Facets of India's rural development

INDIA RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1999: R. C. Choudhury and S. Rajakutty - Editors; National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030. Rs. 500.

``UNLESS SOCIO-ECONOMIC equity forms an integral part of any strategy for sustainable development, poverty can become a reason for destabilization of political structure,'' stresses the recently released India Rural Development Report-1999.

It analyses the regional inequity for a range of variables relating to deprivation and entitlements. It also throws light on the extent of widening gaps between different areas, which in turn would have implications for inter-state and intra-state distribution of resources and affirmative action, particularly with regard to the weaker sections.

One of the biggest failures of the country is its inability to overcome the unabated social and economic disablement of rural people. Poverty has long ceased to be an issue of compassion alone. In an era of globalisation, the formidable question is how to include the poor in the so-called mainstream.

The book under review has critically looked into all these issues and come out with concrete suggestions to improve the efforts for the upliftment of the rural poor. The report has been hailed as a unique reference book on the state-of-the art of rural development by experts. It is for the first time, such a comprehensive analysis of various facets of rural development including agriculture, labour, infrastructure, social, human, gender and environment, have been dealt with in a single volume.

The report, in seven chapters, particularly captures the variations in development at sub-state level and their effort on poverty, covering all the 78 NSS regions across the country as well as a wide cross-section of the society in rural India.

The lucid volume brings to light the regional disparities in development and poverty. Though poverty has declined in percentage terms over the years, the absolute number of poor, more or less, remained static. The regions in the western part of the country had lower incidence of poverty than the central and eastern regions. In general, the states, which were under the zamindari regime and have experienced relatively ineffective agrarian and land reforms and thereafter marginal impact of green revolution, have been the losers.

Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh account for 51 per cent of the country's poor. If Assam, Orissa, West Bengal and some Union Territories are added, these States account for over 70 per cent of the poor in the country.

Some castes have been found to be among the poorest in these places. It is, however, of interest that the majority of the poor are concentrated around the poverty line, which is a source of comfort in the sense. With a little focussed effort a significant proportion of the poor can be brought above the poverty line.

Social Development Index (SDI) and Infrastructure Development Index (IDI), developed in this report, show close association with poverty reduction. Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Assam have high backwardness index (meaning that large parts of these States are backward in terms of social and physical infrastructure and social development).

In Gender Related Development Index (GDI), India's (GDI 0.388) rank is 112 out of 143 countries. Within India, Kerala tops with a GDI of 0.565, while Uttar Pradesh has the lowest (0.248). States like Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal have very high gender inequality. While gender inequality may not always be correlated to income levels, it may point to anti- female bias and systematic women deprivation. Sustainable economic progress and human development can be achieved only when inequities are contained.

Programmes/schemes based on the belief that spending more money is in itself a necessary and sufficient condition for poverty alleviation, may fail if the delivery mechanisms are not strengthened and streamlined. Often, certain government policies harm the poor much more than the benefit that accrue to them through money-oriented schemes. The anti-poor bias in many sectors stems from the belief that economic development and reduction of poverty require two different strategies. One must accept the inter-dependence of non-monetary policies and budgetary schemes. In this context, the Planning Commission should monitor not only the allocation and expenditure but also scrutinise whether these expenditures directly result in reduction of poverty or not.

The ultimate goal should be to achieve rural prosperity and not just poverty reduction. This will be possible only if the individual and community become focal points of development. Such a development is not possible without bestowing the real decision-making power on the community. This would call for large scale promotion of strong and viable self-help groups, community- based interest groups and user groups, genuinely strengthening the civil society movement. Strong organic linkages have to be established between formal structures like Panchayati Raj institutions and informal structures like community-based organisations and the non- governmental organisations, according to the report.

G. VENKATARAMANI

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Animals and humans
Next     : The ethnic factor in politics