A Youth Expert Group (YEG), a team of 5 young people, to steer the process of the City caravan and act as the advisory group to bring a youth perspective is the objective behind forming the YEG. In order to have a thorough, fair and democratic process to elect these 5 youth from among the 19-20 youth collectives across 4 cities in Maharashtra that YUVA works with, a livelihood series workshop was conducted from the 21st to the 23rd of December at YUVA centre, Kharghar.  

The process of selection of the participants for the workshop was left upto the discretion of the youth groups/collectives to select/elect or nominate a young person from among them who could represent or contribute to the workshop and bring the learnings back to their respective constituency.  Through the processes of consensus selection, ballot voting, or nomination the 19 youth were sent by their collectives to participate in the workshop. The profile of these young people was diverse- keeping in mind geographical locations, age (18-24 years), gender continuum, religion and caste, and youth with disability. All these young people live in urban slums in 4 different cities in and around the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.  

The workshop began with a few icebreakers and introductory activities and then the setting of collective ground rules by the group themselves. This was followed by a participatory profiling activity that led the facilitators and the group know more about each other- their age, family background, knowledge of languages, ownership of documents, paid jobs career trajectory, interest and aspirations. This session set the tone for the conversation ahead by opening up new avenues for discussion like the gap between aspirations and reality in livelihoods and careers, stories of discrimination and sexual harassment at the work place, etc. and posing new questions before the group to further delve into through the course of the workshop.  

This was followed by a brainstorming session on the difference between job, career and livelihood, where the first emerged as something more of a compulsion while career and livelihood as something aspirational and sustainable. It was also important for the group to understand a linkage between identity and livelihood and hence an activity called the “Power Walk”1 was conducted to display the different social positioning and standing different identities have in terms of access to opportunities, social security, and a dignified life. This was connected to the concepts of decent work, informal and formal sectors and the benefits (financial, social and others) different occupations possess or don’t possess depending on their social standing in society.  

Day 2 was a journey through the different policies concerning the 3 themes of livelihood, youth and right to the city. The participants had to deep dive into 3 different policies, read and understand them and identify policy priorities, gaps, solutions and challenges. They also tried to formulate a new policy and were confronted with many challenges doing so making them realise that policy-making is no cakewalk. It takes multiple stakeholders to arrive at a consensus and find mid-ground that works for all. The participation of the main beneficiaries of the policy is crucial for effective and relevant policies.  

On day 3, the participants explored their “future of work” through a vision board exercise that each of them did individually. They spent time exploring what kind of a future of work they wanted- right from green solutions for livelihoods to the balanced use of AI with human labour, enhancing farming and agriculture especially for the Indian scenario, women empowerment and women in all spaces especially political offices, equal access and opportunities for all especially for persons with disability, fair pay, digital literacy, promotion of arts and crafts and work of artisans, convergence between skills, passion and work, abolition of the caste system in all its forms, access to basic infrastructure like roads and affordable transport.  

The final session of the workshop was an open, transparent consensus voting process where each participant had to nominate 5 members to form the core YEG. They were given 15 minutes to reflect on who would be a part of the core YEG team based on parameters that the youth themselves identified like participation in the overall workshop, expertise and knowledge, leadership, communication, team player, etc. Each participant then wrote down the names of 5 participants where they were allowed to even nominate themselves. Each person called out the names and also explained key points of why they nominated who they nominated (same indicators as above) while the facilitators marked the voting score on the whiteboard. At the end of the voting, there was a tie for the fifth position and the group voted again by calling out only 1 name per person for the fifth position, resulting in yet another tie. The group decided that all 6 were capable and should be part of the YEG core group. 

The workshop ended with a feedback round where the participants shared that they felt energized, grateful to be part of the workshop, intrigued about the nuances of different concepts, found a family as a group, bonded together, deliberated on policy and how it is formed, learned about different stakeholders, etc. Although not being part of the core YEG, the group agreed to stay as a larger sounding constituency to the YEG.  

Power Walk Activity 

The Power Walk activity was a reflective exercise for the group to reflect and look at the stark differences in the social positioning of people with different identities and the challenges marginalized groups of people face in accessing different opportunities. 5 volunteers among the group were called forward and were given specific identities (identities were chosen by the facilitators based on the Indian context of those people who face maximum discrimination in society and livelihoods were assigned to each identity randomly). The rest of the group had to sit around as observers and the activity was conducted in complete silence.  

The 5 identities were:  

1. Youth with disability, aged 23, living in an urban slum, working as a street vendor 
2. A tribal boy in an urban slum, aged 21, with good communication skills; he is a salesperson  
3. A lower caste or Dalit woman, aged 25, she is a waste collector with the municipal corporation 
4. A young girl from an urban slum, aged 24, working as receptionist in an office  
5. An upper caste transgender person, aged 26, working as a compounder in a clinic  

The 5 volunteers were asked to forget their own identity for the activity and assume they were the person assigned to them. They had to stand at the same starting point in a line, and as each statement was called out, they had to step forward depending on whether it applied to them/their identity or not.  

The statements:  

1. I can read and write  
2. I get atleast 2 meals a day  
3. I/my family has our own house  
4. Everyone is educated in my family  
5. I can speak confidently  
6. I do not have to do anything dangerous to earn a living  
7. When I am sick, I get good treatment (medicines, doctor)  
8. I can choose my own life partner  
9. I have a steady income  
10. I am respected in society  
11. I do not get sexually harassed  
12. I can do a night shift job if I need to  
13. I can study at a university 
14. I have government policies that support me  

The group saw how the intersectionality in the identities allowed a step for some statements, but restricted them for others. The participants who assumed the roles felt like they were able to identify with those persons and realized how challenging it is for them to access opportunities owing to their identity and the stereotypes attached to them. Navigating life is difficult despite the supposedly clear road to open and available opportunities. They also reflected on their own identities and the barriers they face.