Open Forum
New
Delhi, 8 July 2015
Welfare
Schemes
FUND UTILISATION
CRITICAL
By Dhurjati
Mukherjee
The proposal to reduce the number of
Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) to 30-odd from the current 72, has assumed
significance against the backdrop of the 14th Finance Commission’s award,
raising the transfer of taxes to States from 32 to 42 per cent. It is
understood that the amount of funds in each CSS which States can spend on their
discretion within the overall parameters of the main scheme -- known as ‘flexi
funds’ – has also been proposed to be raised to 25 per cent from 10 per cent.
The proposal has the unanimous
approval of a sub-group of Chief Ministers set up by Niti Aayog. Headed by
Madhya Pradesh’s Shivraj Singh Chauhan, the panel divided the CSS into two
groups – core and optional schemes. The former would include legislatively
backed schemes, such as NREGA, Swachh Bharat, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, National
Rural Health Mission, Indira Awas Yojana, poverty elimination schemes etc. The
funding pattern of these core schemes would be 60 per cent by the Centre and
the remaining 40 per cent by the States while those for optional schemes, the
Centre’s and the States’ share would be 50 per cent each.
The impact of this decision has
several consequences. First and foremost, it is widely agreed that the
efficiency of the Central Government is much better than most, if not all,
State governments. Keeping this in mind, if the monitoring is left to State
governments, there is every possibility of more corruption and lesser benefits
to the targeted population. Secondly, with the curtailment of Central funds,
most of the State governments may not actually give their share of funds but
resort to unfair manipulation.
The logic that with the increased
fund allocation under the 14th Finance Commission, the States would have to use
these for welfare schemes may theoretically seem quite appropriate. But in reality, the increased funds would
only be used for short-term populist measures to gain political mileage and not
help the poor and the economically weaker sections per se. It is well known
fact that if welfare schemes were strictly monitored, the benefits to the
masses, mainly in the rural areas, would have been far greater.
There is justification on the need
for economic and/or financial decentralization that is, devolution of funds to
the lowest tier of the administration. But given the political reality of the
country where there is large scale corruption, devolution should be accompanied
with strict monitoring to ensure best results. It is a fact that gram
panchayats have very little decision making power and everything is decided at
the State level or at best at the district level – zilla parishad.
It is significant to mention here
that recently the Comptroller & Auditor General directed all States
Principal Accountant Generals to get the Social Audit conducted by an
independent organization of all Centrally sponsored welfare schemes to see
whether the benefits actually reach the beneficiaries and the resultant effects
of these schemes. The States may not like such action to be taken by the
Principal AGs as would reveal the political interference, corruption and other
negative aspects that obviously hamper the effectiveness of such schemes. As a
result, not a single State as of now has gone for such independent audit by a
professional organization.
The role of the private sector in India, either
at the national or at the village level, leaves much to be desired. It has a
record of cheating the Government in various ways, extracting benefits through
dubious means and resorting to wanton corruption, mostly for their own benefit,
sometimes in connivance with politicians. It is difficult to rely on them even
when the interests of the poor and the economically weaker sections are
involved but, there being no alternative, this is being done for most of the
welfare schemes.
At a time when the Government is
talking about more transparency and accountability, it is time that this is
translated into practice. The welfare schemes have been formulated for a
certain section of society who needs special help to bring them into the
mainstream of life and activity. In this connection, the recent socio-economic
and caste census (SECC), released recently by the Finance Minister, reveals
that over 49 per cent of the 17.91 crore households in rural India may be
considered under various welfare schemes, depending on their specific
deprivation.
The degree of deprivation poses an
intractable challenge to the present NDA Government if it wants to improve the
living conditions of the poor. For example, the dismal scenario is illustrated
by the fact that over 51 per cent are dependent on manual labour while 30 per
cent of rural households own no land and 2.37 crore households live in one-room
kuccha houses constituting 13.25 per
cent of 17.91 crore households.
In such a scenario, it is thus
imperative that the benefits of the welfare schemes must reach those for whom
these are intended for. Only then can the desired effects of improvement in the
quality of life of the lower segments of society take place. If the
implementation mechanism is not strengthened, India’s emergence as a major power
in the international scene may be greatly jeopardized.
Importantly, the country’s
orientation of the planning strategy needs to change too. Being governed by
bureaucrats, who mostly come from urban areas and from well-off families, the
country has, over the years, not paid sufficient attention to the impoverished
rural mass. And over and above this, most of the welfare schemes do not reach
the targeted beneficiaries. In such a situation, how can one think of rural
transformation?
Let us remember that Mahatma Gandhi
had a clear strategy of rural rejuvenation. Sadly, that is now only in theory.
Most political parties swear by his name but his ideological stand is not
adhered to. The urban bias in Indian planning has led to the neglect of rural
areas where majority of the country’s population reside. The different welfare
schemes, announced by the Government, need to be properly monitored so that the
benefits – whether in the realm of education, health, sanitation or housing –
reach the beneficiaries. If there is a genuine urge to improve the
socio-economic fabric of our rural areas and improve the quality of life of the
villagers, there is need for strong monitoring, either at the Central or State
level. Mere talk of ‘inclusive growth’ by all governments is no reassurance.
---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|