Volume 1 No.

1, 2010

RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVES IN INDIA:
A Holistic Approach
Reshmi Banerjee
(Universitas Indonesia)

Abstract
This article aims to look at the role & importance of rural development &
the initiatives that have been taken in India in the field of employment,
infrastructure, nutrition & health etc. It will also look at the role of the grass
root level democratic institutions in the implementation of the rural
development programmes at the village level.
Keywords: NREG, Bharat Nirman, Panchayats, NFSM & NRHM.

A) Introduction : commodities for survival & thus rural develop-

A developing country like India with agri-
culture as its backbone has to necessarily
include rural development as a part of its
strategy of overall economic development
of the country. Rural development/trans-
formation will not only lead to an improve-
ment in the economic life of the rural masses
whereby employment will be generated &
income improved but also give confidence
to the rural poor people that they can make
a difference in their lives & in the lives of others
by being active part of such developmental
policies & programmes. Employment in turn
will give purchasing power in the hands of
those who need to buy food & other basic
ment in turn is connected to food security.
It will help in providing secure livelihood
which in turn is crucial for achieving a food
secure India.
Noman Ahmad comments that the concept
of rural development is a wide concept since
it covers almost every aspect of rural life &
is a multidimensional, multidisciplinary
approach. It includes not only strategies &
policies for the development of rural areas
& activities like agriculture, forestry, fishery,
rural crafts & industries but also development
of socio-economic infrastructure. Rural
Development needs to be assessed not only
on an economic yardstick but also by seeing

77
Indonesia Social Science Review
whether it benefits the poorest sections of
the society & the ecological constraints.
For the assessment of success or otherwise
of a rural development programme, merely
an economic yardstick should not be applied,
but human considerations should also be
used as the benefits accruing to poorest
sections of the society & the ecological
considerations. There are thus two major
objectives of rural developmental pro-
grammes, firstly to achieve accelerated
economic growth through larger participa-
tion of rural population & secondly to dis-
tribute the benefits in the most equitable
manner. 1
The community organizations have an
important role to play as they bring about a
certain amount of responsibility in decision
making & implementation, accountability
& it can be a reason for improving quality &
cost effectiveness of programmes. Yoginder
K. Alagh argues that ‘community based
institutions with a sharp focus will have to
be central to the next phase of rural de-
velopment policies in India’. 2 Pranab
Bardhan also points out that ‘peer moni-
toring, the enforcement of local sanctions
& common set of norms can provide the
basis of social insurance schemes & group
borrowing & decentralization with local
accountability my also help in the manage-
ment of common property resources.3
Panchayats (grass root level democratic
institutions at the village level in India), Co-
operatives & Non-Governmental organizations
can make a huge impact on the functioning
of the rural development programmes.
Panchayats make the development pro-
grammes relevant to the needs & problems
1
Ahmad, Syed, Noman (1997), Rapid Rural Transformation through Voluntary Action, New
Delhi, MD Publications Pvt Ltd, pp. 12- 14.
2
Alagh, Yoginder K (2004), “ Emerging Institution for Rural Development” in Bandyopadhyay,
D & Mukherjee, Amitava, New Issues in Panchayati Raj, New Delhi, Concept, p.67.
3
Bardhan, Pranab (2003), Poverty, Agrarian Structure & Political Economy in India, New
Delhi, Oxford, p.16.
78
of the people. They not only transfer deci-
sion making to the villages but also create
system awareness & political conscious-
ness among the rural masses who slowly
start asserting & involving themselves in the
management of the village plans. Coopera-
tives in India function at all levels in diverse
areas such as credit, marketing, distribu-
tion, dairy & sugar industries, poultry,
fishing, housing etc. Cooperative banks have
also been financing agricultural marketing
& processing activities which are important
for the development of agricultural & rural
areas & the rate of interest charged by
credit cooperatives have always been the
lowest in the markets. Also the Self-Help
groups are considered as informal coopera-
tives as they possess distinct features of
grassroots level cooperatives & they along
with cooperatives can forge linkages which
can help in empowering the rural people &
protect their interests.
The non-governmental organizations
influence the local administration, act as a
check on the rural government & local
bureaucracy, identify the genuine target
groups that can make the government de-
livery system more effective, increase the
awareness in people & finally help in plugging
the loopholes / leakages in the delivery sys-
tem. They facilitate decentralized develop-
ment & can be an important instrument of
training & promoting good governance at
the panchayat level. India has implemented
many rural developmental programmes
(employment programmes, direct food
based programmes, programmes for develop-
ment of infrastructure & natural resources,
health & education schemes) in the past

through which various aspects of rural life
have been improved. This article would like
to look at the few recent schemes which
are & will be making a difference in the
future. The most recent one among them
is the National Rural Employment Guaran-
tee Scheme or what is popularly known in
India as the NREGS.
B) Rural Employment Schemes :
- National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme
The National Rural Employment Guaran-
tee Act was notified on September 7, 2005
& the scheme was launched on February 2,
2006. The two earlier functioning programmes
of Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana
(SGRY) & the National Food for Work Pro-
gramme (NFWP) were subsumed within the
NREGS. It was being increasingly felt that
there was a need for a more robust programme
for providing employment & livelihood. The
earlier employment schemes had functioned
well but over a period of time, they had
developed inherent weaknesses which had
resulted in them not functioning to their
utmost capacity. The National Food for
Work programme (NFWP) was criticized for
various reasons. Some of them are :
- failure to pay minimum wages.
- muster rolls were virtually impossible
to obtain & there was lack of
transparency & accountability.4
- There was delay in allocation of funds
& the consequent non-utilisation of
funds which resulted in the delay
of the entire project.
- It was highly centralized & the
people’s participation in project
4
Dreze, Jean (2005), “ Loot for Work Programme”, The Times of India, New Delhi, July 2.
5
Karat, Brinda (2005), “ Issues in the Food for Work programme”, The Hindu, Delhi, June 3.
Volume 1 No. 1, 2010
planning & implementation was
completely ignored. The guidelines
contained no provision to give
workers the opportunity to register
for work on a project. Nor was it
compulsory for the administration
to inform the population of the work
planned. Since they had no access
to the information, according to
Brinda Karat, it was a form of denial
of the right to work.5 The National
Food for Work Programme (NFWP),
launched in November 2004, in 150
backward districts, had aimed at
providing 100 days of employment
for at least one able bodied person
from each household in the country
at minimum wages. However the
weaknesses/demerits of the pro-
gramme compelled the policy-
makers to think of an alternative.
Meanwhile the Sampoorna Grameen
Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) was a wage employ-
ment scheme lanched in September 2001
wherein wages were paid partly in the form
of foodgrains & partly in cash. The mini-
mum amount of foodgrains to be given as
part of wages were 5 kg per manday & a
minimum of 25% of the wages were to be
paid in cash. Although the programme suc-
ceeded in creating community assets in
rural areas (mainly construction) & gen-
erated enthusiasm amongst villagers,
there were drawbacks. These were :
- There was non- availability of
foodgrains at godowns of the Food
Corporation of India (FCI), inadequate
number of godowns, high transport
costs, cumbersome processes &
black marketing
- The activities were taken up in an
ad-hoc manner & were not selected
79
Indonesia Social Science Review

as part of a long term plan for
development of the region.
- Wage payments were less than the
minimum wages
- On an average, between 9&30 days
of employment per beneficiary was
generated & in some cases,
contractors were involved & the use
of machinery was also reported
though the guidelines prohibited
this.6
All these above problems created a
situation where it became necessary to
create a different, more innovative & effec-
tive employment programme in the rural
areas which would create a stir in society
& be a step in the right direction. One had
to be careful so as not to make the same
mistakes of the past.
The new scheme (NREGS) intends to
cover all the districts in the country in five
years & the implementation of the Act calls
for the formulation of NREGS by the state
governments. Section 4 of the Act provides
that within six months from the date of
commencement of the Act, every state
government, shall by notification, make a
scheme for providing not less than 100 days
of guaranteed employment in a financial
year to every household in the rural areas
covered under the scheme & whose adult
members volunteer to do unskilled manual
work subject to conditions laid down in the
Act. The objective of the Act is to enhance
the livelihood security of the people in the
rural area by generating wage employment
through works that develop the infrastruc-
ture base of that area. The choice of work
suggested addresses the causes of chronic
poverty like drought, deforestation & soil
erosion.7
A legal guarantee gives a legal right to
the poor to demand work & the demand for
work determines the size of the programme
(not the supply of work). The guarantee will
also result in reducing delay in starting
works & in wage payments as such delay can
be challenged in a court of law. It will also
reduce distress migration as workers are
assured of the availability of work during the
lean season which in turn will improve the
access of workers to education, health &
other welfare facilities. And also the guarantee
of work can ensure asset generation particu-
larly ecological regeneration & infrastructure
development in backward regions, both of
which can promote economic growth.8
The guarantee provided under the act
include
- guarantee is given for casual &
manual work on public works
- work would be provided within 15
days of demanding it
- work would be located within 5
km distance
- if work is not provided to anybody
within the given time he/she will
be paid a daily unemployment
allowance which will be atleast
one third of the minimum wages.
Also if work is provided outside
the limit of 5 km, the worker will
get an allowance for traveling &
living there. 9

6
The Mid Term Appraisal of the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007), Planning Commission,
Government of India, p.243.
7
Economic Survey (2005-06), Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs,
Economic Division, Government of India, p. 204.
8
Hirway, Indira (2004), “ Providing Employment Guarantee in India”, Economic & Political
Weekly, November 27, p. 5118.
9
Ibid., p. 5119.

80
 Volume 1 No. 1, 2010

Mihir Shah comments that ‘the NREG
Act represents a historic opportunity for
socio-economic transformation in rural In-
dia’.10 The commitment by the Central
government is indeed new as it promises
to make this a legal right of all citizens &
also because the responsibility of funding
the scheme rests with the central govern-
ment rather than with the states.11 Many
renowned social scientists have given their
views on the Act. Jayati Ghosh & G.S.
Bhalla both agree with the fact that any new
act which is trying to bring change is better
than doing no change. Jayati Ghosh, an
Indian economist argues that any new pub-
lic intervention that increases income will
be beneficial.12 Utsa Patnaik, another very
well renowned economist argues that
‘there is already a Sub-Saharan Africa
within India – half of our rural population
are below the average food intake of Sub-
Saharan countries & rural India is crying
for both work & food’.13
While debates were going on regarding
the provisions of the bill & eventually the
Act, the need & the consciousness for an
employment guarantee scheme was being
generated within civil society too. Mihir
Shah points out that while the standing
committee of the Parliament deliberated
the bill, the voice of the forgotten people
living in remote hinterlands echoed during
the Rozgar Adhikar Yatra (Employment
Rights March) that criss-crossed ten states
in May-June 2005. The most important
suggestion that the committee made was
that employment guarantee must not be
restricted to those below the official poverty
alone (BPL) & it favoured a universal self-
targeting employment guarantee.14
An important part of this scheme is that
the panchayats (grass root level decen-
tralized institution of governance) have
been involved in this. Atleast 50% of the
projects in terms of value are to be imple-
mented through the gram panchayats.
Adult members of every household who are
willing to do casual manual work at the
statutory minimum wage will apply to the
gram panchayat (gram means village) for
registration. The gram panchayat will regis-
ter the household after making necessary
enquiries & issue a job card containing de-
tails of its adult members along with their
photographs. The registration will be for a
period of not less than five years & may be
renewed from time to time. The gram
panchayat is bound to accept valid appli-
cations & group applications may also be
submitted. Employment is provided within
a radius of 5 km & even if work is provided
beyond 5 km, it will be provided within the
block & the labourers paid 10% of the daily
minimum wages extra, to meet additional
transportation & living expenses. The Act
forbids the use of contractors & labour dis-
placing machines. Also at least 60% of the
expenditure under any project has to be
on wages.15

10
Shah, Mihir (2004), “ National Rural Employment Guarantee Act – A Historic Opportunity”,
Economic & Political Weekly, December 11, p. 5287.
11
Chandrasekhar, C.P & Ghosh, Jayati (2004), “ How feasible is a rural employment guarantee”,
Social Scientist, Vol 32, Numbers 7-8, July – August, p. 53.
12
As per interview with professor Jayati Ghosh, Centre for Economic Studies & Planning,
JNU, New Delhi, May 2005.
13
Patnaik, Utsa (2005), “ It is time for Kumbhakarna to wake up”, The Hindu, Delhi, August
5.
14
Shah, Mihir (2005), “ Employment Guarantee MPs lead the way”, The Hindu, Delhi,
August 10.
15
Shah, Mihir (2004), art.cit., pp. 5289-5290.

81
Indonesia Social Science Review
The work involved in this programme
would build infrastructure such as roads,
irrigation, health facilities etc. This could
help reverse the neglect of rural infrastruc-
ture & be a crucial part of regenerating the
rural economy. Providing employment would
have beneficial impact on health, educa-
tion & other determinants of social welfare
by breaking the cycle of rural poverty. Also
one third of the proposed jobs would be
reserved for women & safeguards have
been introduced at several levels from village
panchayats to zilla parishad. Thus, there may
be also indirect benefits if more women are
given the opportunity to work as higher
levels of female labour force participation
are associated with lower infant mortality
rates & higher primary school enrolment rates.
The revival of rural employment opportunities
would reduce migration to urban centers &
help ease problem in these areas.
It has been argued by some that this
scheme is going to create fiscal crisis for
India. Fiscal experts within the government
feel that the fiscal implications of the uni-
versal coverage would be huge. However
there are scholars & others who feel that
the increased wage incomes in rural areas
would generate more demand for rural
goods & services & thus generate multiplier
effects. This would have large beneficial
implications for material conditions & even
contribute to increased tax revenues be-
cause of larger levels of economic activity.
Also such expenditure will yield dividends
not only in terms of higher levels of eco-
nomic activity in the present but also
through improving the conditions of pro-
duction in rural areas.16
16
Chandrasekhar, C.P & Ghosh, Jayati (2004), “ How feasible is a rural employment guarantee”,
Social Scientist, Volume 32, Numbers 7-8, July – August, p. 54.
17
Venkateshwarlu, K (2006), “ National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in place”,
The Hindu, Delhi, February 3.
18
Economic Survey (2008-09), Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs,
Economic Division, Government of India, pp. 269-270.
82
The Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan
Singh has reiterated the need for a good
monitoring system & a grievance redressal
mechanism to be put in place to ensure
that the Act has the intended effect. He
further has said that three watch words
should be followed:- outlays should be
matched by outcomes, productive assets
must be created & guarantee must be im-
plemented in true spirit.17
The NREG which was launched in 200
most backward districts in the first phase,
was expanded to 330 districts in the second
phase during 2007-08. The remaining 266
districts were notified on September 28,
2008, & the scheme has now been extended
to all the districts of the country. More than
4.47 crore households were provided em-
ployment in 2009-09. This is a significant
jump over the 3.39 crore households covered
under the scheme during 2007-08. Out of the
215.63 crore person-days created under
the scheme during this period, 29% & 25%
were in favour of Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe population, respectively
& 48% of the total person-days created went
in favour of women. An allocation of Rs
30,100 crore has been made in the interim
budget for 2009-2010 as against Rs. 16,000
crore in 2008-09 for NREGS.18
- Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar
Yojana
The other important scheme working in
the rural area is that of the Swarnjayanti
Gram Swarozgar Yojana which was
launched in April 1999 after restructuring
of the Integrated Rural Development Pro-

gramme (IRDP) & allied programmes. It is
the only self – employment programme
currently being implemented for the rural
poor. The objective of the SGSY is to bring
the assisted swarozgaris above the poverty
line by providing them income generating
assets through bank credit & Government
subsidy. The scheme is being implemented
on cost-sharing basis of 75:25 between the
Centre & states. Up to March 2009, 34 lakh
self-help groups (SHGs) had been formed
& 120.89 lakh swarozgaris have been assisted
with a total outlay of Rs 27,183.03 crore.19
Employment is crucial in removing
poverty, increasing income & removing
hunger & malnutrition. The ILO’s “World Em-
ployment Report 2004-05” has observed
that if people are able to earn more from
their work, poverty would decline. The re-
port says that policies ensuring basic
property rights & enforcement of contracts
can play an important role in improving pro-
ductivity. The report cites the rural reforms
in China which saw an explosive growth
(town & village industries along with the
example of West Bengal (tenure security
provided by the eastern state of India). Pro-
ductivity can be actually experienced if
work related realities are changed through
policy interventions. The report also debunks
the notion that a labour – intensive develop-
ment strategy is low on productivity. Labour
intensive economies are often agricultural
economies as well & the report cautions
against ignoring this sector. It suggests that
economies that are predominantly agricul-
tural should not ignore this sector if the
focus is on poverty reduction. Growth, the
ILO report stresses is a function of not only
productivity but also employment. Despite
this, many development initiatives fail to
focus on employment.20
19
Ibid., p.270.
20
Rajalakshmi, T.K (2005), “The Employment Challenge”, Frontline, Chennai, January 14,
pp. 78-79.
21
The Food Insecurity Atlas of Rural India (2001), World Food Programme & M.S.
Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, p.51.
Volume 1 No. 1, 2010
There are also many schemes which like
to directly address the issue of physical food
availability & bring the vulnerable sections
of the population into schemes which pro-
vide subsidized foodgrains to the poor
people. Antyodaya, Mid day Meal scheme,
Gramin (village) Grain Bank & ICDS (Inte-
grated Child Development Services) are
some of the schemes making an impact at
the rural level in India.
C) Rural Infrastructure & Bharat
Nirman :
Infrastucture consists of both hard & soft
infrastructure. Hard infrastructure (like
roads, electricity supplies, storage facili-
ties, irrigation facilities) is a basic require-
ment of food access. Availability of work &
non-agricultural employment also improve
with better link roads. Moreover rural elec-
trification helps the establishment of non-
agricultural enterprises in the village, im-
proves livelihood access & helps in irriga-
tion.21
Bharat Nirman has been conceived as
a business plan, to be implemented over a
period of period of four years, for building
infrastructure especially in rural India. It
was launched in 2005-06 & had six com-
ponents: - rural housing, irrigation poten-
tial, drinking water, rural roads, electrifica-
tion & rural telephony. This programme has
received an outlay of Rs 40,900 crore in the
interim budget for 2009-10. Some of the
targets that have been achieved –
- Upto march 2009, a total length of
2,14,281.45 kms of roadways has
been completed under the Pradhan
Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY)
83
Indonesia Social Science Review
with a cumulative expenditure of
Rs.46,807.21 crore. (Rural Roads)
- 21.05 lakh houses have been
constructed during 2008-09 & Rs
8,795.79 crore has been released till
March 31st 2009. (Rural Housing)
- 55,067 uncovered & about 3.31 lakh
slipped back habitations are to be
covered with provision of drinking
water facilities & 2.17 lakh quality
affected habitations are to be
addressed for water quality problems.
(Drinking Water supply)
- Under Bharat Nirman, for rural
water supply, Rs. 4,098 crore in
2005-06, Rs.4,560 crore in 2006-07
& Rs.6,441.69 crore in 2007-08 has
been utilized. In 2008-09, a budgetary
provision of Rs.7300 crore had been
made out of which Rs 7,276.29
(almost 100 percent) has been
utilized. 22 PURA or provision of
urban amenities in rural areas is an
idea that contains within itself
possible solutions to a number of
problems that afflict India such as
unemployment, isolation from
markets, lack of opportunity &
migration to cities.
There are however some doubts raised
about the aggressive effort to promote
public private partnerships in infrastructure
projects. Entry of private players into in-
frastructure projects not only lead to in-
creases in user charges to the detriment
of the poor, but they also lead to concentra-
tion on the more profitable operations un-
dermining the capacity of the public sector
to cross-subsidies its loss making but so-
cially necessary operations. Economic
22
Economic Survey (2008-09), op.cit., pp. 268-269.
23
Suryanarayana, M.H (2003), “ Policies for Nutrition : How Imperative are they ?” in Dev,
S, Mahendra, Kannan, K.P & Ramachandran, Nira (eds), Towards a Food Secure India –
Issues & Policies, New Delhi, Institute for Human Development, p. 406.
84
development (Employment-creation) &
Physical development (Infrastructure –
building) is just one aspect of rural develop-
ment. The social aspect of development ie
proper nutrition, proper education & good
health care facilities is also as important
as the economic aspect. Better the eco-
nomic development, better would be the
poor people’s capability to utilise the social
amenities. Also the Government of India
has been making efforts in creating a con-
ducive environment whereby the arenas of
rural education, nutrition & health care can
be improved & delivery systems upgraded.
D) Nutrition & Health Care Facilities
in the rural areas :
India has been facing the problem of
malnutrition. The nutritional status of the
population particularly the poor has not
received the kind of attention that it should
have had. Undernourishment is a problem,
which has serious long-term implications
for daily activities so much so that A. Pacey
& P. Payne define undernutrition as ‘un-
acceptable penalties in terms of hunger,
illness, dysfunction & risk of dysfunction’.
The nutritional status has a bearing on effi-
ciency & productivity of labour, the only
asset of the poor, and hence their wages &
incomes too.23
Conservative estimates suggest about
a fifth of Indians experience all four dimen-
sions of food insecurity (Deficiency, Inacces-
sibility, Poor utilization of food & Disaster
proneness). These are people whom analysts
may choose to catalogue as suffering
varyingly from chronic food insecurity, nu-
tritional insecurity & transitory food inse-
curity. However the fact remains that they
 Volume 1 No. 1, 2010

represent the unfilled belly of India.24 M.H.
Suryanarayana comments that although sta-
tistical estimates of poverty show a decline
over time, but this is not reflected in the
estimates of calorie intake, an important
parameter of nutritional status which do
not show a similar improvement.25 It has
been seen that factors other than income
poverty also influence malnutrition. Thus
mere improvement in the economic status
may not result in improvement in nutritional
status.
The district level surveys have reiterated
the need for decentralized district & sub-
district planning, implementation & moni-
toring of nutrition related intervention.
Planning Commission in 2005 set up a
Nutrition & Food Watch Committee to take
stock of food security & nutrition outcomes
across India. A National Nutrition Mission
supervised by the National Nutrition Coun-
cil headed by the Prime Minister has also
been set up to achieve rapid reduction in
macro & micro nutrient undernutrition
through focused & comprehensive inter-
vention aimed at improving the nutritional
& health status of the individuals.
The National Food Security Mission
(NFSM) is being implemented in 312 iden-
tified districts of 17 states of the country.
The NFSM- Rice is being implemented in
136 districts of 14 states & the interventions
include demonstrations on improved
practices, distribution of HYV seeds, seed
minikits, micronutrients, plant protection
chemicals & bio-pesticides, farmers’ field
schools, local initiatives etc. NFSM –
Wheat is also being implemented in 141
districts of 9 states.26
Meanwhile, as far as health is concerned,
the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
has been launched (launched on April 12,
2005) to provide accessible, affordable &
accountable quality health services to the
poorest households in the remotest rural
regions. Allocation has been increased to
Rs 12,070 crore in interim budget for 2009-
10 compared to Rs. 12,050 crore in 2008-09.
NRHM is being operationalised through-
out the country, with special focus on 18
states. It aims to bridge the gap in rural
health care services through the creation of
a cadre of Accredited Social Health Activists
(ASHA) & improved hospital care, decen-
tralization of programme to district level to
improve intra & inter-sectoral convergence
& effective utilization of resources. The pro-
gramme addresses the issue of health in
the context of sector-wide approach towards
sanitation & hygiene, nutrition & safe
drinking water as basic determinants of
good health in order to have greater conver-
gence among the related social sector de-
partments ie AYUSH, Women & Child De-
velopment, Sanitation, Elementary Educa-
tion, Panchayati Raj & Rural Development.
The mission further seeks to build greater
ownership of the programme among the
community through involvement of
Panchayati Raj Institutions, NGOs & other
stakeholders at national, state, district &
sub-district levels to achieve its goals.27
The Government of India has also
adopted the National Policy for Farmers,
2007 & the major policy provisions include
provisions for asset reforms, water use effi-
ciency, use of technology, inputs & services,
support services for women, credit, insurance
etc. The Kisan Call Centres (KCC) scheme
has also been launched to provide agricul-
tural information to the farming community
through toll free, country wide common
number. Over 32.70 lakh calls were received

24
Tackling Hunger : United Nations World Food Programme’s Effort to eliminate food
insecurity in India (2002), World Food Programme, New Delhi, p.3.
25
Suryanarayana, M.H (2003), art.cit in Dev, S. Mahendra, Kannan, K.P & Ramachandran,
Nira, op.cit., p.425.
26
Economic Survey (2008-09), op.cit., pp. 181-182.

85
Indonesia Social Science Review
up to March 2009 by the 25 KCCs located
across the country.28
E) Other initiatives :
The Government of India announced a
farm package in 2004 June which aimed
at doubling the flow of institutional credit
in the next three years. The credit flow to
the farm sector got doubled during two
years as against the stipulated time period
of three years. The credit flow in 2008-09
is placed at Rs 2,64,455 crore. Also a
scheme of agricultural debt waiver & debt
relief for farmers with the total value of
overdue loans being waived estimated at
Rs 50,000 crore & a one time settlement
(OTS) relief on the overdue loans at Rs
10,000 crore was announced in the Union
Budget 2008-09, for implementation by all
scheduled commercial banks, besides
Regional Rural Banks & cooperative credit
institutions.29
Besides credit, the Government has
also launched schemes like the National
Horticulture Mission (NHM), the Rashtriya
Krishi Vikas Yojana (agriculture mechani-
zation, development of rain fed farming
systems, integrated pest management,
market infrastructure, horticulture, animal
husbandry etc) & the Protection of Plant
Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority has
been established in November 2005.
The emphasis has been laid on inclu-
sive growth & greater redistribution before
growth, in order to ensure growth with
social justice. However there is a need to
consolidate the various development pro-
grammes as there is lack of cohesion, du-
plication of efforts, loss of money & lack of
synergy in efforts. Jean Dreze has argued
that fewer programmes with better imple-
27
Ibid., p.273.
28
Ibid., p. 191.
29
Ibid., pp.102-103.
86
mentation would certainly be better.30
F ) Efforts made by NGOs:
Many NGOs in India are actively in-
volved in rural development programmes.
Some of them like the Catholic Relief
Services have supported local partners to
implement a range of health, education,
agriculture, safety net & emergency pro-
grammes. It has provided assistance to the
poor to alleviate their immediate needs &
support self-help programmes which in-
volve people & communities in their own
development.31 Also the IDRC (Inter Inter na-
Interna-
tional Development ResearResearchch Centr
Centree)
aims to promote food & livelihood secu-
rity. It takes a multidisciplinary approach
to tackling development problems through
three broad program areas –
- Environment & Natural Resource
Management
- Information & Communication
Technologies for Development
- Social & Economic Equity IDRC
builds on community knowledge &
participation to inform policy &
institutional frameworks that
govern resource management.32
Some other NGOs, making a difference,
are The Hunger Project, Care India, De-
velopment Alternatives, Navdanya etc. In
some of the states like West Bengal (an
eastern state in India), the Department of
Panchayats & Rural Development is collabo-
rating with various civil society organiza-
tions (CSO) to fight together against poverty
& other social maladies. In fact, the
panchayats are the foundation on which
the entire edifice of the rural development
programme of West Bengal is based.
 Volume 1 No. 1, 2010

Bringing people into direct governance is
one of the most powerful mechanisms to
ensure sustainable governance.
Conclusion:
Empowering people means strengthening
their ability to shape decisions that affect
their lives – by removing discrimination,
promoting equity and making the government
institutions more open, transparent & account-
able. The Indian government has over the
years realised the importance of rural de-
velopment – which includes not only rural
employment, rural infrastructure & rural
health & nutrition facilities but also encom-
passes agricultural research & extension,
land resource & natural resource manage-
ment, fishery, forestry & management of
livestock & animal resources. The approach
to rural development has to be multisectoral
& should be focused on improving the ca-
pability of the rural people by building their
productive, social & environmental assets.
The World Bank also has talked about the
strength & relevance of community based
rural development (that promotes collec-
tive action) & puts the rural people in
charge of the development interventions.
E.F Schumacher, a British economist
has argued in ‘Small is Beautiful’ that for
genuine economic development to be
achieved, ‘ the central concept of wisdom is
permanence’. An entirely new system of
thought is needed, a system based on
attention to people & not to goods.33 People
centered development should be the key
to all changes in the future.. In this regard,
one has to also stress on the importance
of governance. Decentralised decision
making structures & participatory political
culture can turn the tide in favour of the
small farmers & marginalized sections of
the population. It is already beginning to
happen in India. The voices which were
once at the margins are slowly making their
way into the mainstream.

30
As per interview with Jean Dreze, Centre for Equity Studies, New Delhi, August 29, 2005.
31
India Program, Annual Public Summary of Activities (2004), Catholic Relief Services, New
Delhi, pp. 1-3.
32
Supporting innovative research for development in South Asia (2001), International Research
Development Centre, New Delhi, pp. 3-4.
33
www.idrc.ca, accessed on 24th August, 2009.

References

Ahmad, Syed Noman. (1997). Rapid Rural Transformation through Voluntary Action.
New Delhi, MD Publications Pvt Ltd.
Alagh, Yoginder K. (2004). “Emerging Institution for Rural Development” in
Bandyopadhyay, D & Mukherjee, Amitava, New Issues in Panchayati Raj. New
Delhi, Concept.
Bardhan, Pranab. (2003). Poverty, Agrarian Structure & Political Economy in India. New
Delhi, Oxford.
Chandrasekhar, C.P & Ghosh, Jayati. (2004). “How feasible is a rural employment
guarantee”. Social Scientist. Volume 32, Numbers 7-8, July – August.
Dreze, Jean. (2005). “Loot for Work Programme”. The Times of India. New Delhi, July 2.

87
Indonesia Social Science Review

Economic Survey (2005-06). Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs,

Economic Division, Government of India.
Economic Survey (2008-09). Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs,
Economic Division, Government of India.
Hirway, Indira. (2004). “Providing Employment Guarantee in India”. Economic & Political
Weekly. November 27.
India Program, Annual Public Summary of Activities (2004), Catholic Relief Services.
New Delhi.
Karat, Brinda. (2005). “Issues in the Food for Work programme”. The Hindu. Delhi, June 3.
Patnaik, Utsa. (2005). “It is time for Kumbhakarna to wake up”. The Hindu. Delhi, August 5.
Rajalakshmi, T.K. (2005). “The Employment Challenge”. Frontline. Chennai, January 14.
Shah, Mihir. (2004). “National Rural Employment Guarantee Act – A Historic Opportunity”.
Economic & Political Weekly. December 11.
Shah, Mihir. (2005). “Employment Guarantee MPs lead the way”. The Hindu. Delhi,
August 10.
Supporting innovative research for development in South Asia (2001), International
Research Development Centre. New Delhi.
Suryanarayana, M.H. (2003). “Policies for Nutrition : How Imperative are they ?”. in Dev,
S, Mahendra, Kannan, K.P & Ramachandran, Nira (eds), Towards a Food Secure
India – Issues & Policies. New Delhi, Institute for Human Development.
Tackling Hunger: United Nations World Food Programme’s Effort to eliminate food
insecurity in India (2002), World Food Programme, New Delhi.
The Food Insecurity Atlas of Rural India (2001), World Food Programme & M.S.
Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai.
The Mid Term Appraisal of the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007), Planning Commission,
Government of India.
Venkateshwarlu, K. (2006). “National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in place”. The
Hindu. Delhi, February 3.
www.idrc.ca. Accessed on 24th August, 2009.

88