Rural poverty alleviation programmes

Rural poverty alleviation programmes

4th plan (1969-1974) was a growth oriented approach to poverty alleviation and included

direct programmes to benefit poverty groups and backward regions like programmes for

rural employment ,development of dry farming areas, and for the benefit of small farmer

,marginal farmers and agricultural labourers.The major programmes were drought prone

areas programme(DPAP),employment programmes dating from the early sixties such as

rural manpower programme(RMP),small marginal agricultural labour

(SMAL)programme,crash scheme for rural employment (CSRE),pilot intensive rural

employment programme(PIREP).

The preparatory step for the 5th plan call for” direct attack on unemployment

,underemployment, poverty with adequate growth” argued that economy has now reached

a stage where large availability of resources makes it possible to launch such a direct

attack. The elements of direct attack are-

1.generation of employment in rural area through public work programme

2.Basic minimum needs to poor such as health ,education, drinking water supply, and

housing.

Fifth plan(1974-79) continued the national minimum need programme of clean

water,education,rural health, rural roads, rural electrification, housing for landless

laborers of villages, environmental improvement in urban slums ,nutrition for pregnant

and nursing mothers and pre-school children and school meals for primary school

children age group 6-11.6th plan(1980-85) also directed at alleviation of poverty by

National rural employment programme (NREP),rural labour employment guarantee

programme (RLEGP),a set of programmes with integrated rural development

programme(IRDP)at core.

7TH Plan (1985-1990)continues the same scheme and all these programmes have poor

households as target groups.

With all this what checked the growth with social justice?

1.Deceleration of the growth rate

2.Widening regional and interclass disparities consequent on green revolution

3.Internal dissensions in ruling parties

4.A confidence that higher base development might permit larger resources being

devoted to welfare and poverty allocation.

5.Policies of unrelated agencies which began emphasizing basic needs and direct

antipoverty programmes in late sixties .(ILO and world bank under Robert Mcnamara

.ILO 1976,Vande Taar 1980,and Agres 1983)

Proportion of people below poverty line fluctuated .1957-58 it was 50% and early 60’s it

was 40%,66-67 about 57%(with droughts)and 73-74 46%.In Punjab and Haryana it was

low between 20-30 % and in Bihar,Orissa,West Bengal high 55 % and more.

Rural poverty is inversely related to agricultural performance (pp 21 India’s development

experience .Oxford India paperbacks 2002 selected writings of S.Guhan).In 1957-58

there were 170 million poor and 1983-84 there were 200 million.70 % poor were in rural

area. The urban poverty is a spill over of rural distress via migration. The core and bulk

poverty problem was rural. The poor were characterized by large households, greater

proportion of children aged less than 15 and a higher dependence ratio. There was

vulnerability to seasonal fluctuation of employment and wages. In the midseventies the

male had 200 days wage employment and 140 days for female.

Direct programme

Under IRDP 600 households under poverty line selected each year in each of the 5000

development blocks in rural India. that is 3 million households annually, with

subsidies, loans which form a variety of income earning assets as irrigation well,milch

cattle, plough bullocks like goat ,sheep ,pig,poultry,cart,facility for self employment in

small scale production ,services(tailoring)and trade. Subsidy cum loan for small farmers

about 25 % operating 2 Ha or less of unirrigated land,1/3rd for marginal farmer ,having 1

Ha or less ,agricultural laborer and artisan,1/2 for schedule caste/tribe household.

Pre 1989 measures included OAP or old age pension introduced in 1962 for age 65 and

above, extended to physically handicapped above 45 yrs in 1974,and destitute widows

above 45 in 1975,and deserted widows of age limit 35 in 1986.

Social expenditure in union budget 1991-1996

1.Rural economic and social infrastructure under Jawahar Rozgar yojna 1st stream.MP

local area development scheme

2.Backward area development. Under JRY 2nd stream,EAS,DPAP,DDP,Wasteland

development.

3.Basic needs.Electricity,adult education, rural water supply and sanitation, urban water

supply and sanitation, child welfare

4.welfare of SC/ST & OBC.Under JRY 1st stream and direct welfare programmes

5.Asset creation.IRDP,and related NRY ,PMRY .

The state responsibility of social and economic development in agriculture and allied

sectors like fishery, animal husbandry, dairy and forests is important.Irrigation,power

generation,roads,education,health and water supply urban development ,law and order of

the state are also state responsibilities.

Irrigation:- 1.The problems related to use of resources. The choice of cost-effective

investments, adequate funding for undivided projects

2.Related to implementation. Technologically sound design, concern for environmental

impact, construction quality, timely completion

3.Operation and maintainance.Avoiding waste. Adequate timely equitable supplies to

farmers.

4.Efficient and economic utilization of water in the field involving on farm development

and management with the participation of the users.

These need greater financial descriptive and administrative competence than the state

governments have so far displayed. It also requires greater socio-political commitment to

the nation which unfortunately is not seen in our politicians of the present generation.

World bank and Indian agriculture: Challenges and opportunities NO 9412 IN April 1991

pp 82 says :” Most of the issues on irrigation sector have political roots. Poor quality

control has direct links to corruption. The specialist skills needed for high quality

planning design,construction,operation are inhibited by the perpetual merry go round of

transfers and new irrigation projects are often chosen for expediating rather than for the

returns.

Funding for agriculture was 37 % in 1st plan and 20-25 % in subsequent plans .The scope

of private sector encouragement in diary,agribusiness,horticulture seeds research and

extension can raise funds for the state. The co-operation of the rich citizens with the state

was there in old systems and for this commitment is needed .This commitment is lacking

in new system which is oriented to make private wealth .The panjayathi Raj visualized by

Gandhi was on decentralization and raising fund from the rich people of the locality to be

spent for the local use and upliftment of the entire area. The reform process in the

framework of cooperative federation also is based on this principle ,yet it lacks the

commitment and value systems envisaged originally. Real local leadership and HRD from

each village has to come from the base.

In early 1990’s liberalization was attempted for a high growth for decades to come. Co-

ordinated fiscal and monetary expansion with sharp depreciation of currency and major

,quick reform of infrastructure policies in the power sector to draw in private investments

once the economy restarts and private sectors needs to meet the demand. This direction

was opposed by conservative economists who monopolized the policymaking within

government and the RBI.By the end of 199-2000 the limits to active reduction of primary

fiscal deficit had been reached. The first challenge was then to grow out of fiscal deficit

and pursue higher growth without bringing about more fiscal crisis. The large buffer

stocks of food also sought to bolster confidence to increase fiscal expenditure. It is

important to recognize that the mountain of food could be turned to

infrastructure, alleviating hunger and poverty ,if the right structure of administration and

governance for an efficient production of food for work programmes could be

found. Direct subsidy on power,water,food,fertilizer,fuel was the starting point for

this. This is our second challenge. The first is a challenge of economic policy and the

second a challenge for both policy and organization at development and governance.

The third is a challenge of governance in private investments in manufacture through

infrastructure investments.Roads,electricity,telecom,wireless networks,etc.The third

challenge of improving governance of economic institution ,be it financial sector

,industrial development boards or courts dealing with economic issues. The core of the

task is better design, writing better contracts, bringing clearer transparent laws, avoidance of internal contradictions in policy and laws. For this each citizen /consumer of state has to be in governance as a participant, evaluator and user and this is the purpose of education .A bold decision making needs knowledge and commitment and this will bring significant change and for this autonomy of action is required. In 1950’s Nehru and in 1991-92 Indira Gandhi took bold decisions due to the autonomy they had in a majority congress government .In coalition governments the autonomy is restricted .Politics to become issue based has to be decentralized and based on regional requirements on a national commitment basis. This is not yet achieved .Man Mohan Singh ,took bold economic steps due to his economic knowledge and convictions and not by the party autonomy.
Transparency is needed in commercialization and privatization. The cleverer sections inserted by the beaurocracy can also take back that power that is granted in the very same law to the independent regulator. Therefore the problems of governance are severe and not easily solved .The problems of corruption,bribery,of ignorance, regulatory choices, accounting for transparency are there.
To approach by redistribution (of land etc) was the early policy. These had vast leaks and high costs of administration which the center had to bear.IRDP and its various programmes are of this genre. It expanded bureaucracy and dissent from the poor .The productive endowment for the poor can bring about their participation and make them afford the infrastructure. The state administration has important role in this. The programme of Gokulagraama in Gujarat is quoted as a village programme with community participation and empowerment of village panchayaths and Taluka .(India infrastructure report 2002 Governance issues for commercialization. New Delhi OUP 2002)
HRD is aimed at personal initiative ,dynamism and leadership of local people.Gyaandhooth project of rural Madhya Pradesh is quoted as an example where the people with the able guidance of the district collector met with the water problems efficiently and economically as well as ecologically. The farmers switched on to water saving .They made intersect oral water transfer possible from water –rich to water-poor .The effective regulation to address the issue of ecological sustainability is also of significant relevance to the urban sector suffering from acute shortage of water. The solution suggested by Mr. Asokan ,the current president of the kol krishi co-operative society sangha of Punnayurkulam is such a one and needs to be analyzed and implemented in its proper perspective. The urban population in the nearby township of Guruvayur is ever increasing and its demands have to be met with. If 5 % of the water from the fresh water lakes is transferred to the urban storage centers ,during the off-season without agricultural needs ,the water requirement of the urban sector can be met with at least in part apart from the drip irrigation it can give to the dry mundakan at kuttadan paadam .This was a plan which K.G.Karunakaramenon had in mind in early 1950’s itself but at that time the engineering section could not do it ,because of lack of powerful machinery .Now that the power is there ,Asokan feels it can be implemented with efficiency .

Where the micro intervention of the state failed:-
The massive redistribution effect of land was in one shot and then the state focused not

on land development for agriculture but on the task of industrial development. Both

should have progressed hand in hand .The macroprogrammes of productivity-oriented

public investments, especially in irrigation and education,(primary and secondary)and to

some extent the HYV of seeds had important effects. The megaprogrammes of operation

floods is a persistent problem which has to be met with and this is an expenditure which

one cannot neglect. The macro effects of price support for food production and subsidies

to have measurable impact one has to deal with the causes of floods and the prevention of

damage to crops too and the surplus storage for emergency food requirements during a

natural calamity. For this land reforms or major income redistribution is not sufficient in

Indian context.

The tragedy of Indian administration as the report 2002 (pp 31)points out is that the

civilian and civil servants blame politicians and the politician, blames the civil servant

for all failures. The intellectual failure of taking up the joint responsibility is the major

misfortune. The vested interests of the people and the politicians and the beaureaucracy

are the actual culprits in this. The national interest should come first .The reason for past

policy failures and poor implementation of even good policies have the roots in this. The

enlightened citizenship as Swami Ranganathananda envisaged is not there for such

efficient leadership .The statement that a good policy implements itself ,mean the good

policy or the best policy is that which is for the good of every one .Then it would be

implemented by its own. For this the policymaker has to be unselfish and motivated by

national interests .The debilitating system of such national dharma though it originated

during the British period ,is still continued. There is no reason for us to criticize and put

the entire responsibility on the British administration. What they did was out of the lack of

information about the Indian system and policy decisions were based on British

understanding of climate,weather,economy and commerce. But we have a system of

values different from it and if we are reluctant to follow them it is simply out of our

vested interests and we have our responsibility more than the British in perpetuating what

they had started. Take up that responsibility together and think for a better governance and

management of our own affairs in our own way will be the best solution and that is why

decentralization of panchayathi Raj is done ,not to just mimic what was done earlier in

British times. In democracy we ,people have to make our own future. The governor

general at top and people at bottom was changed to people at both bottom and top in

democracy and this should never be forgotten.Privatisation and private enterprises should

be understood as the privatization of the people of India ,of people belonging to the

different Panchayaths and urban centers of India, to Indian citizens to allow the scope for

financing the development of the country.

The inland national navigable waterways are three in number in India and one of them is

from Kottapuram to Kollam in Kerala connecting Malabar to Travancore-

Cochin.Kottappuram is connected by water transport to Ponnani from ancient times

itself. Development of this ancient waterway has several advantages and joint ventures

with private companies would be ideal. The infrastructure has to be provided by the

private companies for which Government is giving income tax exception. Major private

and public sector companies which have interest in developing inland water transport is

the Hindustan Lever,Indogulf corporation,NTPC,Numaligarh refineries and concor and

the projects with them if made has to be analyzed to make it ecology friendly .

Water conservation, infrastructure and its importance in humanities:-

Community has common rights over water resources. Water harvesting, conservation and

judicial use is the responsibility of the entire nation. A good integrated water system at

village community level which is economically efficient is the solution for drinking water

as well as water for irrigation. Systematic development of village level water issues can

change the economies of the village communities. The strategy of water harvesting and

surface water developments through series of check wires ,earthen dams (anicut) or bunds

,soil conservation through series of gully plugs,aforestation,agroforesting,to meet the

requirement of fodder ,fuel and fruit. The concept of water harvesting to the level of

township level expansion is a very good system from the national point of view. The

water harvesting devices at surface level is in the form of tanks, wells ,Paathi in tiled roof

houses to conserve rain water .The roof rain water in concrete houses has to be brought

down to sumps or stored in the overhead tanks itself. These were the simple devices used

by people. Recharging the ground water table is done by the rain water storages, by the

roots of great trees etc.The large freshwater lake of Malabar needs to be protected and its

water utilized to the maximum and the possibilities of agricultural production

improvement, development of fisheries and waterways etc to be given proper importance

by any administrator /political leader if they are really interested in these projects. The

national agricultural policy for handling, storage and transportation of food grains and

Government has accorded infrastructure status for these and incentives are extended to

them as infrastructure facilities. Both the bund and the waterways and canals and

freshwater lake development programmes suggested by the Kol krishi sangham president

belongs to this and can be placed under the Infrastructure funds of pure project

development and the integrated project development and funding .As a joint venture of

IIF and integrated project development and funding this can be undertaken .

Public feedback aids public accountability. A sustained and collective co-operative action

at village community level increase the public accountability of offices of their

representatives. For speedy answers from each area the public voice as well orchestrated

and heard by the leader, and the voice of the leader trickling down to the society speedily

is a must. For this a report card methodology is adopted or e-governance if there is

facility.

The report card survey is simple and highly flexible for organizing public feedback.

The stages in its survey are :-

1.Identify an issue through forums of group discussion

2.Designing the instruments of survey

3.Identify the sample for survey

4.Conduct survey by a independent agency

5.collect qualitative data

6.Place data in the public domain

7.Conducting advocacy and establishing partnerships

Community partnership in India
STATE CP INDEX (0-3 SCALE)
Kerala 1.80
Maharashtra –measured only in planning
And constitution stages 1.80
Rajasthan 1.50
Karnataka 1.45
Gujarat 1.10



In the Gujarat Pani panjayath(village water committee)the implementation agency (State
water board )did not co-operate. Therefore poor utilization of the project happened. In

Kerala special organization socioeconomic units(SEUS)under KWA(kerala water

authority) was to implement the pipe water scheme. It was funded by donor agencies. The

SEUS personnel were social scientists in charge of development of local participatory

institution. In each village ward water committee(WWC)was responsible for decision of

location of water stand posts ,health training, awareness building. The meetings were

conducted by villagers themselves .SEUS monitored them gave advice. Both WWC and

SEUS acted as liaison agents with KWA.WWC was responsible for reporting faults

,follow up repairs, doing minor repairs through training and paying a local person. Their

role was well defined.

The IRDP programme was for generating employment through resource base at

household level to remove poverty.Adherement through planed development till early

60’s is recorded.1960-1970 was the most difficult period for development and 260

million people were below poverty line. In 1980 after the massive mandate for congress

,in 1983 252 millions of rural people were poor and poverty ratio decreased to 46 %.

1987-88 the decrease was to 39 % and 1993-94 to 37 %.But the Lorenze ratio, the measure

of inequality for rural India remained stable. The 9th plan(1997-2002)questioned this

stability. In 1973-4 to 1993-94 the total rural/urban poor was 320 million.1999-2000

survey , of world bank data showed 360 million poor which is 40% of the world’s poor

population.

1973-2000 poverty and inequality in India

Year Poverty ratio No: of poor rural in millions Poverty gap Lorenz ratio index No; of rural urban poor in millions
1973-74 56.4 261.3 16.56 0.27581 321.3
1977-78 53.1 264.3 15.73 0.33861 328.9
1983 45.7 252.0 12.32 0.29759 322.9
1987-88 39.1 231.9 9.11 0.29826 307.1
1993-94 37.3 244.0 8.45 0.28190 320.3
1999-2000 27.1(based on 30 day recall)
24.0(7 day recall)

Drinking water facility in Indian villages (pp 192 India infrastructure report 2002)

Sources Villages %
Well 69.8
Hand pump 55.9
Tube well 21.1
Tap 18.2
Tank 14.3
River 10.0
Nala 3.6
Canal 3.5
Fountains 2.6
Spring 1.7
lakes 0.1
Others 4.5

In kerala the wells and tanks and lakes are important since there is enough rain water. The

cost of one hand pump is Rs 20000 and the pipe is user oriented and well water is safe and

cost-effective according to the report. The lake resources wherever available has to be

protected since the lakes –both natural and manmade is essential for ecology and ground

water reserves. Both irrigation and drinking water has to be considered with equal

importance. The available freshwater supplies to be made use of maximally .So that the

responsible water use is made to prevent degradation of this important resource for life on

earth.