1

The Geographer, Vol. 58 No.2, July 2011

Changing Paradigms of Rural Development Planning in India:

Some Views

Ravi S. Singh, Associate Professor

Satheesh C., CSIR Research Fellow

Department of Geography, Banaras Hindu University

Varanasi 221005, UP (India). Email: ravisingh.geog@gmail.com

Abstract

The significance of rural development and its study can not be denied especially in the Indian

context. Concerns for the rural areas predate Independence of India. But, they have been

changing in approach and scope. Despite the fact that the mass development and welfare

activities began in India with the introduction of Five Year Plans since 1951, the cascading

effects of prevalent poverty, unemployment, poor and inadequate infrastructural facilities are

apparent and widespread in rural areas even today in the 21st century. This paper seeks to

understand the paradigmatic change in rural development in India during the First Five Year

Plan (1951-1956) to the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012).

Keywords: Development, Five Year Plan, Infrastructure, Paradigm, Poverty, Rural.

Introduction

‗Development‘ though not ‗growth‘ (cf. Sen, 1984) continues to be understood so. In the

same way, development in itself is not a goal rather it facilitates to achieve a goal or a set of

goals. However, the influential statements on development often coming from the

establishment equivocally project the same. To some, development means a set of conditions

which remove constraints for human to develop his/her innate capabilities to the fullest extent

possible and which allows without any type of hindrance to pursue multiple goals. In quite a

general sense of the term, development is the ‗process of becoming‘ and ‗a potential state of

being‘. If brought down to individual‘s level, experiences reiterate the understanding that

development comes or starts from within and it cannot be started exteriorly, may it be the

case of individual human being or family or community or nation at large (Singh, 2010). In

the similar vein, development should neither be borrowed nor imposed and should ensure

welfare of all in a given society (cf. Singh, 2005). Development refers to the attainment of

well defined goals and objectives by a society. The goal of development is to guide the

process of economic and social transformation in such a way that efficient and purposeful use

2

is made of all the human resources. For the achievement of the above mentioned goal

planning is essential.

As far as rural development is concerned, it is an operational concept, which refers to

the improvement in the living standard of the people in rural areas (Rao, 2005). It implies

both the economic betterment of people as well a social transformation. Increased

participation of people in rural development process, decentralisation of planning, better

enforcement of land reforms and greater access to credit and inputs go a long way in

providing the rural people with better prospects of economic development. Improvement in

health, education, drinking water, energy supply, sanitation and housing coupled with

attitudinal changes also facilitate their social development.

Rural development has emerged as most important among the varied dimensions of

rural studies. In the current context, it is not restricted to (physical) infrastructural

development rather it also takes along social welfare of rural population comprising mainly

poor cultivators, landless persons, agricultural labourers and all kinds of marginal sections of

the village community—the scheduled castes and tribes, and the women. The significance of

rural development and its study in the Indian context is well reflected in the words of

Mahatma Gandhi who once remarked that India lives in villages. In the contemporary

approach, characterization of the term ‗rural‘ is based not only on the demographic criterion

but it also includes the nature of economic activity, social aspects and level of infrastructural

facilities in a geographical unit. In the same tune, rural development is understood as an

integrated multi-sectoral process incorporating agricultural development and the development

of social utilities and services.

Though the concerns for the rural areas predate Independence, one may find apparent

changes in approach and scope. From the First Plan to the Fifth Plan, focused concentration

was on activities related with agriculture and industries. In that situation, rural development

financing was meagre (3.8per cent only of the budget in the First Plan) and minor increase in

the following plans. During this period, the rural development activity was undertaken mainly

through the Community Development Programmes (CDPs) with the basic intention of

increasing agriculture production in a few select regions only. It is remarkable that due

attention to rural health, education and industries was given in the Third, Fourth and Fifth

Plans successively. A drastic change in the focus of rural development could be seen since

the Sixth Plan in the form of provision for basic facilities to the rural poor. The following

Plans gave more importance to communication, infrastructure, basic education, scientific and

intensive agriculture, rural self-governance, advancement in technology, reduction of poverty

and unemployment through REGS (currently called MGREGS), inclusive growth and greater

incentives for infrastructural and sustainable development.

Eradication of poverty and creation of ‗Hunger free India‘ are the major development

concerns of India in the new millennium. According to the UNDP and World Bank, of the

estimated 1.3 billon poor people in the world with income less than one dollar a day, about

0.26 billion live in India with most of them (74per cent) residing in rural areas (Rao, 2005).

The percentage of the rural people among the poor is alarming even after six and a half

decades of independence with implementation of different Five Year Plans and policies by

government and other agencies for the upliftment of heart and soul of India. The words of

Mahatma Gandhi, ―India is to be found not in few cities but in the villages. Farmers and

3

workers make India. Their prosperity alone can make India a country fit to live in‖ (as quoted

in Singh, 1986), sound more relevant in this situation. Agriculture is the main source of

livelihood for most of the poor. Thus, sustainable and broad based development of agriculture

is a pre-requisite for rural development, and the later, a necessary condition for overall socio-

economic development of India.

The main objective of this paper is to make a critical attempt to understand the

paradigmatic change in rural development in India from the perspective of Five Year Plans.

Accordingly, the following discussion is organised into two main sections followed by

conclusion. We begin with a brief analysis of rural development: a pre-independence view.

Then, we try to discuss and examine the rural development experience through Five Year

Plans. This period is broadly sub-classified into three distinct phases: period of broad based

agriculture and industries (1951-1981) which is further sub-divided as ‗pre-green revolution

phase‘ (1950-1965) and ‗green revolution phase‘; period of poverty alleviation and social

welfare (1981-1992); and, period of economic reforms and sustainable development (1992

onwards).

Rural Development: A Pre-Independence View

The pre-independence Indian village community was based on simple division of labour. The

farmers raised crops and reared cattle. Similarly, there existed the class of people called

weavers, goldsmith, carpenters, potters, oil pressers, washer men, cobblers etc. All these

occupation were hereditary and passed by tradition from father to son. There was an

interdependency of agriculture and industry in villages. Subsistence type of agriculture was

common during that period. The level of rural poverty and exploitation during British regime

is nicely expressed in the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, ―Indeed some kind of cart might be

drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive

growth of poverty. That rule began with outright plunder, and a land revenue system which

extracted the uttermost farthing not only from the living but also from the dead cultivators. It

was pure loot‖ (as quoted in Dutt and Sundaram, 2010).

Rural development has had a fairly long history in India going to several decades

before independence, although it was perhaps only after independence that fresh,

concentrated efforts were made (Gaikwad, 1986). During the period of national movement

(after 1920s), due to the active involvement of rural masses and a constructive pressure of

Indian National Congress, the colonial government, individuals and NGO‘s had initiated few

positive steps for well being of rural poor, in certain parts of the country. The important

experiments during 1920-1946 were:

1. Srinikethan Experiments of Rabindranath Tagore

2. Marthandam Project of Spencer Hatch of YMCA (Young Men‘s Christian

Association)

3. Gurgon Experiment of F. L. Braye

4. Baroda Rural Reconstruction Mmovement of V.T. Krishnamachari

4

5. Various experiments of Mathma Gandhi

6. Firka Development Programme of Madras Government in 1946.

The Indian National Congress, under the inspiration of Jawaharlal Nehru, set up the National

Planning Committee (NPC) towards the end of 1938. The Committee recommended the

states control on major economic activities and depute a planning commission for the planned

implementation of developmental policies and programme in India. Besides the National

Planning Committee (NPC), eight leading industrialists of India conceived ‗A Plan of

Economic Development‘, which is popularly known as Bombay Plan, followed by M. N.

Roy‘s Peoples Plan. Though these are termed just paper plans; their importance lies in the

fact that they stimulated thinking about various aspects of planning in India (Krishnamachari

and Venu, 1977).

Rural Development through Five Year Plans

Poor economic, social, and infrastructural base dominated India in early 1950s. Economic

growth of the country was less than one per cent, with the apparent dominancy of agriculture.

Indian agriculture was confronted with prevalence of Zamindari system, high level of rural

indebtedness, and weak institutional support. Five Year Plans laid the foundation for large

scale public funded developmental activities in the country.

In the then contemporary approach, characterization of the term ‗rural‘ was based on

not only democratic criterion but it also includes the nature of economic activity, social

aspects and the level of infrastructural facilities in geographical unit. The main problems of

development at the time of independence in India were mainly an underdeveloped economy

with non-utilized or underutilized manpower and unexploited natural resources; large scale

poverty and multidimensional goal of poverty eradication; diversified social and regional

system; and, rapid population growth.

Negligence of rural peoples led to predominance of starvation and deaths, gave a

miserable life to the rural poor who had suffered a lot in British rule and actively participated

in freedom movement. The independent India had initiated a planned policy. Most of the

developmental activities in India began with the introduction of Five Year Plans since 1951.

The planning commission set out the four long term objectives of planning:

1. To increase the production to the maximum possible extent so as to achieve higher

level of national and per capita income.

2. To achieve full employment.

3. To reduce inequalities of income and wealth.

4. To set up socialistic society based on equality and justice and absence of exploitation.

(Dutt and Sundaram, 2010)

5

According to Planning Commission of India ―planning is not a one for all exercise for a five

year period, it requires a constitutional watch on current or incipient trends, systematic

observation of technical, economic and social data and adjustments of programmes in light of

new requirements‖ (Krishnamachari and Venu, 1977). For catching up these goals, a

comprehensive development approach is needed. Because 70 per cent of the Indians are

living in villages, their upliftment only will make a prosperous India.

This would depend on the development of rural economy in terms of broad-based

agriculture, non-crop including animal husbandry, fishing and forests and non-farm rural

economy; augmentation of resource base, productive use of resources and widespread process

of growth leading to distribution of the benefits to all. Fast growth of employment and

income and a basic minimum needs strategy would constitute the crux of rural development

strategy (Rao, 2005). Larger issues of right to work and development will also be involved.

Accordingly rural development is assessed in terms of reduction of poverty in its various

forms, inequality, food security, unemployment and discriminatory practices in a society

characterised by socio-economic inequalities.

A paradigm shift in the policy of rural development has also taken place in the sense

that rural poor are treated as potential resources, forming an integral part of the development

strategy, and not as a burden (Prasad, 2009). Development strategies under Five Year Plans

essentially concentrated on achievement of high growth and reduction of poverty, food

insecurity, unemployment and social inequity. The Five Year Plan emphasise the role of rural

institutions in achieving these development goals while suggesting measures for building up

the institutional strengths.

Shifts in policy focus and paradigms that have taken place during the last five and half

a decades of India‘s rural development are explained below with reference to Five Year Plans

of India.

Period of Broad based Agriculture and Industries (1951-1981)

Indian planners gave much emphasis on implementing agricultural developmental policies for

rural development in this period. This phase of rural development is classified into ‗pre-green

revolution‘ phase and ‗green revolution‘ phase.

1. Pre-Green Revolution Phase (1950-1965)

The targeted aim of first plan was large scale agriculture production. Near about 43 per cent

of country‘s geographical area was devoted to agricultural practices in those periods. Plan

aimed to introduce land policy, even though its implementation had considerable regional

disparities. Indian agriculture was confronted with prevalence of Zamindari system, high

levels of (rural) indebtedness, weak institutional support to agriculture etc. The main

emphasis in this phase was on institutional and agrarian reforms. Immediately after

independence, India abolished the Zamindari system giving occupancy rights to 20 million

statutory tenants cultivated 40 per cent of the operated area (Varughese, 1993). The main

objectives of the agrarian reforms to correct the structural imbalances hindering the

6

modernisation of were only partially met. Gross inequalities in the agrarian economy and

rural society continued to persist.

Rural reconstruction experiments of the pre-independence era had generated the enthusiasm

to adopt the ‗the whole village development‘ approach in 1950s. As a sequel to the

recommendations made by the ‗Grow More Food Inquiry Committee‘ under the

chairmanship of V.T. Krishnamachari, an extension system was set up to provide support to

farming community and coordinate all activities of rural life with active participation of

people. The Community Development Programme (CDP) was introduced in 1952 with focus

on the use of scientific knowledge in agriculture and allied activities and preparation of

micro-level plan with people-participation. Development of three basic democratic village

institutions – the school, the co-operative and panchayat was the core component of CD

strategy (Rao, 2005). Though development plan benefits all the economic sectors and social

sectors; less privileged sections were emphasised. About 15per cent of the plan funds were

earmarked for agriculture (including CDP) during this phase. The inadequate preparation and

limited capacities of local administration and institutions resulted in limited out comes only.

CDP have very poor performance in rural communication, education, health, housing and

social welfare. But the creation of CD blocks was an effective measure in taking the

government close to the people.

The budgetary allocation of rural development through CDP was only 3.8 per cent.

The main objective of CDP was to mobilize the local manpower and make coordinated effort

of raising whole level of rural life. CDP, which got converted permanently as a programme of

intensive development of selected area, also contributed to increasing agriculture production.

Share for village and small scale industries in it was merely 1.3 per cent. And, the social

service sector was totally neglected.

In second five year plan there was not only a strong pro-industry bias in policy

making but there was an underlying theme of pro-poor and pro-village sentiment also that

determined the development policy, which emerges from the Gandhian influence on Indian

thinking and freedom movement (Second Five Year Plan, 1956). During this period,

foundations were laid for the emergence of democratic pattern of society. The state assumed

the responsibility to boost up the process of development of an economy ravaged by war and

partition vulnerabilities to food deficits. Planning was viewed as an instrument to develop

the backward agriculture with the view of transforming economy and mainstreaming the poor

so as to correct structural rigidities and augment the productivity level of major economic

sectors (Rao, 1999). Institutional reforms constituted the main plank of this phase, especially

for the broad based agriculture and rural development.

Introduction of village and small scale industries provided non-farm employment in

rural areas. The share of agriculture sector in GDP declined from 59.2 per cent in 1950-51 to

47.2 per cent in 1965-66. The performance of agriculture was erratic and determined by

seasonal weather. Limited access to capital for large number of small producers resulted in

low productivity of agriculture (Rath, 2003). Lack of scientific knowledge and technology

also contributed to poor performance of agriculture and industries. As a result, the living

standard of the people did not improve during this period. Though efforts from government

were a little only, wide range programmes of voluntary organisations had positive impacts

7

and consequent improvements in crude birth rates, crude death rate and infant mortality rate.

Poverty in rural India during this period was high and fluctuating, correlating mainly with the

performance of weather dependent agriculture.

2. Green Revolution Phase

Rural development in this period is totally devoted to improvement in agricultural

production. Strategies were essentially growth oriented even at the cost of institutional

reforms. Continuous droughts and the subsequent food crisis, burdened the poor man‘s

shoulders. It led to qualitative and quantitative changes in development perspectives. The

HYV seed-water-fertiliser technology (popularly known as ‗green revolution‘ technology)

was introduced to manage the food crisis. Based on Jha Committee Report (1964), a

comprehensive agricultural policy was formulated with the motto of production of basic

goods and control of inflation. The components of the policy included minimum support

price (MSP), public distribution system (PDS), among others. Spatial disparity in the

implementation of land reforms is a major threat for rural development. In between three

years (1965-68), annual plans are implemented due the economic structure of the country is

weekend due the following war with China and Pakistan and the value of Indian rupee falls

tremendously in the global market.

Government had given much more focus on effective implementation of agricultural

programmes for increasing production, efficient marketing and effective distribution (in rural

areas). The area development programmes, initiated in 1970s, were aimed at minimising the

inequalities and reduce poverty. ‗Food for Work‘ (FFW) programme was introduced in 1977

to increase employment opportunities and minimise food gap for the poor (Dholakia, 2003).

The diversification of agriculture and rural activities benefited the weaker sections (SCs/STs)

and minimised the effect of social exclusion process that had been existing for centuries.

The ‗Minimum Need Programme‘ (MNP) introduced in 1974 focusing primary

education, primary health, drinking water supply, supplementary nutrition, rural

electrification, rural roads, and public distribution system brought about some improvements

in the quality of life of rural people. Nationalisation of banks started in 1969 was viewed as a

concrete step in the direction of socio – economic democracy and as a measure to increase the

access of small and marginal farmers to institutional credit. As a natural consequence, the

flow of credit to agriculture has gone up since 1969 (Rao, 2005).

The technological and institutional advances have not benefited the backward regions

and the poor cultivators. The small farmers got excluded from this growth process to a large

extent, especially in poverty-stricken areas where agrarian reforms did not have any

appreciable impacts. With the passage of time, regional inequality in agriculture growth had

widened in the country. And, there were considerably large variation in consumption pattern

between rural and urban areas.

Level of unemployment gradually rose due to rapid population growth. Both,

agriculture sector and non-agriculture sector were unable to absorb the growing number of

employment seekers. Rural poverty was still high it was 54 per cent during 1972-74 and had

declined only marginally to 51per cent by 1977-78. Life expectancy was about 42 years in

8

mid-sixties and had gone up by 10 years during 15 years period ending with 1980

(Aminuzzaman, 1993).

While the progress shows that up to 1980s rural development meant merely

agriculture development and agrarian reforms. But that could not ensure accessibility to

food—the most basic concern of all human beings, particularly the (rural) poor. Besides,

rapid improvements in education, infrastructure, health, etc. are essential for the uplifting of

the poor and ensuring a better life for them. However, pathetic level of education leads the

continuation of inherent social evils in Indian rural society. Because of poor infrastructure,

tertiary and secondary sectors too keep away from rural areas.

Period of Poverty Alleviation and Social Welfare (1981-1992)

A drastic change in the Indian planning is noticeable with the implementation of 6th

plan

(1981-1986). Welfare concerns were reflected to greater extent in agriculture and rural

development policies of the state during this decade. For the first time in the planning history

rural development receives separate plan allocation. In the light of high degree of poverty

and a huge backlog of unemployment, the development perspectives of the eighties laid

greater emphasis on reduction of poverty and removal of unemployment and

underemployment as well as improving the efficiency of infrastructure and different sectors

of the economy.

The process of social development during the previous period was not impressive and

inadequate to the expectations and needs of the economy. Provision for basic services and

gainful employment through enhancement of productivity of all sectors were some of the

major concerns of the state (Datta and Sundaram, 2010). The rapid increase in subsidies also

facilitated higher agricultural growth but the benefits were mostly availed by the rich farmers.

Introduction of Training and Visits (T&V) system of extension in command area and Krishi

Vignan Kendras (KVKs) in tribal and backward areas helped grater diffusion of agriculture

technologies and farm practices. The Plan had given more priority to ecological security.

Household and small scale industries provided more employment opportunities and

facilitated diversified occupational pattern. Up-gradation of skill and technology and

production oriented marketing under the village and small scale sector led to the

establishment of a wider entrepreneurship base and grater employment for the rural

workforce.

A number of development programmes were taken up under Integrated Rural

Development Programme (IRDP). Shift took place from traditional agriculture to technology

based agricultural practices. Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) were strengthened by

inducting the suggestions of Mehta Committee (1978). Empowerment of socially and

economically weaker sections through reservations in PRIs and Development of Women and

Children in Rural areas (DWCRA) however had limited success (Prasad, 2009).

The Plan proposed rural electrification, drinking water within the premises of 1.6 km,

rural housing, elementary education and basic health facilities through Minimum Needs

Programme (MNP). 50 per cent of rural road connectivity was targeted within plan period.

Incentives to strengthen co-operative movement and aim the extension of new technology

9

and scientific agriculture to the farmers were provided. Plan funding was made for crop

insurance. For the reduction of rural unemployment and poverty, budgetary allocation for

National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) was made. It gave a new life to rural

industries through export promotion policies. For the better rural economic growth dairying,

horticulture and fishing are gets more importance.

With a continuing boost to social welfare and rural development like the previous

plans, a direct attack on poverty, unemployment and regional imbalances carried on. More

emphasis was given on technically mobilize the rural areas and introduce quality vocational

institutions, educational centres and employment training centres in rural areas. Sixth Plan

period witnessed a gradual disintegration of the CDP. Greater attention was given to adult

literacy and health care facilities like introduction of maternity and child health centres.

The Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) was effective in improving the quality of

life of the rural poor and also for the control of population growth. But allocation for MNP

was found to be inadequate. PDS was effective in states like Kerala, Gujarat and Andhra

Pradesh but reportedly poor backward states like Bihar, Orissa (now Odisha) and MP. Special

programmes comprising self employment programmes (IRDP, DWCRA, TRYSEM etc) and

wage employment programmes (NREP, RLEGP, etc. ) for the rural target groups. Socio-

economic infrastructure was developed besides generating sizable employment. Food grains

distributed under these programmes helped in reducing food insecurity among poor to some

extent. In 1989-90, the two programmes were merged in to a new one—Jawahar Rozagar

Yojana, JRY (Bandhopadhyay, 2000). All these poverty alleviation programmes, coupled

with improved sectoral performance led to a steep fall in rural poverty form 53 per cent in

1977-78 to 39 per cent by 1987-89.

The state policies towards social development benefited the low income groups to

some extent in terms of improvement in literacy, housing status, and access to amenities like

safe drinking water and electricity.

Period of Economic Reforms and Sustainable Development (1992 onwards)

Early 1990s witnessed enthusiastic reforms in economic sector globally. Thus, one may find

the decade engaged with gradual liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation of Indian

economy also. Reforms in agriculture and other sectors got initiated. In the rural context, a

major paradigm shift was that of revitalisation of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). As a

sequel of G.V.K. Rao Committee report (1985) which examined the organisational issues

relating the rural development and poverty alleviation programmes the Government of India

had done constitutional amendments (73rd

and 74th

) for the emergence of PRI. Constitutional

amendments contemplates establishment of District Planning Committee with representation

of rural and urban people (Rao, 2005). Gramsabha gives the opportunity to a face to face

democracy. Through PRI, active participation of women in developmental process and their

empowerment in rural areas was envisaged.

The emergence of self help groups (SHGs) as important institutions for poverty

alleviation and empowerment of the poor, mainly women, is remarkable in this phase. The

state sponsored rural development programmes, NABARD initiatives and NGO strategies

have all helped in strengthening the activities of SGHs (Tenth Five Year Plan, Approach

10

Paper, 2001). Ninth Plan onwards agrarian reforms, considered as an intervention to poverty

alleviation and sustainable rural development, were brought back in practice (Pant, 2003).

Given more effective efforts for the proper distribution of excess and government land among

land less, poor‘s and SCs/STs. Water and land management issues are emerged as a major

challenges for futures agriculture growth. Diversification of agriculture through the

promotion of horticulture, fisheries, livestock, etc. encouraged in rural areas with government

aide.

With the introduction of Indira Avas Yojana (IAY), Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak

Yojana, etc. infrastructural facilities improved in rural areas. And, elementary education got

greater importance during this plan period. However, the main objective of 9th

Plan was

agriculture and rural development with view of generating employment.

The 10th

Five Year Plan (2002-2007) aimed at transforming the national economy into

the fastest growing (of the world) on the basis of a consistent 7 per cent GDP growth during

the last decade. It envisioned creation of more investor friendly flexible economic reforms

and congenial investment environment, providing encouragement to private sector

involvement, setting up state-of-the-art infrastructure, capacity building in industry, corporate

transparency, mobilizing and optimizing (all) financial resources, and implementation of

friendly industrial policy instruments, among others. The 10th

Plan initiated Bharat Nirman

and rural roads for creating better rural infrastructural facilities. It also started the process of

sustainable use of land and waste land reclamation for agriculture. Sarva Siksha Abhiyan

(SSA) was introduced for good quality education. 11th

plan continues with 9 per cent growth

rate. Programme like Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGREGS)

was introduced to provide more relief to rural poor, ensure inclusive growth, and to give

greater incentives for infrastructure and sustainable development in villages.

The unemployment level had gone up during this period. The unemployment rate of

male and female were 5.6 and 5.6 per cent respectively in 1993-94 and rose to 7.2 and 6.8 per

cent, respectively in 1999-2000. But for the rise in real wages, poverty would have gone up

further. It was planned to have a universal coverage of primary health care, primary education

and safe drinking water by 2000 (Rao, 2003). Under the social sector development,

programmes were launched to benefit the vulnerable and the poor.

Towards enhancing the absorptive capacities of the people, especially the

disadvantaged, large investments in social sector development are pre-requisite.

Simultaneously, greater efforts need be made for evolving appropriate capacity building

measures so as to not only enhance the skill but also empower the people.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above brief appraisal, it can be said that there is clear paradigm shift in

rural development planning in India. The changes have been in response to the emerging

national needs during last six decades. Crux of the change lies in the fact that the Indian state

has been revisiting its role. Recently, a thought has emerged to the effect that the role of the

state should transform into that of facilitator by dispensing with unwarranted control and

11

regulations. The social responsibility of the state, however, demands that it plays an effective

role in social programming and in monitoring and evaluation and introduction of a system of

checks and balances. This would not only help in avoiding distortions and conflicts in the

society but also ensure overall protection of the livelihood of the people, particularly the poor

(Rao, 2005). Most of the governmental initiatives are for the improving the quality of life of

the people. Quality of life is a multi-dimensional concept encompassing the economic

opportunities available to the people as well as their ability to take advantage of these

opportunities and the existence of living conditions which permit a healthy and productive

life (Approach Paper, 9th

Five Year Plan, 1997). Eradication of poverty and provision of basic

minimum services are the integral elements of any strategy to improve the quality of life. No

developmental process can be sustainable unless it leads to visible and wide-sphere

improvement in the related areas.

India‘s dedication to its overall development is reflected from the words of Prime

Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh (2007) ―India‘s commitment to planned economic

development is the reflection of our society‘s determination to improve the economic

condition of our people and an affirmation of the role of the government in beginning about

this out come through a variety of social, economic and institutional means‖ (11th

Five Year

Plan: Vol. 1, 2007).

Alleviation of rural poverty has been one of the primary objectives of planned

development in India. Even since the inception of planning, the policies and programmes

have been designed and redesigned with this aim. The problem of rural poverty was brought

in to sharper focus during the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85). The Seventh Five year Plan

(1985-90) also emphasised growth with social justice. It was realised that sustainable strategy

of rural poverty alleviation has to be based on increasing the productive employment

opportunities in the process of growth itself. Rural poverty is inextricably associated with low

rural productivity and unemployment including underemployment. Hence, it is imperative to

improve productivity and increase employment in rural areas.

It is clear that rapid growth will be essential to reduce the number of poor and the

sustainable poverty reduction for growth to benefit the poor proportionately. It will have to be

accompanied by more rapid employment expansion than hitherto, greater investment in

health, education, water, sanitation and child nutrition than so far and directly targeted

poverty reduction programmes. Even all these endeavours are absolutely clear in intension,

the work should be done at the grass root level (for the rural masses). Political and

administrative will power is necessary for that. The centre of India‘s political gravity has

been gradually moving away from the centre to the states over the last two decades. Good

governance in the states is crucial for a prosperous India and tracking it is a good measure of

the health of the nation.

References

Aminuzzaman, S.M., 1993. Strategies for Rural Development. In: C.S. Nagpal et al. ed.

Rural Development. New Delhi: Anmol Publishing Company, 1-16.

12

Approach Paper, 1997. Ninth Five Year Plan. Planning Commission. New Delhi:

Government of India.

Approach Paper, 2002. Tenth Five Year Plan. Planning Commission. New Delhi:

Government of India.

Approach Paper, 2007. Eleventh Five Year Plan. Planning Commission. New Delhi:

Government of India.

Bandyopadhyay, D., 2000. Planning from Below. Economic and Political Weekly, 35 (12),

982-983.

Datt, G. and Mahajan, A., 2010. Indian Economy. New Delhi: S. Chand and Company Ltd.

Dholakia, Ravindra, H., 2003. Regional Disparity in Economic and Human Development in

India. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(39), 4166-4172.

Eighth Five Year Plan, 1992. Planning Commission. Vol. 1&2. New Delhi: Government of

India.

Fifth Five Year Plan, 1972. Planning Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.

First Five Year Plan, 1952. Planning commission. New Delhi: Government of India.

Fourth Five Year Plan, 1966. Planning Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.

Gaikwad, V.R., 1986. Rural Development Strategies: Evaluation of Early Experience in

India. In: Dantwala. M. L. et al. eds. Asian Seminar on Rural development: The Indian

Experience. New Delhi: IBH Publication, 9-89.

Krishnamachari, V.T. and Venu, S., 1977. Planning in India: Theory and Practice. New

Delhi: Orient Longman.

Pandey, V.K and Mani, Gyanendra., 2009. Poverty Alleviation: Relative Roles of Land lease

and Sales Markets in a Prosperous Part of UP. In: Narasimha Reddy ed. Agrarian

Reforms, Land Markets and Rural Poor. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company,

190-203.

Pant, K.C., 2003. India’s Development Scenario. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

Patnaik, U., 2007. Neoliberalism and Rural Poverty in India. Economic and Political Weekly,

42(30), 3132-3150.

Prasad, Chandra S., 2009. Agriculture and Rural Development in India since 1947. New

Delhi: New Century Publications.

Rao, H., 2005. Broad Based Agriculture and Rural Development: An Over view. India Rural

Development Report. Hyderabad: National Institute of Rural Development, 3-57.

Rath, N., 2002. D R Gadgil on Planning at the District Level. Economic and Political

Weekly, 37(23), 2219-2222.

Second Five Year Plan, 1956. Planning Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.

Sen, A., 1984. Resources, Values and Development. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Seventh Five Year Plan, 1985. Planning Commission. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Government of

India.

Singh, K., 1986. Rural Development. New Delhi: Sage Publication India Ltd.

Singh, Ravi S., 2005. The Practised Development. In: M. B. Singh, , et al. eds. Sustainable

Management of Natural Resources (Land, Water, Forest). Varanasi: Tara Book

Agency, 186-199.

13

Singh, Ravi S., 2008. Development Thought: Changing Concept, Contemporary Concerns

and Issues. National Geographical Journal of India, 54 (1-2), 93-108.

Sixth Five Year Plan, 1981. Planning Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.

Third Five Year Plan, 1961. Planning Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.

Varughese, K.V., 1993. Indian Economy: Problems and Prospects. New Delhi: Ashish

Publishing House.

Wherever