’s character, its decision not  to become an institution meant that it could not offer its staff long-term posts with guarantees of security and tenure. Thus its work ethos took on the character of ad hoc multidisciplinary teams that met to accomplish a task and disbanded once it was done. And so they came with their budding creativities, their vibrant enthusiasm, their generous spirit that could work long hours at a moment’s notice, the stubborn postures to defend their views – their youthful energies pushed CENDHRRA to launch into the deep.
With pride and gratitude we recall them and follow where they went after their stint with us: Tina Liamzon to Rome for studies; Tony Quizon to head ANGOC; Karen Tañada to political work; Tess Castillo to Germany’s development aid scene; Bobby Francia to government’s trade and industry department; Alexis Salinas to family counseling; Susan Wong to Africa’s poor communities; Sandra Yu to ILO; Fabs Catipay to Cebu’s social action work; Gus Rodriguez to teaching philosophy; Song Vo Kyung to Korea’s consumer movement; Noelle Rodriguez to head the history department of ADMU; Tini Ngo to Vietnam’s poverty alleviation program; Mayette Aoanan to Baguio with her family; Dodgie Osabel to election as a Party List Congressman; Stella Mendoza to Land Bank, Manila; Rose Dayanan to credit programs in Davao, Roger Obja-an to Pampanga to start a childhood educational center.
Dr. Ngo-huy Liem’s made manifold contributions to CENDHRRA through many years and they enriched and refined the theories and praxis that give coherence to our core activities. He was our bridge to many organizations – to diocesan programs in the Philippines, to interpreting the framework conditions of Germany’s economic aid policies, to initiating our Vietnam programs with key ministry officials. He was more often to be found in a mountain trail of remote villages than in the chair of an air-conditioned office.
Dialogue with a Donor
We have described so far three sets of agents who shaped the beginnings of the DHRRA network, firstly: the SELA members who crafted the DHRRAW concept and who chose the first national groupings; secondly, the pioneers who participated in DHRRAW 1974, and thirdly: the Center which served as the network’s secretariat. Now it is incumbent to include a fourth agent: the donor agency.
There are apprehensions, often unstated, whenever the subject of donors is discussed. The tension comes from the sense of entering into a relationship between unequals with the side holding the funds dominating while the side asking (begging) for funds humiliated. The tension comes due often to the fact that the main tool for communication between donors and the applicants for aid is the project proposal.
But as we wrote on the occasion of Misereor’s 30th anniversary in 1986: “the language of partnership cannot be confined within the framework of a proposal. When an Asian bishop sends in a request for support of a training workshop for fishermen, he is searching for a language to communicate, not so much his need for funds, but to have his vision for his diocese understood and how his request fits in with that vision. We need a new language between Misereor and its partners where the rejection or acceptance of proposals becomes the opportunity for discovering new strengths for the creative handling of technical weaknesses.”
This dysfunctional communication problem did not characterize the relationship between CENDHRRA and its donor-partner MISEREOR. The responsible persons in both organizations carefully forged a relationship that was marked with mutual respect and understanding rather than one limited to assessing the monetary value of proposals. MISEREOR saw in CENDHRRA’s character and commitment the lineaments of a trusted partner with whom it could dialogue with uninhibited professional frankness and sincerity.
We elevated the usual discourse between a donor representative and a project applicant. Traditionally, it is an unequal relationship best described as one between a benefactor and a beggar. But we were persistent in our insistence that in reality, it is the applicant who has the facts and the essential resources of creativity, diligence and responsibility which are needed to bring fruition to the project. Thus, the donor representative is the learner and partner who listens with patience and sensitivity to the community where the project is positioned. As we stated earlier, to confine this partnership within the donor-designed project framework would reduce the humanity of both donor and applicant and transform the development process from partnership to mendicancy, from self-reliance to dependency.
The trust and respect that marked the quality of this relationship between a North donor agency and a South development unit made possible frank exchanges of critical views, the exploration of new approaches, the mutual awareness of cultural factors, and the installation of new policies. MISEREOR derived benefits from this relationship. For example: Cendhrra’s contacts with Chinese government officials and with the Bishop of Shanghai were the catalysts for opening a China Desk in Misereor. Cendhrra’s good working relationships with Misereor and with EZE, its counterpart in the Protestant Church brought about occasions for bringing these two agencies into dialogue. Misereor regularly sent requests to Cendhrra for information and preliminary assessments of new project proposals from Asia.
Cendhrra was part of the international team whose workshop recommendations led to the adoption of a poverty alleviation focus by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation (BMZ). CENDHRRA as the Asian partner of the Commission for Justice and Peace of the German Catholic Church co-organized and implemented an Exposure-Dialogue Program which enabled German decision-makers from parliament, church, media and business sectors to dialogue and have first-hand experiences of life among the rural poor. With the help of Mr. Karl Osner, we organized a similar program for the CUSANUSWERK. The local German Embassy regularly asked us to brief visiting German parliamentarians like Prof. Dr. Winfried Pinger and church leaders like Bishop Walter Kasper on the country’s socio-political situation. When Cardinal Hoeffner of Cologne visited Manila, his short address to President Marcos was prepared by Bishop Schwarz in the CENDHRRA office and so too with the response of Dr. Johannes Niemeyer of the Catholic Bureau, Bonn, to the honorary doctoral degree given him by a Manila-based university.
CENDHRRA has also defended Misereor from accusations that it channeled funds to organizations of the Left engaged in armed struggle against the Marcos government. Our assessments of crisis-conditions prevailing in the Philippines reached the German public through interviews of Mr.Erhard Haubold, the Asia correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung who participated in several Exposure-Dialogue Programs. CENDHRRA was often asked to brief officials of GTZ, KfW, BMZ on political economic and social issues that could affect their work in Asia.
If Misereor benefited from Cendhrra’s initiatives, so too did Cendhrra derive benefits from Misereor’s support.The terms of assistance given through Misereor to Cendhrra were of such a flexible nature that it enabled us to respond rapidly to emerging needs and unforeseen crisis not only among our DHRRAs but also among the Asian NGO community. Thus ANGOC survived its first years mainly through CENDHRRA’s support, believing as we did in its potential to be a regional secretariat of Asian networks. On short notice, because of Misereor’s flexibility, Cendhrra could readily help Muslim rebel returnees to work their neglected farm lands in Mindanao.
Our confidential help to Cardinal Sin throughout the martial law period was facilitated and supported by Misereor. Thus, we had ample space to draft the key speeches of the Cardinal during martial rule, to accompany him to Cologne to receive new TV transmitters for Radio Veritas from Cardinal Hoeffner, to prepare the background materials for his interviews with German and Swiss media. We also prepared the talks of the Cardinal for his historic visit to China and for the return visit of a Chinese delegation to Manila which included the Bishop of Shanghai Jin Lu Xian.
At around this period when many Asian countries were under authoritarian governments, CENDHRRA established its own human rights office which was linked to the London-based Centre for Human Rights and Responsibilities headed by the 1959 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the Hon. Philip Noel-Baker.  Its chairman was the famous violinist Yehudi Menuhin whose sister Hepzibah together with her husband Richard Hauser were responsible for working out this linkage.
It was the liberal terms of Misereor’s support that enabled us to engage in a variety of initiatives in the church sector. Thus, we became technical consultants to the Second Plenary Council of the Philippine Church, preparing key documents and papers. Because we had the autonomy and flexibility coming from our partnership with Misereor, we could rapidly explore new initiatives as they arose.
Thus, we could quickly shift our resources from traditional development activities to the newly identified needs of the Churches of Myanmar and the Philippines for training in management and planning methodologies. We could respond quickly to the request of Remmy Rikken and Lino Brocka for the Philippine Educational Theatre Association (PETA)’s ambitious plan to establish its Asian Outreach Program. For a brief period, we supported Fr. Bonnie Mendez in establishing the Center of Human Development in Pakistan after his tenure as Secretary-General of the FABC Office of Human Development.
The German government involved us in discussions on ways to improve their development aid.  Dr. Peter Scholz, Germany’s ambassador to the Philippines was a friend with whom we shared dreams for a better world; he knew the Philippines better than do many Filipinos residing in our plush subdivisions since his favorite destinations were to remote tribal communities whom he quietly aided; Richard Brantner, Director of the German Bank for Reconstruction and Development (KfW) and his towering assistant Dr. Stephan Kinnemann; Dr. Jero Jentsch of the Ministry for Economic Cooperation (BMZ), Dr. Hansjörg Elshorst, Managing Director of the German Agency for Technical Help (GTZ)., Ms. Marlene Lenz of the sub-committee for Human Rights of the European Parliament, Ms. Rita Waschbüsch member of the Federal State Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate. From the private sector: Ms. Marietta Gesquiere-Peitz journalist and editor; Willi Erl of DED; Dr. E.W. Kropp of GTZ, Dr. Annette Schirmer-Seiffert  of DSE.
We valued especially the professional advice and collaboration of Misereor friends and our other contacts within Germany’s development community. Among them: Msgr. Leo Schwarz, MISEREOR’s executive director whose missionary heart is with Latin America’s poor peasants; he wrote a book based on his exposure experience in Alaminos province, Philippines. He became the assistant bishop of Trier. Bishop Franz Kamphaus of Limburg, proponent of a New Alliance of Solidarity between North and South Churches. Msgr. Norbert Herkenrath who succeeded Msgr. Schwarz as Misereor’s executive director brought the ebullient enthusiasm and spontaneity he acquired as a missionary in Latin America into the wintry cold of the Aachen bureaucratic milieu.
Prof. Dr.Theodor Dams, who from our first meeting in DHRRAW 1974 guided our hesitant steps in the uncharted paths of development work with his critical remarks and practical advice on our network priorities and grassroots processes. Dr. Ulrich Koch,  who worked quietly and humbly in the background as he guided Misereor wisely and courageously throughout its foundational years. Mr. Stephan Puhl, with whom we spent many hours in many places on many topics arguing over differences only to discover  how strong and lasting were the bonds of our friendship – so soon to be cut by his early death. Space here limits us from naming all, among  them Irmgard Icking, Günter Linden, Walter Gindele, Clemens Kronenberg, Vu Tu Hoa, Franz Pils, Albert Breuer, Thomas Lawo, Reinhard Hermle, Manfred Sollich, Georg Krause.
The Gift of the Seed, the Song of the Spring, the Niche of the Stone
This year we mark and recall thirty years of DHRRA history.
Thirty years ago, we were that buried seed to what is now the strong and shady tree that is the DHRRA family.
Thirty years ago, we were that silent spring that fed into the mighty river that is the DHRRA network now.
Thirty years ago, we shaped CENDHRRA to be the hidden cornerstone of the DHRRA edifice.
There is a time for the seed to release its life that a sturdy tree might exist.
And there is a time for the seed to disappear.
There is a time for the spring to accompany the surging river with its song.
And there is a time for it to be silent.
There is a time for the stone to be chiseled to perfection.
And there is a time for it to hide its presence.
We reached that time in 1994. In a meeting held likewise in the Development Academy of the Philippines, we told our partners that the time had come for us to fold our tent and to move on. It was time to form a new secretariat.
Today, as we look back to what has been accomplished in ten short years by the DHRRAs and its Secretariat, as we stand before the mighty tree, the dynamic river, the imposing edifice that is the AsiaDHRRA Family, we saw that “It is good! It is very good!”