Decentralised Governance and Planning in Karnataka, India

Decentralised Governance and Planning in Karnataka, India

By

Anil Kumar Vaddiraju and Satyanarayana Sangita

Decentralised Governance and Planning in Karnataka, India, by Anil Kumar Vaddiraju and Satyanarayana Sangita This book first published 2011 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2011 by Anil Kumar Vaddiraju and Satyanarayana Sangita All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-2866-1, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-2866-6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................... vii Executive Summary.................................................................................... ix Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xv Chapter One................................................................................................. 1 Introduction Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 11 Decentralised Planning in India Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 61 Planning and Budgeting in Tumkur District Chapter Four ............................................................................................ 103 Findings and Policy Recommendations Appendix A ............................................................................................. 107 Plates Appendix B.............................................................................................. 115 Steps in the Plan Preparation Appendix C.............................................................................................. 117 Model Methodology of Plan Preparation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Dr Veena Upadhyaya, Secretary, Commission on Centre-State Relations, for entrusting us this study. We express our deep gratitude to Professor R S Deshpande, Director, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), for allowing us to take up this study. We sincerely thank Professor Abdul Aziz, Professor Emeritus, ISEC, for kindly advising us from the inception of the study on wards. We are also thankful to Dr M Devendra Babu for the discussions at crucial points. We owe our thanks to many officials at the State, District, Taluk and gram panchayat levels for providing information and insight into the budgeting and planning process, without which this study could not have been done. We thank Mr Maruthi V J and Ms T K Jyothi for research assistance throughout the research process. We are also thankful to the administration of ISEC, which enabled us to pursue the study. We thank the anonymous referee for encouraging approval of the draft report of this study. The authors are extremely grateful to Cambridge Scholars Publishing for accepting to publish, and publishing the book, remarkably quickly, without relaxing the rigour of publishing. Thanks are also for the care taken in the process of publishing the book. We are particularly thankful to Carol Koulikourdi, Soucin Yip-Sou and Amanda Millar for their wonderful help in publishing this book. We could hardly have expected more. Finally, we thank all the people at the gram panchayat level for cooperating with our research. It is within the possible realm of belief that they are capable of local self-governance, provided the opportunity.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Constitution of India provides the status of local self-government for the local bodies. The constitutional status means that the local governments are on par with the central and state governments. Local self-governments can plan their economic and human development. This fact, however, is undermined in practice at the state level. The provision in the 74th Amendment Act for creating and activating the District Planning Committee (DPC) is the responsibility of the state government. This is often in contradiction with the interests of the real politik of the state governments. Often DPCs are not constituted and if constituted they are dysfunctional. The creation of institutions for local level independent planning and budgeting is a political process fraught with many a quagmire. The hurdles are not only political but bureaucratic as well. The above statement comes out of this study of Tumkur district in Karnataka. Karnataka is traditionally known as a state that has championed the decentralisation process. The state had seen a number of experiments in decentralisation. The most important of them was to strengthen the zilla panchayats and endow them with all the development functions, and the appointment of a senior bureaucrat of the rank of the Deputy Commissioner (collector) as the ‘Chief Secretary’ to the elected representatives of the zilla panchayat. Also, the provision for 25 per cent reservation for women in panchayats was made much before positive discrimination was announced through parliamentary acts. Karnataka is considered, therefore, as a progressive state as far as the decentralisation process is concerned. It is often stated that the progressive and successful decentralisation is one of the two pillars of the ‘Karnataka Model’ of development and the other being the advanced information and biotechnology sector. The Karnataka Model, therefore, is said to be ideal and suitable for other states as well. There is considerable truth in this, but there is considerable fog around this truth. The fact is that in the DPCs have not been constituted in all districts. In Tumkur, where we conducted our study, the DPC was constituted in 2007-2008 but it has not held single meeting so far at the time of the study. Therefore, the Model of Karnataka though useful rests on feet of clay.

x

Executive Summary

In order to understand the situation we have to consider at least three factors that this study highlights. They are: a) the devolution process; b) the integration process and c) the implementation process.

Devolution Process This study finds that the devolution of funds, functionaries and functions is only partial in Karnataka. The Karnataka Panchayati Raj Act and subsequent official pronouncements hold that all the 29 items in the 11th Schedule to the Constitution should have been devolved to the PRIs. This is only partially true. One study shows that only 14 out of the 29 items have devolved to gram panchayats in Karnataka (Rajasekhar and Satpathy, 2007). However, this is considerable compared to other Indian states. Our study shows that there is considerable devolution of funds and finances to the lower tiers, particularly the gram panchayats. Each gram panchayat, at the time of the study, received about Rs 25 to 40 lakh from the state and central governments based on population and other criteria. In addition, a specific World Bank scheme is in place in the state to provide untied grants of Rs 6 to 10 lakh every year to gram panchayats. Therefore, there is sufficient devolution of funds in the state to the lower-most tier of the Panchayati Raj system. The study found that the most difficult and inadequate part of devolution in Karnataka was the devolution of functionaries. The staff for most of the functions in general, and for budgeting and planning in particular, is on deputation from other departments that have nothing to do with either budgeting or planning. They are usually from the animal husbandry, horticulture, sericulture, or at best, the rural development departments. In addition, these personnel scarcely know anything about planning or budgeting. Therefore, this study notes that while there is considerable devolution of funds and functions, the dearth of adequately equipped personnel is a major problem. This study holds that there should be a separate cadre of personnel who are trained in planning and budgeting at the gram panchayat, taluk panchayat and zilla panchayat level. There is Chief Planning Officer at the District level, taluk Planning Officer at taluk level and at the village level, but it is the village secretary who helps in planning. However, the functionaries at taluk and zilla levels are working on deputation from some other department. Therefore, it comes out in our study that as far as the district level is concerned there is no trained cadre for planning and budgeting. The ISEC

Decentralised Governance and Planning in Karnataka, India

xi

and some other institutions are now building capacities in the existing personnel to prepare plans. Therefore, as far as the devolution process is concerned a considerable amount of finances have been devolved to the local bodies, a considerable amount of functions too have been devolved but not trained cadre to carry out these functions. Certainly, the staff responsible for planning does not have the capacity and the numeric strength to utilise the funds that are available. This sometimes leads to pilferage and corruption.

Integration Process The study shows that preparing an integrated plan is a difficult task and it is not happening in an ideal manner. Two kinds of integration processes are involved. One is the integration of various development schemes and programmes into one single integrated plan; and second, is the integration of urban and rural plans. Both are problematic. Firstly, there is no integration of plans at the gram panchayat level. The integration takes place at the taluk or district level. The gram panchayats plan and allocate budgets to various schemes and, as mentioned above, there is paucity of trained staff at this level to prepare an integrated plan. The integrated plans prepared even for longer terms, say for five years, are prepared at taluk and district levels. The village secretaries who help the elected representatives in planning are not trained planners. The second major problem is the absence of integration of plans and budgets of rural and urban areas. The rural plans and budgets are prepared by the different tiers of PRIs. The urban plans are prepared by the section on urban planning in the Deputy Commissioner’s office. There is no integration of the two in planning and implementation. This total separation of urban and rural plans is a conspicuous feature of district planning and budgeting. Often taluk towns are trading, commercial towns and the taluk panchayat office is also physically located at the taluk town. However, the plan for the taluk town is prepared by the municipal council of the taluk town and sent to the Deputy Commissioner’s office while the taluk rural plan is sent to the zilla panchayat. There is an urgent need for the integration of both at the taluk and district levels. This integration will help mobilise more resources for taluk and District levels as well. At the zilla level also there is no effort to integrate rural and urban plans. These different plans are supposed to be submitted to the DPC, which is supposed to integrate the plans. Since the DPC is non-functional the

xii

Executive Summary

planning and budgeting process at the district level is separate for rural and urban areas.

Implementation Process This study shows that planning and budgeting is taken more seriously at the gram panchayat level than at the taluk and zilla panchayat levels. This is the good practice that this study brings out. At the gram panchayat level in Tumkur district, the planning starts at the ward level and is finalised at the gram sabha level. The general body of the gram panchayat then gives its final approval. The gram panchayat has no powers to change the plan after it is approved by the gram sabha. This is a good practice noted by our study. While certainly the elite of the gram panchayat and the gram panchayat secretary matter a great deal in this process, the local citizens too are aware and participate in the gram sabha meetings. Our study also shows that we cannot idealise the above situation too much. The women ward members from SC and ST communities have said that the planning process at the village level is not inclusive. They claimed that sometimes the dominant caste men take all decisions regarding planning and budgeting. There is also the usual problem of male family members representing the female elected members in the gram sabha. Therefore, while we cannot overemphasize this problem, the problem of social and political exclusion still exists. This was particularly reported from the Kunegal taluk, which is one of the most backward taluks of Tumkur district. Despite the above problem, the citizens of Gubbi taluk reported that the gram sabha finalises all plans, budgets and beneficiaries. The case studies in Gubbi taluk have repeatedly shown that the citizens actively participate in gram sabha meetings. Some gram panchayats in Kunegal taluk have also reported the same and claimed that the gram sabha was the ‘toughest exam’ for them. Therefore, the implementation process for planning and budgeting is relatively transparent and accountable. This is particularly so with the World Bank funded ‘Gram Swaraj’ plan where utmost care is taken to ensure accountability and transparency in the implementation of plans. The Gram Swaraj plans start from the ward level and are finalised in the gram sabha. The gram panchayat formally finalises the plans and has no power to change the plan approved by gram sabha. The plan is then

Decentralised Governance and Planning in Karnataka, India

xiii

directly sent to the state secretariat through the taluk panchayat without involving the zilla panchayat. This plan is for five years and the current one, from 2006-07 to 2010-11, appears to be functioning reasonably satisfactorily. Guidelines are prepared for planning and budgeting by the state government in Kannada language for statutory purposes and for ‘Gram Swaraj’. These guidelines are followed by the taluk panchayat while finalising the plans. However, all this is not enough to ensure capacity building for the elected representatives and bureaucrats at the gram and taluk panchayat levels. We had earlier mentioned about the lack of devolution of trained staff. One fact that we would like to bring to light is that the district offices appeared to have less staff than the taluk offices for planning. The importance given to planning and budgeting appears to increase as we go down the tiers of the panchayat system, which however is not the case in the municipal councils. In this executive summary, we have noted the salient features of the planning and budgeting processes in Tumkur District in Karnataka. According to our study, the lack of devolution of trained staff appeared to be a problem. Scheme wise integration is a problem at local level. Urban and rural integration of plans too is an area where we found there is a great deal to be done.

ABBREVIATIONS

CMC: City Municipal Council—usually an elected council D.C.: Deputy Commissioner—District Collector or District Magistrate usually from the elite Indian Administrative Service. D.P.C: District Planning Committee G.B.: General Body—of a village consisting of all the elected representatives of a GP along with officials G.P.: Grama Panchayat—Elected council of a village or a cluster of villages G.S.: Grama Sabha (or grama sabha) –Village Assembly consisting of all the voters of a village or a cluster of villages NREGA: National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of the Union Government NREGS: National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (pertaining to the NREGA) P.R.I: Panchayati Raj Institutions—rural local self-governance institutions. S.D.M.C: School Development and Monitoring Committees S.H.G.: Self Help Group—usually micro-credit group of women in rural and urban areas. S.J.R.Y.: Swarna Jayanthi Rozgar Yojana— employment scheme named after the eve of the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Independence T.P.: Taluk Panchayat (or taluk panchayat) Block Council—usually elected council belonging to the middle tier within a District TRYSEM: Training for Youth in Self Employment—a government scheme encouraging self-employment of youth. U.L.B.: Urban Local Body. W.S.: Ward Sabha—Ward assembly of a village—usually of a street or small village within a GP Zilla (or zilla/zilla): District—third and the most crucial tier of governance in India under the State and Union tiers of governance. Z.P.: Zilla Panchayat (or zilla/zila panchayat)—elected district council, the upper most tier of self-governance in a district usually in charge of all district’s planning.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

The 73rd and the 74th Constitutional Amendments brought qualitative changes to the governance of rural and urban local bodies. The significance of these amendments is that they have accorded a constitutional mandate to the third tier of governance on par with the Central and state governments. The local government being a state subject, the state governments were asked to amend their laws to conform to the Constitutional (Amendment) Acts of 1992. Almost all the state governments amended their laws in conformity with the parliamentary amendments. Nevertheless, the fact that the local government falls under the state list has led to problems. While the Central government expected the state governments to implement the laws in letter and spirit, the latter failed to do so. Even in the best of circumstances, the question of devolution of powers, the powers to levy taxes, the question of implementation of Central schemes and the constitution and working of District Planning Committees (DPCs) has remained a problem. The state governments, even in progressive states like Karnataka, lacked the enthusiasm to implement the constitutional amendments in letter and spirit. The situation in Karnataka and Kerala is, of course, far better than that in other states. Still, much remains to be desired in respect of a) devolution, b) implementation of fiscal measures such as taxation, c) implementation of Central schemes, d) the question of parallel bodies and, e) the question of district planning with focus on spatial integration of the plans. This study intends to explore these aspects. This study intends to probe the relationship between the Centre, the state and local governments to evolve institutional mechanisms for preparing independent budgeting and planning at the district level. The Central government has been encouraging the state governments to devolve functions, trained personnel and finances to lower level bodies. The state governments have been making efforts in this direction and the local

2

Chapter One

governments have been responding to these efforts. However, what is lacking is effectiveness at the local level. Planning in India is done by the Planning Commission and the states and local governments adopt the plans. This was the general situation but the 74th Constitutional Amendment made out a case for district-level planning. It envisaged promotion of planning from the district level upwards. This process of planning from below, barring the ‘people’s plan’ experience of Kerala, is yet to take off in all the states. Systematic, independent and comprehensive planning and budgeting at the district level will ensure a more effective development process. This will also make it possible to put together state-level plans in a realistic and meaningful manner. The priorities of local and state governments will become clearer and will lead to harmonious Centre-state relations on the one hand, and the local and state governments on the other. Therefore, the need for independent budgeting and planning at the district level is obvious. The main problem with the budgeting and planning at the district level is effectiveness. This is particularly true with planning and budgeting where the process is with the DPCs in the urban areas – often at the district headquarters – going by the 74th Amendment, whereas planning should be done for many villages in a district spanning vast geographical areas. Besides this logistical problem, there are many procedural and processual problems in planning and budgeting at the district level. Therefore, these issues cause concern and call for immediate attention.

Research Scope Thematic Scope: Given the above situation, the main thematic scope for this research would be to investigate the nature and difficulties in planning and budgeting at the local and district levels. This, in turn, would require us to look at the extent of devolution at the state and district levels given the normative scaffolding provided by the state government. The scope of this research would also involve the question of local resources. Do district and local governments have sufficient resources to plan for their priorities on their own? If not, how to augment them? The Constitution, after the amendments, provides fiscal and taxation powers only to the last tier of local governments, i.e., the village panchayats, whereas the taluk- and district-level governments do not have provision for independent taxation. This makes resource mobilisation difficult at a level where, in practice, there is a huge potential to augment taxes.

Introduction

•

•

•

•

•

•

3

Firstly, the scope of the study involves the question of how the schemes and programmes directly given to panchayats from the Centre are to be more effectively utilised; this raises the question of whether there should be tied funding from the Centre or untied grants to the panchayats. The study will examine the question of flow of funds either directly from the Centre to the local bodies or via the state governments. This aspect has crucial repercussions on the relations between the local bodies and the state government and the relations between the state and Central governments. Secondly, the thematic scope involves decentralised planning at the district level. As noted above, many problems are faced in district planning and budgeting. We take up this question squarely and examine whether or not there should be a single body for planning at the district level for urban and rural areas, or, is it more conducive to effective planning and budgeting to have a separate planning body for rural and urban areas. We intend to focus on futuristic analysis in this area given the experience of planning and budgeting at the district level and how best we can improve upon it. This will be done in such a manner that the relationships between the three tiers – Central, state and local governments – are harmonious, smooth and their functioning effective for development. Thirdly, the thematic scope of the study will explore how the vertical relationships between the Centre-state-local bodies can be made harmonious and smooth and how this can also be achieved horizontally across the districts at the state level. Fourthly, the study will cover the process of dispute resolution, if any, between the state government and the urban and rural local bodies. This is particularly with reference to the preparation and implementation of the budgets and plans. The practice is to include the MLAs and MPs at the district level in the DPC but this study will examine all the problem areas that need to be sorted out. Fifthly, the most important questions raised by the questionnaire of the Commission on Centre-State relations pertain to a) the parallel bodies to panchayats and municipalities, and b) the question of spatial planning at the district level. We approach these questions in the following manner: The question of parallel bodies to local bodies is a major issue in all the states. In Karnataka, the major parallel bodies are the Jala

4

Chapter One

•

•

•

• •

Samvardhana Yojana Sanghas, Village Forest Committees, School Development and Monitoring Committees (SDMCs), Watershed Users’ Associations and Watershed Development Committees. Although, of late, an attempt has been made to bring the SDMCs under the jurisdiction of the panchayats at the GP level, they still happen to be important parallel bodies. There are at least two problems involved here: one, the parallel bodies take away functions that ought to come under panchayats; second, the parallel bodies command more financial resources than the GPs. These questions will be addressed in our study. The parallel bodies are also known as Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) and they have their own clientele at the GP level. They also are specific and issue-oriented bodies. Therefore, it is argued that they are useful. There is some truth in this. Our approach in the study will be to examine these parallel bodies, their role and scope and how they can be brought under the umbrella of the panchayat. Education, supply of drinking water, minor irrigation, conservation of natural resources etc., are mandated to the Constitutional bodies in the 11th Schedule to the 73rd Amendment. These functions and related funds and personnel cannot be taken away from the GPs. These parallel bodies can be integrated into the panchayats. Our attempt in the study would be to see how it can be done and what effort is required to incorporate the concerns of the parallel bodies into those of PRIs. This involves the study of the functions, finances and staff of the existing parallel bodies as well as those of PRIs and how they can be made part of the governance and powers of the local bodies. The sixth question is that of spatial integration of the plans. The current working process will be assessed and the improvements required will be discussed. In our understanding, the process should be as follows: The GP-level plans should be prepared by taking an inventory of local resources and priorities. These plans should be prepared from the ward level. The process should actively involve all ward-level citizens. The GP-level plans should be discussed in the grama sabha, verified by the members and forwarded to the TP. The TP needs to integrate the plans of all the GPs in its jurisdiction and prepare a consolidated plan for the taluk based on the inventory of resources and prioritised needs.

Introduction

• •

•

•

•

•

5

The TP then should meet all the TP members to discuss the plans and forward a consolidated plan to the ZP. The ZP then integrates all the plans into a district plan and submits it to the DPC. This district plan should include the vertical and horizontal dimensions of all the plans. Vertically, the plans start from ward levels of GPs to the ZPs. Horizontally, the plans cover various PR plans as well as the municipal/urban plans. There are two important aspects to the above process: i) at every stage of planning there should be full participation of the members of the PRIs, and ii) the process should address the rural and urban linkages. Presently, taxation powers are vested only with GPs and not with TPs and ZPs. However, TPs and ZPs are also areas where the potential of augmentation of resources is high. Therefore, the planning process, while taking the inventory of resources, must identify areas where taxes can be levied and resources mobilised. Seventhly, the question of rural-urban linkages will be addressed. Rural areas are spread out across vast geographical spaces with less financial resources. Urban areas are more compact and rapidly growing areas. Towns and districts also happen to be market areas for rural citizens. Most of the commercial activities are concentrated in urban towns and municipalities and they generate urban and rural links. For some districts, the links are intensive and for some others they may be less intensive. Therefore, the ZP should take these aspects into account while recommending a district plan to the DPC and a realistic action plan for each district reflecting the rural-urban linkages should be prepared. Eighthly, this study will also throw light on the institutions that can monitor and evaluate the planning and budgeting process. This mechanism is missing at present and since planning at the district level has not emerged in a big way, the lacuna persists. In case planning at the district level becomes a regular exercise, then there is a need for an institution to monitor and evaluate the implementation process.

Geographical Scope: The geographical scope of the study is confined to one district in Karnataka where we will examine whether the district-level planning is being done in an effective manner. Given the constraints of time, it will help us concentrate on how best to assess the present and

6

Chapter One

future problems of district-level budgeting and planning at all the lower tiers of local self-government. Objectives of the Study: 1.

To undertake a situational analysis of decentralised budgeting and planning at the district level by studying a district in Karnataka and making policy recommendations for replicability of the best practices evolving from the same.

2.

To identify the constraints in the way of making the local bodies effective units of local self-government.

3.

As part of the above, to study the process of devolution of functions, finances and staff to different levels of local bodies and to study the relations between the state government and local bodies as well as the Central-state relations.

4.

In and through the above to suggest new constitutional amendments, if required, or. to see whether major procedural changes in the existing laws are sufficient.

Research Questions The main research questions of the study will be as follow: • • •

•

What is the extent of devolution from the state level to the district and lower tiers of government not only in terms of GOs, ordinances, documents but also in terms of effective processes? What are the problems of devolution from the point of view of the bureaucracy and the political executive at different tiers, down from state level? What is the nature of fiscal devolution? What are the current problems with finances at district- and lower-level local bodies? How are the district and local bodies placed vis-à-vis augmenting resources and expending them. How are the Central schemes and programmes implemented? What are the major difficulties involved in administering them? What are the roles of the bureaucracy and the political executive

Introduction

•

•

7

in implementation and in what better ways can they be implemented? Which are the parallel bodies to the local bodies are and how can they be brought under constitutionally mandated local bodies? What is the current state of district-level budgeting and planning? How can it be improved? Can rural and urban plans be brought under one umbrella plan? What are the roles of the political executive and bureaucracy in conducting these exercises? How can planning and budgeting be improved in terms of transparency and accountability? We would also explore whether gender and social audit at district-level budgeting and planning is possible. We will attempt to throw comprehensive light on district-level planning and budgeting. Finally, how can spatial integration of rural and urban plans be achieved? What are the existing links between rural and urban areas, and how can rural and urban plans be prepared and integrated into a single district plan?

Methodology 1.

2.

3.

4.

The study will be based on qualitative and quantitative data generated from interviews and focus group discussions at the district, taluk and panchayats levels. The secondary data available with the offices of the different tiers will also be incorporated. Secondary information will also be collected from documents such as Shri Krishnaswamy Report, the various reports of the State Finance Commission and the Report of the Working Group on Local Bodies in Karnataka. Review of this literature would be an integral part of the study. Qualitative data will include interviews with officials and the political executive and quantitative data will pertain to the existing data on all the four aspects mentioned in the scope of the study. We will be concentrating on one district in Karnataka where district-level planning is done and choose two taluk panchayats within it and two villages in each taluk panchayat. We will be studying four village panchayats, two taluk panchayats and one district. The criterion to select these will be developed after the initial discussion with state-level officials. During the study process, we will be assessing with the stakeholders the existing practice and what improvements can be done in

8

Chapter One

5.

district-level budgeting and planning and the steps, even drastic measures, that need to be taken regarding the same. Policy recommendations of the study will be laid out clearly as they emerge from the study.

Outcome of the study: The study will bring out a comprehensive report on the nature and problems of district-level planning and budgeting. The study will examine the processes of: a) devolution, b) implementation of fiscal measures such as taxation, c) the implementation of Central schemes, d) the question of parallel bodies, e) the question of spatial integration of the plans, f) the aspects of dispute resolution, g) the aspect of inter-tier relations, h) the aspect of fund-flow from the Centre to the states, and the i) the question of land acquisition in the case of SEZs and other development projects. This study intends to explore these aspects following the methodology of studying one district in Karnataka, which will also include the study of two taluks and four GPs. In doing the above, the study will review all the secondary data available at the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) pertaining to the district planning process. We have chosen Tumkur district for study because the ISEC is conducting a capacity-building exercise for Comprehensive District Development Plan (CDDP) in this district. Tumkur district also broadly represents the socio-economic diversity of Karnataka. According to the district officials, the taluks of the district are classified into developed, backward and most backward taluks. Based on this criterion, we have chosen Gubbi taluk because it is moderately developed, Kunegal taluk because it is most backward and Tiptur taluk because it is a relatively developed one. These taluks also satisfy the criterion of distance from the district headquarters, Tumkur. Gubbi taluk, 19 km away, is the nearest and consists of 33 grama panchayats. Kunegal taluk is 38 km from Tumkur town and consists of 36 grama panchayats, while Tiptur is 75 km away from Tumkur town and consists of 26 grama panchayats.

Tumkur district Tumkur is an administrative district in the state of Karnataka with the district headquarters located at Tumkur. The district occupies an area of 10,598 sq km and had a population of 2,584,711 (as of 2001), of which 19.62 per cent is urban. Tumkur is one-and–a-half hour drive away from Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka.

Introduction

9

The area of the district consists chiefly of elevated land intersected by river valleys. A range of hills rising to nearly 4,000 feet (1,200 m) crosses it from north to south, forming the watershed between the Krishna and the Kaveri rivers. The principal streams are the Jayamangala and the Shimsha. The mineral wealth of Tumkur is considerable. Iron ore is obtained in large quantities from the hillsides and excellent building-stone is quarried. The annual rainfall averages 39 inches. There are 10 taluks in Tumkur district: 1) Tumkur 2) Gubbi 3) Chikkanayakana Halli 4) Madhugiri 5) Kunegal 6) Koratagere 7) Pavagada 8) Sira 9) Tiruvaekere and 10) Tiptur. From these 10 taluks, we have chosen, as already mentioned above, three taluks: Gubbi, Kunegal and Tiptur.

CHAPTER TWO DECENTRALISED PLANNING IN INDIA: PERSPECTIVES AND PRACTICES

District Planning in India: Historical Perspective District Planning, as envisaged in the 73rd Constitution Amendment, is the outcome of various initiatives for decentralised planning since the introduction of planned development in post-Independence India. The need for decentralised planning was first felt during the first Five-Year Plan (1951-56), when planning at the national, state and district and subdistrict levels was suggested. However, the idea was given a concrete shape with the establishment of the District Development Council to consolidate plans prepared at the village level through a participative process for which the three-tier Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) were established at the village, block and district levels. However, their powers, functions and resources were not clearly defined and, as a consequence, the planning process at the grassroots level suffered. The Administrative Reforms Commission (1967) stressed on the need for meaningful planning at the district level by focusing on local variations of resources, needs and priorities. Consequently, the Central Planning Commission (CPC) issued guidelines for district planning in 1969, which led to several states formulating district plans. However, the exercise remained on paper in a majority of the states due to the decline of PRIs during the late1960s and 70s. The issue of District Planning (DP) came to the fore again when the working group on district planning headed by C H Hanumantha Rao was appointed in 1984. The working group recommended greater decentralisation of functions, powers and resources for meaningful district planning. It also recommended setting up of district planning committees under the district collectors who would be assisted by planning officers and technical experts. The other notable committees on decentralised planning include the G V K Rao Committee on Administrative Arrangement for Rural

12

Chapter Two

Development (1985), the Dantawala Committee on Block-Level Planning and the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations (1983). The second report of the Economic Advisory Council under the chairmanship of Chakraborthy has also suggested development planning and implementation with the support of political, technical and financial resources. As a result of these initiatives, the following changes were observed in district planning during 1970-80: 1. Identification of district sector schemes. 2. Dis-aggregation of plan funds between state and district sectors. 3. Determination of the share of the individual districts giving weight to backward areas. 4. Setting up of district planning bodies. 5. Creation of technical planning machinery at the district level. 6. New procedures for the release of funds, their re-appropriation etc. (Singh 1990). Box 2.1: Traditional Maharashtra-Gujarat Model (1970s) The Maharashtra-Gujarat Model was a good exercise in district planning. As per the recommendations of the Naik Committee, the PRI set-up was unveiled in 1962 for local development. Then after 10 years (1972) the government realised that district planning was an inseparable part of decentralised planning. Therefore, the government set up a planning department at the state level, which in turn set up planning boards at the district level. The first function of the District Planning Board was to ensure co-ordination between the different implementation agencies. Second, it gave guidelines for plan formulation and implementation. Third, it approved annual plans and five-year plans. We can see that DPDCs were established in every district during 1974. The main function of the DPDC was to make timely reviews of district plans. Overall, it functioned as an advisory body. The DPDC became the watchdog for plan formulation. In the DPDC, the minister was a Palak Mantri and also it included members of parliament, state legislative members, ZP president and CEO, mayor and municipal corporation members, commissioners and officials of cooperative banks. Fiscal The state government had the power to fix some amount for the district planning committees to formulate plans. There were, therefore, three kinds of schemes, viz., national, state and district-level schemes. From 1970s onwards discussions on principles and authority of decentralisation became

Decentralised Planning in India

13

the reason for the existence of the state pool of the district-level schemes. In such a situation at the district level, the state government’s guidelines were considered to be encroaching on the liberty of the districts frustrating efforts to put substance into district-level planning. Here we can notice that there was no scope for block-level planning. Though the state government was prepared to give funds to blocks, there were problems. There was no people’s participation in plan formulation. Thus, the PRIs were sidelined in Maharashtra. An empirical study (Gopal 2000) has identified the land mafia for the weakness of decentralised planning at the taluk and GP levels. Also, the state planning board was not associated with the district planning boards. Gujarat In Gujarat, the district planning boards have a broader participatory system. It involves the state minister, district planning officer, government staff, panchayat presidents and municipality representatives. Earlier, the Gujarat Panchayat Act had no provision for district planning committees but incorporated it after seeing the implementation of DPCs in other states. The District Planning Board (DPB) formulates plans after organising different district-level schemes collected from the ZP and district-level officers. Generally district-level officers prepare sectoral plans whereas the panchayat sector schemes are prepared by district panchayats, i.e., ZP. The DPB then sends these plans to state-level planning for approval. However, the DPB in Gujarat has a problem with allocation. State planning has stopped 80 per cent of allocation related to sectoral planning, thus hampering the development schemes. For the remaining 20 per cent, the DPB allocates 15 per cent to formulation of district-level schemes and 5 per cent to formulation of schemes on backwardness. It may also consider the outlay of the state. Thus, there are three kinds of outlays and Decentralised Planning is not suitable for integration. It also has limited authority as it can be expended to non-development. But yet, as per DPB guidelines, it has to provide basic amenities for the people of the district because in 1984 some guidelines were formed by reviewing DPB. Three kinds of schemes were formulated: 1) schemes admissible in incentive outlay 2) schemes admissible in discretionary and incentive outlays and 3) inadmissible in discretion of incentive outlay.

14

Chapter Two

State Plan Outlay (1985-90) of Actual Plans There is a decrease in flow of funds to district-level schemes, which come from state plan outlay. Similarly, according to a study on district planning, only 20 per cent of discretionary and incentive fund, a small portion, is allocated to local needs and demands. Though the Tenth Finance Commission has recommended releasing untied funds, decentralised planning is getting this fund. Karnataka Model Among all states, Karnataka has taken many steps and put in much effort to implement decentralised district planning. People’s representatives along with government officials or bureaucrats have done many experiments to allocate funds. The District Development Plan (DDP) has been in existence since 1969 in Karnataka and along with some other states it has implemented district plans in a commendable manner. District and regional planning division existed and also planning departments and district planning officers were found at the district level. The Deputy Commissioner (district collector) was made head of the district planning committee (district planning officer was the member-secretary). This body subsequently was placed before the district development council which had bureaucratic representatives. This system focused on departmental schemes though it also involved elected representatives. There was political deficit as far as participation in Decentralised Planning was concerned. It can be identified in three stages of Decentralised Planning, viz., 1960s, 1980s and 1990s. The ZP and Mandal panchayats were accorded importance in the democratic Decentralised Planning. The reason was that ZP had the responsibility of plan formulation and implementation for district development at district level, as per the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (KPRA). The planning process, in the above scenario, can be categorised into three kinds: state planning at the state level, ZP planning at the district level and Mandal panchayats planning at the below-district level. In India, the sector-wise fund allocation provided an opportunity to keep lumpsum allocation involving free outlay. However, this allocation applied to only state planning schemes and Central sector schemes. It was not applicable to schemes at the district panchayat level; that is why it was imperative to provide priority to the district- and panchayat-level schemes at the district level. And, the inclusion of ‘Gadgil Formula’ at the district level for plan allocation gave more preference to backward regions. Because of this, 75 per cent of its grants reached the panchayats, especially