Programmes of Rural Development and Community Development Programmes

Economic AspectSocial AspectSocial Aspect
Agricultural ProductivityRural HousingTransport & Communication
Land ImprovementDrinking WaterSmall Scale Industries
Minor irrigationElectrification
Animal HusbandryEducationVillage & Cotton
FisheriesFamily WelfareIndustry
Minor Forest Produce

Meaning or concept of rural development

Rural development is defined as improving living standards of the mass of low-income population residing in rural areas and making the process of their development self-sustaining. It embraces all those programmes that touch all levels of human living e.g. agriculture and related matters, irrigation, communication, education health, supplementary employment, housing, training and social welfare.The concept of rural development is a much broader concept than the concept of agricultural development While agricultural development is concerned primarily with cultivation and allied activities, rural development embraces all areas and activities, including agriculture. Since agriculture is the mainstay of the people living in rural areas, more attention is focused on the issues related with agricultural sector.

First Phase of Rural Development

Community Development Programme (1952) CDP emerged as a result of inspiration derived from the success of same earlier pre-independence programmes for rural development It looked at village as a common community – having a common interest of villagers. For Nehru and others CDP are of vital importance not in terms of materialistic achievements but much more so because they seem to build up community as well as individual; making them builder of their own village.

  1. According to Planning Commission CDP is a method through which FYP seeks to initiate a process of transformation of the social and economic life of the villages.
  2. From these definitions it is clear that CDP is committed towards the transformation of all socio-eco-politico cultural life of villagers and it is possible only with the initiative of local people.
  3. Major emphasis was given on-(i) Achievement of self-reliance among people (ii) Ending dependency on others (stability) by lowering down the interference of external agency.

Background and Initiation of CDP :

Although the programme was started in India with the help of USA, but following experiments have been the source of inspiration for the emergence of CDP.

  1. Intensive rural development activities carried out at sevagram and the Sarvodaya centers in the Bombay State.
  2. Nilokheri Projects started byS.K. Dayat Nilokhari of Karnal district in Haryana to rehabilitate 6000 refugees.
  3. Etawah Project: under the inspiration of Albert Mayers 97 villages of Etawah district were included in it with the objective initiating multi-purpose schemes to achieves self-reliance. Also done in Gorakhpur district of UP.
  4. Faridabad Project: Under the inspiration Sri Ghosh, 30,000 refugees were rehabilitated and the village was converted into a town.
  5. Firca Development Scheme (Firca is group of 5 villages) :Started in Madras on Gandhian principles. It had two major objective: Development of personality of villagers & Bringing change in the ideology of village reconstruction.

The programme was launched on 2nd Oct 1952 and was extended is consider areas at the end of the1st FYP. 603 National Extension service Blocks and 553 CDP Blocks covering1,57,000 villages and a population of 88.8 million persons were created.

CDP is broadly divided into three phases, viz,
  1. National extension phase: Areas selected were subjected to methods of providing services on ordinary pattern with little government expenditure.
  2. Intensive Community Development phase: Blocks selected for purpose were subjected to intensive development schemes with high government expenditure.
  3. Post development phase: It was presumed that initial two phases have created a self-perpetuating process so, government role was reduced to only supervisory role.
Fundamental Beliefs :

S.C. Dubey has mentioned following fundamental beliefs to remove the discrepancy between the mentality of planners and people, essentially:

  1. Development should be according to villagers
  2. Implementation of plans to be done by humble request rather than by compulsion
  3. Special emphasis of recruitment, orientation and training of community Development workers
  4. Achievement of stability.

Administrative structure

At Central Level
  1. Establishment of committee
    • Members of Planning commission
    • Ministers of concerned Department
    • PM (Chairman)
  2. Functions :
    • Policy formulation
    • Observation of running activities
At state level – State Development committee
  1. Organization
    • CM (Chairman)
    • Ministers of condoned depts.
    • Secretary
  2. Functions :
    • Receipt of Policies from the centre and deliverance of progress and amendments to centre
    • Establishing coordination among different .
    • Acknowledgement of distt level activities.
Attached with Panchayats – At District level
  • Coordinator – District collector
  • Members and Chairman of Zila Parishad work after the activities
At Block level
  1. Block Panchayat committee
    • Looks after the policies
  2. Organisation
    • BDO
    • Agriculture
    • Cooperatives
    • Specialist
    • Cattle-Rearing
    • Extension officer
Gram Panchayats
  1. Organisation
    • Village Prime (Sarpanch)
    • Gram Sevak
  2. Role of Gram Sevak :
    • Being a multi-purpose person, he adopts the following ways to make CDP a programme of the mass.
      • To establish informal relations with the villagers to keep up the mutual faith.
      • To resolve the problems of villagers and to ignite as interest among them towards a good life-style so that they could raise their living standard by adopting the available resources.
      • To help village prepare (programmes) policies of development for them.
      • To develop leadership among villagers.
  3. Field of Activities :
    • An imposing list of activities has been prepared by the sponsors of CDP. They included various items connected with the following eight categories of undertakings:
      • Agriculture and related matters,
      • Communications,
      • Education
      • Health
      • Training
      • Social Welfare
      • Supplementary Employment, and(VIII) Housing

The fourth Evaluation Report of 1957 adopted different criteria for classifying activities undertaken by the CDP. They divided the programmes of activities into the following major categories:

  1. Constructional Programmes : Kuteha and Pucca roads, culverts drains, pavement of streets, school buildings, community centre buildings, dispensary buildings, houses for the Harijans and drinking water resources.
  2. Irrigational Programmes: Wells, pumping sets, type wells and tanks.
  3. Agricultural Programmes: Reclamation, soil conservation, consolidation of holidings, improved seeds, manure and fertilizer, pesticides.
  4. Institutional and other Programmes: Youth clubs, women’s organizations, community centres, cooperative societies, distribution stores, maternity centres, dispensaries, veterinary dispensaries, panchayats, adult literacy centres, primary schools, cottage industries, etc.

Contribution in Development :

  1. Achievement of belief of the Mass: It includes belief in progress of village areas, in democracy, in science and technology, in capacities of rural people and in social justice.
  2. Achievement of Mass Participation: through democratic decentralization.
  3. Growth in Collective Efforts to solve commo problems.
  4. Dimensions of Administrative Change :It has changed even the nature of administration.
    • Change in Traditional Ideologies : by use of scientific techniques in agriculture, horticulture, rearing of animals etc.The evaluation of Intensive Agriculture District Programme has testified that the Indian Farmer, inspite of being illiterate and poor, is not likely to remain affixed with unnecessary traditions. They are always adoptive to new changes under his capacities.
    • Decrease in Rural Unemployment : but not to a great extent According to the study team of Balwant Rai Mehta, only 2.5% families have got the benefits through CDP.
    • Awareness toward Health and Hygiene.
    • Cultural Development : N. Patnaik in his study of Orissa reveals that CDP has freed the poor people from the clutches of self-conflict and non-sympathy.

Evaluation :

The impact of the CDP has been subjected to analysis and evaluation by a number of scholars and organizations Prof Wilson, Prof Carl Taylor, Oscar Lewis, Prof. Opler and his team, S.C. Dubey, Mandelbaum and many others have attempted to assess the nature of the impact of the CDP on the life of the rural people. The Programme Evaluation Organization has also been doing assessment continuously and their Reports are valuable documents.

  1. According to Prof Taylor, the administration of the programme is predominantly based on aid from and reliance on the Govt The initiative of people is still lacking. The Govt machinery relies more on propaganda and spectacular results rather than on group work and voluntary creative participation. The bureaucrats seem more committed towards showing the facts rather than focusing on mass-participation. Naturally, under these circumstances the very basis of CDP would crumble.
  2. S.C. Dubey also comes to same conclusion. “Planning so far appears to be from the top down. It is necessary to examine the implications and results of the present trends in planning. Because of the unique curbs on projects autonomy its officials hesitated to destructrate much initiative. What was worse they extended on this official level to accept orders from above i.e., from the state HQs, without question or comment, and this despite pronounced private reservations. As an outcome of this trend the officials were oriented less towards the village people, and more towards, the pleasing of their official superiors.”

Dubey further adds-A large number of Project-sponsored activities are directed along the lines of traditional govt drives rather than according to the proved principles of extension work. According to Dubey, govt servants function as bureaucrats and have not become agents of change with an active social mentality.

S.C. Dubey finds the following obstacle is the way of the qreater acceptance of the programs :
  1. Suspicion and distrust of officials and outsiders.
  2. Failure on the part of the Project to evolve effective and adequate media of communication.
  3. Traditional and cultural factors.
J.F. Bulsara presented the project evaluation report in 1957 :
  1. Physical change, especially constructional and irrigational activity, is widespread and has contributed in some measure to the production potential and the social over-heads of the block areas.
  2. Change in production attitudes in agriculture and animal husbandry are comparatively successful while those concerning cottage industries are neither widespread nor particularly successful.
  3. • Changes in standard of living, especially in regard to primary education and drinking water are comparatively successful while those concerning adult literacy and personal and environmental hygiene are not equally successful.
  4. Social attitudes such as readiness to go in for community centres, youth clubs, and women’s organizations is least successful
  5. Change in organizational attitudes in the political field such a better understanding of the objectives and obligations of cooperation and readiness to make use of cooperative societies for purposes other than credit such as production and marketing are comparatively unsuccessful
  6. Change in organizational attitudes in the political field such as better understanding of the objectives and responsibilities of panchayat membership and readiness to use panchayats for planning and executing village development programmes are comparatively unsuccessful
Suggestions by Bulsara :
  1. The emphasis should not be so much on construction activities and targets as on people’s constructive orientation into initiating and undertaking progressivelyto say responsibility for satisfying local needs, so that they may soon develop the skill and mention to accomplish such schemes as would improve their overall standards of living physically, culturally and in the spiritual sphere.
  2. The administrative structure has to be refitted into the new would, necessaryfor the implementation of the vast community D.P. in what has come to be a welfare state, based on a socialistic pattern of society. It must include all ranks of officers and field workers-administrative, technical clerical and ministerial
  3. The Gram Sevak, being a pivotal liason functionary his training and orientation have to be carried out according to the work expected of him. Refreshers courses and seminars should be a regular feature of his training and equipment
  4. For effective participation, training is essential and it would be helpful to the total programme if capable youths and adults of both sexes from the villages are given opportunities, so that the very objective of the programme be fulfilled that it is not for the people but by them.
Others Observations :
  1. CDP created community dependence on government rather than self-dependence.
  2. Village divided into various sectional interests where interest of landed class was not common with service and occupational castes.
  3. Bureaucracy responsible for its implementation lacked social service ethos.
  4. Development Communication was top down that led to confusion regarding functions within the bureaucratic organization.
  5. Land owners were the prime beneficiaries of CDP.
  6. Gram Sewak was often from land owning communities, he was only succeeded in heightening inequalities.
  7. Much emphasis on economic aspect with little emphasis on social and spatial aspect Strategy.
  8. Satya dev found out that how co- operatives benefited to the local dominant castes that used loans for the co-operatives, occupied various posts of the co-operatives and subsequently hijacked subsidy benefits meant for the rural poor.

2nd Phase of rural development

  1. Land Reforms – 60’s (early)
  2. Green Revolution -mid 60’s

Land Reforms : The failure of CDP led to the land reforms in early 60’s.

The primary objectives of land reforms :

  1. To remove motivational and other impediments which arise from the agrarian structure inherited from the past, and
  2. To eliminate all elements of exploitation and social justice within the agrarian system so as to ensure equality of status and opportunity to all sections of the population.
Programmes of action to achieve these objectives :
  1. The abolition of all forms of intermediaries between the state and the tiller of the soiL
  2. Conferment of ownership rights on the cultivating tenants in the land held under their possession.
  3. Imposition of ceiling on agricultural land holdings.
  4. Consolidation of holdings with a view of making easier the application of modern techniques of agriculture,
  5. Rationalization of the record of rights in land For detail refer to Rural and Agrarian Social-Structure-Land Reform)

Critique of land reforms :

  1. Implementation of land reforms was not as expected
  2. Abolition of intermediaries was a success. Nearly twenty million households become landlords but it did not benefit land labourers.
  3. Ceiling was fixed very high of doubly cropped irrigated land which generated less surplus.
  4. Sizeable part of land remained locked in court cases even beneficiaries could not be properly identified.
  5. According to Alexandra George the ceiling laws were merely a maneuver for political ends.
  6. According to Bandopadhyay ceiling was very high.Still 12% land could be declared surplus. But in reality only 1.8% was declared as surplus.
  7. According to V.M. Dandekar barely1% of area has been redistributed 99% remained unchanged except for West Bengal where 10% was surplus and 7% was distributed.

Green Revolution

In mid 60’s land reforms were followed by Green Revolution.After two wars (Indo-Pak and Indo China) the planning strategy shifted from self sufficiency to self -reliance which required increased level of production. High Yielding varieties were introduced to increase the production which gave a great impetus to Indian agriculture.

Consequences of Green Revolution :

  1. A middle peasant class structure emerged where rich landlords at the top followed by middle peasantry and then landless labouerers and small peasantry.
  2. Resource distribution was highly skewed at rural level due to which there was straight correlation between caste and class.
  3. It results in more inequality where wages increased but the difference was maintained
  4. HDG group (NGO) found that wages increased by 89% but the price rises by 93%
  5. Bhalla and Chadha in their study on Punjab observed that in long run labour demand increased But after mechanization, labour demand decreases. Increase in land alienation.
  6. Francis Frawell found that green revolution is successful in wheat growing areas. Polarization is much greater in Green Revolution areas.
  7. According to Joan Mencher in Chingleput even official attitude was to ignore the farmers having 5 acres of land Money begets money. Very few farmers in lowest category who owned a tube well got the benefits. Thus benefits accrued unequally so disparity increased.

3rd Phase of Rural Development

  1. Area Centric programmes – 70’s
  2. Employment Poverty alleviation 80’s.

Post Green Revolution – Soon after green revolution it was realized that the benefits were not accrued by the poor farmers.Structured mass poverty remained intact Rate of rural unemployment also increased Government focused its attention on two key areas;

Area development programmes :

  1. Draught prone Area Programme
  2. Hill Area development Programme
  3. Command Area development
Programmes meant for specific groups and areas :
  1. 20 point programme
  2. Rural electrification programme
  3. Comprehensive child development programmes
  4. Informal literacy plan etc.
  5. Eighties saw versatile programme touching different aspect of rural development but with special emphasis on poverty alleviation and employment centric programmes.
  6. Indira Awas Yojana
  7. Rural cleanliness programme
  8. Crop Insurance Scheme
  9. Social Security Insurance Scheme
  10. National rural employment scheme
  11. Rural landless employment guarantee scheme etc.
  12. Minimum Need Programme
    • Increased productivity:
      • Growth
      • Employment
      • Generation
  13. Poverty alleviation.

Critique :

  1. Growth with redistribution was the slogan in 80’s but growth remained lack sided
  2. Social Work Research Centre found that agricultural workers were employed for 3 months only.
  3. Class conflict took caste dimension. Political leaders and bureaucrats lacked the will to disturb this dimension.
  4. Landless labourers were unable to create demands.
  5. Fourth rural labour enquiry commission (1983) observed that almost half of the population was in perpetuative debt These debts have little chance to repaid
  6. There was a decline in poverty but in absolute number poverty.
  7. We had a subsidy based approach to pull people above poverty line which at best created a perpetual dependence upon state.
  8. They remain highly vulnerable enough to return back to poverty.

4th Phase of Rural Development

Steps taken during 90 s became the watershed in strategies of rural development. The Indian economy was getting alienated with the world economy. Technological upgradation was also lacking.In this background 90’s saw open policy of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization. Privatization implies a greater role for private enterprise and capital in the functioning of an economy. Liberalization implies giving greater freedom to economic agents to take their own economic decisions. Globalization means increasing integration between different economies, cultures, societies of the world.

Poverty Alleviation Schemes

  1. Many poverty alleviation schemes have been launched by the central government for the rural poor, comprising small and marginal farmers, landless labourers and rural artisans. The important programmes currently functioning are:
    • 20 Point Programme: Launched for reducing poverty and economic exploitation and for the uplift of the weaker sections of society. The important goals were: controlling inflation, giving impetus to production, welfare of the rural population, lending help to the urban middle classes and controlling social crimes.
  2. The programmes included in the 20 point programme were: increase in irrigational facilities, increase in pogrammes for rural employment, distribution of surplus land minimum wages to landleless labourers, rehabilitation of bonded labour, uplift of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, growth of housing facilities, increasing power production, formulating new programmes of family planning, tree plantation, extension of primary health facilities, programmes for the welfare of the women and children, making primary education measures more effective, strengthening of public distribution system, simplification of industrial policies, control of black money, betterment of drinking water facilities and developing internal resources.
  3. The Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) was launched by the centre in 20 selected districts, but from October 1982, it was extended to all districts in the country. This programme considers a household as the basic unit of development IRDP is a major instrument of the government to alleviate poverty. Its objective is to enable selected families to cross the poverty line by taking up self-employment ventures in a variety of activities like agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry in the primary sector, weaving and handicrafts in the secondary sector and service and business activities in the tertiary sector.
    • The aim of the IRDP is to see that a minimum stipulated number of families are enabled to cross the poverty line within the limits of a given investment and in a given time-frame. Thus, the three variables involved are: (a) number of poor households, (b) resources available for investment, and (c) the time-span over which the investment would yield an income which would enable the family to cross the poverty line.
    • A number of institutions have undertaken studies with respect to the implementation of working of the IRDP. They point out flaws in the implementation of the programme. None of these studies have, however, questioned the utility of the programme.The main criticisms against this scheme are:
      • There are leakages in the programme and all assets created under IRDP are not with the poor.Thus is mainly because of three factors: the poor are unable to pay large bribes, fill up complicated forms, influence the. village headman and find ‘guarantors’ for themselves; bank officials are often reluctant to deal with poor borrowers because they believe that giving loans to the poor is risky since recovery is often used as a major indicator of the performance of a particular branch of a rural bank; the poor themselves take inadequate interest in the programme because they are afraid of being cheated or of not being able to repay.
      • There is much corruption, misuse and malpractice in the implementation of the loan programme.The loans are often misallocated with little apparent violation of the guidelines of the schemes.
      • The programme is household- based and is not integrated with the development needs or resource base of the area. Thus, the IRDP loan neither raises the living standards of the beneficiaries nor does it have any impact on rural poverty by raising the poor people above the poverty line. This has been indicated by studies in several districts in Rajasthan, Gujarat, West Bengal Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka. The latest study was conducted in seven districts in Rajasthan under a World Bank project on poverty.
  4. The scheme called Training Rural Youth for Self-Employment was started on August 15, 1979 to provide technical skills to the rural youth to enable them to seek employment in the fields of agriculture, industry, services and business activities. Only youth in the age group of 18-35 and belonging to families living below the poverty line are eligible for training. Priority for selection is given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe persons, ex-servicemen and those who are ninth pass. One-third seats are reserved for women, Stipend to the trainee’s ranges from Rs. 75 to Rs. 200 per month. On completion of training, TRYSEM beneficiaries are assisted under the IRDP.

The main criticisms against this progrmmeare:

Its coverage is verysmall in relation to need; skills provided have not been linked with rural industrialization process.Trainingis provided on the basis of ad hoc considerations and skills imparted are of low level and amount of stipend is rather inadequate to motivate the youth to go for training.

The National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) was planned for creating additional employment
opportunities in the rural areas with the help of surplus foodgrains.

  1. Initially, this programme was called Food for Work Programme (FWP). Under this scheme, millions of man days of employment were created every year by utilizing lakhs of tonnes of foodgrains.
  2. The works undertaken were flood protection, maintenance of existing roads, construction of new link roads, improvement of irrigation facilities, improvement of irrigation facilities, construction of panchayat ghats, school buildings, medical and healthy centres and improvement of sanitation conditions in the rural areas.
  3. It took care of those rural poor who largely depended on wage employment and virtually had no source of income in the lean agricultural period These important points on which stress was laid in the implementation of this programme were: 10 per cent allocation was earmarked exclusively for drinking water well in harijans colonies and community irrigation schemes in Harijan areas. Likewise, another 10 per cent was earmarked for social forestry and fuel plantations; only such works were undertaken which had some durability. Allocations were made both at the inter-state and inter-district/block levels. The central government released the state’s share of the NREP allocation in cash every quarter. Maintenance of assets created under this programme was the responsibility of the state governments. PRIs were actively involved in this programme. This programme has now been merged in Jawahar Rozgar Yojana.
  4. The Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) aimed at providing supplemental employment to the poor on public works at a very low wage of Rs. 3 per day. Maharashtra was one state which had used the Employment GuaranteeScheme (EGS) for the unemployed in rural areas by levying EGS surcharge or collections land revenue, sales tax, motor vehicles, irrigated holdings and on professionals. The amounts so collected with matching contributions from the state government, were credited to an EGS fund for taking up employment works.This programme too has now been merged into the JRY.
  5. Jawahar Rozgar Yojana: Under the scheme, it is expected that at least one member of each poor family would be provided with employment for 50 to 100 days in a year at a work place near his/ her residence. About 30 per cent of the jobs under this scheme are reserved for women. Both the rural wage employment programmes (i.e., the REP and the RLEGP) were merged in this scheme. Central assistance to the scheme is 80 per cent The scheme is implemented through village panchayats. This scheme covers 46 per cent of our population.
  6. Antyodaya Programme: Antyodaya’ means development (udaya) of the people at the lowest level that is, the poorest of the poor. This programme for special assistance to the people below the poverty line.The idea was to select five of the poorest families from each village every year and to help them in their economic betterment Initially, a random survey was undertaken in 25 villages situated in different ecological region of the state and information about individual families with regard to indebtedness, dependency ratio, physical assets of land, cattle, occupation, educational level, income and size of the family was collected Thereafter, a detailed scheme of Antyodaya was frown up.
  7. The task of identification of the families was entrusted to the village assembly (Gram Sabha). Under this scheme, help was given in the form of allotting land for cultivation, monthly pension, bank loan or help in getting employment. Each selected family was given a pension of Rs. 30-40 per month. A bank loan was sanctioned for purchasing bullocks, carts, animal husbandry (purchasing buffaloes, cows, goats and pigs), basket making, purchasing carpentry tools, operating a tailor’s shop or tea shop or a barber’s shop or a grocer’s shop and for manufacturing activities like soap-making etc.
  8. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme:

Salient Features of the Programme :

Right Based Frame work :
  1. Adult members of a rural household who are willing to do unskilled manual work may apply for registration to the local Gram Panchayat, in writing, or orally.
  2. The Gram Panchayat after the verification will issue a Job Cart The Job Cart will bear the photograph of all adult members of the household and is free of cost
  3. A job Card holding household can submit a written application for employment to the Gram Panchayat, stating the time and duration for which work is sought.
Time Bound Guarantee
  1. The Gram Panchayat will issue a dated receipt of the written application for employment, against which guarantee of providing employment within 15 days operates. If employment is not provided within 15 days, daily unemployment allowance, in cash has to be paid Liability of payment of unemployment allowance is of the States.
  2. Work should ordinarily be provided within 5 km radius of the village or else extra wages of 10% are payable.
  3. Wages are to be paid according to minimum wages. Disbursement of wages has to be done on weekly basis and not beyond a fortnight.
Women Empowerment
  1. At least one-third of persons to whom work is allotted, work have to be women.
Work Site Facilities
  1. Work site facilities such a creche, drinking water, shade have to be provided
Decentralized Planning
  1. The shelf of project has to be prepared by Gram Sabha. At least 50% of works have to be allotted to Gram Panchayats, for execution. Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) have a principle role in planning and implementation.
Labour Intensive Works
  1. A 60-40 wage and material ratio has to be contained Contractors and use of labour displacing machinery is prohibited.
Public Accountability
  1. Social Adult has to be done by the Gram Sabha.
  2. Grievance redressal mechanisms have to be put in place for ensuring a responsive implementation process.
  1. All accounts and records relating to the Scheme are to be made available to any person desirous of obtaining a copy of such records, on demand and after paying a specified fee.

Evaluation of Programmes

Various studies have shown that programmes have not been able to make a dent in the poverty level of the rural people. A large mass of villagers still live without basic needs.This is because,

  1. Policies are guided by ideologies of politicians and bureaucrats whims rather than by compulsions of the ground realities and requirements of the rural people, with the result that the dimensions of rural economy are ignored.
  2. Since every programme is launched often with an eye to the next election, the programme is carried out in a piecemeal fashion and many programmes thus wither away after some time.
  3. Programmes are designed in such a way that they are in fact imposed on the rural economy without taking into accounting their unique vocational patterns and local requirements. Consequently, the assets created are not durable.
  4. Programmes focus more on the agricultural sector. Rural industrialization seems to be getting nowhere near the attention that it deserves.
  5. Despite the fact that the government has given top priority to agricultural production and productivity, removal of social and economic disparities and reduction in income inequalities, the fruits of these schemes, have not reached the poorest in all parts of the country. Water resources, credit, subsidy and other facilities have been usurped by a handful of big farmers and the medium and poor farmers have to buy these things at a much higher price.
  6. There is no coordination among various programmes. After the merger of various employment pogrammes into the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, the government is even now not able to pass on funds to the panchayats on time.
  7. Officials associated with these programmes do not appear to have much faith in the goals set by the government They lack commitment to the roles assigned to time.As such, they take least pains either in creating necessary awareness among people for the success of these programmes or in getting their cooperation and confidence. No wonder, the government has not been able to use even the available resources in the most effective manner.
  8. Central funds in schemes likeJawahar Rozgar Yojna are diverted for party purposes by the states. For example, one study has revealed that money sanctioned by the central government for new irrigation wells in Nalgonda district in Andhra Pradesh were swindled and nota single well was sunk (as shown in the Shyam Senegal’s Film Well Done Abba). Planning by itself is not enough.What really matters is sincere and honest efforts on the part of the implementing agencies to make anti-poverty drive a big success.

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thanks Sir