Integrated Action Plan: An overarching development initiative

Photo Source: kracktivist

The Integrated Action Plan is entering the fourth year of its existence this year. It is a plan which has caused a lot of infighting; however, it was seen as a hopeful start to a new strategy to counter Left Wing Extremism in the country. Has it achieved what it set out to? What are the points of divergence? Where lies the problem and what can be the solutions to make it a more judicious and effective plan by the Central government? These are some questions that this article seeks to answer.

Since it was first presented in 2010, the IAP has been extended to 88 districts. The initial 33 districts were part of the 83 Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected districts identified under the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The LWE districts coming under the IAP were those wherein more than 20 per cent of the total number police stations in the district saw incidents of naxal violence.

To begin with, IAP for 60 identified tribal and backward districts was implemented with a block grant of Rs.25 crore and Rs.30 crore per district during 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, for which the funds were to be placed at the disposal of the Committee headed by the District Collector (DC) assisted by the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district and the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO).

 

Its basic fallacy is that it follows a top-down approach, which, in a democratic set-up is rather unsustainable. The voice of the people for which the IAP is intended is not heard while the onus of making the policy rests with the bureaucracy. Neither the people at ground level, nor their representatives, are a part of the consultations on the implementation of policies under the plan. Therefore, the vision with which the policy was initiated is more or less defeated.

 

This allows for pilferages in the system which, as was observed during a field trip to some of the states with districts falling under the IAP, increases the gap between allocation of funds and implementation thereof. Moreover, because the IAP was primarily initiated to address the governance deficit in LWE states, putting other districts in states like Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, where the problem is not acute, takes away from the purpose of the plan. A better way of guaranteeing that the most needy districts get the benefit of this policy would be to establish a graded system of aid ie: Grade A districts which need the most attention can be granted more funds while Grade B districts which are relatively free from violence can be granted a lesser amount of aid under this plan.

Another recommendation for addressing the trust deficit that the government faces is allowing greater role for Gram Sabha in consultations. As is the case now, the bureaucracy is seen as the enemy by the locals in these areas. The Gram Sabha comprises each member of the village and involving them in the decision making process would ensure a more democratic system of aid dispensation.

 

For greater accountability, a proper grievance redressal mechanism needs to be put in place. This can only happen with greater transparency in the form of plan outlay and implementation record. A model that can be replicated for this is how the transparency in the Right to Information Act was followed in Rajasthan where the law and guidelines were put up on the walls of the villages so that everyone can be made aware of their rights.

Development can only happen when the government’s agenda matches with that of the people. It is not difficult if the right intent exists. All it needs is a more democratic process of decision making and transparent means of accountable implementation. 

Medha Chaturvedi

 

Need to Strengthen Panchayati Raj: Insights from Kerala’s Mass Contact Programme

The Kerala CM’s Mass Contact Programme for redressing grievances and rooting out corruption has won international recognition. In this context, the article seeks to evaluate present-day popular models of grievance redressal and explore the role of Panchayati Raj in addressing people’s concerns.


It is only a few months since the Chief Minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, won the United Nations’ Public Service Award for ‘Preventing and Combating Corruption in the Public Service’ for his 2011-12 Mass Contact Programme. According to records of the Kerala Government, the CM visited all districts of the state, imbibed lessons by listening to people’s grievances, collected 5.45 lakh petitions and managed to resolve 2.97 lakh of these within a short duration. A similar exercise was carried out in 2013 as well. The UNDP appreciated the initiative, hailing it as exemplary in strengthening democracy. At the same time, one needs to evaluate whether the initiative, while it brings the politicians closer to the voters, is the best way to approach grievance redressal.


 



Mass Contact Programme 2012: A Broad Picture

Source: Boundless Access: Kerala’s Tryst with Governance, Department of Information & Public Relations, Government of Kerala, March 2012, p.32

 

Inadequacy of Mass Contact Programme as a Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The table above shows that during the 2011-12 Mass Contact Programme almost 20 per cent of total households - that is one in every five households- in Idukki, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Wayanad districts presented their cases before the Chief Minister. If so many people have to depend on certain high-ranking individuals to address their grievances, it makes one ponder upon the extent of progress of democracy in this country. With the ‘Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011’ still pending in the Parliament, people have no choice but to depend on a few individuals to address their problems. The situation thus throws light on the incapacity of institutions of local self government to address people’s problems.

Need to Strengthen Panchayati Raj Institutions

In the year that lakhs of people participated in the Mass Contact Programme to seek redressal of their grievances, Kerala ranked first in Panchayat Devolution Index (2011-12). In this context, it seems ironic that Rajiv Gandhi envisioned Panchyati Raj as a systemic solution for ‘responsive administration’, replacing managerial solutions like grievance redressal mechanisms. At the beginning of his tenure as the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi was actually in favour of such managerial solutions like the one that the then District Collector of Ahmednagar in Maharashtra had introduced. The Collector had brought in a system, similar to that of the Kerala CM’s, wherein he used to meet the general public in the open under a tree and attempt to provide immediate disposal of their problems. Despite his earlier support to such initiatives, Rajiv Gandhi later accepted in the Parliament that, “At that time...we were looking to a simplification of procedure, grievance- redressal machinery, single-window clearances, computerisation and courtesy as the answers to the problems. As we went along, we discovered that a managerial solution would not do. What was needed was a systemic solution.” Despite it being two decades after  Panchyati Raj was introduced as a systemic solution, it is grievance redressal programmes like the  Oommen Chandy’s that have managed to more effectively address people’s concerns, than institutions of local self government . 

Referring to a case that was brought before him which could actually have been settled at the panchayat level, the Kerala CM said, “How is it that a complaint that could have been tackled by a local governing body reached the chief minister’s hand? ...

Alas, an issue that could have easily been solved didn’t go the way it should have.” If this is the situation in the state with one of the strongest Panchayati Raj systems in the country, it is hard to imagine how deplorable the condition in other states would be. We would not have needed Mass Contact Programmes if there were empowered Panchayati Raj Institutions in place, with adequate powers devolved to them. Therefore, it is high time we ponder over the effectiveness of Panchayati Raj Institutions and take initiatives to empower them so as to facilitate effective delivery of services to the common man.

 

*This is a revised version of the paper published by the author in eSocial Sciences on 12 July, 2013.

Amrutha Jose Pampackal