Volume 4, Track 3, October 2007 · has increased only marginally from 6.7 % in 2006-07 RE to 6.9 % in 2007-08 BE. 2. MONSOON SESSION IN THE PARLIAMENT The Monsoon Session 2007 that

Volume 4, Track 3, October 2007

A publication by:Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability

for private circulation only

Why can’t we sitinside and study?

Don’t you know dalitscan’t go inside?

Be happy with whatyou’ve got!

Foreword

IN THIS ISSUE

Budget and Policy Tracking 2of the Union Government

Gender Budgeting 10Analysis for States

Scheduled Caste Sub Plan: The 18Status So Far

The Wheat Syndrome 24

Guest Column: Inadequate 26Decentralisation is a betrayalof India’s Constitution: Somereflections from Dr. L.C. Jain

Civil Society Initiative to 28Influence the Union Budget

Time and again the government in power has expressed concern over thewidespread discrimination on the basis of gender and caste and has madereferences to the Constitutional mandates. Numerous schemes run by thegovernment contain explicit provisions for the marginalized groups. However, atthe same time the dismal state of disadvantaged groups so clearly evident fromthe macro indicators and grassroots realities cannot be denied. The recentlyreleased Global Hunger Index, 2007 places India at the 94th position, a rank evenworse than some of our neighboring countries. It reinforces the plight of women,children, lower castes and ethnic minorities who have been unable to reap thebenefits of ‘faster growth’.

The present issue of Budget Track draws attention to the marginalized groups, theexisting budgetary provisions and attempts to track the recent policy initiatives.The regular column on Budget Policy and Tracking of the Union Government briefsthe developments taken place in the realm of Budget and Public Policy during thelast quarter of the financial year 2007-08. An exclusive interview with Dr. L.C. Jainbrings to the forefront the utter betrayal of the Constitutional mandate in relationto the 73rd and 74th amendments.

We hope that you find the contents of the issue useful.

[Views expressed in the articles are those of the authors and not necessarily the position of the Organisation]

BudgetTRACKVolume 4, Track 3, October 2007

Budget TRACK Volume 4, Track 3, October 2007

2

Over six months have elapsed since theFinance Minister, Mr. P Chidambaram,announced the Union Budget 2007-08 onFebruary 28, 2007. It was the fourth

budget presented by the United ProgressiveAlliance (UPA) Government in its governancetenure. The budget was described as ‘insipid’ oneand adopted the ‘please-all’ policy in order tocapture maximum political dividends. On the otherhand, there has been considerable increase inallocation for the social sectors/services - a clearsign of the government’s intention to continuefocusing on the social sectors. Also, the month-long Monsoon Session that commenced on August10, 2007 concluded on September 10, 2007.Several key legislations were passed during thesetwo Sessions. A brief note on the budgetaryprovisions made is followed by highlights of theMonsoon Session. With regard to tracking some ofthe key policy initiatives and developments at theCentre, critical policies and their impact on themasses is examined.

years, there is a substantial gap in the physicaltargets set vis-à-vis the corresponding achievementin 2005-06 as well as 2006-07. Allocation for RajivGandhi Drinking Water Mission to be increased byRs.1170 crore as compared to 2006-07 and TotalSanitation Campaign by Rs.234 crore. With regardto outlays for children proportionate to the totalbudget, there has been an overall increase (5.08% in 2007-08 [BE]), which is still insufficient.Similarly, while the total magnitude of the GenderBudget has gone up by Rs.8925.59 crore since2006-07 (RE), in terms of priorities for women inthe first year of the 11th Five Year Plan, Budget2007-08 is a poor representation. Apart fromproviding for computerisation of the PublicDistribution System (PDS), announcement of AamAadmi Bima Yojana (AABY) is a welcome step.Given the huge extent of crop loss in the country,outlays made for National Agricultural InsuranceScheme (NAIS) is grossly inadequate. NAIS to becontinued for Kharif and Rabi 2007-08 with aprovision of Rs.500 crore apart from a weather-

based crop insurance scheme to be started byAgricultural Insurance Corporation on a pilot basisas an alternative to NAIS with an allocation ofRs.100 crore. For rural employment, in thefinancial year 2007-08, while 130 more districtshave been brought under National RuralEmployment Guarantee Act, the allocation has notbeen proportionate. The tardy implementation ofNREGS in high potential states (Bihar, Jharkhand,Uttar Pradesh, etc.) has been the main reasonbehind low levels of physical as well as financialprogress of this scheme. Allocations toinfrastructure under Bharat Nirman have beenraised by 31.6%. However, halfway through theprogramme, it becomes clear that apart from ruraltelephone connectivity, none of the sectors havebeen able to reach the target, electrification androad connectivity being considerably way off themark. Provision of resources for the panchayats inthe 2007-08 Union Budget is only indicative tothe neglect of a critical sector that has perhapsthe greatest possibilities in so far as a‘participatory democracy’ is concerned. Withreference to the North Eastern Region, although

1.1 BUDGETARY PROVISIONS MADE FORKEY SECTORS IN UNION BUDGET2007-081

Allocations for major sectors have been increasedconsiderably2 . To summarise, while allocations foreducation has been increased by 34.2% toRs.32,352 crore, for Health and Family Welfare, theincrease has been 21.9% to Rs.15,291 crore.Allocations in the health sector are only marginalalthough provisioning for National Rural HealthMission and Integrated Child Development Serviceshave been raised by Rs.1740 crore and Rs.674crore respectively. Allocation to the tune ofRs.3,271 crore in respect of schemes benefitingonly SCs and STs and Rs.17,691 crore in respect ofschemes with at least 20% of benefits earmarkedfor SCs and STs have been made in the UnionBudget 2007-08. A critical sector whoseprovisioning has stagnated in the recent years isUrban Water Supply and Sanitation while that onRural Water Supply and Sanitation has been on therise. Under Bharat Nirman, with respect to thephysical targets set and achieved in the last two

Budget and Policy Tracking- Pooja Parvati & Gyana Ranjan Panda

1 This section is extracted from the findings presented in the Response to the Union Budget 2007-08, Centre for Budget and GovernanceAccountability, March 2007. For further details, refer to the document online at www.cbgaindia.org2 Union Budget 2007-08. Available at: http//indiabudget.nic.in


3

the Union Government has made explicitcommitments in the past for earmarking adequateresources, when seen as a proportion of total planoutlay of the Union Government, the plan outlayhas increased only marginally from 6.7 % in 2006-07 RE to 6.9 % in 2007-08 BE.

2. MONSOON SESSION IN THEPARLIAMENT

The Monsoon Session 2007 that has only justconcluded was marked by an unprecedentednumber of disruptions. The Indo-US Nuclear deal,introduction of poorly-framed Bills such as theUnorganised Sector Workers Social Security Bill,2007 and the ensuing disorder resulted in scantattention being paid to critical issues such asprice rise, unabated farmers’ suicides and theSachar Report’s recommendations. Both Lok Sabhaand Rajya Sabha worked for less than 50% of theirscheduled time during the Monsoon session whichended four days ahead of the schedule. Estimatesshow that Lok Sabha lost 42 hours due tointerruptions and that four Bills were passed inthe people’s forum without any debate3 . Although380 starred questions were listed for the more-than-month-long session, only 35 questions couldbe answered in the house.

empowerment and education of the community. Itdirected the various Ministries to initiatecomprehensive programmes to implement therecommendations effectively. This would befollowed by presentation of an Action Taken Reportin the Parliament to highlight the stark reality ofthe socio-economic conditions of the Muslims. TheReport although presented in the Monsoon Sessioncould not be discussed at length owing tofrequent disruptions in the Lok Sabha.

The Sachar report clearly emphasizes that theobjectives of improving their socio-economicconditions can be achieved only “when theimportance of Muslims as an intrinsic part of thediverse Indian social mosaic is squarelyrecognised.” The report notes that the communityexhibits “deficits and deprivation” in practically alldimensions of development.

The report falls short of recommending reservationin education and jobs for the community as awhole. However, the welcome aspect is that, itmakes a forceful case for “multifarious measures,including reservation” for Muslims with similartraditional occupations as that of the ScheduledCastes “as they are cumulatively oppressed.”

The recommendations of the Report in general askfor the establishment of a national level data bank

Source: Compiled from Press Release, Ministry ofParliamentary Affairs

Graph 1: Monsoon Session 2007: SomeComparative Estimates

Having had a summary glance at the Budgetprovisions and the recently concluded Monsoonsession of the Parliament, it is useful to examinekey policy and recent developments from theperspective of its implication on the aam aadmi.

THE SACHAR COMMITTEERECOMMENDATIONSOn May 18, 2007, the Union Cabinet approved therecommendations of the Rajinder Sachar Committeeon Muslims as also those of a subsequent specialpanel, headed by Minister of State for HumanResource Development, A A Fatmi, on the

Box 1: Facts About the Monsoon Session,2007 (Parliament of India)

� Lok Sabha worked for 65 hours (47%). On anaverage, on the days that Lok Sabha wasconvened, it worked for 4 hours compared tothe scheduled time of 6 hours per day. On 6days, the House met for less than 1 hour, andon 2 days, for more than 8 hours. 42 hourswere lost due to interruptions.

� Rajya Sabha worked for a total of 52 hours(45%). On an average, on the days that theRajya Sabha was convened, it worked for 3hours compared to the scheduled time of 5hours per day. On 4 days, the House met forless than 1 hour, and on 6 days, between 5-7hours.

� Lok Sabha spent 28 hours deliberating 6 Bills.4 Bills were passed without any discussion. Nonlegislative matters like the flood situation in thecountry, bomb blasts in Hyderabad, etc. werediscussed for 27 hours. Lok Sabha spent 6 hourson the Question Hour, which is scheduled for 1hour each day.

� Rajya Sabha spent 24 hours deliberating 8 Bills.3 Bills were passed without any discussion. Nonlegislative matters (as mentioned above) werediscussed for 14 hours. Rajya Sabha spent 7hours on the Question Hour, which is scheduledfor 1 hour each day.

Source: PRS Legislative Research, September 10, 2007

3 Ghosh, Avijit, House Wasted Half of Monsoon Session, Timesof India, September 13, 2007

Budget andPol icyTracking

“ The Sacharreport clearlyemphasizes thatthe objectivesof improvingtheir socio-economicconditions canbe achievedonly “when theimportance ofMuslims as anintrinsic part ofthe diverseIndian socialmosaic issquarelyrecognised.”


4

to maintain relevant particulars of socio-religiouscommunities; setting up an Inter-Ministerial Groupto monitor the implementation of a comprehensiveprogramme for skill and entrepreneurshipdevelopment of Muslims; introduction of a 24-hourUrdu television channel, etc. It also recommendsthe creation of an Equal Opportunity Commission,modelled on the U.K. Race Relations Act, 1976, tolook into the grievances of religious minorities.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORTSome of the key findings of the Report aresummarized as follows:� Share of Muslims at higher government

positions in states where their population is atleast 15.4% is just 5.7%; Muslims’ presence inlower judiciary is a mere 7.8% in 14 stateswith significant Muslim population.

� In poverty level, deprivation of Muslim OBCs is40% more than the national average. In landholdings too, Muslim OBCs are behind HinduOBCs. Poverty level of urban Muslims is 44% asopposed to national average of 28%.

� Among graduates and matriculates, Muslimstrail the national average by 30% and 40%respectively.

� In all government jobs, including PSUs, theaverage representation of Muslims in the 12major states is 15.4%. In state jobs, it is 6.4%.

� Percentage of Muslim inmates in jails isdisproportionately high. In Maharashtra, it isas high as 40% whereas the community makesup only 10.6% of the total population in thestate. In Gujarat, there are 9.06% Muslims inGujarat, but they form 25% of inmates in jails.

The report suggests specific policy initiatives toaddress educational, career and politicaldeprivation among Muslims. On education, itsrecommendations include a special focus on freeand compulsory education; institutionalizing theprocess of evaluating school textbooks so thatthey better reflect community-specific sensitivities;setting up quality government schools, especiallyfor girls, in areas of Muslim concentration; andproviding primary education in Urdu in areas wherethe language is widely in use.

However, the government at the center as well assome BJP led government in various states isshowing reluctance in implementing the Sacharrecommendations in various programmes. This showstheir insensitivity in improving the socio-economiccondition of the Muslim community and their dubiousintent in keeping the most significant minority groupunder incessant poverty and deprivation.

RESERVATION FOR SCS AND STSIN PRIVATE SECTORSA crucial policy floated by the UPA governmentwas providing reservations to SCs and STs in the

private sector. This was followed after Governmentannounced its desire to implement the reservationfor Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the CentralEducational Institutions. Though nothing specifichas been done on the legislative front,negotiations are on between Government andPrivate industries consortium to mutuallyimplement the proposals.

The idea was first mooted by the Commission forSCs and STs in response to the demand raised bythe National Convention of SC and ST unions. TheCommission claimed that the employment of SCand ST workers in private sector was negligible dueto low level of education and technical trainingamong the dalit workers. The Confederation ofIndian Industry (CII) and Associated Chamber ofCommerce (ASSOCHAM) formed a ‘Task Force’ underthe chairmanship of J J Irani, a retired executiveof Tata House, to find out ways and means ofavoiding legislation on this question. The TaskForce drafted a memorandum on “ProposedConcrete Steps by Indian Industry on AffirmativeAction for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,”which was submitted to the Prime Minister, DrManmohan Singh. Related to this are the CAG’sfindings on the status of the education of SCs andSTs. When seen in the context of the level ofprogress made, the policy proposal for reservationof SCs/STs in the private sector seems to be a stepin the right direction.

The CAG’s Performance Audit Report on‘Educational Development of Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes’*produces the followingstark highlights:� Two indicators of educational development i.e

gross enrolment rate (GER) and gross dropoutrate (GDR) displayed an adverse trend withrespect to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribeboys and girls. The gap in GDR between generalcandidates and Scheduled Caste and ScheduledTribe candidates which was 6.7 per cent and15.1 per cent in 2001-02 deteriorated to 10.4and 16.6 per cent in 2003-04 respectively.

� Underutilization of funds, inter-stateimbalances in allocation of funds, non availingof central assistance, delayed/non/short releaseof funds, unspent balances lying with States/UTs, diversion of funds etc which aresymptomatic of deficient financial managementwere observed in respect of most of theschemes.

� The schemes were not given adequate publicityresulting in poor awareness of differentschemes amongst the target population.

� Large number of cases of short delivery andnon delivery of benefits i.e scholarships, bookbanks, hostels, coaching classes, awards, etcwith respect to most of the schemes came tonotice in the audit.

� There were delays in disbursement of

Budget andPol icy

Tracking

“ The Commissionclaimed that theemployment ofSC and STworkers inprivate sectorwas negligibledue to low levelof education andtechnicaltraining amongthe dalitworkers”


5

scholarships, establishment of book banks,construction of ashram schools and hostels etc.

� Ineligible beneficiaries including those whoseparents’ income exceeded the prescribed limitwere recipients of benefits such as scholarshipsindicated lax internal control.

� The hostel accommodation provided tobeneficiaries lacked basic facilities like drinkingwater, toilets, furniture and power supply etc.

� In respect of schemes operated through NGOs,deficiencies included non-adherence toceilings/norms of schemes, inadequate facilitiesof coaching staff and accommodation, failureto make alternate arrangements forbeneficiaries in the event of closure of projectsetc.

� Funds were not recovered from NGOs who wereblacklisted and assets acquired from grants-in-aid were not recovered from NGOs to whomfinancing was discontinued due tounsatisfactory performance.

� Failure to monitor the receipt of differentreports and returns relating to the schemes,maintain databases in respect of differentschemes, carry out on the spot inspections inthe states/UTs/NGOs, conduct independentevaluation of schemes and inadequate internalaudit rendered the internal controls weak.

With regard to the Employment Situation amongSocial Groups in India, 2004-05, the NSSO inits Sixty First (61st) survey came out with thefollowing statistics:

� About 9 per cent of the households in thecountry belonged to the category ScheduledTribe (ST), about 20 per cent belonged toscheduled caste (SC) and about 40 per centbelonged to the other backward class (OBC).The proportions of households belonging to thecategories STs, SCs and OBCs were about 11,22 and 42 per cent, respectively in the ruralareas and about 3, 15 and 36 per cent,respectively in the urban areas.

� In rural India, proportion of householdsdepending on self-employment was highestamong ‘the others’ category of households (61per cent) followed by OBC households (56 percent) as compared to that among the ST (46per cent) and SC (34 per cent) households. Inurban India too, proportion of householdsdepending on self-employment was higheramong the OBC households (40 per cent) andothers category households (39 per cent) ascompared to that among the ST (26 per cent)and SC (29 per cent) households.

� The proportion of households cultivating largerholdings of size 4.01 hectares and above wasthe highest among others category ofhouseholds (about 5 per cent), followed by the

OBCs (about 3 per cent), the STs (2 per cent)and SCs (1 per cent).

� About 26 per cent of the households in therural areas and 8 per cent in the urban areashad no literate member of age 15 years andabove. The proportion of households withoutany literate adult (15 years and above)member or without any literate adult femalemember was much higher among thehouseholds belonging to the STs and SCscompared to the OBCs or others categoryhouseholds in both rural and urban India.

� About 34 per cent people of India wereilliterate. The literacy rate was the highestamong the others (78 per cent) category ofpeople, followed by the OBCs with a gap ofnearly 13 percentage points, and the lowestamong the STs (52 per cent).

� The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) was thehighest among the males (56 per cent) andfemales (44 per cent) belonging to the STs (50per cent). In urban India, however, theproportion of persons employed was the sameamong SC and ST workers (38 per cent each)and was about 35 per cent among others.

� Among the rural males, WPR was higher forpersons belonging to STs (89 per cent) and SCs(86 per cent) than that for OBCs (85 per cent)and others (82 per cent). However, for theeducated rural males4 , WPR for OBCs andothers was higher (76 per cent each) than thatfor the STs and SCs (72 per cent each). Amongurban educated males, WPR was the highest forOBCs (79 per cent) and the lowest for others(74 per cent). For females, WPR was thehighest among the STs followed by SCs, OBCsand others. While affirmative action policies inother countries have been used both forprivate and public sector from the verybeginning, in India, the privatization processconcomitant with the withdrawal of the statefrom many spheres under the liberalisationregime, have further narrowed and compressedthe little space that the discriminated groupshad gained till now. If the societaldiscrimination in private domain is thejustification for reservation in public sectors,why cannot such a policy be extended to theprivate sector? Precisely because of thisconsideration, the Common MinimumProgramme of the UPA calls for a nationaldialogue on reservation in private sector.Maharashtra and MP governments on the otherhand have already approved the reservation forSCs/STs in jobs in private sector and ingovernment contracts respectively.

Source: Press Note, Employment and UnemploymentSituation among Social Groups in India, 2004-05.

4 Persons with general educational level secondary and above


“ Whileaffirmativeaction policiesin othercountries havebeen used bothfor private andpublic sectorfrom the verybeginning, inIndia, theprivatizationprocessconcomitantwith thewithdrawal ofthe state frommany spheresunder theliberalisationregime, havefurther narrowedand compressedthe little spacethat thediscriminatedgroups hadgained till now”


6

NATIONAL FOOD SECURITYMISSIONKeeping in view the challenges of growingpopulation and the need for food security, twomajor programmes have been launched recently toaugment food production and availability in thecountry. The first one is the ‘National FoodSecurity Mission’ targeted to push both productionand productivity of staple food grains such aswheat, rice and pulses on a mission mode. Theother programme ‘Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna’provides for additional assistance by CentralGovernment as 100% grant to incentivize States totake up agriculture development on priority and ina comprehensive manner with definite actionplans.

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA)gave its approval on August 16, 2007 to aCentrally Sponsored Scheme on the National FoodSecurity Mission (NFSM) to enhance foodgrainsproduction and Rs.29,000 crore AdditionalAssistance Scheme to incentivise states during the11th Five Year Plan from 2007-2012. The NationalDevelopment Council (NDC) in its 53rd meeting inMay 2007 had adopted a resolution to enhancethe production of rice wheat and pulses by ten,eight and two million tons respectively by 2011.

The NFSM is to have three components, namelyNFSM-Rice, NFSM-Wheat and NFSM-Pulses towardthis goal and to enhance the farm growth rate to4 per cent. The total financial implication for theNFSM is to be Rs 4882.48 crores during the XIPlan. Beneficiary farmers are to contribute 50 percent of the cost of the activities/work to be takenup at their farm holdings. Under NFSM-Rice, 133districts of 9 states, under NFSM-Wheat, 138districts of 9 states and under NFSM-Pulses, 168districts of 14 states are to be covered.

This is a welcome move by the UPA government toensure social safety net for food and nutritionalsecurity for citizens. This was planned to limit anyadverse impact on food security in the country.

NEED FOR FOOD SECURITYMISSION� The growth in food grain production has

stagnated during the recent past while theconsumption need of the growing population isincreasing.

� To meet the growing food grain demand,National Development Council in its 53rdmeeting adopted a resolution to enhance theproduction of rice, wheat and pulses by 10, 8and 2 million tons respectively by 2011.

� The proposed Centrally Sponsored Scheme‘National Food Security Mission (NFSM) is tooperationalize the resolution of NDC and

enhance the production of rice, wheat andpulses.

KEY FEATURES OF NFSM� The scheme is to be implemented in a mission

mode through a farmer centric approach.� All the stakeholders to be actively associated

at the district levels for achieving the set goal.� The scheme aims to target the select districts

by making available the improved technologiesto the farmers through a series of plannedinterventions.

� A close monitoring mechanism is proposed toensure that interventions reach to the targetedbeneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION� Increasing production of rice, wheat and pulses

through area expansion and productivityenhancement in a sustainable manner;

� Restoring soil fertility and productivity atindividual farm level; and

� Enhancing farm level economy (i.e. farmprofits) to restore confidence of farmers oftargeted districts

CAG’S REPORT ON PERFORMANCEAUDIT ON MANAGEMENT OFFOODGRAINS� NSSO disclosed that nearly 71 per cent of the

country’s farmers had not even heard ofMinimum Support Price (MSP) while 81 percent were effectively unaware of how to usethe MSP.

� The Union Government incurred excessexpenditure of Rs. 263.01 crore due to variousinefficiencies in the procurement operations offoodgrains by procurement agencies.

� There was no evidence that the amount of Rs.934.53 crore collected as Rural DevelopmentCess by the Punjab Government during 2001-05 was utilised for the specified purposes.

� In some States, the economic cost ofprocurement under the scheme of DecentralisedProcurement (DCP) was higher in some casesthan the corresponding cost of FCI’soperations.

� Improper estimation of local requirements ledto avoidable handling operations resulting inpayment of avoidable incidental charges of Rs.92.74 crore to the State Governments of UttarPradesh and Uttaranchal for transferring foodgrains to and from the FCI during the period2002-03 to 2004-05.

� During 2000-05, the total off-take offoodgrains by the Above Poverty Line (APL)category was just 10.88 per cent of the totalallotment.

� The States had identified a total of 861.76

Budget andPol icy

Tracking

“ The UnionGovernmentincurred excessexpenditure ofRs. 263.01 croredue to variousinefficiencies inthe procurementoperations offoodgrains byprocurementagencies.”


7

lakh Below Poverty Line (BPL) householdswhich was 32 per cent higher than the UnionGovernment estimates, which had the effect ofscaling down of rations.

� Non-review or persistent delays by 16 States /UTs in periodically carrying out the renewalprocess resulted in the continuance of a largenumber of bogus ration cards which wouldhave resulted in unquantifiable diversion ofsubsidised foodgrains.

� In six States, a large number of cases of issueof ration cards to ineligible BPL/ AAYbeneficiaries were noticed.

RASHTRIYA KRISHI VIKASYOJANA (RKVY)In order to cater to the slow growth of agricultureand allied sectors, the NDC in its 53rd meeting(held in May 2007) also resolved to launch aspecial Additional Central Assistance SchemeRashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) along withNational Food Security Mission (NFSM). The reasonwas to reorient strategies for agriculturaldevelopment to meet the needs of farmers andtherefore the NDC called upon the Central andState governments to evolve a strategy torejuvenate agriculture. The target set by RKVY isto achieve 4% annual growth in the agriculturalsector during the 11th plan.

As agriculture is a state subject, the implemen-tation of the RKVY completely rests with stategovernment. However as RKVY seeks to encourageconvergence with schemes like NREGS, SGSY andBRGF, the Planning Commission and the Ministry ofagriculture will together examine the States’ overallplan proposals for agriculture and allied sectors aspart of the Annual Plan approval exercise.

BASIC FEATURES OF THE RKVYThe RKVY aims at achieving 4% annual growth inthe agriculture sector during the XIth Plan period,by ensuring a holistic development of agricultureand allied sectors. The main objectives of thescheme are :� To incentivise the states so as to increase

public investment in agriculture and alliedsectors.

� To provide flexibility and autonomy to states inthe process of planning and executingagriculture and allied sector schemes.

� To ensure the preparation of agriculture plansfor the districts and the states based on agro-climatic conditions, availability of technologyand natural resources.

� To ensure that the local needs/crops/prioritiesare better reflected in the agricultural plans ofthe states.

� To achieve the goal of reducing the yield gaps inimportant crops, through focused interventions.

� To maximize returns to the farmers inagriculture and allied sectors.

� To bring about quantifiable changes in theproduction and productivity of variouscomponents of agriculture and allied sectors byaddressing them in a holistic manner.

At present, more than 50% of the workforce stilldepends upon agriculture for its livelihood.However, the inauguration of the lop-sidedeconomic reform has caused sharp deceleration inthe agriculture growth and at present, its growthrate is just about 3%. The factors behind slowgrowth in agriculture and its allied sectors are dueto fall of investments in the sector by the stategovernment and the lack of government support toinstill new scientific inputs and other requiredmonetary support to the traditional pattern ofagriculture. The obvious results of agriculturefailure are seen in farmer suicides, poverty,massive migration, strain on urban planning, etc.

SSAThe Union Cabinet approved on September 13,2007 a revision in the funding pattern for theSarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), bringing down thestates’ share of expenditure to 35 per cent thisfiscal (2007-08), with retrospective effect. Earlier,the states were to share 50 per cent of theexpenditure on SSA right through XI plan. As perthe new funding pattern, the Centre’s share is tobe 65 per cent in the first two years of XI FiveYear Plan, then the share is to be 60:40 in 2009-10, then 55:45 per cent in 2010-11 and finally to50:50 in the last year of the Plan. A furtherconcession has been granted to the eight North-Eastern states. Right through the plan, they haveto share only 10 per cent of the expenditure. Forhigher education, the government has two moreschemes ready for launch – one for theuniversalisation of access for secondary educationand the other for the promotion of highereducation on a large scale through theestablishment of 30 Central Universities, eightIndian Institutes of Technology and five IndianInstitutes of Science. The decision on formalizingthe Centre: state share funding pattern is welcomegiven the confusion persisting among the status ofthe Scheme.

OLD AGE PENSION SCHEMEThe Union Cabinet decided on September 13, 2007to expand the scope of the National Old AgePension Scheme by including all senior citizensabove 65 years of age and living below thepoverty line. At present, the scheme is applicableonly to destitutes above the age of 65. Thescheme is to be re-launched on November 19,2007 the birth anniversary of former PrimeMinister Indira Gandhi. On the face of it, theexpansion is a welcome move. It remains to be


“ At present, morethan 50% of theworkforce stilldepends uponagriculture forits livelihood.However, theinauguration ofthe lop-sidedeconomic reformhas causedsharpdeceleration inthe agriculturegrowth and atpresent, itsgrowth rate isjust about 3%”


8

seen whether this trend is again mere ‘wordplay’and goes beyond inauguration of newer schemesas a run up to the election in 2009. The otherconcern relates to the absence of any clearfinancial allocations made to the proposal.

PENSION SCHEME FORLABOURERSThe Rajasthan state government has introduceda pension scheme for labourers in theunorganized sector on a contributory basis toprovide social security to them after attainingthe age of 60 years. Rajasthan has become thefirst state in the country to implement thescheme. Pension is to be given to workersthrough banks, in which the state government isexpected to deposit its matching contribution upto a ceiling of Rs 1,000 a year. As many as 20categories of unorganized labourers have beenincorporated in the scheme. They includerickshaw pullers, kiosk operators, taxi drivers,domestic helps, barbers, motor mechanics, bidiworkers, tailors, washermen, hotel and dhabaworkers, self-employed electricians andconstruction workers. Again, the initiative holdspromise and seems a step in the right direction.

THE UNORGANISED SECTORWORKERS’ SOCIAL SECURITY BILLThe Unorganised Sector Workers’ Social SecurityBill was introduced in the Parliament in September2007 in a watered down version of what wasoriginally to be two separate Bills: recommendedfor agricultural and non-agricultural workers by thegovernment-appointed National Commission forEnterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS). Thetwo proposed Bills drafted by the NCEUS suggesteda minimum standard of conditions of work and aminimum level of social security. The provisions inthe Bill in its present form only confirm thecommonly held impression that the governmenthas not adhered to the NCMP commitment. Thenew Bill entails no financial obligation on the partof either the state governments or the Centre,providing merely for welfare schemes to berecommended by a National Social SecurityAdvisory Board, on whose advice the Centralgovernment will formulate welfare schemes for theunorganized sector workers. In the absence of anyfinancial commitment or a clear time frame, thelegislation that could have been a powerful toolto bring about social change has been reduced tobeing just some pages in a statute book.

The Bill has, even before its introduction in theParliament, drawn sharp reactions, mainly from theLeft parties. A timeline of the events rendersbetter clarity:

September 20, 2004 Constitution of NCEUSunder the Chairmanship ofArjun Sengupta

2005 Initial draft Bill submittedby NCEUS

May 16, 2006 Bill modified andsubmitted to Government

August 8, 2007 Nationwide strike byunorganized sector workersdemanded introduction ofthe Bill in its original form(as two separate Bills)

August 11, 2007 Central trade unionrepresentatives meet theUnion Labour Minister tovoice their concerns andsuggestions

September 8, 2007 CPI (M) delegation meetsPrime Minister with a noteurging the government toreconsider its decision tointroduce a truncatedversion of the Bill

September 10, 2007 Bill introduced in the RajyaSabha as a single Bill, notincorporating thesuggestions made by theNCEUS

October 31, 2007 Proposed protests by thecentral trade unionsopposing the Bill

Briefly, the rationale behind NCEUS recommendingtwo separate Bills was to ensure that the interestsof agricultural and non agricultural workers in theinformal sector are safeguarded as the twocategories have specific needs and cannot besimultaneously addressed through one uniformpolicy. The highlights of the NCEUS Bill5 are asfollows:� Eight-hour working days with half-hour breaks� One paid day of rest in a week� The right to organize� A national minimum wage for all employments

(not provided in the Minimum Wages Act)� Penal interest for deferred payment of wages� Protection from sexual harassment� Provision of child care and basic amenities at

the workplace

The NCEUS report6 titled ‘Conditions of Work andPromotion of Livelihoods in the UnorganisedSector’ also brought to the fore critical aspectsrelated to the working conditions of the informalsector workers. Some of the key observations arepresented below:

5http://nceus.gov.in/Report_Bill_July_2007_index.htm6 http://nceus.gov.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf

Budget andPol icy

Tracking

“ The UnorganisedSector Workers’Social SecurityBill wasintroduced inthe Parliamentin September2007 in awatered downversion of whatwas originally tobe two separateBills:recommendedfor agriculturaland non-agriculturalworkers by thegovernment-appointedNationalCommission forEnterprises inthe UnorganizedSector (NCEUS)”

“ In the absenceof any financialcommitment ora clear timeframe, thelegislation thatcould have beena powerful toolto bring aboutsocial changehas beenreduced tobeing just somepages in astatute book.”


9

� 77% of the ‘vulnerable’ population comprisedof Dalits, Muslims, Other Backward Castes.

� Most people do not spend even Rs.20 a day.� Only 0.4% of the unorganized sector workers

have access to social security benefits such asProvident Fund, a situation that remainsunchanged since 1999.

� The report classifies population into 4 groups:‘extremely poor’ with a per capita expenditure(PCE) of Rs.8.9/day, ‘poor’ who spend up toRs.11.6/day, ‘marginally poor’ with Rs.14.6/day,‘vulnerable’ that spend Rs.20.3/day.

� Bulk of the consumption expenditure was onfood, including cereals and pulses as opposedto the middle and higher income groups thatspent more on non-essential non-food andfood items and durable goods.

It seems extremely difficult to explain that whenthe government itself constituted a Commission todraft the legislation, which it (NCEUS) has done inkeeping with the National Common Minimum

Programme (NCMP), what is stopping thegovernment from passing the same and makesignificant contribution towards promoting socialjustice and equity, by moving the marginalized awee bit away from the margins to the centre.

To conclude, budgetary provisions and otherpolicies formulated by the Government mirror thepotential well-being of the citizen. Governmentbeing the trustee of the people is required todivest the necessary resources to realize theplanned goals. The Central Government in the lastfifty years of governance has not done much asthe available data points to the grim state ofaffairs not only in the field of Rural Developmentand Human Development, but also in the totalarena of society as a whole. The need of the houris to reformulate the planning objectives, themode of the developmental process and setting upnew governmental responsibilities in order to up-lift the standard of the masses and making it morepeople-friendly.


“ It seemsextremelydifficult toexplain thatwhen thegovernmentitselfconstituted aCommission todraft thelegislation,which it(NCEUS) hasdone in keepingwith theNationalCommonMinimumProgramme(NCMP), what isstopping thegovernmentfrom passing thesame and makesignificantcontributiontowardspromoting socialjustice andequity, bymoving themarginalized awee bit awayfrom themargins to thecentre.”


10

Gender Budgeting refers to a method oflooking at the budget formulation process,budgetary policies and budget outlays fromthe gender lens. Gender Budget, with

regard to the government at any level, does notrefer to a separate budget for women; rather it isan analytical tool which scrutinizes the usualgovernment budget to reveal its gender-differentiated impact and advocate for greaterpriorities for addressing the gender-baseddisadvantages faced by women. Gender Budgetingis concerned not only with public expenditure butalso with the gender-differentiated impact ofrevenue mobilization by the government. In fact,Gender Budgeting, as an approach, is not confinedto government budgets alone; it also includesanalysing various socio-economic policies from thegender perspective. Since gender-based differencesand discriminations are built into the entire social-economic-political fabric of almost all societies, agender-neutral government budget is bound toreach and benefit the men more than the womenunless concerted efforts are made to correct

many States, have initiated concerted effortstowards analysing the State Budgets from theperspective of gender. These efforts could play avery important role in getting the StateGovernments to take up gender-responsiveassessment of their expenditure priorities. But theefforts with regard to Gender Budgeting analysisfor States are likely to encounter somemethodological problems.

When Gender Budgeting had started in India,towards the late 1990s, the focus of many of thestudies undertaken at the level of State Budgetswas rather narrow, mainly restricted toprogrammes/schemes in the State Budget whichare targeted towards women and girls. However, itwas soon realized that an in depth and meaningfulanalysis of the State Budget from the gender lensrequires a much broader coverage so that it caninclude all those schemes in which a part/component is earmarked for women. But thepaucity of gender-disaggregated information onbeneficiaries of programmes/schemes being

implemented in the States throws up a seriouschallenge in this regard. Moreover, the fiscalarchitecture of State Budgets is rathercomplicated, which only adds to themethodological problem confronted in GenderBudgeting analysis of State Budgets.

This article attempts to demystify a methodologicalproblem confronted commonly in Gender Budgetinganalysis of State Budgets and present analternative to the conventional methodology beingfollowed in India, drawing from the GenderBudgeting Study for West Bengal conducted byCBGA (S. Das, D. Thakur and S. Sikdar [2007],“Report of the Gender Budgeting Study for WestBengal”, Centre for Budget and GovernanceAccountability, New Delhi and Development andPlanning Department, Government of West Bengal).As we shall discuss subsequently, the key featureof this alternative methodology is to capturethat part of the total State Budget outlay whichis earmarked to be spent for women as perconcrete policy guidelines and ignore theincidental benefits that might accrue to womenfrom the State Budget.

gender-based discriminations. Moreover, a gender-neutral government budget could even reinforce,instead of reducing, the gender-baseddisadvantages faced by women. Thus, a gender-neutral government budget is actually gender-blind.

THE BACKDROPOver the last decade, Gender Budgeting hasgathered some momentum in India. However, theprogress in this direction at the level of StateBudgets lags far behind that at the level of theUnion Budget. Although, the Union Governmentneeds to go a long way with regard to deepeningits gender-responsive assessment of Union Budgetand expenditure priorities of its differentMinistries, a foundation for the same has certainlybeen laid. However, the progress in adoption ofGender Budgeting by the States remains very poor.Only a very few of the State Governments (like,those of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and WestBengal) have taken concrete steps in this directionso far. Several civil society organisations, women’srights groups and independent researchers, in

Gender BudgetingAnalysis for States

- Subrat Das


11

SOME QUESTIONS IN GENDERBUDGETING ANALYSISBefore we discuss the central problem with themethodology of Gender Budgeting analysis forStates, it would be worthwhile to first locate ouranalysis (i.e. the kind of analysis which concernsthe present article) in a larger context. We can tryto do this by thinking of the Questions relating tothe State Budget that are usually asked when theState Budget is analysed from the gender lens.These questions can be broadly divided into thefollowing two categories:

1) How does the State Government’s RevenueMobilisation affect women? and

2) How does the State Government’s Expenditureaffect women?

Unlike the second question, very little work hasbeen done so far on the first question, i.e. withregard to scrutinizing the Receipts side of theState Budgets from a gender lens, although it isquite important. One of the reasons for the slowprogress in this field could be that the technicalexpertise required for analysing the impact of taxand non-tax revenue policies (in a State Budget)on women, taking into account the gender-baseddisadvantages of women, would take some time tospread in the larger civil society. The presentarticle, however, is concerned solely with thesecond question.

The second question, which leads to a scrutiny ofthe Expenditure side of the State Budget from thegender lens, can be broken up into the followingthree deeper questions:

2.1) What is the priority for women in the StateBudget (or in total expenditure of theState)?

2.2) How do the schemes, which are intended tobenefit women, actually reach women?

2.3) How do the schemes, which are intended tobenefit women, address the gender-baseddisadvantages of women?

Let us briefly discuss these three questions, in thereverse order. The third question (2.3) requires usto examine whether the government programmes/schemes, which are intended to benefit women,actually reduce the gender-based disadvantages ofwomen or they end up reinforcing suchdisadvantages. The latter could be possiblebecause some of the programmes/schemes, fundedby the Budget, may provide resources foraddressing those needs of women which are inaccepted gender roles for women. As a result, inthe short run, when the division of labour betweenmen and women (following the accepted genderroles for women) is given, such programmes/schemes benefit women; but in the long run, the

gender stereotypes might get reinforced. Theanalysis of a State Budget following this kind ofa question, however, would focus on an in depthexamination of the objectives and design of theschemes meant for women rather than theresources provided in the Budget for such schemes.

The second question listed above (2.2) requires usto examine how many women (as compared tomen), and women from which sections of thesociety, did actually benefit from a governmentprogramme/scheme. That is, an ex postexamination of the beneficiaries of a scheme (afterits implementation) would be needed to answerquestions of this kind. However, undertaking thiskind of investigation for many schemes wouldrequire a huge amount of time and otherresources. It may not be feasible, even for agovernment agency, to address this question for allschemes in a State Budget. Hence, to begin with,this second question can be addressed only withrespect to some selected schemes in the StateBudget.

The first question listed above (2.1) is the mostcommonly asked question in Gender Budgetinganalysis of State Budgets. As we shall discuss inthe next section, this question can be put in morethan one ways. Let us suppose, a StateGovernment spent a total amount of Rs. 100(through its State Budget) in the financial year2006-07. Then, we can ask either of the following:

2.1.1) How much of this Rs. 100 was spent forwomen in 2006-07?(It would require gender-disaggregated dataon ex post beneficiaries of all schemes.)

2.1.2) How much of this Rs. 100 in 2006-07 wasearmarked (to be spent) for women?(It would require information on policyguidelines for all kinds of schemes.)

ASSESSING THE PRIORITY FORWOMEN IN A STATE BUDGETAs has already been mentioned, the questionrelating to the priority accorded to women in aState Budget can be formulated in different ways.This section first discusses the central problemencountered when the said question is formulatedin the conventional way; it then presents analternative formulation of the question.

CONVENTIONAL QUESTION: HOW MUCH OFTHE STATE BUDGET WAS ‘SPENT’ FORWOMEN?As regards gender-disaggregated information onbeneficiaries of the various governmentprogrammes/schemes, the Ministries/Departments(both in the Union Government and in StateGovernments) segregate their programmes/schemes

GenderBudget ingAnalysis forStates


12

broadly into two categories, viz. (i) ‘divisible’ and(ii) ‘indivisible’. Usually, only the beneficiary-related schemes, i.e. those schemes in case ofwhich its direct beneficiaries can be easilyidentified and counted, are considered as‘divisible’; while others are considered as‘indivisible’. For instance, the Sampoorn GraminRozgar Yojana (SGRY) scheme would be considered‘divisible’, whereas any scheme meant forConstruction of Roads in Rural/Urban Areas wouldbe considered ‘indivisible’. Typically, the Ministries(in the Union Government and in StateGovernments) would put forward that ‘gender-wisepartitioning’ is not possible in any of their‘indivisible’ schemes. Hence, the GovernmentMinistries usually submit that any gender-disaggregated information on the beneficiariescannot be collected with respect to the ‘indivisible’schemes. We must note here that even if it is notpossible to implement a ‘gender-wise partitioning’in such ‘indivisible’ schemes, needs of women candefinitely be prioritized in many such schemes. Forinstance, Dr. Nirmala Banerjee points out that“They say you cannot have women friendly roads.But ask the women and they will tell you thatthey want less and less of highways and more andmore of roads to schools and health centres.”

Therefore, even in case of ‘indivisible’ programmes/schemes a gender-responsive budgeting is verymuch feasible. However, the emphasis in thepresent article is on measuring the priorityaccorded to women in a State Budget, and henceit is concerned mainly with the ‘divisible’programmes/schemes in the Budget. But we mustnote here that there is a dearth of gender-disaggregated information on the beneficiarieseven for the ‘divisible’ schemes. Until last year,i.e. in 2006, only 10 Ministries in the UnionGovernment were presenting gender-disaggregatedinformation on their schemes in their “AnnualReport”/ “Performance Budget” documents. Thegender-disaggregated information compiled bythese few Union Government Ministries coveredonly some of their schemes and excluded severalof their schemes. With regard to numerousimportant schemes, even these Union GovernmentMinistries (which have taken concrete stepstowards initiating gender-responsive assessment oftheir expenditures) cited paucity of gender-disaggregated data on beneficiaries. In fact, thepaucity of gender-disaggregated data onbeneficiaries of programmes/schemes poses aserious challenge in all States. Hence, a GenderBudgeting analysis of any government budget inIndia, which attempts to measure ‘how much ofthe Budget in an earlier financial year wasactually spent for women’, would be compelledto exclude not only the entire range of‘indivisible’ programmes/schemes but also manyof the ‘divisible’ programmes/schemes in theBudget.

The paucity of gender-disaggregated informationon actual beneficiaries of programmes/schemes hasconstrained almost all Gender Budgeting studiesundertaken in the country so far. The experts,undertaking Gender Budgeting analysis of UnionBudgets or State Budgets, have confronted seriousproblems of paucity of gender-disaggregated data.At the beginning of the present decade, theDepartment of Women & Child Development(DWCD) in the Union Government, in collaborationwith United Nations Development Fund for Women(UNIFEM), had led the Union Government’sinitiative for Gender Budgeting analysis of UnionBudgets. The DWCD, in collaboration with UNIFEM,had commissioned the National Institute of PublicFinance and Policy (NIPFP) to analyse the UnionBudget 2001-02 from a gender perspective.Subsequently, the analysis done by NIPFP wasincorporated in the Annual Reports of the DWCD.This study (A. Lahiri, L. Chakraborty and P.N.Bhattacharya, “Gender Budgeting in India: Post-budget Assessment Report”, NIPFP, August 2001)identified three categories of expenditure forwomen from the Union Budget. The threecategories identified by this NIPFP study were:(i) Expenditure on programmes/schemes

specifically targeted to women and girls,(ii) Pro-women allocations; which are the

composite expenditure schemes with anearmarked component for women; and

(iii) Mainstream public expenditure that have agender-differential impact.

While capturing the precise magnitudes of budgetoutlays on schemes that are targeted to womenand girls (i.e. the first category listed above) wasstraight forward, the same task in case ofcomposite public expenditure schemes with a pro-women component (i.e. the second category) facedproblems due to the dearth of gender-disaggregated information on beneficiaries. Withregard to this second category, the NIPFP studyhad depended significantly on the informationcompiled by DWCD on the status ofimplementation of Women’s Component Plan (WCP)by different Ministries/Departments in the UnionGovernment. We may note here that the Ninth FiveYear Plan (1997-2002) had adopted Women’sComponent Plan (WCP) as an important strategyand directed both the Union and the StateGovernments to ensure that at least 30 % of thefunds/benefits should earmarked under the WCP inall of the ‘women related sectors’. Subsequently,the Working Group for Empowerment of Women inthe Tenth Five Year Plan had made an assessmentof implementation of WCP by the UnionGovernment Ministries and States, and it hadhighlighted the very poor implementation of WCPin the Ninth Plan period. However, for some of theUnion Ministries/Departments, for which the DWCDcould not provide precise information on flows toWCP from their budgets, the NIPFP study had

“ Usually, only thebeneficiaryrelated schemes,i.e. thoseschemes in caseof which itsdirectbeneficiaries canbe easilyidentified andcounted, areconsidered as‘divisible’; whileothers areconsidered as‘indivisible’

“ the paucity ofgender-disaggregateddata onbeneficiaries ofprogrammes/schemes poses aserious challengein all States.”

GenderBudget ing

Analysis forStates


13

assumed the flow to WCP from Gross BudgetarySupport of the Ministry/Department to be 30 %.This assumption was undoubtedly a majorweakness in the methodology of the NIPFP study.Moreover, with regard to the third category ofpublic expenditure affecting women (i.e.mainstream public expenditure that have a gender-differential impact), the NIPFP study hadpresented only an illustrative benefit-incidenceanalysis of Union Budget outlays on ElementaryEducation.

A study by Nirmala Banerjee and Poulami Roy(Gender in Fiscal Policies: The Case of West Bengal),which was published by Sachetana, Kolkata in2003, has been one of the most significant GenderBudgeting studies on State Budgets in India. Thisstudy examined the nature and extent of WestBengal’s budgetary policies that were supposed towork towards removing some of the gender-baseddisadvantages of women. Nirmala Banerjee andPoulami Roy (2003) followed a differentmethodology than the model developed in theNIPFP study. The classification of the totalidentified budget outlays for women in WestBengal into different categories, which wasadopted by them, laid emphasis on the genderedrole of women in the society and their studyanalysed the impact of the women-orientedschemes in the State on the prevailing genderrelations. However, as Banerjee and Roy (2003)themselves admitted in the study report, theircalculation of total outlays for women in WestBengal Budget (actual expenditure figures for1998-99) erred on the more generous side. Thesaid study, besides all the schemes specificallytargeted towards women, took into account severalcomposite public expenditure programmes/schemes meant for both men and women. In caseof the latter schemes, except for Primary andSecondary Education (where enrolment rates forgirls and proportion of female teachers were takeninto account), for almost all other (compositeexpenditure) programmes/schemes the proportionof women in the total population of West Bengalwas considered for working out the pro-womenshares in total outlays. It may be argued that suchan assumption is quite generous, which couldoverestimate the priority accorded to women inthe State Budget (something which the authorsthemselves have admitted).

Likewise, several other Gender Budgeting studies,which attempted to measure what part of aGovernment’s total expenditure in an earlier yearwas ‘spent’ for women, have faced a lot ofdifficulty in dealing with the composite publicexpenditure schemes (i.e. schemes which aremeant for the benefit of both men and women)due to the rarity of gender-disaggregatedinformation on the beneficiaries of such schemes.Undoubtedly, the Union and State Governments

must take wide-ranging measures for collectingsuch information and conducting benefit incidenceanalysis for their programmes/schemes.

However, even if the Union Government and Statesinitiate such data collection processes withoutdelay, it would take a very long time to generatesuch information across all sectors/programmes/schemes of relevance to women. Until then, theassessment of the priority accorded to women ina State Budget based on ex post beneficiary datawould confront major problems. Hence, we need toformulate the same question (i.e. what is thepriority for women in the State Budget?),differently.

ALTERNATIVE QUESTION: HOW MUCH OFTHE STATE BUDGET WAS ‘EARMARKED’ FORWOMEN?In view of the paucity of gender-disaggregateddata on beneficiaries, a Gender Budgeting analysisof West Bengal State Budget done by Centre forBudget and Governance Accountability (CBGA) in2006 adopted a different methodology. Instead oftrying to assess the total public expenditure forwomen from the State Budget, this study assessedthe total outlay in the State Budget which was exante ‘earmarked’ for women. Thus, the totalmagnitude of ‘Gender Budget’ (within the StateBudget) identified by the CBGA study did notreveal the total State Government expenditure thatactually reached women in the selected year, butit showed the total State Budget outlay which wasex ante ‘earmarked’ for women. In other words, the‘Gender Budget’ (within the State Budget)captured in this study referred to the totaloutlay which was entitled for women throughspecific policy guidelines relating to theprogrammes/schemes in the State Budget.

The total ‘Gender Budget’ outlay captured on thebasis of ex post beneficiary data for any particularyear (if that would be possible) would also includethe budget outlays which resulted in ‘incidentalbenefits’ to women (i.e. those benefits accruing towomen which were not mandated by any policyguideline). However, the total ‘Gender Budget’outlay captured by the alternative methodology(followed in the CBGA study) does not include anyof the budget outlays that may have provided‘incidental benefits’ to women; it captures onlythose budget outlays which were mandatedthrough specific policy guidelines to be spent forwomen. Undoubtedly, the magnitude of the ‘GenderBudget’ (within a State Budget) captured by thealternative methodology would be smaller thanthat captured by the conventional methodology.However, there are two clear advantages with thealternative methodology:

� It allows the Gender Budgeting analysis tocover all sectors/departments in the State


“ NirmalaBanerjee andPoulami Roy(2003) followeda differentmethodologythan the modeldeveloped in theNIPFP study. Theclassification ofthe totalidentifiedbudget outlaysfor women inWest Bengalinto differentcategories,which wasadopted bythem, laidemphasis on thegendered role ofwomen in thesociety.”


14

Budget irrespective of the availability ofgender-disaggregated information onbeneficiaries; and

� It underlines the need for incorporatingspecific policy guidelines to entitle womenfor a certain minimum share in the publicexpenditure on programmes/schemes in allsectors/departments.

We must note here that even this alternativeapproach of capturing the total budget outlayentitled for women is based on severalassumptions, which are as given below:� First is the obvious assumption that the

budget outlays for all those schemes, which arespecifically targeted towards women, are infact entitled for women.

� Second assumption is that the flow to Women’sComponent Plan (WCP) from the total budgetoutlay for any State Plan programme/scheme,as reported in the Annual Plans for the State,is an outlay ex ante earmarked for women.

� Third assumption is that specific policyguidelines relating to the Central Plan Schemesand Centrally Sponsored Schemes, whichprescribe a certain minimum share for womenin total outlays or total beneficiaries in thescheme, imply an ex ante earmarking of outlaysfor women.

� Fourth assumption pertains to the Non-Planoutlays in the State Budget on SchoolEducation and Higher Education. As is well-known, Non-Plan outlay accounts for a veryhigh share in the total outlay on Education inevery State Budget. With regard to thissignificant component in the State Budget, wemay assume that the proportion of girls intotal enrolment in School Education and thatin Higher Education give us the respectiveshares in Non-Plan outlays for SchoolEducation and Higher Education, which are exante earmarked for women.

MEASURING HOW MUCH OF THESTATE BUDGET IS ‘EARMARKED’FOR WOMENWe first need to understand the classification ofthe outlays made in a State Budget. The outlaysin a State Budget can be broadly divided underthe following categories:

(a) Non-Plan outlay (which covers the staffsalaries, repair/maintenance costs and usualestablishment costs for the Governmentactivities, in various sectors, that function ona regular basis irrespective of the Five YearPlans); and

(b) Plan outlay (which funds the entire costs, i.e.salaries of new staff hired as well asconstruction of buildings and procurements, in

the interventions envisaged under Five YearPlans).

The latter, i.e. Plan outlay, can be furtherclassified into two categories, viz.

(b.1) State Plan schemes, and

(b.2) Central Plan/Centrally Sponsored schemes.

In case of State Plan schemes, the entire funds areprovided by the State Government. The UnionGovernment provides the entire funds for theCentral Plan schemes (e.g. Reproductive & ChildHealth programme, ICDS, National Child LabourProject); where as in case of Centrally Sponsoredschemes, Union Government provides a substantialpart of the funds and the State Governments arerequired to contribute matching grants (e.g. SarvaShiksha Abhiyan, National Malaria Eradicationprogramme).

Thus, in order to determine the total magnitude ofState Budget outlay which is earmarked for women(in any particular year), we need to find out theoutlays earmarked for women (that year) undereach of the following three categories, viz. outlaysfor State Plan schemes, outlays for Central Plan/Centrally Sponsored schemes, and Non-Planoutlays.

HOW MUCH OF THE OUTLAYS ON STATEPLAN SCHEMES ARE EARMARKED FORWOMEN?Some of the State Plan schemes could be women-specific, i.e. meant exclusively for women. Clearly,in case of each women-specific State Plan scheme,the entire amount of budget outlay may beconsidered as outlay earmarked for women.However, many of the State Plan schemes could becomposite expenditure schemes, i.e. meant forboth men and women. As regards the latter, wecan rely upon the information on flows to theWomen’s Component Plan (if any) from the budgetoutlays for the schemes in order to determine theshares/proportions earmarked for women.

The strategy of Women’s Component Plan (WCP),which was started in the Ninth Five Year Plan,requires earmarking a specific quantum of funds/benefits for women in the schemes run by allMinistries/Departments that are perceived to be‘women-related’. Under WCP, both Union as well asState Governments are required to ensure that “notless than 30 % of the funds/benefits areearmarked for women under the various schemes ofthe ‘women-related’ Ministries/Departments”.

Thus, the State Governments are required to showflows to WCP from the budget outlays for theirState Plan schemes in all ‘women-related’ sectors.This information is usually given in the AnnualPlan documents of the States. Hence, theinformation on flows to WCP can be used to find

“ In order todetermine thetotal magnitudeof State Budgetoutlay which isearmarked forwomen (in anyparticular year),we need to findout the outlaysearmarked forwomen (thatyear) under eachof the followingthree categories,viz. outlays forState Planschemes, outlaysfor Central Plan/CentrallySponsoredschemes, andNon-Planoutlays.”

GenderBudget ing

Analysis forStates


15

out the shares in the total outlays for variousState Plan schemes which are earmarked forwomen. It may be useful to see an example here.Table 1, given below, presents the information (fora few selected sectors) on flows to WCP proposedby the State Government of Kerala during the 10

th

Plan period (2002-03 to 2006-07).

earmarked for women. However, many of theCentral Sector schemes are composite expenditureschemes (e.g. SGRY, Indira Awaas Yojana, NationalMalaria Eradication programme, Total SanitationCampaign). With regard to the latter, we need totake into account the specific policy guidelines (ifany) relating to a scheme which may require the

Table 1: Flows to WCP from Kerala State Budget during the 10th Plan Period

(in Selected Sectors)

Sector Programmes/Schemes Proposals for 10th Five % of

(State Plan) Year Plan Total(2002-03 to 2006-07) Outlay[at 2001-2002 Prices] Earmarked

under WCPTotal Outlay Flow to WCP(Rs. Lakhs) (Rs. Lakhs)

CROP HUSBANDRY Vegetable Promotion Programme 1250 125 10

Promotion of High-Tech Innovative 500 50 10

Women Development Programme 40 40 100under Macro Management Mode

Homestead Farming 300 50 16.7

Agave Cultivation in Rain Shadow 25 20 80Areas

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY Poultry Farms & Expansion of poultry 290 87 30

Intensive Piggery Development 110 33 30

Support to Training & Employment 25 7 28of Women (STEP)

DAIRY DEVELOPMENT Assistance to Women Groups for 100 100 100Milk Products Manufacturing &Marketing

FISHERIES Development of Coastal Social 1000 503.1 50.3DEVELOPMENT Infrastructure Integrated Fisheries

Development Project

Employment Generation Schemes 50 12.5 25

Self Help Groups for fisher women/ 300 300 100Micro Enterprises

Assistance for upgradation of 90 90 100processing

Seed-capital to Matsyafed for 300 240 80NBCDFC and NMDFC Schemes

Source: Compiled from State Planning Board of Kerala (2003), “Women Component (WC) in the State PlanProgrammes - I, Draft Annual Plan 2003-04: Financial Outlays”; downloaded from www.keralaplanningboard.org.

HOW MUCH OF THE OUTLAYS ON CENTRALPLAN SCHEMES & CENTRALLY SPONSOREDSCHEMES ARE EARMARKED FOR WOMEN?Some of the Central Plan schemes and CentrallySponsored schemes (together referred to as CentralSector schemes) could be women-specific. In caseof each women-specific Central Sector scheme (e.g.Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalay scheme, MahilaSamakhya, Swashakti, Swadhar), the entire amountof budget outlay may be considered as outlay

implementing agency (which is, usually, the StateGovernment) to earmark a certain minimum shareof the funds/benefits in the scheme for women.

The nodal agency for a Central Sector schemewould be the Union Government Ministry/Department which has launched it. So, the normsand guidelines for these schemes are prepared bythe nodal Union Government Ministries/Departments. Therefore, the specific policyguidelines on earmarking for women a certain

“ The StateGovernments arerequired to showflows to WCPfrom the budgetoutlays for theirState Planschemes in all‘women-related’sectors”



16

minimum share of the funds/benefits in a scheme,if any, are to be found in the relevant publicationsof the nodal Union Government Ministry/Department, such as, its Annual Report,Performance Budget, or Outcome Budget. TheUnion Government Ministries bring out Manuals forsome of the Central Sector schemes, which couldalso be referred to. Again, it would be worthwhileto see some examples here. Table 2, given below,presents the relevant policy guidelines in case ofa few of the Central Sector schemes.

the outlays towards interest payment/debtservicing by the State Government and thosemeant for maintenance of law and order. Hence, incase of Non-Plan outlays in general, it is verydifficult for any State Government to earmark aproportion of the funds/benefits for women.

Some of the Non-Plan outlays could be meant forcertain women-specific government services/interventions, e.g. Shelter Homes for destitutewomen, Hostels for girls, Schools/Colleges for girls,

Table 2: Guidelines for Earmarking of Funds/Benefits for Womenin Central Sector Schemes: Some Examples

Sector Name of the Scheme Guidelines for Earmarking of Funds/Benefits forWomen@

Rural Swarnajayanti Gram In the guidelines, it is envisaged that 50 % of theDevelopment Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) Groups formed in each Block should be exclusively for

women who will account for at least 40 % of the totalSwarozgaris.

Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) It’s stipulated in the guidelines that 30 % of theemployment opportunities should be reserved for women.

Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) It’s stipulated that IAY houses are to be allotted in thename of Women members of the household, oralternatively, in the joint names of Husband and Wife.

Central Rural Sanitation Programme In the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) up to(CRSP) 10 % of funds could be utilized for construction and

maintenance of public latrines for women.

Urban Poverty Swarn Jayanti Sahari One of the major components of SJSRY is the Urban SelfAlleviation & Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) Employment Programme (USEP), the other componentEmployment being Urban Wage Employment Programme (UWEP). It is

stipulated that under USEP, women beneficiaries must beat least 30 % of total beneficiaries.

@ Compiled from Annual Reports (for 2005-06) and Performance Budgets (for 2006-07 or 2005-06, whichever is latest available)of the relevant Ministries in the Union Government.

However, we must note here that specific policyguidelines for earmarking for women a certainminimum share of the funds/benefits can be foundonly for a few of the Central Sector schemes. Onthe other hand, with regard to some of the CentralSector schemes, a State Government may haveissued guidelines to earmark funds/benefits forwomen, in addition to the guidelines of the nodalUnion Government Ministry/Department. Suchguidelines issued by the State Government (if any)should also be referred to for determining theshare earmarked for women in the outlay forCentral Sector schemes.

HOW MUCH OF THE NON-PLAN OUTLAYSARE EARMARKED FOR WOMEN?As already mentioned, Non-Plan outlays cover thestaff salaries, repair/maintenance costs and usualestablishment costs for the Government activities,in various sectors, that function on a regular basisirrespective of the Five Year Plans. Moreover, theNon-Plan outlays in a State Budget also include

etc. In case of each such Non-Plan outlay, whichis meant for a women-specific government service/intervention, we can consider the entire amount ofthe outlay as earmarked for women; though suchNon-Plan outlays are usually very few.

However, Non-Plan outlay accounts for a very highshare in the total outlay on Education in StateBudgets; and it is mostly meant for provision ofteachers’ salary, maintenance of the establishmentand providing several recurring interventions inEducation that are not covered by the Plan schemes.With regard to this significant component in theState Budget, we may assume that the proportionof girls in total enrolment in School Education andthat in Higher Education give us the shares in Non-Plan outlays for Department of School Educationand Department of Higher Education, which are exante earmarked for women. This would be basedon the assumption that, for the government, theunit cost of provision of School Education and thatin case of Higher Education in the State is the samefor boys and girls.

“ With regard tosome of theCentral Sectorschemes, a StateGovernment mayhave issuedguidelines toearmark funds/benefits forwomen, inaddition to theguidelines ofthe nodal UnionGovernmentMinistry/Department.Such guidelinesissued by theStateGovernment (ifany) should alsobe referred tofor determiningthe shareearmarked forwomen in theoutlay forCentral Sectorschemes.”

GenderBudget ing

Analysis forStates


17

Table 3: Non-Plan Outlays for School & Higher Education ‘Earmarked’ for Women:An Example from West Bengal State Budget for 2005-06

2003-04 2004-05 RE 2005-06 BEActuals(Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore)

Department of School Education

(a) Total Non-Plan Outlay for the Dept. of School Education, West Bengal 3623.81 3926.07 4081.93

(b) Non-Plan Outlay on Women-specific services/ interventions under 0.115 2.510 6.75Dept. of School Education, West Bengal

(c) Non-Plan Outlay for the Dept. of School Education Net of (b) 3623.695 3923.56 4075.18

Non-Plan Outlay for the Dept. of School Education- which may be seen 1724.87 1867.61 1939.78as ‘earmarked’ for Women [47.6 % of the figure in (c)]

$

Department of Higher Education

(a) Total Non-Plan Outlay for the Dept. of Higher Education, West Bengal 643.37 656.96 715.53

(b) Non-Plan Outlay on Women-specific services/ interventions under 0.006 0.05 0.052Dept. of Higher Education, West Bengal

(c) Non-Plan Outlay for the Dept. of Higher Education Net of (b) 643.364 656.96 715.53

Non Plan Outlay for the Dept. of Higher Education-which may be seen 238.04 243.05 264.72as ‘earmarked’ for Women [37 % of the figure in (c)]

@

$ In West Bengal, girls accounted for 47.6 % of all children enrolled in Schools (i.e. from Classes I to XII) in 2002-03, as

per the data reported in Selected Educational Statistics 2002-03, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GoI.@ In West Bengal, women accounted for 37 % of all students enrolled in institutions of Higher Education in 2002-03, as

per the data reported in Selected Educational Statistics 2002-03, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GoI.

Assumption: Proportion of Girls in total students enrolled has been used in this Example with the assumption that the unitcost of provision of public education is the same for boys and girls.

It is quite likely that Education turns out to bethe only sector in the State Budget where anyshare of the Non-Plan outlay can be considered tobe ‘earmarked’ for women. However, in case ofalmost every State, Non-Plan outlay for theEducation sector is quite vital and its contributiontowards empowerment of women cannot beignored. Hence, it may seem logical to include acertain share of this budget outlay within the‘Gender Budget’, although the assumption that unitcost of provision of education to boys and girls isthe same (for the government) is questionable.

Thus, we can find out the outlays earmarked forwomen under each of the three main categories inthe State Budget, viz. outlays for State Planschemes, outlays for Central Sector schemes, andNon-Plan outlays, in order to determine the totalmagnitude of State Budget outlay which isearmarked for women.

Quantifying the share in the government budgetwhich is earmarked for women is only the first

step in the efforts towards achieving a genderresponsive development trajectory in the country.Nevertheless, it is a crucial step since it can bevery useful in holding the governments at differentlevels accountable for their policies andperformance from a gender perspective. Moreover,there is a strong need for assessing the Budgetsof different States in India from the gender lens,following a uniform methodology, which wouldgenerate comparable results. These comparableresults for different States can provide crucialinsights about the policy priorities that need to beadopted in the Budgets of those States wherewomen are more disadvantaged in comparison toother States. While the first step would be to askthe Union Government and State Governments toincorporate specific policy guidelines forearmarking funds/benefits for women in theirbudget outlays; the actual benefits accruing towomen from the programmes/schemes as also theirimpact on the gender-based disadvantages ofwomen must be examined subsequently.

“ There is astrong need forassessing theBudgets ofdifferent Statesin India fromthe gender lens,following auniformmethodology,which wouldgeneratecomparableresults, whichthen can providecrucial insightsabout the policypriorities thatneed to beadopted in theBudgets ofthose Stateswhere womenare moredisadvantagedin comparisonto other States.”



18

Democracy and development mean nothing for thosewho are not touched by the hand of progress. That’swhy the architects of our Constitution placed specialemphasis on the empowerment of the ScheduledCastes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sectionsof society. In 60 years, we have seen many peopleclimb the ladder of progress and social mobility. Yet,there are millions who still need our support andassistance. We are committed to the economic,social, political and educational empowerment ofSCs, STs, OBCs and minorities.

Prime Minister’s speech on Independence Day, 2007

The development trajectory over all these sixdecades since independence has failed tomainstream the concerns of sociallydisadvantaged groups and ensure their fullparticipation in socio-economic development ofthe country. This is despite the fact that thecommitment of empowerment of such groups

Scheduled Caste SubPlan: The Status So Far - Sakti Golder & Bhumika Jhamb

enshrined in our constitution. According to theCensus 2001, SCs and STs constituterespectively 16.23 and 8.2 percent of totalpopulation. Further segregation of theproportion of SCs and STs across differentreligions according to 61st NSS round revealsthe proportion of SCs being largest amongstBuddhists (89.5%) followed by Sikhs (30.7) andHindus (22.2%). Largest proportion of STsbelong to the category of others (82.5%)followed by Christians (32.8%). Proportion of STpopulation among Hindus is 9.1%. Out of totalHindu SCs/STs, 20.5% belonged to urban areaswhile 34.5% belonged to rural areas. SCs/STscomprise almost negligible proportion amongstMuslims (0.8% and 0.5% respectively).

Till today, numerous instances are cited ondiscrimination against SCs widely described as‘Dalits’ or ‘outcaste’. Several socio-economicindicators point to the dismal state ofdisadvantaged groups. In spite of decades ofplanning and a sizeable amount of public resourcesbeing channelised in the name of welfare of SCs/STs, the actual benefits have hardly reached thesegroups.

SCS/STS: PROFILE1

Among all social groups, SCs/STs suffer fromhighest infant and child mortality rates, asituation particularly of concern in Central India.The condition of child malnutrition is worse in thecase of minority groups. As can be seen, thepercentage of children belonging to SCs/STs whoare stunted, wasted and underweight is higherthan the national average. Although there is some

respite when one gauges the improvements inliteracy levels over the time period between 1965and 2001 registering a rise in the levels at a muchfaster rate amongst SCs/STs than in any othersocial group, the figures for female literacy of STs(34.76%) is of grave concern. It is worthmentioning that the literacy rates for personsbetween 18-22 years and 23 years and above is aslow as 65% and 36.5% as compared to thecorresponding figures of 91.4 and 74 for generalcategory (NSS 2004-05).

About 25% of children belonging to SCs/STs haveeither never attended schools or have dropped out.The incidence of drop outs for SCs/STs is very closeto the Muslims with highest drop-out rate andchildren who have never attended schools is

Population SCs (%) STs (%) All India(2004-05) (2004-05)

Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

19.7 21 15 8.5 10 3 1028.6 million

Overall Sex Ratio 954 959 951

1 The Statistics have been compiled from the Sachar Committee Report

Table 1: Population and Sex Ratio


19

highest for SCs/STs. For middle and higher leveleducation in rural areas, the statistics for Muslimsand SCs/STs is almost equal and lowest. Lookingat the temporal context in case of students whohave matriculated, one witnesses some degree of

Table 2: Child Mortality & Nutrition

MORTALITY SCs (%) STs (%) All India(2004-05) (2004-05)

Infant Mortality 83 84 68

Under 5 119 126 95Mortality Rate

NUTRITION

Children under 44.1 44.3 38.43 yrs stunted

Children under 20.5 25.7 19.13 yrs wasted

Children under 3 52.2 56.7 45.9yrs underweight

Education SCs/STs All India

Literacy Total Male Female Urban Rural Total Male Female Urban RuralRates

52.2 64 38.4 66 45 65.4 75.3 53.7 79.9 58.7

Mean Yearsof 3 yrs 6 months 4 yearsSchooling(MYS)(7-16 yrs)

Enrollment 55th NSS SCs/STs 61

st NSS SCs/STs 55

th NSS 61

st NSS

Rates (%) (%)

44 88 66 84

Number in Lakhs % of 20 yrs+ Number in Lakhs % of 20 yrs+total population total population

Graduation Graduates Diploma & Graduates Diploma & Graduates Diploma & Graduates Diploma && Certificate Certificate Certificate CertificateDiplomaHolders

30.8 4.1 2.4 0.3 376.7 40.5 6.7 0.7

increase in urban males and females and ruralmales. However, condition for rural females hasnot changed.

Data compiled by the Sachar Committee Reportshows that only 39% SCs and 32% STs are likelyto complete primary education as compared to62% in case of upper caste Hindus and otherreligious groups excluding Muslims. Only 23% SC/ST students are likely to complete collegeeducation after completion of secondary education.There is a marginal difference between the shareof student and its corresponding total populationfor all social groups in the smaller age cohorts.However, for higher age cohorts, for instance18.3% of 24.1% share in the total population, thegap widens (Source, NSS 61

st round).

As high as 46% of workers in the SCs/STs groupsare engaged in casual work, with the share ofworkers especially low in salaried work. In urbanareas, the incidence of poverty is highest amongstSCs/STs.

Table 4: Employment Status

Employment SCs/STs All India

Urban Rural Male Female Urban Rural Male Female

Work Participation Rate 58 74 85 55 34.6 39.1 53.6 21.5

Self-employed 36 44 58 48 46.2 60.9 51.4 56.1

Casual Workers 26 50 46 45 15.6 32.7 23.7 24.6

Regular-employed 40 5 13 7 38.1 6.3 24.8 19.6

Unemployment Rate 10.5 10 10.2 9.9 8.3 8.2 7.8 9.2

Table 3: Education

ScheduledCaste SubPlan: TheStatus So Far

“ As high as 46%of workers inthe SCs/STsgroups areengaged incasual work,with the shareof workersespecially low insalaried work.”

“ In urban areas,the incidence ofpoverty ishighest amongstSCs/STs”


20

Considering overall development status and thediscrimination these groups face, there isdefinitely a case for increase in the allocationsearmarked for SCs/ STs and implement somespecial interventions aimed at their upliftment. Itis also necessary for ensuring removal ofdisparities, eliminating exploitation andsuppression and providing protection to thedisadvantaged groups.

GOVERNMENT’S INITIATIVERecognizing the fact, the Government of India atthe initiative of Late Mrs. Indira Gandhi,formulated the Special Component Plan (SCP) [nowbeing renamed as - Scheduled Caste Sub Plan(SCSP)] in the year 1979. The strategy which wasintroduced by the Central Government during the6

th Five Year Plan was made mandatory for all the

State governments’ departments as well as CentralGovernment ministries. The SCSP for SCs expected“to facilitate easy convergence and pooling ofresources from all the other development sectorsin proportion to the population of SCs andmonitoring of various development programmes forthe benefit of SCs”.

SCSP for SCs is not an isolated programme/scheme;rather it is an umbrella strategy for overalldevelopment of SCs. The strategy entails targetedflow of funds and associated benefits from theAnnual Plan of States/UTs, at least in proportionto the Scheduled Caste population in totalpopulation of the States/UTs.

While the central objective of SCSP is theeconomic development of Scheduled Castes, it alsointends to promote their educational and socialdevelopment along with the fulfillment of theirminimum needs and human resource development.The objective of SCSP is to ensure that not onlysufficient funds are allocated for the welfare ofSCs, but also to make sure that the funds areproperly utilized and that effective and practicalprogrammes towards clear goals and targets areinitiated.

The main elements of SCSP2

are:1. Out of the total plan outlay, funds allocated for

the welfare of Scheduled Castes should be atleast as much as the percentage of theirpopulation representation in the particular state.

2. Every department of the state governmentshould initiate concrete steps to evolve separateprogrammes, in accordance with specific needsand priorities of Scheduled Castes, under theSCSP. And notional allocations under SCSP(especially in sectors like Power, Irrigation,Education, and Health) need to be avoided.

3. Only those programmes specially meant forScheduled Castes and the percentage amount offunds allocated, as per specific G.O.s, can beincluded in the SCSP.

4. Separate budget heads have to be shown in the“Plan-Budget Link” Book clearly mentioning thereceipts and expenditures details of the SCSP (inorder to prevent diversion, underutilization andmis-utilization of funds earmarked for ScheduledCastes).

5. The Department concerned with Scheduled CastesWelfare in the State should act as the NodalAgency for the formulation and implementationof SCSP in the state.

The three important instruments devised asvehicles for the implementation of the SCSPstrategy are:1. The SCSP of the states and central ministries:

the targets fixed under SCSP are disaggregatedinto district-wise and sector-wise targets. At thedistrict level, the district collectors areresponsible for coordinating the implementationof the schemes under SCSP.

2. The Special Central Assistance (SCA) for theSCSPs of the States: SCA is given as 100% grantby the Ministry of Social Justice andEmpowerment to various States, to make up forany deficiency towards the implementation ofthe SCSP in the respective State.

3. Scheduled castes Development Corporations(SCDCs) in the States or the State Departments,which will play the role of Nodal Agencies, inthe implementation of SCSP in the States.

Table 5: Incidence of Poverty

Poverty SCs/STs All India

Urban PovertyIncidence 36.4 22.8

Rural PovertyIncidence 34.8 22.7

Mean Per Capita Urban (Rs.) Rural (Rs.) Total (Rs.) Urban (Rs.) Rural (Rs.) Total (Rs.)

Expenditure 800 Approx 420 520 1150 579 712

2 This part of the paper (shown in italics) has been drawn solely from Social Watch - Tamil Nadu (2004), “Special Component Plan:Dalit Hopes Betrayed?” Second (Revised) Edition, Chennai, July 2004.

ScheduledCaste SubPlan: The

Status So Far

“ SCSP for SCs isnot an isolatedprogramme/scheme; ratherit is an umbrellastrategy foroveralldevelopment ofSCs”


21

The allocations for SCs fall under two categories:

Actual Allocations: By this we refer to allocationsfor SCs under those schemes, which are eithermeant exclusively for SCs or those in which thereare clear guidelines/instructions regarding theproportion of SC beneficiaries being a certainminimum level within the total beneficiaries of thescheme.

Notional Allocations: In contrast to ActualAllocations for SCs, by Notional Allocations for SCswe refer to a different kind of allocations that areshown by the Government Ministry/ Department asdirectly benefiting the SCs from within the totalallocations for a Scheme. These benefits, even ifthey really reach the SCs in the proportions shownby the Ministry/Department, are at best incidentalbenefits derived by SCs, for which there were nobinding policy guidelines or instructions within thescheme.

WELCOMING SOME RECENTINITIATIVESThe National Common Minimum Programme asdrafted by the UPA Government in 2004 is not justa policy document but lays down very clearly thesix very basic principles to promote goodgovernance. Once of those principles mentioned inthe charter of governance is: ‘to provide for fullequality of opportunity, particularly in educationand employment for scheduled castes, scheduledtribes, OBCs and religious minorities’.

The nodal Ministry of Social Justice Empowermententrusted with the welfare, social justice &empowerment of disadvantaged and marginalisedsection of the society identified certain thrustareas:

� Promotion of modern and technical educationamong minorities.

� Abolition of Manual Scavenging by August2005.

� Promoting employment opportunities forScheduled Castes.

� Formulating a model State legislation forpromoting protection and care of old people.

� Revamping Special Component Plan for higherallocation to the Scheduled Castes foreducation, health and irrigation.

� Increasing irrigation of land owned by personsbelonging to the Scheduled Castes

� Institutional reform in terms of(i) decentralization, (ii) simplification,(iii) transparency, (iv) accountability and(v) e-governance

It is important to take stock of the actions takenon the commitments made

3.

Manual scavenging is one of the mostdehumanising of the occupations ‘assigned’ toDalits. The Employment of Manual Scavengers andConstruction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act,1993, seeks to abolish manual scavenging bydeclaring employment of manual scavengers forremoval of human excreta an offence, and toprohibit construction of dry latrines. The PrimeMinister directed to treat the problem in a timebound manner. The Self Employment Scheme forRehabilitation of Manual Scavengers was launchedwith the aim to assist the remaining scavengersfor rehabilitation, which are yet to be assisted, ina time bound manner by March 2009. NSKFDC hasbeen identified to be nodal implementing agencyin various states.

The Working Group of the Development ofEducation of SC/ST/Minorities and otherDisadvantaged Groups

4has made several

recommendations to empower them. Some of themajor ones include bridging the data gapspertaining to disadvantaged sections, setting up ofan Equal Opportunities Cell may be set up to makethe target groups aware of the existing schemes,setting up of anti-discrimination cell in all theuniversities and enhancing provisions in the majorschemes such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Mid DayMeal Scheme. Jan Shiksha Sansthan etc. Specialprovisions for girls belonging to disadvantagedgroups have also been recommended.

Two new windows have been initiated in 2007 bythe Prime Minister in order to provide educationalopportunities to SCs namely The Central SectorScholarship Scheme of Top Class Education for SCStudents as well as Central Sector Scheme ofNational Overseas Scholarships for SCs etc.

A bill seeking to elevate reservations to astatutory right has been introduced in Parliament.A Coordination Committee, serviced by theDepartment of Industrial Policy and Promotion, hasinitiated the process of obtaining comments fromthe industry to develop a concrete scheme ofaffirmative action on best ways of incorporatingthe aspirations of youth belonging to SCs and STsin the private sector.

The Finance Minister had announced a scheme forwater harvesting for SC/ST farmers in 2004-05 anda provision of Rs. 49 crore was made in 2005-06Budget. The Budget 2007-08 proposed creation ofirrigation potential of 10 lakh hectares by 2009under Bharat Nirman through groundwater whichwill primarily benefit small and marginal farmersamong the SCs and the STs.

3 Status as on 10.07.2006 submitted by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment on the actions taken4 The Working Group Report of the Development of Education of SC/ST/Minorities and other Disadvantaged Groups for Eleventh FiveYear Plan (2007-2012) and Report to the People 2004-2007


“ Manualscavenging isone of the mostdehumanising ofthe occupations‘assigned’ toDalits”

“ A bill seeking toelevatereservations to astatutory righthas beenintroduced inParliament”


22

IMPLEMENTATION OF SCSP:DISTURBING EVIDENCESAlthough the evolution of the SCSP dates back tothe 6

th Five Year Plan, evidences from the States

(such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh), where civilsociety groups have been tracking theimplementation of SCSP in the State Budgets,present a very disturbing picture. The Ministry ofSocial Justice and Empowerment has beenregularly pressurizing the States to ensureadequate allocations under SCSP. As an incentive,25% of the Special Central Assistance is releasedto States/UTs on the basis of percentage allocationmade by them under SCSP as compared to share ofSCs in their total population.

According to the report of the Ministry of SocialJustice and Empowerment, the performance ofStates such as Bihar, Haryana, Maharashtra, TamilNadu and Uttar Pradesh in earmarking allocationsunder the SCSP has been good. Whereas, otherStates/UTs do not present a satisfactory picture onthe earmarking of allocations under SCSP for thedevelopment of SCs. The details of the total Stateplan Outlay, flow to SCSP as reported by States/UTs for the first three years of the 10

th Plan shows

that the percentage of allocation under SCSP inthe first three years of the 10th Plan has not beenin correspondence with the 16.23% share of theSC in the total population.

Table 6: Total State Plan Outlay, Flow to SCSPas Reported by States/UTs

Year Total State SCSP Outlay % of SCSP Plan Outlay Outlay

to StatePlan Outlay

(Rs. in Crore) (Rs. in Crore)

2002-2003 88591.83 10177.54 11.49

2003-2004 85757.97 10373.95 12.10

2004-2005 95518.76 12057.43 12.62

Source: Background Note: Working Group for theformulation of Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012):B. Schemes for Welfare and development of ScheduledCastes.

Looking at the Union Budget 2007-08, althoughthere is some respite with regard to the proportionof Total Plan Allocation of the Central Govt.earmarked for SCs which shows an increase from5.2% (BE) in 2006-07 to 8.1% (BE) in 2007-08.However, the proportions of these Plan allocationsearmarked for SCs are far below the proportion ofSC population in total population of the country,i.e. roughly 16% (Census, 2001) which is inviolation of the strategy of SCSP for SCs.

Secondly, it is imperative to see the extent towhich SCSP has been implemented by the CentralGovernment Ministries/Departments, as measuredin terms of the proportion of allocations earmarkedfor SCs in total Plan allocations of the respectiveMinistries/Departments in Union Budget for 2007-08 and track the changes since 2006-07.

Except for Ministry of Social Justice andEmpowerment and a few others such as theDepartment of Women and Child Development andDepartment of Elementary Education & Literacy(Ministry of HRD), the proportion of Planallocations for SCs is less than 16 %. Moreover, incase of some of these Ministries, the allocationsare only notional allocations, where incidentalbenefits to SCs from the regular schemes of theMinistry have been assumed without any concretedata on actual beneficiaries. And, moredisturbingly, we find that almost all of theschemes, under which there are clearly earmarkedallocations for SCs, follow the conventionalapproach of placation instead of actualempowerment of SCs. The mainstream Ministries,which are benefiting most from the currenttrajectory of economic growth in the country, havenot been showing any allocations clearlyearmarked for SCs. One of the main arguments putforward in this respect is that their schemes/services are indivisible. And, therefore, it is notfeasible for such mainstream Ministries toimplement SCSP for SCs.

The most disappointing fact is that in most of thecrucial sectors, which are very important from thepoint of view of economic empowerment such asDepartment of Agricultural Research andCooperation, Department of Animal Husbandry,Dairying and Fisheries, Department of Road

Table 7: Status of Implementation of SCSP for SC’s by the Central Govt.

Total Plan Allocations by Plan Allocations Earmarked for Proportion of Total PlanAll Departments/Ministries SCs by all Departments/ Allocation of the Central

of the Central Govt. Ministries Govt. Earmarked for SCs(in Rs. Crore) (in Rs. Crore) (in %)

2006-07 (BE) 2007-08 (BE) 2006-07 (BE) 2007-08 (BE) 2006-07 (BE) 2007-08 (BE)

1,34,757 1,54,939 7,056 12,516 5.2 % 8.1 %

Source: Analysis done by CBGA and NCDHR

ScheduledCaste SubPlan: The

Status So Far

“ As an incentive,25% of theSpecial CentralAssistance isreleased toStates/UTs onthe basis ofpercentageallocation madeby them underSCSP ascompared toshare of SCs intheir totalpopulation”

“ The details ofthe total Stateplan Outlay,flow to SCSP asreported byStates/UTs forthe first threeyears of the 10

th

Plan shows thatthe percentageof allocationunder SCSP inthe first threeyears of the10th Plan hasnot been incorrespondencewith the 16.23%share of the SCin the totalpopulation”


23

Transport and Highways etc., there are absolutelyno concrete schemes for inclusion of SCs. Theydon’t even have notional allocations for SCs, setaside the actual allocations.

In totality, we find that only four Ministries/Departments in the Central Government (includingthe Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment)have some small amounts of Plan allocationsearmarked for SCs, while three other Departmentshave some amount of notional Plan allocationsearmarked for SCs. The proportions of these Planallocations earmarked for SCs are far below theproportion of SC population in total population ofthe country, i.e. roughly 16 %, which is in

violation of the strategy of SCSP for SCs. Thus,there should not be any doubts as to why the SCshave been excluded from the growth process. Wemust recognize that empowerment of SCs requiresthat they get their due share in economic growthand wealth creation. The approach towardsdevelopment of SCs needs to be an Entitlement-based/ Rights-based approach rather than that ofCharity/ Placation. In this regard, a comprehensivereview of the existing approach, strategies,priorities of the ongoing policies and programmesand their implementation for the development andempowerment of SCs is required on an urgentbasis.


“ The approachtowardsdevelopment ofSCs needs to bean Entitlement-based/ Rights-based approachrather than thatof Charity/Placation”


24

World over, food prices have been on arise in the past few months. Morespecifically, it is food grains that haveseen the maximum increase. Wheat, a

staple food grain is currently riding these waveswith alacrity. The situation in India is not muchdifferent. Despite being a wheat-surplus countrytill not too long ago, (India had a surplus stockof 53 million metric tones of wheat in December2002

1) it has been quite a leap from surplus

stocks to having to import wheat from theinternational open market!

however, does not seem to affect the demandfor wheat as is evident from the big wheat buyers(Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Taiwan) putting in theirdemands early. With India being the world’ssecond biggest consumer of wheat, wheneverIndia decides to import wheat, prices rise in theinternational markets. This happened earlier in2006, when prices shot up by 18% within fourmonths of India deciding to import wheat. Thistime again, wheat prices have surged 54% in theinternational markets over the past three months,ever since India first floated tenders for the

import of wheat. However, even accounting forthese factors, it becomes difficult to explain thesudden rise in prices of wheat.

4

The stock market shows us the way. It hasbecome clear that financial investors see profitsin the futures trading, especially commoditiessuch as wheat. The Economist (September 6,2007) observes that ‘Trading in agriculturalfutures, once a backwater, has boomed in recentyears. In addition to agri-businesses, moreinstitutional investors – ranging from hedge fundsto pension funds – are investing. Last year, nearly$3 trillion (Rs.300,000 crore) in grain futures wastraded on the Chicago Board of Trade (now partof CME [Chicago Mercantile Exchange] Group), theworld’s largest such market.’ It is difficult toascertain to what extent these factors have ledto the rising prices in wheat. But it also equallytrue that mere demand-supply imbalances andfluctuations in the stock cannot rationalise therising trends. It is also contended that wheatimports are being resorted to, not due toshortages

5. With increased output, there is a good

stock in the country. The private traders and MNCstake advantage of the removal of stocking limitsand resort to large-scale stocking, creatingartificial shortages and a consequent rise inprices. Government agencies are unable to procureenough wheat, as the government’s purchasingprice is deliberately kept low to allowmultinational corporations to enter the trade.

The spurt in proposed imports of wheat issurprising, especially with the Minister himselfadmitting last year that wheat output hasincreased by 1.5%, to 73.1 million tonnes. The

The Government of India requires more than 17million tonnes (mt) of wheat at its peakrequirements to maintain buffer stocks for runningthe public distribution system and managing theprice line to ensure that the prices of wheat inthe open market do not increase to alarminglevels

2. It usually arranges to procure this wheat

from farmers through state-run agencies byoffering them a minimum support price. Althoughit has been a favourable wheat harvest this year,with the production going up to 75 mt, up from69.4 mt in the previous year, against aprocurement target of 15 mt, the governmentcould only procure 11.1 mt of wheat directly fromfarmers. Faulty procurement policies of thegovernment are to blame for this. The minimumsupport price offered to farmers this year forwheat procurement was Rs.850 per quintal, whichwas 20% lower compared with what the farmerscould get from the open market.

To maintain sufficient buffer stock in anticipationof shortfall in wheat procurement, the governmentcalled for tenders to import wheat in the monthof June 2007. It rejected the tenders whichoffered wheat at $263 (Rs10,704) per mt in Junesaying the prices quoted were too high. Barelytwo weeks later, the government ordered theimport of 0.57 mt of wheat at $325 per mt. InSeptember 2007, the government called for athird tender and has placed an order for nearly0.8 mt at $390 per mt.

Simultaneously, economists ponder over thereasons behind the rise in prices of wheat inthe first place. Supply side constraints faced bythe world’s major wheat exporters are cited.

3 This

The Wheat Syndrome - Pooja Parvati

1 Waldman, Amy, Poor in India Starve as Surplus Wheat Rots, New York Times, December 2, 20022 Rao, Narsimha G V L, Whiff Of A Wheat Scam May Harm The Congress, Mint, September 10, 20073 Chandrasekhar, C P, Dear wheat, Frontline, October 5, 20074 Ibid5 Sharma, Ashok B, Importing a Farming Crisis, May 11, 2006, India Together


25

area under wheat also registered an increase of400,000 hectares in 2006 over the previous year.Coincidentally, a United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) report urged India to import2 million tonnes of wheat in 2006. The importdecision preempted the negotiations at the WorldTrade Organization over international trade inagriculture. The G-33 block of 42 countries andthe African group insisted on reaching anagreement on Special Products (SPs) and SpecialSafeguard Mechanisms (SSMs). SPs and SSMs areeffective instruments for developing nations toprotect their products, but these are under attackfrom developed countries trying to gain accessto Third World markets. Responding to the G-33proposal on SPs and SSM, the US submitted apaper on SSM, which is intended to make theapplication of this mechanism practically difficultby developing countries.

In the absence of quantitative restrictions onimports, or tariff barriers, designation of SPs andapplication of SSM are the only available optionsleft for the developing countries to check apossible urge of cheap subsidised imports. Incontrast, the developed countries are not too eagerto reduce their high levels of subsidies and tariffs,and instead want greater market access in theThird World. By taking up imports on a large scale,India appears to have conceded the possibility ofdesignating wheat as its SP. Will it then be ableto defend its applied tariff and bound rates onwheat? Can it apply SSM to check any possiblesurge in wheat imports in future? Can it applystringent quarantine and SPS norms in future, whenit has relaxed the same now? Can India remainfaithful to the interests of the developing bloc?These and several such questions remain.

In recent years, the Indian State has had ahistory of subverting procurement and pricesupport mechanisms.

6 Back in 2002, dairy

cooperatives were on the brink of being wipedout courtesy dumping by the developed countries,thanks to the State policy. In case of cotton,the Maharashtra government subverted themonopoly cotton procurement scheme and todaythe price being paid to cotton farmers is afraction of what they received earlier. Similarly,Marketfed in Kerala, which procures pepper from

farmers, is facing subversion. The cases ofcardamom, coconut, cashew - in fact, almost allagri-commodities - have a common thread runningthrough them: deliberate subversion of procurementmechanisms, and manipulation of support prices.While it is a well-acknowledged fact that thereare problems at Food Corporation of India (FCI)and in the Public Distribution System (PDS),dismantling these will amount to removing acritical safety net for farmers, as well as the poorwho depend on the PDS.

Further, the measures adopted by the Governmenthardly provide any solace. Against the Rs.850 perquintal offered to Indian farmers, the governmentis paying Rs.1,600 per quintal for its imports –almost twice that of the minimum support pricepaid to farmers. The Government finds itself inan extremely sticky situation. It is a recipe fordisaster if the Government does not increase itsbuffer stocks, which would result in higher wheatprices and make the aam aadmi very unhappy. Onthe other hand, having exercised the option ofimports at prices much higher than prices offeredto Indian farmers, the government is likely toantagonize the latter. Unabated farmers’ suicidesand cases of their lands being grabbed bygovernments at low cost to hand them over toindustrialists for setting up special economic zonesmeans there is no love lost between the farmersand the Government. This (wheat import issue)will only prove to be the last straw.

With the recent political upheavals owing to theIndo-US Nuclear deal, (Left strongly indisagreement with the Congress about the deal),impending mid-term polls is already a seriousconcern for the Government. Which might be thereason for the recent modification in the supportprice offered to farmers to the tune of Rs.1,000per quintal of wheat

7, rice (Rs.725/quintal), barley

(Rs.650/quintal), gram (Rs.1,600/quintal), masur(Rs.1,700/quintal), mustard oilseed (Rs.1,800/quintal) and safflower (Rs.1,650/quintal). Relatedto this, consessional loans have been offered tosugar mill owners so that they can now pay offdebts to farmers. It remains to be seen in thenext few months, how the electorate reacts tothe Government’s vacillations with regard tofacilitating the basics, i.e. roti, kapda and makaan.

6 Goswami, Bhaskar, Wheat Imports: Subverting Procurement, India Together, May 21, 20077 Parsai, Gargi, Wheat MSP Hiked by Centre to Rs.1000 Per Quintal, The Hindu, October 10, 2007

The WheatSyndrome


26

MAccountability was conceived. There was a set ofquestions that we had on fiscal decentralisationwhich he answered in the context of largerinstitutional environment, the sanctity of theConstitution of India and most explicitly withthrust on the individual spirit of championing thecause of liberty. He spoke in one go, not allowinghimself to be limited to the rather technicalelements we had in mind! In the process, the bestof the freedom fighter and a beacon to ageneration of value seekers came out as astrikingly well structured, unequivocal commentaryon the need for meaningful devolution.

Some of his thoughts are presented here whichserve to draw attention to the most important but

eeting the octogenarian Dr. L.C.Jain was ariveting moment that we cherish as a freshreminder of the purpose with which theCentre for Budget and Governance

ignored elements in the debates ondecentralisation in India.

Q: Sir, can we have a case for inclusion of PRIs inthe formal state budget documents. Do you notthink it is fair that some system of accounting atthe state level for monies to be vested in thePanchayats?

Dr Jain: We must understand the place of theBudget. It is an instrument of policy and thedecision whether to collect money by taxes or to

spend must not be left to those who frame oroperate the budget. Their terms of reference aredetermined by the Constitution of Indiaparticularly the Directive Principles of State policy.These Principles begin with a declaration that theaim is to build a new social order based on equityand equality of opportunities. The Budget makershave therefore to ensure that the resources whichthey raise are applied to or spent in a manner thatpromote the mandate enshrined in DirectivePrinciples of State Policy. This is the over ridingperspective and principle that must be kept inmind by those who make the Budget, those whooperate on it and those who want to understandit’s working, such as CBGA.

The normal plea made by the budget makers isthat this is in accordance with, for example, in thepresent situation with the Common MinimumProgramme of the current government. But the

primary question is: Is it focused in tune andharmony with the priorities set in DirectivePrinciples which are fundamental to the resourcesraised by the state through the budget?

The next point is that today decentralisation inIndia is not by administrative design and choice.It is mandated by the Constitution and when theamendment bills were moved in the preamble, itwas admitted by the government that they had sofar failed to empower Panchayats and townmunicipalities which had resulted in continuationof poverty, unemployment and deprivation ineducation, health, nutrition etc.

These amendments were then an assurance thatthereafter the Panchayats, which were thendescribed in the Constitution as institutions of selfgovernment will be given autonomy and fiscalresources to enable them to discharge theresponsibilities devolved to them namely of selfgovernment as detailed in the 29 subjects but thishad to be done in accordance with an area planfor the village for economic development andsocial justice.

What the budget should then have done was to

Inadequate Decentral isationis a betrayal of India ’sConst itut ion

Interview: Dr. L.C. Jain


27

provide funding which could be used by theseinstitutions of self government for their respectivearea plan. Instead of doing that, the system hasmurdered the purpose and perspective ofdecentralisation by not giving a penny for fundinglocal area plan developed by the Gram Sabha andGram Panchayats but by reducing them as agentsfor implementing schemes and programmesconceived in Delhi and State capitals without theparticipation of the Panchayats just as they weredoing before the amendments were enshrined inthe Constitution. The non inclusion of Panchayatsin the state budgets is thoroughlyunconstitutional. If there is no allocation forlocal bodies, then how is ‘centralisation’ differentfrom decentralisation?

Q: What can the civil society do about it?

Dr. LC Jain: You must question that after theamendments, what are the mechanisms adoptedfor fiscal transfer both in size and manner so thatthe government and bureaucracy carries theobligations imposed on them by service to thearea plan for social justice.

Q: There are mechanisms in place which do notseem to work. What is the root of it?

Dr Jain: The State Finance Commission (SFC) hasa de facto power. It makes recommendations to thecentre on the funds to be transferred to the statesfor local bodies but the State Finance Commissionis itself beset with several difficulties. One instance-This Joint Secretary was concerned with thefunctioning of fund devolution in line with therecommendations of the State Finance Commission,when he cited an instance where a particular ChiefMinister expressed inability to meet therequirements as per the directives of the SFC to thePrime Minister. The Prime Minister sent directionsto the concerned officials to waive the requirementsthat particular year. Now the state resources cannotbe dealt with in this manner. It is unconstitutional.When Dr. Manmohan Singh became the FinanceMinister, he announced Rs. 100 crores for the RajivGandhi Foundation which was at that time, noteven registered! The furore by the opposition ledto the withdrawal of this recommendation the nextday itself. But the questions are: Whose money isthis which can be treated like a personal bankaccount! The Budget belongs to people, it is notprivate property! Party Manifestoes too arepromises to the people but they too must fall inline with the Directive Principles.

Q: There are instances when many lacunae havebeen brought to light? What are the ways in whichwe might address these is what we wonder!

Dr. Jain: There was a Standing Committee ofParliament report in 2003 which did a ten yearreview of the situation after the 73

rd and 74

th

amendments. What it says can be summed aswillful dereliction of duty by the centre and stategovernments. You must ask the Ministry ofPanchayati Raj and the Ministry of RuralDevelopment as to what concrete steps have theytaken to address the lacunae pointed in thereport.

You must also question the government as to howthe parallel bodies which it has set up help thePanchayats except sabotage their powers?

Q: The progressive elements in the governmentagree…..

Dr. Jain: (Interrupts!) I have seen the persistentproblem with the NGOs to be in a relation withthe bureaucracy where they want a favorableequation! If the government is progressive, it mustinform what it is doing on the standing committeereport. What is the meaning of well meaningbureaucrats when no change is witnessed on theground? You know recently the Karnataka Assemblyproposed a bill by which they wanted powers tovest with the MLAs. The massive protest thatfollowed when the PRI functionaries locked theoffices and challenged the MLAs to open andoperate them, prompted the governor to disallowthe approval of the bill. It is not the governmentbut the people who matter. That is where youmust draw your strength from.

If you want to learn, please read the Constitutionof India. The majesty and the mandate of theConstitution must meet the structure and style ofBudget which means allocations must be madetherein for the local bodies. I wonder why youeven asked if it would be fair to argue for such acase!

Dr L C Jain, Former Member- Planning Commissionand Former Ambassador to South Africa, was an activeparticipant in the Quit India movement and has beenengaged in economic and social development for thelast 60 years. Following are some reflections fromhim on decentralisation in India.

(The interview was conducted by Anurag Srivastavaand Bhumika Jhamb)

My firm belief is that no change in the system is possible unless rural local bodies have the moneyto function.

InadequateDecentralisationis a betrayalof India ’sConst i tut ion

“ There was aStandingCommittee ofParliamentreport in 2003which did a tenyear review ofthe situationafter the 73

rd

and 74th

amendments.What it says canbe summed aswillfuldereliction ofduty by thecentre and stategovernments.”


28

Civi l Society Init iative toInfluence the Union Budget

CONTEXTThere is hardly any debate that public budgets arecritical to human development and for establishinga just society. Public budget is a reflection of thepriorities of the rulers that affect all the sections ofthe society as this act as instruments for governance.This also acts as a tool of accountability of thegovernment of the day to assess financialcommitment with relation to the promises made bythe government for the well being of the people.For civil society, it is critical to look at budgetsfrom the perspective of the marginalized sections ofpopulation and use budgetary information asadvocacy tools to democratise the process ofdevelopment. Civil society also has this historic roletoday to deepen the process of participation of thecommon people in overall policy making in generaland budget making in particular. The real challengeconfronting civil society activism in budget work is,therefore, to influence the fiscal policies of thegovernment in the favour of the toiling masses andenable the masses to take part in the developmentdebate effectively through wider participation in thebudget making process. Peoples’ Budget Initiative,conceived as a collective process of budgetdemocratisation by numerous civil societyorganisations at the national level, is an efforttowards this goal.

HISTORYCentre for Budget and Governance Accountability(CBGA), since its inception, has been makingconsistent efforts to influence the fiscal policies ofthe Union Government. Towards this goal, Peoples’Budget Initiative is one of the most participatoryprocesses evolved through a collective effort, ofhundreds of organisations from across the country.We work along the Budget Cycle in the course ofthe year, trying to influence and make a dent inthe system at points of critical intervention. However,realising that influencing the process of policymakingin India needs to be a continuous effort, we hopethat a consolidated peoples’ initiative takes the leadin this direction. From last year onwards we sawthe coming together of civil society organisationsacross the country under the platform of ‘PeoplesBudget Initiative’, which is a process of educationand action on policy analysis and campaign. Oureffort has always been to broad base the processand to follow the methodology of ‘people centredadvocacy’ to frame our concerns for the poor andthe marginalised in concrete citizen charters and tofollow with the policy makers at all levels ofgovernance to make them aware of those concerns.In addition to raise just and rational demands thePeoples Budget Initiative also evolves and suggestsmechanisms for public resource management, whichis an integral part of people centred governance.

WHAT DO WE PROPOSE TO DO?We propose to hold a National Convention in NewDelhi at a critical time when budget and fiscal policymaking processes are underway for the forthcomingyear. This National Convention, with representationfrom civil society, academia, activists, media andconcerned citizens across the country, would preparea Peoples’ Charter of Demands for the forthcomingbudget for inclusion and consideration by thepolicymakers. The Convention would resolve to followup with the policy makers with the National Charterand derived charters (relevant for respective states)at all levels of governance. It is proposed that thekey areas of policy formulation on which the NationalConvention would focus would be (a) Agriculture andFood Security (b) Gender and Children (c) Education(d) Health (e) Dalits and Adivasis.

The Convention would also try to be vigilant on theprocess of implementation of the budget and fiscalpolicies throughout the year.

DETAILS OF THE PROCESSThis entire process has been divided along threestages—the Pre-National Convention phase, theNational Convention phase and the Post-NationalConvention phase.

It is important to underline that these events arepart of a single process that flows until the end ofthe current financial year.

PHASE ONE: THE PRE-CONVENTION PHASEThe preparatory work to be done before the NationalConvention is what we have termed as the pre-convention phase. To facilitate this process ofpreparation, the following activities are proposed.

PHASE TWO: THE NATIONAL CONVENTIONThe draft Peoples’ Charter of Demands in each sectorwill be collated and sharpened through discussionin groups (built around the specific themes as perthe interest of the participants) to make the finalPeoples’ Charter of Demands. The primary objectiveof the National Convention is to arrive at, througha process of wide-ranging dialogue and discussionsamongst us, at the Peoples’ Charter of Demands,which will be a concrete set of demands that wewill advocate for, in the forthcoming Union Budget.This Peoples’ Charter of Demands will be the keydocument to be used for advocacy.

PHASE THREE: THE POST CONVENTION PHASEWith the Peoples’ Charter of Demands in hand, aseries of advocacy exercises will be initiated. Thiswill include meeting relevant officials and groupscritical to the budget making processes.

CREDITSEditorial Advisory BoardM D Mistry, Vinod Vyasulu,Jayati Ghosh, John Samuel

Editorial TeamAmitabh Behar, Praveen Jha, Yamini

AdvocacySiba Sankar Mohanty,Deepak L. Xavier, Bhumika JhambResearchAnurag Srivastava,Pooja Parvati,Indranil Mukhopadhyay, Jawed Alam,Gyana Ranjan Panda, Ramgati Singh

CirculationShallu Angra,Khwaja Mobeen Ur-Rehman

AssistanceHarsh Singh Rawat

DesignMayank Bhatnagar

Cover PhotoDeepak L. Xavier

Layout & PrintingKriti Creative Studio

BOARD MEMBERSAmitabh Behar, Anil Singh, Ginny Srivastava, Jagdananda, Jayati Ghosh,John Samuel, Fr. Manu Alphonse, Praveen Jha, Sandeep Dikshit, Shanta Sinha

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT SECRETARIAT :

Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability

A-11, Second Floor, Niti Bagh, Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi - 110 049, INDIAPhone: +91-11-4174 1285 / 86 / 87 Email: [email protected]

Documents

Volume 4, Track 3, October 2007 · has increased only marginally from 6.7 % in 2006-07 RE to 6.9 % in 2007-08 BE. 2. MONSOON SESSION IN THE PARLIAMENT The Monsoon Session 2007 that