| Decentralised Planning in India
Background P ost-independence period in India is noted as the inception period of planning activities with the visions of the then Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. Planning at that time was more of an economic nature and resource allocations. Nehru appointed several notable economists like Dr Mahalanobish and Dr Ashok Mitra in forefronts in planning activities. Post-independence India was suffering from an acute shortage of resources, finance and employment. The vicious cycle of poverty and malnutrition was affecting the country’s economy. Nehru adopted the economic planning approach, clearly a top-down effort which expected that inequality and poverty should be minimised by way of the ‘trickle down’ effect. The main focus was to rebuild the economic base of the country through strengthening agriculture and controlled industrial development. Planning at this time was more of axial development with focus on special regions. Examples can be cited from planning of the Damodar Valley region.The Indian economy took a new shape after the LPG (Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation) era in the 1990s. The twentieth century was very important in terms of planning aspects. After 1991, the economy began to change with emphasis on foreign investments, globalisation and free trade. The neoliberal economic policies had a direct impact upon the planning process. With the top-down approach it was observed that regional disparities were increasing, as were rural-urban differences. Urban areas were facing a large amount of migration as a part of the ‘pull effect’. With an influx of population, the urban services were steadily degrading. Local authorities were unable to provide services to a majority of the population because they were not capable in terms of technical knowledge as well as financial resources. Self-reliance of the local government was necessary. In 1993, the government made the 73 rd and 74th constitutional amendments. This can be termed as the initiation of contemporary planning activities in India. The top-down approach has shifted to a bottom-up approach with more community participation added to a dimension of social planning.Initiation of Decentralised Planning Until the enactment of the Constitution (73 rd and 74th Amendments) Acts, 1992, the planning and decision-making functions in India remained centralised around the two political levels, namely the Union and the states, whose spheres of responsibility had been defined in the Constitution. Urban and rural local bodies such as Municipalities and village Panchayats, by and large, functioned as agencies of civic functioning and rural development schemes and not as instruments of micro-level planning and development. This design of the political and development setup left a near vacuum for planning at below the state level. The roots of decentralised planning were established way back during the 1960s. Local self-government institutions were established in several states. There are many socio-cultural factors that impede the progress of decentralisation in rural areas and thus have an impact on participatory development. Social disparities at the grassroots level - in terms of caste, class, religion, gender and political status - have had a major impact on culture and a strong bearing on the ability of people to participate in the village development process. Villages in India have been characterised by an unequal distribution of resources and power structure based on caste hierarchy and landholding. The caste system continues to play a vital role in every aspect of social life of the villagers. Major decisions are still being taken by a handful of the empowered village elite, who find it difficult to treat other people as equals and to involve them in the decision-making process. Majority of women in rural areas are less educated and mainly stay away from the public sphere. Further, women amongst the SCs and STs are even more subjugated. With the introduction of reservation, their representation in panchayats has become mandatory. But most of the women SC and ST representatives find it difficult to cope with the prevailing cultural disparities. Also, inhibition and fear, especially among women and marginalised groups has discouraged them from participating in Gram Sabha proceedings. These factors influenced important decisions such as: (i) the manner in which problems and needs are to be identified and prioritised; (ii) in what way the work-sites and beneficiaries are to be identified; (iii) the manner in which funds are to be allocated for projects; and (iv) how the projects are to be implemented. The Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70), appointed during the Third Five Year Plan period, came out with its report that criticised the highly centralised character of Indian Planning and advocated the strengthening of the machinery for planning at the state and district levels. It explained a methodology of preparing a State Plan for rural development on the basis of the District and Block Plans. Attempts were also made to develop the three-tier Panchayati Raj system based on the recommendations of the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee and with it the idea of ‘planning from below’ gained some currency, but was not very effective. The Planning Commission made special efforts to promote district planning by issuing guidelines for the formulation of District Plans in 1969. The Planning Commission set up a Working Group on District Planning under the Chairmanship of Dr C. H. Hanumantha Rao, Member of the Planning Commission, 1984, with the aim: (i) to define the precise scope and content of state planning; (ii) to delineate the procedure for decentralised planning at the state level to make the concept of district planning operational; (iii) to devise the various steps in district planning and indicate the methodology for each step; (iv) to suggest the methodology for integrating block level planning with district planning; and (v) to recommend the procedure for converting the district plans into the state plans. The Working Group has set up various sub-groups to delve into the various aspects of district planning in depth. The deliberation of these groups reflected in their reports formed the basis of the report of the Working Group, and was submitted to the Planning Commission in 1984. The concept of district planning adopted by the Working Group was akin to the concept of integrated area planning. This, however, was the ultimate goal. The enactment of the Constitution (73 rd and 74th Amendment) Acts in 1992 ushered in a new era of decentralised and democratic process where district is a key unit in the multi-level planning and has also bestowed a Constitutional status on rural (Panchayat) and urban (Municipality) local bodies in order to enable them to function as effective democratic self-government institutions. The Acts require that the relationship between the state and local governments with respect to functions and taxation powers of local bodies and revenue sharing between the two are placed on a firm footing. The state legislatures are required, by law, to specify what powers and responsibilities could be given to the Panchayati Raj institutions and to Municipalities in respect of plans for economic development and social justice. The Constitution widens their function area considerably so that they may reach out beyond the mere provision of civic amenities. These have been incorporated in the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules.GoI-UN Joint Programme on Convergence Over the last two decades, India has registered sustained economic growth and poverty reduction. But, regional disparities, widening rural-urban divide, concentration of poverty in disadvantaged social groups and rampant gender inequality point to inadequacies in development planning, programming and implementation. In this context, the Eleventh Five Year Plan has underlined inclusive growth. The emphasis is on decentralised and outcomes-based planning in order to improve the effectiveness of development programmes and ensure equitable participation and benefit sharing by disadvantaged social groups. However, the feedback from the States clearly indicates that the term ‘district planning’ holds different connotations for different people, making it all the more important to focus on its essence of participatory planning, implementation and monitoring. For such planning process to be effective, the district planning process that has traditionally been functioning in a top-down manner needs to be redesigned and remodeled. It needs to provide ample scope for the bottom-up approach, and demonstrate transparent and accountable institutional functioning and results-based programme management. In order to strengthen the district planning process, there is a need for capacity development of different institutional players, i.e., government officials of district administrations, various line departments, representatives of relevant planning institutions, the elected representatives of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and urban local bodies (ULBs), provision of problem-based technical input and hands-on support. The GoI-UN joint Programme on Convergence, in partnership with the Planning Commission of India, aims to address the obstacles in effective and efficient implementation of the government’s development plans and programmes. It seeks to bring about a synergy between the various efforts undertaken in selected 35 districts of the seven UNDAF states. The programme will lead to the following outcomes: • Adoption of integrated and inclusive district planning• Effective utilisation of resources from government programmes and other sources by the districts• Improvement in the delivery of government programmes at the local level• Monitoring used for management and planning purposesThe outcomes achieved from the programme are further expected to support related initiatives by the Planning Commission and the state governments in order to strengthen district planning. The project is being implemented by the Planning Commission (PC), Government of India, State Governments (e.g. Planning Department, State Planning Board, Panchayats and Rural Development Department) designated as Implementing Partners (IPs) under the project. The project is being jointly implemented by the PC and state government with the overall responsibility for the achievement of the project outcomes at both national and state levels, respectively. District planning interventions in different states have thrown up a wide diversity of practices that have manifold policy implications. National leadership is required to process the recommendations coming from various governments and civil society sources, and to filter out appropriate inputs for policy making at national and sub-national levels. Assessing progress and helping in charting out future roadmaps amidst bewildering differences and divergences across states is a critical need to be addressed. District planning processes are rich in terms of innovations and amenability to assistive technologies (e.g., GIS applications). In order to achieve this, a National Resource Cell on District Planning (NRCDP) has been established for developing, accessing and disseminating knowledge related to decentralised district planning and governance under the GoI-Un Joint Programme on Convergence. The specific objectives of the NRCDP are: • To develop a knowledge base on decentralised planning, monitoring and evaluation• To evaluate the district plans of seven districts• To organise capacity building programmes to district level identified target groups (government, line departments, ULBs, local governments) towards integrated district planning process with the following objectives.• To conduct action research studies on various aspects of district planning• To assess the needs of GIS- and ICT-based planning for use in district planning and develop required solutions• To organise forums and workshops for sharing the issues and information on various aspects of district planningConclusion The picture of decentralised planning in India is not very optimistic in the current situation. But this is not irreversible. The two Constitutional Amendments have legally facilitated the changeover to a culture of decentralised planning. In practice, however, there is a strong pressure for centralised planning which is not a healthy feature for a vast country like ours and is against the interest of grassroot planning. Several segregated attempts have been made, such as inclusion of social auditing in flagship schemes and programmes, evolution of PAHELI as a monitoring and evaluation method, gender inclusive plan of Udaipur district, entitlement-based planning approach in Bihar, etc. These success stories need to be followed and implemented. A rational choice between the two modes of planning - the decentralised and centralised - is obvious. Forces of decentralised planning have to be encouraged, vigorously pursued and sustained to enable it to strike deep roots in the planning process. q Anand Kumar Raktim Ray References
|