Go to the districts

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has announced his first major initiative, by suggesting to chief ministers that central resources for development programmes should be directly credited to district level elected bodies.

This seeks to address one of the focus areas in his television address to the nation last week, when he dwelt on the government system's capacity to deliver what the UPA's Common Minimum Programme proposes. On the crucial issue of multiplicity of schemes, too, Dr Singh has hinted at substantive change by proposing their consolidation into a common funds basket, with each district deciding on its own spending priorities. Both are potentially good moves; the question is whether they can be pushed through effectively.

The states are obviously not enthusiastic about this decentralisation, and this could bring about problems in implementation. The vast central bureaucracy that has grown up around what are called centrally sponsored schemes will also be resistant, and many of the Congress' allies in the UPA might see in the proposed change the risk of losing opportunities for patronage.

Finally, the district-level bodies that the prime minister has in mind as key nodal bodies are not in great shape, and need attention if they are to play the role proposed for them.

As was to be expected, much of the time at the two-day chief ministers' meet (the first after the UPA government came to power at the Centre) was spent on seeking more central assistance, and very little on the effective use of the available money.

The fact is that there is no dearth of funds for rural development and poverty alleviation programmes. On the whole, a whopping Rs 30,000 crore are made available annually by the central and state governments, with more than half coming from the Centre.

But the money is either not spent fully, or is diverted to other uses, and of course there are large-scale leakages "" in short, misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance.

The prime minister thinks the answer is to take the action closer to ground zero, where the fate of programmes and the quality of spending tend to be more transparent.

This ties in with the programme advisory council that has been set up under Sonia Gandhi's chairmanship, with members chosen for their direct and active knowledge of grass root activity. But the states have to buy into the proposed decentralisation if it is to work, and it is not clear that there is such a buy-in just yet.

It would also be naive to assume that local elected bodies will be able to play their role merely because they have direct access to funds and can set their own priorities. Devolution of financial powers to panchayati raj bodies will not amount to much when the hegemony of the block "" and district-level bureaucracy "" over the local elected bodies continues.

At present, most spending powers are vested with the district rural development authority (DRDA). This has marginalised the role of the zilla parishads. Several committees that have gone into this issue, including Parliament's standing committee on urban and rural development, have recommended merger of the DRDAs with the zilla parishads.

This would ensure that the authority and responsibility that should logically be vested with elected bodies is not usurped by the bureaucracy.

Of course, the panchayati raj bodies, too, are not blameless, and in many states they are not in any position to assume the responsibility that the prime minister wants to give them. There is a need for capacity-building and training of panchayati raj functionaries.