IMPLEMENTATION: THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO DEVELOPMENT

The idea of state led development which has been a progeny of the strong democratic currents sweeping modern societies has made it important to see development in conjugation with the political thought and the administrative setup of a society. Most importantly, after the Second World War, development has always been seen synonymous with the State and the larger political system. This is so because in democratic nations it is well established that ‘what’ and ‘where’ of development are ab-initio political questions. Further the socio-economic development has always been viewed as one of the major planks to wield power. As a result expenditure marked for development was seen in a positive light with little suspicion by both auditors and people at large. However, lately this sentiment is fading because of association of populism and several forms of politico-administrative corruption involved in the implementation process.

     If we look minutely, one of the concerning issue is that of linking development with populist politics. This is something that takes place at the planning and policy level and is for everyone to see. But no political party can challenge it since it has got the sanction of the ruling political class catering the needs of an influential interest group of the society. Any party that tries to revoke it shall be ready to face its electoral consequences. One such example can be the implementation of Mandal Commission report by the V. P. Singh government paving a way for perpetual ‘quota system’ in each and every field. Any party which tries to revoke it, shall risk its existence.

      Populism in development programmes can be understood in terms of the idea that when the government of the day, in order to please a particular electoral constituency decides to roll out freebies to them, without taking into account the long term consequences. Populist programmes are often dubbed as temporary compulsions and part of immediate relief package plans. MGNREGA, DCT, FOOD SECURITY ACT, etc. are the various populist programmes of the UPA government meant for socio-economic development.

       UPA government’s flagship programme MGNREGA, which was started in 2005, won the praise of one and all in the sundry. Yet it goes without saying that if on the one hand this programme has helped in bringing more money to the villages and the hinterlands, at the same time, it has been one of the major drains of the exchequer and has contributed extensively to the huge fiscal deficit. This is one of the reasons for the prevailing high inflation, which translates into giving money by one hand and taking it away from other. A good example is this story from Benagadia village of Nayagarh district of Odisha. Under the NREGA scheme, a water reservoir is being constructed for which few men from the village have been employed. The villagers are quite content with the income they are getting, while not realizing that such limited incomes would start proving insufficient very soon with the rising inflation. No additional skill set is being inculcated by these men. The government has set a fixed wage for manual work. This would be highly detrimental to the quality of work force and the economy at large in the near future. Incentives, skill upgradation, incremental wage would make the purpose of such schemes more prudent and beneficial.

In the same context, we can quote other programmes such as ‘farm loan waiver’ schemes which aim at financially helping the farmers at the time of drought and scarce rainfall and eliminating farmers’ suicides. Here also it is the wealthy farmers that benefit from such waivers and the novel idea is paralysed. The politician-bureaucrat-contractor nexus is a classic version of ‘pork barrel’ politics. The RTI/NGO/Human Rights activists who advocate the proper implementation of NREGA are being attacked and killed.

         Coming to the ‘Direct Benefit Transfer’ scheme, which replaced the ‘in kind transfer’, the idea was good but the government failed miserably to implement it. Firstly, it was aligned with ‘Aadhar’ which itself was a big failure. Envisioned on the lines of SSN (Social Security Number) in US, crores of rupees were spent on this project. But the administration and the government failed to convince the people about its utilities and benefits as witnessed in US. With pan cards, driving licence already available for identification purpose , why would one go for another card? Also certain section of people had security apprehensions. These issues should have been addressed in an effective manner, which was not the case. In DBT, the major constraint of lack of penetrative and inclusive banking system was to be compensated through BCs (Business Correspondents). But the lack of vision on the part of the bureaucrats and the will on the part of the BCs paved the way for another poor implementation of a major scheme. Colleges offering Rural Management courses face the ordeal of lack of interest from the students. These management graduates, who are supposed to be the connecting link or in fact the tool to implement the government policies in the rural areas refuse to work there. To address this issue, the government should be proactive by giving added incentives to provide a major fillip.

            The second major bottleneck to implementation is corruption. Corruption persists hierarchically in our society and system. Right from the grass root level to the  bureaucratic-political level, the developmental schemes are maimed by the menace of corruption. The responsibility of implementation of various state as well as centrally sponsored schemes lies on the state government. The institutions performing the social audit are remote controlled by the state executive machinery. Hence there has been an eternal call for auditing by non partisan institutions like CAG, etc. The idea could be lucidly explained by looking at a case study in Odisha. In an awareness program conducted by an organization under the banner ‘Right to Food’ campaign, the loopholes of implementation have been exposed. Many affluent families have more than one BPL/RATION card, while most of the poor people were still deprived of the Ration card. It was also found out that most of the people were given incomplete ration cards (like without their photos on it). Participants expressed their helplessness and agonies regarding the indifferent attitude and corrupt practices (demanding favours in exchange of cards) of the government officials towards their concerns. This is just one of the numerous case studies demonstrating the administrative weaknesses which could be attributed to a large extent to the corruption present at the administrative level.

           Having said all this, it is important to note that the picture isn’t that gloomy as is being portrayed in this article. Every scheme has its success stories too and the loopholes can be plugged. India has a huge, diversified population; hence satiating everyone is surreal. As an outsider, it’s important to accentuate the drawbacks. But there are honest, dedicated officers too. The positive development that we all want to see is not possible without the necessary political support which could be developed when there is a strong political will in bringing development to the masses at the grass root level. This statement itself explains the importance of politics and the administrative apparatus in the concept and the process of development. The new government that has come to power on the agenda of development, should realise the importance of implementation without falling prey to the ‘myopic’ veil of social schemes.