The Hindu Business Line : Making `delivery mechanism' deliver

Post Budget, there is much talk of `delivery mechanism' being the key to make a difference for Rural India. Delivery mechanism is the channel through which government spending on social priorities flows — ministries, departments and district officials. To give this a human face, the Government must implement the Right to Information Act, facilitate e-governance and strengthen grassroots institutions, says V. Anantha Nageswaran, looking at the status of the first and the third aspect s.

THE INITIAL breathless analysis of the Budget is behind us. While the first reactions were favourable (given the low expectations to begin with), more sober analysis revealed many deficiencies: The turnover tax in the stock market, the exemption from excise duty of personal computers, of tractors and unrealistic assumptions on revenue growth from corporate and service taxes.

More than all these, this Government should be judged on the transformation in the lives of the poor that it is able to achieve with its fiscal and other policies. The Budget speech laid considerable emphasis on Rural India. But more government expenditure is not the solution but part of the problem.

A higher allocation does not paint economic reforms with a human face. To put the record straight, it is incorrect to state that reforms lacked human face. Reforms were inhuman only to government servants whose discretionary powers were reduced. Reforms did not need a human face. Government did.

Most commentators have zeroed in on `delivery mechanism' as the key to make a difference for rural India. The phrase, `delivery mechanism' is too abstract to enable a proper discussion on the issues and solutions. When a government mandates higher spending on social priorities, it essentially flows through various ministries, departments and district officials before it reaches the ultimate beneficiaries. Officials in these departments are collectively referred to as the `delivery mechanism'.

How to make these officials present the human face? There are three ways. One is to implement the Right to Information (RTI) Act at the Centre and to encourage the States to do so. Second is to facilitate E-Governance and the third is to strengthen grassroots institutions. Obviously, all are interlinked. This article examines the status and the role of RTI and PRI in getting governance out of our governments.

In both these areas, the sincerity of governments has been seen more in intent than in implementation. The NDA Government passed the Freedom of Information Act 2002 in December that year and the President signed the legislation in January 2003. Yet, Rules under the law are yet to be framed and the country is waiting for it one and half year later. Even the murder of Satyendra Dubey has neither shaken nor stirred the government into action. Further, the final legislation, which was a long time in the making, did not take into account recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, which consulted civil society groups.

According to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs /ai/rti/india/national.htm), although the Act has a commendable provision that is to have overriding effect over inconsistent legislation or rules, its application could be affected by `the continued presence on the law books of several restrictive pieces of legislation.' It points to the Official Secrets Act 1923, Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 9 of the All India Services (Conduct Rules) 1968, and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

RTI is not an abstract concept. It is the bedrock of democracy and accountability. The mere fact that there is so much delay in giving teeth to it is necessary and sufficient proof that bureaucrats fear its consequences. In Delhi, a People's movement called `Parivartan' is demonstrating the power of RTI to the people, elected politicians and bureaucrats.

A visit to its Web site, www.parivartan.com, is both an educative and inspiring experience of people's power. It is a shame that the publicity to the Act in Delhi has to be carried out by a private movement. It is the obligation of the government.

Only nine States have any such legislation at all. Most States have many exemption clauses that prohibit information from being released. None of the legislation, including the Central legislation, has any provision for publicity to the laws.

Thus, even in the States, where the law exists in the books, the public is waiting for parivartan to make them realise the power they have. Thus, the real information revolution is yet to arrive in India.

The 73rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act 1992 on PRI was landmark legislation, even globally. The Planning Commission document on the Mid-Term appraisal of the Ninth Plan (1997-2002) has one chapter on PRI (Chapter 10). It proudly observes that "as a result of election to PRI in States/Union Territories, 2,27,698 Panchayats at village level, 5906 Panchayats at intermediate level and 474 Panchayats at the district level have been constituted. These Panchayats are manned by about 34 lakh elected representatives at all levels; of them one-third are women. This is the broadest representative base that exists in any country."

However, this revolution has not been allowed to realise its potential. Most State governments have not implemented the recommendations of the State Finance Commissions (SFC) appointed to recommend sharing of tax revenues between State governments and Panchayats and devolution of financial powers to Panchayats. Although the Constitution Amendment Bill was passed in 1993, most State governments took their time to appoint the first SFC.

They, in turn, turned in recommendations after several years. Only a handful of States had appointed the second SFC and even fewer SFC have submitted their recommendations.

In its National Executive Meeting held in April 2002 in Goa, the BJP passed a resolution on the empowerment of Panchayat Raj. It correctly observed that the "average annual income, from their own sources, of Gram Panchayat is only Rs 30,000 a year; that of an Intermediate Panchayat is only Rs 60,000; and that of a Zilla Panchayat is a mere Rs 12 lakh".

With such resources, the PRI are expected to be responsible for about twenty-nine activities listed in the eleventh schedule, Article 243G of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Bill! States' lack of enthusiasm for financial devolution to PRI is understandable, given the disarray in their public finances. Yet, it is hard not to notice the hypocrisy in granting free power to farmers while denying financial power to grassroots democratic institutions. One can understand the political expediency but it has nothing to do with human face.

Act No. 40 of 1996 (Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 dated December 24, 1996) is yet another classic example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. The Act extends Panchayats to the tribal areas of eight States. It was intended to enable `tribal society to assume control of its own destiny to preserve and conserve the traditional rights over natural resources." The Act, according to the mid-term Ninth Plan appraisal document, was "a unique legislation; it gives radical self-governance powers to the tribal community and recognizes its traditional community rights over natural resources. In one stroke, the Act created space for people's empowerment, genuine popular political participation, convergent community action, sustainable people-oriented development and auto-generated emancipation."

What happened in reality? The next sentence from the same chapter of the Planning Commission document is sobering: "... since its passage the law has almost been forgotten and it has not become part of the mainstream political or policy discourse. Many State governments have passed laws not fully in conformity with the central law. Academics, administrators, policy makers and even parliamentarians are unaware of this."

Two important interpretations that State governments made have reduced this `unique legislation' to virtual irrelevance. One was the limitation of the extension of the power of Gram Sabha to forests located within the revenue boundaries of the village. Most reserve forests do not fall within the revenue boundaries.

The second and the most damaging one was the definition of Minimum Forest Produce (MFP) to exclude cane and bamboo. By not treating them as MFP but including them as part of timber, State governments, according to the Planning Commission, have "denied access to poor tribal artisans to two types of MFP on which their livelihood is most critically dependent. On the other hand, many state policies have subsidised bamboo for private industry."

In this re-interpretation, the States have benefited from the support of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) that agreed to stay with the definition of cane and bamboo as being timber, as per the Indian Forest Act of 1927. The Annual Report of the Ministry of Rural Development 2002-03 calls this definition neither scientific nor equitable. According to the same annual report, the MoEF had also continued to vest the ownership of MFP with the State Forest Departments and entitle the Gram Sabhas merely to the residual profits from the trading of such MFP.

This article has taken the effort to illustrate a case of how both Central and State bureaucracies have colluded with private interests to thwart the intention of central lawmakers. This is the reality of the abstract notion of `delivery mechanism'. Fixing it is not impossible. It does not need additional Budget allocation but political determination to bring the benefits of two landmark legislations to the public.

Indeed, if the UPA Government focuses on the RTI and the PRI and works to bring the benefits of these two to the public, it would actually find itself saving on government resources even as it dramatically improves the quality of government intervention against rural and urban poverty.

What the government does on these two aspects would constitute the litmus test of its commitment to the poor. Everything else would be illusory.

(The author is an economist based in Singapore. Address feedback to nageswar@singnet.com.sg)

More Stories on : Budget | Global Finance & Overview | Economy | Rural Development

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Tilting at windmills

Making `delivery mechanism' deliver

Further reflections on the Budget

Code for doctors

A change of scene in Bollywood

Consistency in tax laws key for financial planning

IDBI's generosity

Revamp postal services

Human under-development