• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Despite 55 years of Independence and billions of dollars in developmental funding, rural development continue to remain on the back burner. It is well-known that only a fraction of the rupee reaches the end of the pipeline. Our rural areas are today's and tomorrow's flashpoints and conflict zones. Three-fourths of India's one billion live out there, and this includes 70 per cent of the country's poor. This is where India's centre of gravity lies, its ground zero. Within its epicentre lie the conflict zones — insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir, the North East and now the Naxal infected districts of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. At the lower end of the spectrum, the breakdown of law and order in several states, insecurity of minorities and rising rural crime is common phenomena. What is of rising concern is the limited reach of the administration in rural areas, the ineffectiveness of panchayats and over-centralised command-economy style of governance. Either there is too much of government or too little. Both are bad. If we don't pay heed, the rural countryside will become a battlefield. It is not a question of if, but when!

There is another flawed thinking we need to contend with — the paradigm change in the concept of governance in a globalised world driven by market forces. We continue to struggle with obsolete models of governance with governments resisting change, resisting the drive towards empowerment.

Society has new demands, new expectations. In rural India especially, governance is not exercised by the panchayats; it is by the bureaucracy, a legacy of British colonialism. The bureaucracy in those days, and even now, is answerable only to the government and not the people. Bureaucracy treated the people as subjects, a bureaucracy that was self-serving, corrupt and inefficient. A similar situation prevails today. In the post-industrial age, governance is everyone's responsibility, in fact, a global responsibility. While the government will remain the lead player, it is not the only actor on the stage. There are others too, especially in rural and conflict prone areas — NGOs, the military, religious institutions, political parties, local leaders and the common citizen.

The root cause of all insurgencies in India is unsatisfactory governance. Religious fundamentalism, ethnicity and mass alienation are only by-products, mere labels that provide politicians and bureaucrats suitable alibis for poor governance. What is distressing is the attitude of some of our civil servants. Very recently, the author addressed probation civil service officers at the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy, Mussorie, on the success of Operation Sadbhavna in Ladakh.

Sadbhavna, a socio-political strategy for conflict prevention, was launched by the author to forestall insurgency from spilling into Ladakh. The campaign succeeded in winning a large alienated community in to the national mainstream in ten months. The reaction of a small but vocal section of audience is indicative of the serious attitudinal malaise that has set. They said, and I quote: "The only way people will respect you is through fear!" Such attitudinal aberrations can only be overcome by a continuous comprehensive re-education programme by respective states.

The impact that Operation Sadbhavna had on relations between the people and the army is to be seen to be believed. The fundamental thrust of this operation was the proactive role the army played in ensuring human security in the border areas amongst alienated communities. As a part of conflict prevention strategy, human development formed a part of border management, developed borders are the best antidote against infiltration and militancy.

In Ladakh, the army played the role of a `facilitator' in improving rural governance. The rational flows out of the hypothesis that, the army is not an instrument of sate coercion, but rather an instrument of nation-building. The army belongs to the people that is also the constitutional position. Consequently, the commitment of the armed forces will last as long as the commitment of the people lasts. The day their commitment fails the armed forces shall also fail. As a crops commander, one had t spend nearly 50 per cent of his time re-educating the army — that they were citizens first and soldiers second. That in the 21st century, the role of the armed forces is no longer to win wars; it is to prevent war.

`Facilitation' is a form of jointmanship and involves networking all the key players in rural governance — the district administration, people's representatives, from the village headman to the chief minister and the Member of Parliament, NGOs, religious institutions, political parties and prominent citizens. The army brought to everyone's attention the needs of the people and the lack of progress on key developmental projects. It insisted that the approach to rural development should be bottom-up, and resisted, on behalf of the people, the familiar paternalistic and feudalistic attitude of the administration. And the army succeeded. With what the army undertook, the principle rubbed off on others too! Accountability is an essential feature of good governance. In its absence, corruption and extortion have flourished, and in many states, the State has gradually become a predator leading to widespread alienation. Opposition was tough, mainly directed from the higher echelons in the district administration, and at times from within the army. They missed the point and this is what needs to be understood — the paradigm change in the concept of governance.

Governance today is over-centralised and discounts the needs of the people. It is top-down. The government decides what the people want. By definition, governance implies the process of decision-making as well as the process of implementation. Good governance should be decentralised. Rural development is not possible unless projects are planned and implemented at the village level. It is at the gram sabha level that decision-making is practiced. In theory, gram sabhas are the start point for rural governance. Over here the community is expected to participate in the democratic process. At this basic level there is supposed to be transparency and accountability. The gram sabha is also required to act as a watch dog and carry out social audit. With some exceptions, village panchayats are generally toothless and disempowered. This political institution must be resuscitated if governance is to improve.

Decentralised governance is the best strategy for achieving sustainable development. In the process, communities are empowered to decide on issues affecting them. By increasing people's responsibility there is also accountability at the local level where it matters most. Thus, alienation is reduced and social stability is ensured.

The seeds of conflict lie in bad governance and are therefore preventable. The lack of a strategic culture and sense of history have so far been inhibiting factors. One hopes globalisation will make a difference.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
Industry sees recovery in 6 months: Survey

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line