| Letters to the Editor | ||
|
---------------------------------------
GOI Welfare Schemes
What ails Government schemes?
The late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi is credited with one famous statement. He declared, from a thumb-rule assessment, that out of every rupee spent on a government scheme, only fifteen paise reaches the actual beneficiary. A candid revelation indeed coming from a country’s premier!
However, Mr. Gandhi did not elaborate nor did he order an investigation as to why, as much as, 85% goes as unproductive expenditure. Perhaps he thought it was a futile exercise and there was no cure to the problem. Had he acted on the matter, he would have stumbled upon the many factors responsible for faulty implementation of these welfare schemes of the government and timely corrective action would have saved the government exchequer crores of rupees.
Planning and budgeting of schemes
But before I point out why these schemes don’t yield the desired results, let me spell out a little about planning and budgeting. As in any financial activity, there is income to government and there is expenditure by government. It is common sense, that expenditure has to be less than income. The sources of income for government are through various taxes – taxes on land, property, income, import–export, excise, local entry tax, sales, entertainment, etc. The profits earned by public sector undertakings and lease agreements for mines, minerals and forest products are also sources of income. On the other hand, the government has various establishments to run, notably the institutions of Parliament, Military and Police for external and internal security, a bureaucracy to run the administration and judiciary system. Similarly government has to run some institutes as a public welfare measure – especially schools, hospitals, railways, postal service, telecommunication and so on. These are permanent establishments and the expenditure on them is a committed expenditure, which government cannot shy away from.  However, in any financial year, if there is surplus revenue available with government or if government is able to borrow against future earnings, then such available funds are utilised through a process of planning – by designing new schemes which are likely to generate accelerated development, thereby also bringing more revenue to the government.Every year in February budget session, the budget of the country is presented and which has to be approved by the Parliament. This presents the estimates of revenue to be earned in the next financial year, estimated expenditure needed for the already running institutions and programmes, estimated surplus or possible borrowings – and finally how government proposes to use this available money for new schemes. Needless to add that this whole exercise is not a matter of few days, but has to be carried out at least for three to four months before the February budget session. In order to make this exercise more effective, we have used the methodology of Five Year Plans – so that schemes can be taken up continuously for five years – thus culminating in sustainable benefits.
Factors responsible for failure
Theoretically, the above plans look good on paper. But the moot question that comes next is why do these plans don’t yield desired results? Implementation has been a weak area and matter of concern. Periodically, there are reports in media about the benefits of schemes not reaching the targeted population due to faulty implementation and alleged corruption. What are the reasons for these benefits not reaching the desired section of the society? In my opinion, there are several factors, but let me list out the top five. i) No unity of purpose: First of all our schemes do not have a unity of purpose, they are many times designed in isolation. For example, the scheme for uplifting the status of rural women will not take into consideration the ill-effects of rampant alcoholism prevailing amongst the rural men. Such a scheme designed in isolation cannot yield the desired result. This can be said about all the schemes of the government. I often compare this situation with a vast field having several pyramid structures on it. Various departments are like various pyramid towers whose only agenda is vertical expansion. This leads to a segmentation of the government among various Ministries and Departments. Even if we take a simple example like distribution of milch cattle to the farmers with the target of stopping farmer suicides, the programme is not matched with another scheme under the Dairy Development through which they can ensure proper milk collection, thereby giving relief to the farmer who is now a new owner of the milch cattle. ii) Faulty design: Second, is a defect in the scheme design itself. It has three aspects. Firstly, the scheme does not take into account the ground reality. Secondly, there is always an attempt to have a universal scheme, applicable everywhere in the country in the same fashion, thus ignoring the local needs and local culture and local aspirations. No flexibility is given to district level administration, though it is this level which can give the cutting edge. Thirdly, when a scheme is designed there is very little budget provision for any training aspect. It is presumed that an elaborately drafted scheme issued from Delhi, is instantly understood equally well up to the lowest staff, who will implement the scheme. I have often found this presumption to be totally wrong. There is also no scope for any feedback from the field level machinery and quick response to them. Here, I would like to cite one example. Once while working as Settlement Commissioner of Maharashtra, some senior officers and I, decided to implement a particular scheme for quick disposal of pending settlement cases. We issued instructions drafted as best possible by us. A few days later, I was holding a meeting of senior officers. As was my practice, I had also invited junior officers from the lowest rank in a representative manner of one or two from each cadre, who would not participate in the meeting, but would remain present. While we, senior officers, were discussing how quickly our scheme should be implemented and how quickly we should achieve the targets, two junior members intervened to tell us that we will not succeed. This came as a major surprise to us. We prompted them to elaborate and it turned out that for the Vidarbha area where the practices were different, we needed to make some changes in the scheme for successful implementation. This showed us that for successful implementation of any new scheme, it is necessary to brainstorm with the staff at all levels. Such a feedback mechanism for the purpose of quick corrections and changes in scheme design and plugging loopholes in the beginning itself, is typically absent. We spend much time and money on evaluation which comes as a post mortem but very little on monitoring, feedback and timely corrective actions. Various reports which are generated with fixed frequencies also fail to give much insight to the HQ officers for corrective action. A connected issue is that there is complete absence of mechanism for quick, short term surveys over a small localised area that can be used as another form of feedback while a scheme is still under implementation. We have expertise in the country with organisations such as N.S.S.O., TCS, Ernst and Young etc., which conduct huge survey covering large geographical areas, sometimes nationwide, over periods ranging from two years to five years. However, there is no institutional expertise for collecting data to assess the impact over a small area such as a Taluka within a span of a month or two. Such service, in my opinion, is a prerequisite for effective scheme implementation. We can train and involve colleges to develop such expertise for quick localised surveys. iii) Rampant corruption: Corruption is undoubtedly the topmost reason for ineffective scheme implementation. Take the example of infrastructure development schemes. Corruption invariably leads to sub-standard material and sub-standard workmanship, hence an infrastructure which is guaranteed to give sustained benefits over a long life-span starts developing defects much earlier, thus, eroding the possibility of benefits and development. Apart from corruption in the political circles, the corruption within the bureaucracy is an equally great menace that can lead to a collapse of the total infrastructure. The latest examples are of the CBI inquiry against the Chief of Air Staff and the Railway Officer in the rank of Member, Railway Board involved in taking or giving bribe. iv) Guarding the turf: I would put lack of vision and passion amongst the top bureaucracy as the fourth reason. I have come across several bureaucrats whose integrity is beyond doubt and the speed of work is also very high. But their job perception alarms me. Most of them are wary of thinking beyond their desk and treading with great caution so as not to step on the turf of other desks or departments. For example, if a file is to be initiated for promotion of Hindi on computers, then the Department of Information and Technology which deals with policies regarding computers and the Department of Rajbhasha which deals with policy on Hindi, will spend several years engaging in internal correspondence to decide as to who should NOT take the initiative. If at all a bureaucrat comes along who is willing to take the initiative, this internal correspondence still goes on for informing him or her as to why it is not their turf. Further, a bureaucracy who is taking initiative is often accumulating future risks at each initiative in the form of audit paras. This is because our audit system has not been re-vamped for several decades and therefore fails to make a distinction between a bonafide initiative versus a dishonest initiative. The audit system is such which will stop 99 honest initiatives through rules (read chains) to stop one possible dishonest initiative. As a result of the atmosphere of not taking initiatives, the bureaucracy often lacks passion and vision. A typical attitude develops where I judge my action only by asking whether I have fulfilled my part of the job, but not by asking whether I have contributed to generate a collective team spirit so as to ensure completion of task. v) Financial laxity in the name of financial discipline: Government schemes are also subject to an outdated concept of financial discipline. A particular sum is sanctioned for the scheme on the basis of a broad outline which is prepared during the previous financial year itself, and approved in the annual budget session. The individual sanction however, has to be communicated separately which can easily get delayed upto September. The details are then worked upon, drawing authority is decided and communication sent to district level officers, again as late as in December. Then there is a scramble for reaching out to the beneficiaries, getting necessary paper work done along with physical work, all of which involves some expenditure. But whatever remains unspent at the end of 31st March of the next financial year gets "lapsed" which means it has to now await the whole process of budgetary sanction, individual scheme sanction, and drawing authority declared -- thus again nothing may happen till December of that financial year. The corridors of Mantralaya are a scene to be watched in the last week of March, when almost everyone is working overtime, scheme approvals are flowing, and huge amounts are sanctioned and drawn, many of them for ulterior purposes - these sums are shown as "spent for right cause" within a few hours. When it can't be spent as soon as it is sanctioned, it has to await many months for approval. Unless a timely and smooth flow of funds is ensured, the schemes not only fail but also take away all the enthusiasm of good officers. I have often stated that the answer to corruption in government is not honesty alone, but honesty coupled with five other essential attributes. These are inculcating team spirit and collective action, continuous, adequate and effective training of the staff responsible for implementation, proper motivation of staff, proper monitoring and feedback and finally our attitude towards sustainable scheme completion.  Leena Mehendale, presently Member CAT Mumbai in the rank of High Court Judge, is an accomplished administrator, teacher, thinker and writer. She has travelled over 400 out of 650 districts in India and is proficient in many Indian languages. As an administrator she has worked in various departments which include education, women, children, industries, petroleum, agriculture, and health.Some of her service highlights are economic rehabilitation of Devdasis, making TV and radio serials for energy conservation, designing, training and framing policies for Yashada (Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration) and promoting Indian languages on computers. Presently, she is actively pursuing revival of Sanskrit language. She has given over 1000 lectures, authored 25 books on diverse subjects and over 600 articles, in Marathi, Hindi and English. |
What ails and fails government schemes?
The late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi is credited with one famous statement. He declared, from a thumb-rule assessment, that out of every rupee spent on a government scheme, only fifteen paise reaches the actual beneficiary. A candid revelation indeed coming from a country`s premier!
However, Mr. Gandhi did not elaborate nor did he order an investigation as to why, as much as, 85% goes as unproductive expenditure. Perhaps he thought it was a futile exercise and there was no cure to the problem. Had he acted on the matter, he would have stumbled upon the many factors responsible for faulty implementation of these welfare schemes of the government and timely corrective action save the government exchequer crores of rupees.
Planning and budgeting of schemes
But before I point out why these schemes don’t yield the desired results, let me spell out a little about planning and budgeting. As in any financial activity, there is income to government and there is expenditure by government. It is common sense, that expenditure has to be less than income. The sources of income for government are through various taxes –taxes on land, property, income, import – export, excise, local entry tax, sales, entertainment, etc. The profits earned by public sector undertakings and lease agreements for mines, minerals and forest products are also sources of income. On the other hand, the government has various establishments to run, notably the institutions of Parliament, Military and Police for external and internal security, a bureaucracy to run the administration and judiciary system. Similarly government has to run some institutes as a public welfare measure – especially schools, hospitals, railways, postal service, telecommunication and so on. These are permanent establishments and the expenditure on them is a committed expenditure, which government cannot shy away from.
However, in any financial year, if there is surplus revenue available with government or if government is able to borrow against future earnings, then such available funds are utilised through a process of planning – by designing new schemes which are likely to generate accelerated development, thereby also bringing more revenue to the government.
Every year in February budget session, the budget of the country is presented and which has to be approved by the Parliament. This presents the estimates of revenue to be earned in the next financial year, estimated expenditure needed for the already running institutions and programmes, estimated surplus or possible borrowings – and finally how government proposes to use this available money for new schemes. Needless to add that this whole exercise is not a matter of few days, but has to be carried out at least for three to four months before the February budget session. In order to make this exercise more effective, we have used the methodology of Five Year Plans – so that schemes can be taken up continuously for five years – thus culminating in sustainable benefits.
Factors responsible for failure
Theorotically, the above plans looks good on paper. But the moot question that come next is why do these plans don’t yield desired results? Implementation has been a weak area and matter of concern. Periodically, there are reports in media about the benefits of schemes not reaching the targeted population due to faulty implementation and alleged corruption. What are the reasons for these benefits not reaching the desired section of the society? In my opinion, there are several factors, but let me list out the top five.
- No Unity of Purpose : First of all our schemes do not have a unity of purpose, they are many times designed in isolation. For example, the scheme for uplifting the status of rural women will not take into consideration the ill-effects of rampant alcoholism prevailing amongst the rural men. Such a scheme designed in isolation cannot yield the desired result. This can be said about all the schemes of the government. I often compare this situation with a vast field having several pyramid structures on it. Various departments are like various pyramid towers whose only agenda is vertical expansion. This leads to a segmentation of the government among various Ministries and Departments. Even if we take a simple example like distribution of milch cattle to the farmers with the target of stopping farmer suicides, the programme is not matched with another scheme under the Dairy Development through which they can ensure proper milk collection, thereby giving relief to the farmer who is now a new owner of the milch cattle.
ii) Faulty design : Second, is a defect in the scheme design itself. It has three aspects. Firstly, the scheme does not take into account the ground reality. Secondly, there is always an attempt to have a universal scheme, applicable everywhere in the country in the same fashion, thus ignoring the local needs and local culture and local aspirations. No flexibility is given to district level administration, though it is this level which can give the cutting edge. Thirdly, when a scheme is designed there is very little budget provision for any training aspect. It is presumed that an elaborately drafted scheme issued from Delhi, is instantly understood equally well up to the lowest staff, who will implement the scheme. I have often found this presumption to be totally wrong. There is also no scope for any feedback from the field level machinery and quick response to them.
Here, I would like to cite one example. Once while working as Settlement Commissioner of Maharashtra, some senior officers and I, decided to implement a particular scheme for quick disposal of pending settlement cases. We issued instructions drafted as best possible by us. A few days later, I was holding a meeting of senior officers. As was my practice, I had also invited junior officers from the lowest rank in a representative manner of one or two from each cadre, who would not participate in the meeting, but would remain present. While we, senior officers, were discussing how quickly our scheme should be implemented and how quickly we should achieve the targets, two junior members intervened to tell us that we will not succeed. This came as a major surprise to us. We prompted them to elaborate and it turned out that for the Vidarbha area where the practices were different, we needed to make some changes in the scheme for successful implementation. This showed us that for successful implementation of any new scheme, it is necessary to brainstorm with the staff at all levels. Such a feedback mechanism for the purpose of quick corrections and changes in scheme design and plugging loopholes in the beginning itself , is typically absent. We spend much time and money on evaluation which comes as a post mortem but very little on monitoring, feedback and timely corrective actions. Various reports which are generated with fixed frequencies also fail to give much insight to the HQ officers for corrective action. A connected issue is that there is complete absence of mechanism for quick, short term surveys over a small localised area that can be used as another form of feedback while a scheme is still under implementation. We have expertise in the country with organizations such as N.S.S.O., TCS, Ernst and Young etc., which conduct huge survey covering large geographical areas, sometimes nationwide, over periods ranging from two years to five years. However, there is no institutional expertise for collecting data to assess the impact over small area such as a Taluka within a span of a month or two. Such service, in my opinion, is a prerequisite for effective scheme implementation.We can train and involve collegees to develop such expertise for quick localised surveys.
iii) Rampant Corruption: Corruption is undoubtedly the topmost reason for ineffective scheme implementation. Take the example of infrastructure development schemes. Corruption invariably leads to sub-standard material and sub-standard workmanship, hence an infrastructure which is guaranteed to give sustained benefits over a long life-span starts developing defects much earlier, thus, eroding the possibility of benefits and development. Apart from corruption in the political circles, the corruption within the bureaucracy is an equally great menace that can lead to a collapse of the total infrastructure. The latest examples are of the CBI inquiry against the Chief of Air Staff and the Railway Officer in the rank of Member, Railway Board involved in taking or giving bribe.
iv) Guarding the Turf
: I would put lack of vision and passion amongst the top bureaucracy as the fourth reason. I have come across several bureaucrats whose integrity is beyond doubt and the speed of work is also very high. But their job perception alarms me. Most of them are wary of thinking beyond their desk and treading with great caution so as not to step on the turf of other desks or departments. For example, if a file is to be initiated for promotion of Hindi on computers, then the Department of Information and Technology which deals with policies regarding computers and the Department of Rajbhasha which deals with policy on Hindi, will spend several years engaging in internal correspondence to decide as to who should NOT take the initiative. If at all a bureaucrat comes along who is willing to take the initiative, this internal correspondence still goes on for informing him or her as to why it is not their turf. Further, a bureaucracy who is taking initiative is often accumulating future risks at each initiative in the form of audit paras. This is because our audit system has not been re-vamped for several decades and therefore fails to make a distinction between a bonafide initiative versus a dishonest initiative. The audit system is such which will stop 99 honest initiatives through rules (read chains) to stop one possible dishonest initiative.
v) Financial laxity in the name of financial discipline
Govt schemes are also subject to an outdated concept of financial discipline. A particular
sum is sanctioned for the scheme on the basis of a broad outline which is prepared during previous year itself, and approved in the budget session. The individual sanction however, has to be communicated separately which can easily get delayed upto September. Then the details are taken up, drawing authority is decided and communication is sent to district level officers, again as late as in December. Then there is a scramble for reaching out the beneficiaries, getting all paper work too along with physical work, thus some money gets actually spent. But whatever remains unspent at the end of 31st March gets "Lapsed" which means it has to now await the whole process of budgetary sanction, individual scheme
sanction, and drawing authority declared -- thus again nothing may happen till Dec of the next financial year. The corridors of mantralaya are a scene to be watched in the last week of March when almost everyone is working overtime, scheme approvals are flowing, and huge amounts are sanctioned and drawn, many of them for ulterior purposes - these sums are shown as "spent for right cause" within a few hours. When it can't be spent, it has to
await many months. Unless a timely and smooth flow of funds is ensured, the schemes
not only fail but also take away all the enthusiasm of
Govt schemes are also subject to an outdated concept of financial discipline. A particular
sum is sanctioned for the scheme on the basis of a broad outline which is prepared during previous year itself, and approved in the budget session. The individual sanction however, has to be communicated separately which can easily get delayed upto September. Then the details are taken up, drawing authority is decided and communication is sent to district level officers, again as late as in December. Then there is a scramble for reaching out the beneficiaries, getting all paper work too along with physical work, thus some money gets actually spent. But whatever remains unspent at the end of 31st March gets "Lapsed" which means it has to now await the whole process of budgetary sanction, individual scheme
sanction, and drawing authority declared -- thus again nothing may happen till Dec of the next financial year. The corridors of mantralaya are a scene to be watched in the last week of March when almost everyone is working overtime, scheme approvals are flowing, and huge amounts are sanctioned and drawn, many of them for ulterior purposes - these sums are shown as "spent for right cause" within a few hours. When it can't be spent, it has to
await many months. Unless a timely and smooth flow of funds is ensured, the schemes
not only fail but also take away all the enthusiasm of
good officers.
Lack of vision & passion:
As a result of the atmosphere of not taking initiatives, the bureaucracy often lacks passion and vision. A typical attitude develops where I judge my action only by asking whether I have fulfilled my part of the job, but not by asking whether I have contributed to generate a collective team spirit so as to ensure completion of task.
I have often stated that the answer to corruption in government is not honesty alone, but honesty coupled with five other essential attributes. These are inculcating team spirit and collective action, continuous, adequate and effective training of the staff responsible for implementation, proper motivation of staff, proper monitoring and feedback and finally our attitude towards sustainable scheme completion.
***********
- केंद्र वा राज्य सरकार कडून जेवढा पैसा येतो तो सर्व पैसा मुक्त फंड (कोणत्याही विशीष्ठ येजने अंतर्गत नसावा) च्या रुपात आला पाहीजे. आम्हाला कोणतीही सरकारी योजना नको. आम्हाला वृद्धावस्था पेंशन, विधवा पेंशन, नरेगा, इंदिरा आवास यासारख्या योजना नको रेशन नको. आम्हाला कोणतीच योजना नको.
जर का आज तुम्ही पाच कोटी रुपयांच्या योजना पाठवत आहेत, तर आपण तीन कोटी पाठवले तरी चालतील, पण तो सारा पैसा मुक्त फंड असावा, ‘अनटाईड’ असावा. गावातील लोक ग्राम सभेत बसतील आणि ते ठरवतील की त्यांना पैसा कुठे कुठे व कसा कसा खर्च करायचा आहे.
त्याच प्रमाणे गावातील जनता हे ठरवेल की आमच्या गावात कोणाला बी.पी.एल. कोणाला मानावे, त्याचे मोजमाप काय ठरवावा. हॉंगकॉंग मध्ये ज्याच्याकडे एअरकंडिशन नसते त्याला बी.पी.एल. मानले जाते. दिल्लीत एक रिक्क्षावालासुद्धा महीन्याला 5000 रुपयांपेक्षा जास्त कमावतो. एवढे कमावले तरीही दोन वेळचे जेवण व्यवस्थित घेउ शकत नाही, झोपडपट्टीत कीड्यामुंग्यांप्रमाणे रहातो. पण तेच 5000 रुपये गावातील कोणत्याही परीवारासाठी खूप असतात.
संपूर्ण देशासाठी दिल्लीत बसून गरीबी ठरवण्याचे एकच तर्हेचे मोजमाप ठेवणे एकदम चूकीचे आहे. दिल्लीतील लोकांसाठी बी.पी.एल. चेमोजमाप आहे, कालाहांडीच्या लोकांसाठी बी.पी.एल. चे मोजमाप एकदम वेगळे असू शकते. - Sanjay Barve गावतील समाज एकत्र बसेल आणि ठरवेल की गावातील कोणाकडे रहायला घर नाही, तर त्याला आम्ही घर देउ. समाज त्याला ग्राम सभेच्या फंडामधून घर देईल. त्याला कोणत्याही इंदिरा आवास योजनेची गरज भासणार नाही. आज इंदिरा आवास योजनेच्या नावाखाली वर्षाला सरकार दोन घरांसाठी पैसे पाठवते. लाच खाउन ते पैसे अशा माणसाला दिले जातात ज्या घराची गरजच नाही. आता गावातीलच लोक ठरवतील की त्यांच्या गावात कोण बेघर आहे. ज्यांच्याकडे खायला काही नाही, आणि कमावण्याचे कोणतेही साधन नाही त्यांना ग्राम सभा काही दिवसांसाठी रेशन देउ शकेल. त्या गावातील प्रत्येक मासाच्या डोक्यावर छप्पर असेल, त्या गावातील प्रत्येक मुलगा शाळेत जाईल. त्या गावातील प्रत्येकाच्या अंगावर कपडे असतील, हे सारे काही समाज ग्राम सभेद्वारा करेल.
याच प्रमाणे कोणी जर रोजगार करु पहात आहे, स्वतंत्र व्यवसाय, शेती करु पहात आहे आणि जर का त्याला कर्ज पाहीजे असेल तर सावकाराकडे गेल्यास व्याजाच्या ओझ्याखाली तो द्बला जातो, कितीतर पट व्याज द्यावे लागते. आता तो आपला विचार आपण काय करु पहात आहे कसे करु पहात आहे आपल्याला ते कसे जमेल ग्राम सभेत मांडू शकेल अन कर्ज मागू शकेल ग्राम सभेला त्याचे म्हणणे पटले तर त्याला कमी व्याज दराने कर्ज दिले जाईल.
देशातील कीतीतरी भागात आज शेतकरी आत्महत्या करीत आहेत, ग्राम सभेला मुक्त फंड दिल्यावर या आत्महत्या कमी होतील. कारण कोणी शेतकरी जर का कर्जाच्या ओझ्याखाली दबून आत्महत्या करीत असेल तर, ग्राम सभा त्याला मदत करु शकेल.
तीसरी गोष्ट म्हणजे जेव्हा पीक काढले जाते, तेव्हा ते पीक ठेवायला शेतकर्याकडे जागा नसते, पीक काढायचे असते अन त्याच वेळेला पाऊस येतो अन सारे पीक खराब होते. जर का गावातील लोक पीक ठेवण्यासाठी गोदाम बांधू पहात असतील तर ते ग्राम सभा फंडातून बांधू शकतील. - Sanjay Barve समजा गावातील लोक फॅक्टरी घालू पहात असतील तर ते त्या पैशातून फॅक्टरीही घालू शकतील. चेन्नई जवळ एक गाव आहे कुटुंबकम. त्या गावचा सरपंच आहेत इलेंगो. त्यानी जबरदस्त काम केले आहे. ते आधी केमीकल इंजिनियर होते आणि नोकरी करीत होते, 15 नोकरी सोडून ते आधी त्या गावचे सरपंच बनले. त्यांच्या गावात 1000 परीवार आहेत. त्यानी अंदाज केला की गावात एका महिन्यात साधारण 50 लाख रुपयांच्या सामानाचा खप होतो. लोक खाणे खातात, साबण, तेल, आणि वेगवेगळ्या तर्हेच्या गोष्टी वापरतात. त्याचे असे म्हणणे झाले की यातील 80 ट्क्के गोष्टी आपल्या गावातच बनू शकतील. साबण गावात बनू शकतो, धान्यापासून तांदुळ बनतो तो आपल्या गावात बनवला जाउ शकतो, तेल, वीटा या तर्हेच्या विविध गोष्टी गावातच बनु शकतात. तर आपण या गोष्टी गावतच का नको बनवायला. मुक्त फंड आला तर लोक ग्राम सभा फंडातून फॅक्टरी, उद्योग वैगेरे करु शकतील, आणि जर हे सर्व लोक आपल्याच गावात तयार करु लागले तर बेरोजगारी सुद्धा कमी होईल.
पुण्याजवळ एका ब्लॉकातील काही गावानी गेल्या बर्याच वर्षांपासून खूपच यशस्वी प्रयत्न चालू आहेत. या गावात आधी दर वर्षी जून पासून संप्टेंबर पर्यत लोकाना भूकमारीला सामोरे जावे लागायचे. या दरम्यान लोक शहरात जात होते, किंवा सावकाराकडून 150 टक्के व्याज दराने पैसे घेत होते. सावकाराकडून जर 100 कीलो धान्य घेतले तर 150 कीलो धान्य चार महीन्यात द्यावे लागत होते. असे असताना सुद्धा जेव्हा कधी सावकार बोलावेल तेव्हा जावे लागत होते अन त्याच्याकडे फुकट काम करावे लागत होते. अन यामुळे त्यांच्या स्वताच्या शेतीवर सुद्धा परीणाम होत होता,
एकदा एका संस्थेने तिकडे एक धान्यांचे बँक चालू केले. त्याच भागातील लोकांची समीती तयार करुन त्या समीतीला त्या भागाच्या गरजेप्रमाणे धान्याचे कर्ज दिले गेले. ही समीती त्या गावातील गरजवंत परीवारांना कर्ज देते. चार महीन्यानंतर कोणत्याही परीवाराला 100 कीलो धान्याच्या बदल्यात 125 कीलो धान्य परत करावे लागते. आणि सावकाराच्या त्रासांपसून सुटका. चार वर्षात एक गाव, संस्थेकडून घेतलेले कर्जाची परत फेड केली. आणि त्यानंतर गावातील समीतीकडे धन्यांचा मुबलक साठा तयार झाला. जवळपासच्या जवळ जवळ 150 गावामध्ये या तर्हेचा पियोग सफलतापूर्वक चालू आहे. जर मुक्त फंड आला तर लोक आप-आपल्या गावात या तर्हेचे धान्य बँक चालू करु शकतील. यामुळे भूक आणि सावकराच्या जोखडातून शेतकर्यांना मुक्ति मिळेल.
केंद्रातील आणि राज्यातील राजधानीत वातानुकुलीत ऑफिसमध्ये बनणार्या सर्व योजना बंद करुन त्या योजनांमार्फत पाठवण्यात येणारा पैसा ‘टाईड फंड’ म्हणून न पाठवता मुक्त फंड म्हणून पाठवावा, म्हणजे गावतील लोकच त्या आलेल्या पैशांचा योग्य विनियोग कसा करावा हे गावातील ग्राम सभेत ठरवतील व आलेला पैसा सत्करणी लागेल.
Jun 14
|
2013
|
Dear Madam,
Excellent one.
All the important points have been brought out very clearly in this article.
It is really a fact that most of the welfare schemes are not made for benefiting the needy people but are made with an element of built-in corruption.
Some of the simple examples about failure of GOVT. Schemes :
A) High Security Number Plates for Vehicles:
The cost of 2 no. of plates including numbering, high security Logo, fixing etc (which cannot be tempered with) has been kept as Rs. 215/- only by the Transport Department. This cost is so less that even ordinary number plates cannot be fixed on the cars.
Result....... The contractor is not fixing the plates & delaying it. Traffic police is issuing challans for not fixing the same.
The same agency is charging from Rs 500/- to Rs 1000/- extra from individuals and Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10000/- per car from car dealers unofficially.
Both Police & the contracting agency must be making money out of this.
B) Distribution of Laptops to School Chilren in UP State
A Good thing, but lot of problems as brought out in your article and now the scheme is a total failure.
i) The Laptops were being sold in the open market after
2-3 days of its distribution @ Rs. 5000/ to Rs.
7000/-.
ii) No power to recharge the Laptops
iii) No training given to students on its operation.
iV) Ill feelings among the students who did not receive
the free Laptops and lot of roits and agitations in
UP State Schools.
v) As per one news report, Thousands of New Laptops
have got damaged due to water entering the boxes/
storage rooms (looks like done intentionly to make
money out of empty boxes only)
Perhaps a Better Scheme (some quick suggesions):
1) The Laptops instead of giving to individuals could have been kept (may be 25-30) nos each in a no. of School Libraries in various villages, towns, cities and other common places with 1-2 no. of supervisors. Even some cyber cafes could have been opened in the city centres or Shopping Malls exclusively for students.
Another good and approachable place isPublic Libraries, where one or two rooms could be spared for computer rooms as per the requirement.
The benefits would have been many as follows:
i) Desktops could have been used instead of Laptops
(some cost saving or purching more no. of computers
in the same budget)
ii) Large no. of students can avail of the facility
instead of a limited no. of students.
iii) Employment generation by employing 1-2 no. of
supervisors for each centre.
iv) Suitable Power backups can be provided common to 25-
30 no. of computers
v) Large working hours can be maintained 6AM to !0 PM
depending upon the location & requirement.(for 2
Shift operation, no. of supervisors can be increased
accordingly)
vi) Common AMC contracts can be given for proper
maintenance & operability of the computers.
vii) School ID cards can be used as a proof for free
entry/usage of these computers
viii) Supervisors can assist the students in learning/
operation of computers.
ix) Common Internet facility can be provided if
required.
This above suggested scheme might have met the objective in a larger prospective for which the Laptops were distributed to the limited no. of students.
c) Food Security Bill:(yet to be implemented)
As per the news, if implemented, it will benefit >66% of the population.
i) How they are going to discriminate between 34% & 66% population.
ii) Most of the 66% population may not be able to get the benefit of cheap /subsidised food due to various reasons as also nicely brought out in your article.
iii) To distribute cheap food to 66% so called poor people (about 60 million tonnes/year of equivalent food items), a large no. of people from 34% will be involved who invariably will get the cheap food for themselves first & then for their relatives, their party men etc. before reaching out to the so called 66% poor people.
iv)The remaining population* out of 34% (less by distributers as explained in iii above) will have to pay for food for themselves as well as also for food to feed more than double the no. of persons.
Would this be sustainable??????????
Would it be possible to implement the scheme where 2/3rd of the population is to get the benefit and that too every year.
Very difficult to understand????????
Looks like another big failure as alredy pointed out in
If with only 15% utilisation of funds out of 100,India
Some of the simple examples about failure of GOVT. Schemes :your detailed artcle.(*already a large section of these 34% people are paying higher taxes in the range of 20 -30%)
If with only 15% utilisation of funds out of 100,India
has become the 5th largest economy in the world, we wonder that with another 15% (ie still only 30 paisa out of 100 paisa), the growth rate will double and India can become at least the 2nd biggest economy in the world.
(Now Rahul Ganghi has mentioned 10 paise utilisation instead of 15 paise in one of his speeches in UP state)
No comments:
Post a Comment