This refers to Subir Gokarn's column "The other side of devolution" (Muddy Waters, March 9). State governments have a tendency to provide subsidies (say, free power for agriculture) or create physical structures such as community centres, panchayat ghars, dharamshalas and so on to please their vote banks, even if their immediate need or use may be limited. The funds for the maintenance of buildings, cleanliness, qualitative improvements/providing the required manpower in schools, hospitals (soft infrastructure) have always been inadequate. Maybe, it was due to the lack of confidence in the continued availability of funds or a fear of them being easily siphoned off.
Moreover, sub-district offices were virtually starved of funds for basic maintenance items such as office stationery, diesel for government vehicles and so on (especially in police stations, revenue offices) so much so that a sort of crowdsourcing from public was practised, bringing the administration a bad name in the process. There is a real possibility of new untied funds to states getting lost or absorbed in satisfying such basic needs, at least, initially.
Apart from central government institutions such as the NITI Aayog, the major political parties should also monitor the type and quality of schemes being implemented in the states run by them. The quality of Human Development Index of their states should be made a badge of honour for them. Unless the central government is able to apply moral suasion on state governments to reach a consensus, the social sector spending is likely to decline in a free-for-all scenario.
Y P Issar Karnal
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
