Programmes of Rural Development, Community Development Programme, Cooperatives

Programmes of Rural Development and Community Development Programmes

Meaning or concept of rural development

Rural development is defined as improving living standards of the mass of low-income population residing in rural areas and making the process of their development self-sustaining. It embraces all those programmes that touch all levels of human living e.g. agriculture and related matters, irrigation, communication, education health, supplementary employment, housing, training and social welfare.The concept of rural development is a much broader concept than the concept of agricultural development While agricultural development is concerned primarily with cultivation and allied activities, rural development embraces all areas and activities, including agriculture. Since agriculture is the mainstay of the people living in rural areas, more attention is focused on the issues related with agricultural sector.

First Phase of Rural Development

Community Development Programme (1952) CDP emerged as a result of inspiration derived from the success of same earlier pre-independence programmes for rural development It looked at village as a common community – having a common interest of villagers. For Nehru and others CDP are of vital importance not in terms of materialistic achievements but much more so because they seem to build up community as well as individual; making them builder of their own village.

1. According to Planning Commission CDP is a method through which FYP seeks to initiate a process of transformation of the social and economic life of the villages.
2. From these definitions it is clear that CDP is committed towards the transformation of all socio-eco-politico cultural life of villagers and it is possible only with the initiative of local people.
3. Major emphasis was given on-(i) Achievement of self-reliance among people (ii) Ending dependency on others (stability) by lowering down the interference of external agency.

Background and Initiation of CDP :

Although the programme was started in India with the help of USA, but following experiments have been the source of inspiration for the emergence of CDP.

1. Intensive rural development activities carried out at sevagram and the Sarvodaya centers in the Bombay State.
2. Nilokheri Projects started byS.K. Dayat Nilokhari of Karnal district in Haryana to rehabilitate 6000 refugees.
3. Etawah Project: under the inspiration of Albert Mayers 97 villages of Etawah district were included in it with the objective initiating multi-purpose schemes to achieves self-reliance. Also done in Gorakhpur district of UP.
4. Faridabad Project: Under the inspiration Sri Ghosh, 30,000 refugees were rehabilitated and the village was converted into a town.
5. Firca Development Scheme (Firca is group of 5 villages) :Started in Madras on Gandhian principles. It had two major objective: Development of personality of villagers & Bringing change in the ideology of village reconstruction.

The programme was launched on 2nd Oct 1952 and was extended is consider areas at the end of the1st FYP. 603 National Extension service Blocks and 553 CDP Blocks covering1,57,000 villages and a population of 88.8 million persons were created.

CDP is broadly divided into three phases, viz,

1. National extension phase: Areas selected were subjected to methods of providing services on ordinary pattern with little government expenditure.
2. Intensive Community Development phase: Blocks selected for purpose were subjected to intensive development schemes with high government expenditure.
3. Post development phase: It was presumed that initial two phases have created a self-perpetuating process so, government role was reduced to only supervisory role.

Fundamental Beliefs :

S.C. Dubey has mentioned following fundamental beliefs to remove the discrepancy between the mentality of planners and people, essentially:

1. Development should be according to villagers
2. Implementation of plans to be done by humble request rather than by compulsion
3. Special emphasis of recruitment, orientation and training of community Development workers
4. Achievement of stability.

Administrative structure

At Central Level

1. Establishment of committee
   • Members of Planning commission
   • Ministers of concerned Department
   • PM (Chairman)
2. Functions :
   • Policy formulation
   • Observation of running activities

At state level – State Development committee

1. Organization
   • CM (Chairman)
   • Ministers of condoned depts.
   • Secretary
2. Functions :
   • Receipt of Policies from the centre and deliverance of progress and amendments to centre
   • Establishing coordination among different .
   • Acknowledgement of distt level activities.

Attached with Panchayats – At District level

• Coordinator – District collector
• Members and Chairman of Zila Parishad work after the activities

At Block level

1. Block Panchayat committee
   • Looks after the policies
2. Organisation
   • BDO
   • Agriculture
   • Cooperatives
   • Specialist
   • Cattle-Rearing
   • Extension officer

Gram Panchayats

1. Organisation
   • Village Prime (Sarpanch)
   • Gram Sevak
2. Role of Gram Sevak :
   • Being a multi-purpose person, he adopts the following ways to make CDP a programme of the mass.
     • To establish informal relations with the villagers to keep up the mutual faith.
     • To resolve the problems of villagers and to ignite as interest among them towards a good life-style so that they could raise their living standard by adopting the available resources.
     • To help village prepare (programmes) policies of development for them.
     • To develop leadership among villagers.
3. Field of Activities :
   • An imposing list of activities has been prepared by the sponsors of CDP. They included various items connected with the following eight categories of undertakings:
     • Agriculture and related matters,
     • Communications,
     • Education
     • Health
     • Training
     • Social Welfare
     • Supplementary Employment, and(VIII) Housing

The fourth Evaluation Report of 1957 adopted different criteria for classifying activities undertaken by the CDP. They divided the programmes of activities into the following major categories:

1. Constructional Programmes : Kuteha and Pucca roads, culverts drains, pavement of streets, school buildings, community centre buildings, dispensary buildings, houses for the Harijans and drinking water resources.
2. Irrigational Programmes: Wells, pumping sets, type wells and tanks.
3. Agricultural Programmes: Reclamation, soil conservation, consolidation of holidings, improved seeds, manure and fertilizer, pesticides.
4. Institutional and other Programmes: Youth clubs, women’s organizations, community centres, cooperative societies, distribution stores, maternity centres, dispensaries, veterinary dispensaries, panchayats, adult literacy centres, primary schools, cottage industries, etc.

Contribution in Development :

1. Achievement of belief of the Mass: It includes belief in progress of village areas, in democracy, in science and technology, in capacities of rural people and in social justice.
2. Achievement of Mass Participation: through democratic decentralization.
3. Growth in Collective Efforts to solve commo problems.
4. Dimensions of Administrative Change :It has changed even the nature of administration.
   • Change in Traditional Ideologies : by use of scientific techniques in agriculture, horticulture, rearing of animals etc.The evaluation of Intensive Agriculture District Programme has testified that the Indian Farmer, inspite of being illiterate and poor, is not likely to remain affixed with unnecessary traditions. They are always adoptive to new changes under his capacities.
   • Decrease in Rural Unemployment : but not to a great extent According to the study team of Balwant Rai Mehta, only 2.5% families have got the benefits through CDP.
   • Awareness toward Health and Hygiene.
   • Cultural Development : N. Patnaik in his study of Orissa reveals that CDP has freed the poor people from the clutches of self-conflict and non-sympathy.

Evaluation :

The impact of the CDP has been subjected to analysis and evaluation by a number of scholars and organizations Prof Wilson, Prof Carl Taylor, Oscar Lewis, Prof. Opler and his team, S.C. Dubey, Mandelbaum and many others have attempted to assess the nature of the impact of the CDP on the life of the rural people. The Programme Evaluation Organization has also been doing assessment continuously and their Reports are valuable documents.

1. According to Prof Taylor, the administration of the programme is predominantly based on aid from and reliance on the Govt The initiative of people is still lacking. The Govt machinery relies more on propaganda and spectacular results rather than on group work and voluntary creative participation. The bureaucrats seem more committed towards showing the facts rather than focusing on mass-participation. Naturally, under these circumstances the very basis of CDP would crumble.
2. S.C. Dubey also comes to same conclusion. “Planning so far appears to be from the top down. It is necessary to examine the implications and results of the present trends in planning. Because of the unique curbs on projects autonomy its officials hesitated to destructrate much initiative. What was worse they extended on this official level to accept orders from above i.e., from the state HQs, without question or comment, and this despite pronounced private reservations. As an outcome of this trend the officials were oriented less towards the village people, and more towards, the pleasing of their official superiors.”

Dubey further adds-A large number of Project-sponsored activities are directed along the lines of traditional govt drives rather than according to the proved principles of extension work. According to Dubey, govt servants function as bureaucrats and have not become agents of change with an active social mentality.

S.C. Dubey finds the following obstacle is the way of the qreater acceptance of the programs :

1. Suspicion and distrust of officials and outsiders.
2. Failure on the part of the Project to evolve effective and adequate media of communication.
3. Traditional and cultural factors.

J.F. Bulsara presented the project evaluation report in 1957 :

1. Physical change, especially constructional and irrigational activity, is widespread and has contributed in some measure to the production potential and the social over-heads of the block areas.
2. Change in production attitudes in agriculture and animal husbandry are comparatively successful while those concerning cottage industries are neither widespread nor particularly successful.
3. • Changes in standard of living, especially in regard to primary education and drinking water are comparatively successful while those concerning adult literacy and personal and environmental hygiene are not equally successful.
4. Social attitudes such as readiness to go in for community centres, youth clubs, and women’s organizations is least successful
5. Change in organizational attitudes in the political field such a better understanding of the objectives and obligations of cooperation and readiness to make use of cooperative societies for purposes other than credit such as production and marketing are comparatively unsuccessful
6. Change in organizational attitudes in the political field such as better understanding of the objectives and responsibilities of panchayat membership and readiness to use panchayats for planning and executing village development programmes are comparatively unsuccessful

Suggestions by Bulsara :

1. The emphasis should not be so much on construction activities and targets as on people’s constructive orientation into initiating and undertaking progressivelyto say responsibility for satisfying local needs, so that they may soon develop the skill and mention to accomplish such schemes as would improve their overall standards of living physically, culturally and in the spiritual sphere.
2. The administrative structure has to be refitted into the new would, necessaryfor the implementation of the vast community D.P. in what has come to be a welfare state, based on a socialistic pattern of society. It must include all ranks of officers and field workers-administrative, technical clerical and ministerial
3. The Gram Sevak, being a pivotal liason functionary his training and orientation have to be carried out according to the work expected of him. Refreshers courses and seminars should be a regular feature of his training and equipment
4. For effective participation, training is essential and it would be helpful to the total programme if capable youths and adults of both sexes from the villages are given opportunities, so that the very objective of the programme be fulfilled that it is not for the people but by them.

Others Observations :

1. CDP created community dependence on government rather than self-dependence.
2. Village divided into various sectional interests where interest of landed class was not common with service and occupational castes.
3. Bureaucracy responsible for its implementation lacked social service ethos.
4. Development Communication was top down that led to confusion regarding functions within the bureaucratic organization.
5. Land owners were the prime beneficiaries of CDP.
6. Gram Sewak was often from land owning communities, he was only succeeded in heightening inequalities.
7. Much emphasis on economic aspect with little emphasis on social and spatial aspect Strategy.
8. Satya dev found out that how co- operatives benefited to the local dominant castes that used loans for the co-operatives, occupied various posts of the co-operatives and subsequently hijacked subsidy benefits meant for the rural poor.

2nd Phase of rural development

1. Land Reforms – 60’s (early)
2. Green Revolution -mid 60’s

Land Reforms : The failure of CDP led to the land reforms in early 60’s.

The primary objectives of land reforms :

1. To remove motivational and other impediments which arise from the agrarian structure inherited from the past, and
2. To eliminate all elements of exploitation and social justice within the agrarian system so as to ensure equality of status and opportunity to all sections of the population.

Programmes of action to achieve these objectives :

1. The abolition of all forms of intermediaries between the state and the tiller of the soiL
2. Conferment of ownership rights on the cultivating tenants in the land held under their possession.
3. Imposition of ceiling on agricultural land holdings.
4. Consolidation of holdings with a view of making easier the application of modern techniques of agriculture,
5. Rationalization of the record of rights in land For detail refer to Rural and Agrarian Social-Structure-Land Reform)

Critique of land reforms :

1. Implementation of land reforms was not as expected
2. Abolition of intermediaries was a success. Nearly twenty million households become landlords but it did not benefit land labourers.
3. Ceiling was fixed very high of doubly cropped irrigated land which generated less surplus.
4. Sizeable part of land remained locked in court cases even beneficiaries could not be properly identified.
5. According to Alexandra George the ceiling laws were merely a maneuver for political ends.
6. According to Bandopadhyay ceiling was very high.Still 12% land could be declared surplus. But in reality only 1.8% was declared as surplus.
7. According to V.M. Dandekar barely1% of area has been redistributed 99% remained unchanged except for West Bengal where 10% was surplus and 7% was distributed.

Green Revolution

In mid 60’s land reforms were followed by Green Revolution.After two wars (Indo-Pak and Indo China) the planning strategy shifted from self sufficiency to self -reliance which required increased level of production. High Yielding varieties were introduced to increase the production which gave a great impetus to Indian agriculture.

Consequences of Green Revolution :

1. A middle peasant class structure emerged where rich landlords at the top followed by middle peasantry and then landless labouerers and small peasantry.
2. Resource distribution was highly skewed at rural level due to which there was straight correlation between caste and class.
3. It results in more inequality where wages increased but the difference was maintained
4. HDG group (NGO) found that wages increased by 89% but the price rises by 93%
5. Bhalla and Chadha in their study on Punjab observed that in long run labour demand increased But after mechanization, labour demand decreases. Increase in land alienation.
6. Francis Frawell found that green revolution is successful in wheat growing areas. Polarization is much greater in Green Revolution areas.
7. According to Joan Mencher in Chingleput even official attitude was to ignore the farmers having 5 acres of land Money begets money. Very few farmers in lowest category who owned a tube well got the benefits. Thus benefits accrued unequally so disparity increased.

3rd Phase of Rural Development

1. Area Centric programmes – 70’s
2. Employment Poverty alleviation 80’s.

Post Green Revolution – Soon after green revolution it was realized that the benefits were not accrued by the poor farmers.Structured mass poverty remained intact Rate of rural unemployment also increased Government focused its attention on two key areas;

Area development programmes :

1. Draught prone Area Programme
2. Hill Area development Programme
3. Command Area development

Programmes meant for specific groups and areas :

1. 20 point programme
2. Rural electrification programme
3. Comprehensive child development programmes
4. Informal literacy plan etc.
5. Eighties saw versatile programme touching different aspect of rural development but with special emphasis on poverty alleviation and employment centric programmes.
6. Indira Awas Yojana
7. Rural cleanliness programme
8. Crop Insurance Scheme
9. Social Security Insurance Scheme
10. National rural employment scheme
11. Rural landless employment guarantee scheme etc.
12. Minimum Need Programme
    • Increased productivity:
      • Growth
      • Employment
      • Generation
13. Poverty alleviation.

Critique :

1. Growth with redistribution was the slogan in 80’s but growth remained lack sided
2. Social Work Research Centre found that agricultural workers were employed for 3 months only.
3. Class conflict took caste dimension. Political leaders and bureaucrats lacked the will to disturb this dimension.
4. Landless labourers were unable to create demands.
5. Fourth rural labour enquiry commission (1983) observed that almost half of the population was in perpetuative debt These debts have little chance to repaid
6. There was a decline in poverty but in absolute number poverty.
7. We had a subsidy based approach to pull people above poverty line which at best created a perpetual dependence upon state.
8. They remain highly vulnerable enough to return back to poverty.

4th Phase of Rural Development

Steps taken during 90 s became the watershed in strategies of rural development. The Indian economy was getting alienated with the world economy. Technological upgradation was also lacking.In this background 90’s saw open policy of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization. Privatization implies a greater role for private enterprise and capital in the functioning of an economy. Liberalization implies giving greater freedom to economic agents to take their own economic decisions. Globalization means increasing integration between different economies, cultures, societies of the world.

The End of the Blog : Programmes of Rural Development, Community Development Programme, Cooperatives