Programmes of Rural Development | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Meaning or Concept of Rural Development

Difference Between Rural Development and Agricultural Development: Rural development is a broader concept than agricultural development. While agricultural development focuses primarily on farming and related activities, rural development includes all areas and activities relevant to rural life, with agriculture being a significant component due to its importance in rural economies.

First Phase of Rural Development

• The Community Development Programme (CDP) was inspired by the success of earlier pre-independence rural development programs and aimed at transforming the social and economic life of villages by emphasizing community involvement. It was believed that villagers should take the initiative in developing their own communities.
• According to the Planning Commission, the CDP is a method through which the Five-Year Plans (FYP) aim to initiate a process of transformation in the social, economic, political, and cultural life of villagers. The emphasis was on achieving self-reliance among people and reducing dependency on external agencies.

Background and Initiation of CDP
The CDP was launched on October 2, 1952, with inspiration drawn from various experiments, including:

• Intensive rural development activities at Sevagram and Sarvodaya centers in Bombay State.
• Nilokheri Project in Haryana, aimed at rehabilitating refugees.
• Etawah Project, which included 97 villages in Etawah district for achieving self-reliance.
• Faridabad Project, which rehabilitated 30,000 refugees and transformed a village into a town.
• Firca Development Scheme in Madras, focusing on personality development and changing ideologies for village reconstruction.

Initially, the program was extended to 603 National Extension Service Blocks and 553 CDP Blocks, covering 1,57,000 villages and a population of 88.8 million persons.

Phases of CDP

• National Extension Phase: Areas were subjected to ordinary service provision methods with minimal government expenditure.
• Intensive Community Development Phase: Selected blocks underwent intensive development schemes with high government expenditure.
• Post Development Phase: It was assumed that the initial phases had created a self-perpetuating process, reducing the government role to supervision.

Fundamental Beliefs

• Development should align with the needs and preferences of villagers.
• Implementation of plans should be based on humble requests rather than compulsion.
• Special emphasis on the recruitment, orientation, and training of community development workers.
• Achievement of stability in the development process.

Administrative Structure

• Members of the Planning Commission
• Ministers of Concerned Departments
• Prime Minister (Chairman)

Functions

• Policy formulation
• Observation of ongoing activities

At State Level – State Development Committee

Organization

• Chief Minister (Chairman)
• Ministers of Concerned Departments
• Secretary

Functions

• Receipt of policies from the central government
• Delivery of progress and amendments to the center
• Establishing coordination among different departments
• Acknowledgment of district-level activities

Attached with Panchayats – At District Level

Organization

• Coordinator: District Collector
• Members: Chairman and Members of Zila Parishad

At Block Level

Organization

• Block Panchayat Committee: Oversees the implementation of policies

Key Personnel

• Block Development Officer (BDO): Oversees block-level development activities.
• Agriculture Specialist: Provides expertise in agricultural practices.
• Cooperatives Specialist: Focuses on cooperative development.
• Cattle-Rearing Specialist: Advises on cattle-rearing practices.
• Extension Officer: Facilitates the extension of government programs.

Gram Panchayats

Organization

• Village Head (Sarpanch): Leads the Gram Panchayat.
• Gram Sevak: Facilitates development activities at the village level.

Role of Gram Sevak

• Establishing Informal Relations: Builds trust with villagers.
• Problem Resolution: Addresses villagers' issues and encourages interest in improving their lifestyles.
• Policy Preparation: Assists villagers in preparing development policies.
• Leadership Development: Fosters leadership among villagers.

Field of Activities

• Activities are categorized into eight areas:
• Agriculture and related matters
• Communications
• Education
• Health
• Training
• Social Welfare
• Supplementary Employment
• Housing

Evaluation Report of 1957

Categories of Activities:

• Constructional Programmes: Includes roads, culverts, drains, pavements, school buildings, community centers, dispensaries, Harijan housing, and drinking water resources.
• Irrigational Programmes: Focuses on wells, pumping sets, type wells, and tanks.
• Agricultural Programmes: Covers reclamation, soil conservation, consolidation of holdings, improved seeds, manure, fertilizer, and pesticides.
• Institutional and other Programmes: Includes youth clubs, women’s organizations, community centers, cooperative societies, distribution stores, maternity centers, dispensaries, veterinary dispensaries, panchayats, adult literacy centers, primary schools, and cottage industries.

Contribution in Development

• Achievement of Belief of the Mass: Includes belief in the progress of village areas, democracy, science and technology, rural people's capacities, and social justice.
• Achievement of Mass Participation: Through democratic decentralization.
• Growth in Collective Efforts: To solve common problems.
• Dimensions of Administrative Change: Changed the nature of administration.
• Change in Traditional Ideologies: By using scientific techniques in agriculture, horticulture, and animal rearing.
• Decrease in Rural Unemployment: Though not significantly; only 2.5% of families benefited through CDP.
• Awareness toward Health and Hygiene: Increased awareness levels.
• Cultural Development: CDP has liberated poor people from self-conflict and non-sympathy.

Evaluation

The impact of the CDP has been analyzed and evaluated by various scholars and organizations, including Prof. Wilson, Prof. Carl Taylor, Oscar Lewis, Prof. Opler and his team, S.C. Dubey, Mandelbaum, and others. The Programme Evaluation Organization has also been continuously assessing the impact of the CDP, and their reports are considered valuable documents.

Prof. Taylor's Analysis

• The administration of the CDP is heavily reliant on government aid and support.
• There is a lack of initiative from the people in the implementation of the program.
• The government machinery focuses more on propaganda and spectacular results rather than on group work and voluntary participation.
• Bureaucrats are more committed to presenting facts than promoting mass participation, which threatens the foundation of the CDP.

S.C. Dubey's Findings

• Planning appears to be top-down.
• There is a need to examine the implications and results of current planning trends.
• Officials hesitate to take initiatives due to unique constraints on project autonomy.
• Officials often accept orders from above without question, which detracts from village-centric approaches.
• Officials are more focused on pleasing superiors than engaging with village communities.

Obstacles to Greater Acceptance of CDP

• Suspicion and distrust of officials and outsiders.
• Inadequate communication media by the project.
• Traditional and cultural factors.

J.F. Bulsara's Project Evaluation Report (1957)

• Physical Change: Constructional and irrigational activities are widespread, contributing to production potential and social overheads.
• Change in Production Attitudes: Agricultural and animal husbandry changes are successful, while cottage industry changes are not widespread or successful.
• Changes in Standard of Living: Improvements in primary education and drinking water are successful, while adult literacy and hygiene improvements are not as successful.
• Social Attitudes: Community centers, youth clubs, and women’s organizations are least successful.
• Organizational Attitudes: Understanding of cooperative objectives and panchayat responsibilities is comparatively unsuccessful.

Suggestions by Bulsara

• Focus on people’s constructive orientation and responsibility for satisfying local needs.
• Refit the administrative structure to implement community development in a welfare state.
• Train and orient Gram Sevaks according to their expected roles.
• Provide training opportunities for capable youths and adults from villages for effective participation.

Other Observations

• CDP fostered community dependence on government rather than self-reliance.
• Villages became divided into sectional interests, with the landed class's interests differing from those of service and occupational castes.
• Bureaucracy responsible for implementation lacked a social service ethos.
• Development communication was top-down, leading to confusion within the bureaucratic organization.
• Landowners were the primary beneficiaries of CDP.
• Gram Sewaks, often from landowning communities, heightened inequalities.
• Emphasis was more on economic aspects than social and spatial aspects.
• Cooperatives benefited local dominant castes, who used loans for cooperatives and hijacked subsidy benefits meant for the rural poor.

Second Phase of Rural Development

Land Reforms in the Early 1960s

Land reforms were introduced in the early 1960s in response to the failures of the Community Development Programme (CDP). The main goals of these reforms were:

• To remove obstacles and improve motivation within the agrarian structure inherited from the past.
• To eliminate exploitation and promote social justice in the agrarian system, ensuring equality of status and opportunity for all.

To achieve these objectives, the following actions were proposed:

• Abolishing all intermediaries between the state and the actual cultivators of the land.
• Granting ownership rights to cultivating tenants for the land they possess.
• Imposing ceilings on agricultural land holdings.
• Consolidating land holdings to facilitate the application of modern agricultural techniques.
• Rationalizing the records of land rights.

Critique of Land Reforms

The implementation of land reforms did not meet expectations. While the abolition of intermediaries was successful, benefiting nearly twenty million households, it did not positively impact land laborers. The ceiling on land holdings was set too high for doubly cropped irrigated land, resulting in minimal surplus. A significant portion of land remained tied up in legal disputes, hindering proper identification of beneficiaries.

• According to Alexandra George, the ceiling laws were primarily political maneuvers.
• Bandopadhyay noted that although the ceiling was high, only a small fraction of land was declared surplus.
• V.M. Dandekar reported minimal redistribution, with 99% of land remaining unchanged, except in West Bengal where a small percentage was redistributed.

Green Revolution in the Mid-1960s

Following land reforms, the Green Revolution was introduced in the mid-1960s as a response to the need for increased agricultural production after the Indo-Pak and Indo-China wars. The focus shifted from self-sufficiency to self-reliance, necessitating higher production levels. High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) were introduced to boost agricultural output.

Consequences of the Green Revolution

The Green Revolution led to the emergence of a middle peasant class structure, with wealthy landlords at the top, followed by middle peasants, and then landless laborers and small peasants. Resource distribution in rural areas became highly skewed, creating a strong correlation between caste and class. While wages increased, the difference in income levels was maintained, leading to greater inequality.

• The HDG group(a non-governmental organization) found that while wages increased by 89%, prices rose by 93%.
• Bhalla and Chadha, in their study of Punjab, noted that while labor demand increased in the long run, mechanization led to a decrease in labor demand and increased land alienation.
• Francis Frawell observed that the Green Revolution was successful in wheat-growing areas, but polarization was greater in these areas.
• Joan Mencher found that in Chingleput, even official policies ignored farmers with small landholdings, and benefits were disproportionately accrued, increasing disparity.

3rd Phase of Rural Development

Area-Centric Programmes (1970s)
In the 1970s, rural development efforts in India shifted towards area-centric programmes, particularly focusing on employment and poverty alleviation in the wake of the post-Green Revolution period. Despite the advancements in agriculture, it became evident that the benefits were not reaching poor farmers. Structured mass poverty persisted, and rural unemployment rates increased.
Recognizing these challenges, the government directed its attention to two key areas:

• Area Development Programmes: These included initiatives like the Drought Prone Area Programme, Hill Area Development Programme, and Command Area Development, aimed at improving specific regions facing unique challenges.
• Programmes for Specific Groups and Areas: This encompassed various initiatives such as the 20 Point Programme, Rural Electrification Programme, Comprehensive Child Development Programme, and Informal Literacy Plan, targeting specific needs within rural communities.

The 1980s witnessed a diverse range of programmes addressing different aspects of rural development, with a particular emphasis on poverty alleviation and employment-centric initiatives.

4th Phase of Rural Development

In the 1990s, significant shifts in rural development strategies emerged, coinciding with India's integration into the global economy and the adoption of Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization (LPG) policies. Privatization emphasized the role of private enterprise and capital, while liberalization granted greater freedom to economic agents in decision-making. Globalization fostered increased integration among economies, cultures, and societies worldwide.

Poverty Alleviation Schemes
Various poverty alleviation schemes were launched by the central government to support the rural poor, including small and marginal farmers, landless laborers, and rural artisans. Key programs included:

• 20 Point Programme: Aimed at reducing poverty and economic exploitation while uplifting weaker sections of society. Goals included controlling inflation, enhancing production, and improving rural welfare.
• Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP): Initially launched in selected districts, the IRDP aimed to enable poor households to cross the poverty line through self-employment in various sectors. Despite its criticisms, the program remained a crucial tool for poverty alleviation.
• Training Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM): Focused on providing technical skills to rural youth for employment in agriculture, industry, services, and business activities.
• National Rural Employment Programme (NREP): Created additional employment opportunities in rural areas through surplus foodgrains, addressing the needs of rural poor largely dependent on wage employment.
• Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP): Aimed at providing supplemental employment to the poor on public works at low wages.
• Jawahar Rozgar Yojana: Ensured employment for at least one member of each poor family for a specified number of days annually, with a focus on women’s participation.
• Antyodaya Programme: Targeted special assistance to the poorest families, offering support through land allotment, pensions, bank loans, and employment opportunities.
• Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme: This program aimed to ensure the right to work for rural households, providing a legal guarantee for at least 100 days of unskilled manual work per year.

Through these initiatives, the 1990s marked a crucial period in rural development, adapting to new economic realities while striving to address the persistent challenges of poverty and employment in rural areas.

Evaluation of Programmes

Various studies have shown that programmes have not been able to make a dent in the poverty level of the rural people. A large mass of villagers still live without basic needs. This is because,

• Policies are guided by ideologies of politicians and bureaucrats whims rather than by compulsions of the ground realities and requirements of the rural people, with the result that the dimensions of rural economy are ignored.
• Since every programme is launched often with an eye to the next election, the programme is carried out in a piecemeal fashion and many programmes thus wither away after some time.
• Programmes are designed in such a way that they are in fact imposed on the rural economy without taking into accounting their unique vocational patterns and local requirements. Consequently, the assets created are not durable.
• Programmes focus more on the agricultural sector. Rural industrialization seems to be getting nowhere near the attention that it deserves.
• Despite the fact that the government has given top priority to agricultural production and productivity, removal of social and economic disparities and reduction in income inequalities, the fruits of these schemes, have not reached the poorest in all parts of the country. Water resources, credit, subsidy and other facilities have been usurped by a handful of big farmers and the medium and poor farmers have to buy these things at a much higher price.
• There is no coordination among various programmes. After the merger of various employment programmes into the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, the government is even now not able to pass on funds to the panchayats on time.
• Officials associated with these programmes do not appear to have much faith in the goals set by the government They lack commitment to the roles assigned to time.As such, they take least pains either in creating necessary awareness among people for the success of these programmes or in getting their cooperation and confidence. No wonder, the government has not been able to use even the available resources in the most effective manner.
• Central funds in schemes like Jawahar Rozgar Yojna are diverted for party purposes by the states. For example, one study has revealed that money sanctioned by the central government for new irrigation wells in Nalgonda district in Andhra Pradesh were swindled and not a single well was sunk (as shown in the Shyam Senegal’s Film Well Done Abba). Planning by itself is not enough. What really matters is sincere and honest efforts on the part of the implementing agencies to make anti-poverty drive a big success.