Programmes of Rural Development, Community Development Programme, Cooperatives, Poverty Alleviation Schemes in India

Rural Development: Meaning and Scope

Sociology Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 1000+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹600 →

• Rural development means improving the living standards of the low-income population residing in rural areas, and making that process of improvement self-sustaining rather than dependent on continuous external support.
• It is a much broader concept than agricultural development: agricultural development is concerned primarily with cultivation and allied activities, while rural development embraces every dimension of rural life — irrigation, communication, education, health, supplementary employment, housing, training, and social welfare.
• Because agriculture remains the mainstay of most rural Indians, government attention has historically concentrated on the agricultural sector even while rural development programmes formally covered much more.

The Community Development Programme (1952): India’s First Phase

• The Community Development Programme (CDP), launched on 2 October 1952, treated the village as a single community with a shared interest, and aimed at transforming the entire socio-economic, political, and cultural life of villagers through their own initiative.
• For Nehru, the CDP mattered less for its material achievements than for its capacity to build both community and individual character, turning villagers into the builders of their own village.
• The Planning Commission described CDP as the method through which the Five Year Plans sought to initiate a process of transformation of the social and economic life of villages, with major emphasis on achieving self-reliance and ending dependency on external agencies.

Pre-Independence Inspirations for the CDP

• Intensive rural development activity at Sevagram and the Sarvodaya centres in the Bombay State.
• The Nilokheri Project, started by S.K. Dey in Karnal district, Haryana, to rehabilitate 6,000 refugees.
• The Etawah Project, under the inspiration of Albert Mayer, covering 97 villages with the objective of achieving self-reliance through multi-purpose schemes (also extended to Gorakhpur district).
• The Faridabad Project, under the inspiration of Sri Ghosh, which rehabilitated 30,000 refugees and converted the village into a town.
• The Firka Development Scheme in Madras, built on Gandhian principles, aimed at developing villagers’ personalities alongside changing the ideology of village reconstruction.

Structure and Working of the CDP

• The programme was organised into three phases: a national extension phase (ordinary services with limited government expenditure), an intensive community development phase (high government expenditure in selected blocks), and a post-development phase (government role reduced to supervision once change was presumed self-perpetuating).
• S.C. Dube identified the fundamental beliefs needed to close the gap between planners’ and villagers’ mentalities: development had to proceed according to villagers’ own priorities, implementation had to work through persuasion rather than compulsion, workers needed special recruitment and training, and stability had to be an explicit goal.
• Administration ran through a five-tier structure — a central committee chaired by the Prime Minister, a State Development Committee chaired by the Chief Minister, a district-level structure coordinated by the District Collector and Zila Parishad, a Block Development Officer-led Block Panchayat Committee, and the Gram Panchayat itself, where the Gram Sevak functioned as the multi-purpose link between villagers and the administration.
• Field activity spanned eight categories: agriculture, communications, education, health, training, social welfare, supplementary employment, and housing, later reclassified by the Fourth Evaluation Report (1957) into constructional, irrigational, agricultural, and institutional programmes.

Evaluating the CDP

• Prof. Carl Taylor found the programme predominantly reliant on government aid rather than genuine people’s initiative, with bureaucrats more committed to showing spectacular results to their superiors than to mass participation.
• S.C. Dube reached a similar conclusion: planning remained top-down, officials hesitated to show initiative and simply transmitted orders from state headquarters, and government servants functioned as bureaucrats rather than as agents of change with a genuine social mentality — obstructed further by villagers’ suspicion of outsiders, poor communication, and traditional cultural resistance.
• J.F. Bulsara’s 1957 project evaluation found physical construction and agricultural attitude-change comparatively successful, but readiness to use community centres, youth clubs, cooperatives, and panchayats for planning purposes comparatively unsuccessful; he recommended reorienting the programme around villagers’ own constructive initiative, refitting the administrative structure into a genuine welfare-state model, continuously retraining the Gram Sevak, and building youth and adult participation from both sexes.
• Other assessments were more critical still: the CDP created community dependence on government rather than self-reliance, divided villages along sectional lines between landed and service/occupational castes, and was implemented by a bureaucracy that lacked a social-service ethos.
• Satya Dev’s study found that cooperatives set up under the CDP were captured by local dominant castes, who used the loans, occupied leadership posts, and appropriated subsidies meant for the rural poor — landowners, and Gram Sevaks themselves often drawn from landowning communities, ended up the CDP’s principal beneficiaries rather than the poor it targeted.

Cooperatives: Meaning, Structure, and Social Significance

• The modern cooperative movement in India began in 1904 with the Cooperative Societies Act, aimed originally at freeing farmers from the clutches of zamindars and moneylenders; its scope later widened from agricultural credit alone to marketing, consumption, banking, and housing.
• Sociologically, the defining principle of a cooperative is equality among members and democratic management — establishing equality on one side of the relationship while removing exploitation on the other.
• Cooperatives operate at several levels: credit societies, agricultural societies, industrial (small and cottage industry) societies, consumer societies, housing societies, and multi-purpose tribal cooperative societies.

The Push for Cooperative Farming

• Gandhi, Nehru, and socialist and communist leaders alike advocated cooperative farming as a route to reducing agrarian inequality and raising production at low cost.
• The Kumarappa Committee (1949) recommended that states be empowered to implement cooperatives suited to different levels of farming, and Nehru’s own enthusiasm was reinforced by two Indian delegations sent to China in 1956, both of which returned favourably impressed by Chinese cooperativisation — a comparison later undermined once post-1976 data showed China’s 1954–74 agricultural growth rate (about 2%) had actually been lower than India’s (2.5%).
• The Nagpur Convention (1959) of the AICC proposed compulsory, nationwide cooperativisation within three years, including removal of the landowning class where required — a plan Nehru diluted after vehement opposition, dropping the element of compulsion.
• Cooperative farming subsequently operated at two levels in practice: landowners forming cooperatives to escape land-ceiling laws while capturing state benefits, and pilot projects on infertile land distributed to the landless, which mostly failed for want of resources — the Second Plan’s ambitious ten-year cooperativisation target had, by the Third Plan, been quietly scaled back to a modest ten pilot projects per district.

Structure of the Cooperative Credit System

• Primary societies sit at the base of the structure, roughly 80% of them agriculture-related and 60% concerned with credit alone, divided into credit and non-credit societies and further into agricultural and non-agricultural societies.
• Central (district) cooperative banks supervise primary societies within a district, drawing capital from public deposits, share capital, and other sources, and function as balancing centres that channel funds from surplus to needy societies.
• State cooperative (apex) banks sit at the top, controlling central banks, linking the cooperative structure to the Reserve Bank of India, and directing the movement at the state level; Land Development Banks separately provide long-term credit through debentures.
• The National Cooperative Union of India functions as the apex organisation promoting the cooperative movement nationally.

Case Studies in Cooperative Success

• The Anand Model, initiated in Gujarat’s Kaira (Kheda) district under the leadership of Tribhuvandas Patel and Verghese Kurien, grew from 250 litres of milk a day and two village institutions to over 10 lakh litres a day and nearly a thousand institutions by 1995 — the union’s brand, AMUL, outgrew established multinational competitors, and its success prompted Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to establish the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) in 1965.
  • Shanti George’s study of Operation Flood found that Anand-model dairy cooperatives measurably advanced women’s empowerment, reduced domestic violence, encouraged children’s education, built household assets, and enabled upward mobility for participating families — benefits that reached the poor across caste, religion, and gender without explicitly targeting any of these categories, a pattern the World Bank’s evaluation called a lesson in reaching “elusive” target groups through self-selection.
  • The NDDB’s cooperative model was later extended to fruit and vegetable marketing (the “Dhara” edible-oil brand), oilseeds, salt-making, and tree cultivation, though expansion here met fiercer resistance from vested trading interests.
• B.S. Baviskar’s study of sugar cooperatives in Maharashtra’s Ahmednagar district (the “Kisan” mills, established 1953) found cooperatives playing a transformative role in local social and economic life, showing that caste and dominant-class interests remained very much alive within the cooperative structure even as the institutions themselves succeeded economically.
• Studies by Krishna Raj (on Lijjat Papad) and Satya Dev (on seed cooperatives in Haryana) similarly showed that caste continued to shape who actually benefited from cooperative institutions, cutting against any assumption that a formally egalitarian institutional form automatically produces egalitarian outcomes.

Limitations of the Cooperative Movement

• Daniel Thorner’s influential 1958–59 survey of 117 of India’s “best” cooperatives found the movement falling well short of its founders’ goals — a finding that proved durable in later decades.
• Well-to-do families frequently formed bogus cooperatives to evade land-ceiling and tenancy laws, working the land through nominal members who were really disguised wage labour, while also capturing subsidies and priority access to scarce inputs meant for genuine cultivators.
• Cooperative leadership was typically drawn from a village’s dominant landowning families, who used their position to corner credit and inputs — sometimes diverting cheap cooperative loans into non-agricultural business, consumption, or even private moneylending.
• The landless were structurally excluded: the Reserve Bank’s 1954 recommendation that credit be extended to cultivators as producers rather than as landowners was never properly implemented, and by 1969 tenant cultivators, agricultural labourers, and “others” together secured only 4–6% of total credit disbursed.
• Cooperative credit societies suffered chronic overdue crises — overdue loans rose from 20% of credit disbursed in 1960 to 45% by the mid-1970s nationally (77% in Bihar), driven disproportionately by well-to-do defaulters rather than the poor, a problem populist debt write-offs (such as the 1990 National Front government’s waiver of rural debts up to ₹10,000) only worsened.
• The movement also became increasingly bureaucratic — a large, overstaffed administrative apparatus at block, district, and state levels, often unsympathetic to cooperative principles and susceptible to local vested interests, displaced genuine member participation.

Cooperatives Today

• India now has one of the world’s largest cooperative ecosystems — over 8.5 lakh cooperative institutions with more than 30 crore members — and cooperatives retain a dominant market share in specific sectors: roughly 58% of sugar production, 60% of cotton, 55% of hand-loom weaving, and around half of edible-oil processing and marketing, alongside their historic dominance of milk marketing.
• A dedicated Ministry of Cooperation was created in 2021, and 2025 (the UN’s International Year of Cooperatives) saw the launch of the National Cooperation Policy 2025, replacing the 2002 policy and set to run through 2045 under the theme “Sahakar se Samriddhi” (Prosperity through Cooperation) — its flagship target is establishing 2 lakh new multipurpose Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) within five years, with explicit emphasis on including Dalits, Adivasis, women, and youth.

Poverty Alleviation Schemes: Evolution and Critique

From Area-Based to Household-Based Approaches

• The 20-Point Programme targeted poverty and economic exploitation directly, bundling goals from irrigation expansion and rural employment to bonded-labour rehabilitation, SC/ST upliftment, and family planning.
• The Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP), launched in select districts and extended nationwide from October 1982, took the household as its basic unit, aiming to help selected families cross the poverty line through self-employment in agriculture, handicrafts, or services.
• Training Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM), from 1979, provided technical skills to rural youth aged 18–35 from below-poverty-line families, with reservations for SC/ST candidates, ex-servicemen, and women (one-third of seats).
• The National Rural Employment Programme (NREP), originally the Food for Work Programme, created wage employment using surplus food grain for public works such as roads, irrigation, and sanitation; it was later merged into the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY), alongside the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP).
• The Antyodaya Programme targeted the poorest of the poor directly, selecting five of the most deprived families per village each year for land allotment, pensions, and bank loans identified through the Gram Sabha.

The Rights-Based Turn: MGNREGA

• The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) reframed rural employment as a legal entitlement rather than a discretionary scheme, guaranteeing registered rural households unskilled manual work within 15 days of application, failing which an unemployment allowance becomes payable.
• Its design embeds several rights-protecting features: at least one-third of jobs reserved for women, work generally within 5 km of the village (or extra wages if not), weekly wage disbursal, worksite facilities such as creches and drinking water, decentralised planning through the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayats, a mandated 60:40 labour-to-material ratio that bars labour-displacing machinery and contractors, and mandatory social audits for public accountability.
• Jean Dreze, closely associated with the scheme’s design, has credited MGNREGA with reducing rural poverty by roughly 30% in studied areas — though implementation continues to lag its own guarantees.
• For FY 2025–26, wage rates were revised upward (by 2.33% to 7.48% depending on the state, with Haryana becoming the first state to cross ₹400/day), and the central allocation was retained at roughly ₹86,000 crore; even so, a 2025 Parliamentary Standing Committee flagged over ₹12,000 crore in pending wage payments and ₹11,000 crore in unpaid material dues, underlining a persistent gap between statutory guarantee and actual disbursal.

From IRDP to the National Rural Livelihood Mission

• The IRDP itself evolved institutionally over time — restructured in 1999 as the Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), and subsequently reorganised as the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM), reflecting a broader shift from asset-transfer poverty alleviation toward livelihood promotion through self-help groups and skill-linked credit.

Recurring Critiques Across These Programmes

• Studies of the IRDP found large leakages: the poor were often unable to pay bribes, navigate paperwork, or find guarantors, while bank officials, judged on loan recovery, remained reluctant to lend to genuinely poor borrowers.
• Programme design across schemes has repeatedly been driven by political and bureaucratic convenience rather than ground-level rural realities, implemented in a piecemeal, election-cycle-driven fashion that leaves many programmes to wither without follow-through.
• Benefits have disproportionately reached better-off farmers, who could better access credit, subsidies, and water resources, while the poorest paid more for the same inputs.
• Coordination across the many overlapping schemes has remained weak, funds have at times been diverted for non-programme (including explicitly partisan) purposes, and implementing officials have often lacked genuine commitment to programme goals — the well-documented case of an entire sanctioned irrigation-well budget in Nalgonda district vanishing without a single well being dug (later dramatised in Shyam Benegal’s film Well Done Abba) stands as an emblem of this pattern.
• As one influential line of critique puts it, planning by itself is not enough — what ultimately determines whether an anti-poverty drive succeeds is the sincerity and honesty of the implementing agencies on the ground.