The three major challenges facing the UPA government are: first, bridge the development deficit to reduce sense of alienation existing in the people; second, remove the weaknesses in farm extension services; and third, design a holistic development programme for Maoist-affected areas.
These three urgent tasks were prescribed by the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh at the National Development Council meeting, which was held to review the progress of the 11th Plan and set right anomalies.
The fact is there is nothing new in the Prime Minister’s prescriptions. Over the years the NDC as well as the governments have been harping on these aspects of governance. What was expected of Dr Singh was that he spell out the reasons for inertia that has gripped the government and turned it indifferent to taking on the challenges. The basic ethic and parameter of governance has been to ensure that people do not get alienated and disenchanted. But it has constantly ignored its basic task. Little wonder, the areas inhabited by the tribal and poor people have become the worst victims of the neglect and maladministration. Dr Singh did not unfold the measures and strategies to counter this malaise.
His suggestions to correct the course lacked a spirit of commitment. It is a known fact that a better agricultural performance, especially performance in food production, is crucial for food security and would help in tackling the problem of inflation. But even during his tenure, Dr Singh has not succeeded in pushing the performance. The least said the better about the performance of the agriculture department. A billion tonnes of food have been rotting in the open but the Agriculture Minister, Mr Sharad Pawar has been busy with cricket administration. Nothing could be a bigger national shame than this. While the poor have been starving, the grains are rotting ostensibly on the plea that there is lack of godowns. Besides how could the government fulfill its promise to create a strong farm sector with a consistent cut in the budgetary allocation for agriculture? Dr Singh must try and end this duality. Instead of being too generous to the protagonists of reforms and liberalisation, he should take cognisance of the fact that requirements of agriculture and poor people ought to be redefined in the present context.
Being an economist, Dr Singh is aware of the fact that development and economic growth of India should not only be viewed in the perspective of growth rate. This is skewed. If the growth has been spatial and also horizontal in nature, probably Maoism would not have come to make its home in seven states–all big states having huge population–in the country. He has regretted that though the high growth achieved this far was aimed at inclusive development, some of the development schemes were not working well in backward regions, especially the areas affected by left-wing extremism. No doubt a concerted effort needs to be made to bridge the development deficit in the areas to reduce the element of alienation, but what is most important is Dr Singh should ask for a candid answer: why are they reluctant to implement these schemes? What prevents them? Where has the money gone? Why development schemes had not worked well in the areas inhabited by the adivasi population and rural poor?
Dr Singh reiterated to implement the Forest Rights Act and the Panchayati Raj (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act in letter and spirit but the fact remains that this cannot be achieved unless there is an effective machinery to monitor the task. The government must ensure that the funds meant for the development of the poor and tribals do not go into the hands of vested interests. It should involve the farmers, poor and tribal based on the participatory principles instead of depending on PPP model to undertake development task and get the result.
