We formulate policies and programmes tobenefit even the country’s poorest. During the UPA regime, we formulated and implemented a series of such programmes?NREGA, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, National Rural Health Mission, Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana, National Food Security Act, etc, which has ensured that large sums of money from Centre goes towards uplifting the rural poor.
The perennial distress migration from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to Punjab and Haryana has fallen significantly, something that is chiefly attributed to the implementation of NREGA. Many states, ruled by the Opposition parties, have implemented these programmes effectively and thus have cornered electoral dividend. If these programmes launched by us are ?bad? or ?ineffective?, why aren’t these states disbanding them and running their own social sector programmes?
Let us take Chhattisgarh as an example, where expenses for a large chunk of the foodgrains procured from farmers by government agencies for running the public distribution system (PDS) are provided for by the central government while a much lower portion of financial assistance is provided by the state government (Chhattisgarh provides bonuses over the Minimum Support Price for wheat and rice to its farmers). While the financial assistance is being provided by the Centre, the states have taken credit for the success of the programme. However, the Centre’s communication strategy has been a failure. UPA has not been able to take advantage of the big schemes formulated in its regime.
While formulating policies, a holistic picture of the country has been considered that is not necessarily driven by electoral prospects. While we might have lost the Delhi assembly polls, I would like to highlight vastly improved state of the national capital now as compared to what it was before the Sheila Dikshit government came to power 15 years ago. Delhi’s infrastructure is approaching global standards. However, there were issues of corruption in which the law is taking its own course.
Compare the volume of expenditure in vital sectors during NDA regime and the UPA regime of the last two terms. There has been a three-fold increase in such expenditure in the last decade. States have implemented these programme smartly and got benefits in the recently-held assembly elections (Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh). In Rajasthan, the Ashok Gehlot-led Congress government started a free-medicines scheme, procuring generic medicines and supplying them at one-sixth, sometimes even one-tenth, the retail prices. This cost about R250 crore annually, but was popular because it was needed by the people. We lost the elections in the state with the Opposition making claims that the medicines given to poor families were spurious. Note, they did not oppose the scheme itself but resorted to making allegations.
For the implementation of the National Food Security Act, we would incur an additional annual expenditure of R 30,000 crore to R40,000 crore over the existing expenses for implementing PDS. This will enhance the coverage of PDS and arrangements are being made to meet the additional expenditure. We are not in the habit of making unrealistic or false promises. Whatever we have promised through our schemes, we have tried to deliver providing financial assistance to the states for effective implementation.
Our campaign for the Lok Sabha elections next year will have a vigourous launch. We will be informing the people about the programmes we have launched for improving education, health, road and other infrastructure. If people at large do not want these programme, they can stop us. We have been unable to inform people effectively about the welfare programmes which have brought so much prosperity across the country.
Srikant Jena
(As told to Sandip Das)
Jena is the Minister of State (independent charge) for Chemicals & Fertiliser, and Statistics & Programme Implementation, Government of India
We have seen many anti-poverty schemes in the last few decades. But these schemes, in effect, are not unlike the catchy slogan ?garibi hatao?, given by the former Prime Minster Indira Gandhi?the Congress-led government at the Centre implemented all these programmes just for the sake of electoral gains without any real poverty alleviation happening. Most of the so-called populist schemes were designed by the central government without taking into consideration the ground realities of various states. The UPA government must realise that a large number of states are governed by non-Congress parties and the Centre needs the support of these states for better implementation of its schemes.
For example, the Ladli Laxmi Yojana, being implemented by Madhya Pradesh government, seeks to reverse and eventually neutralise the dropout trend among girl students in schools by providing them financial assistance. Through this programme, the BJP government in the state has reached out to the actual beneficiaries at the grassroots as this programme was conceptualised keeping in mind the needs of the people. Through this scheme, even our party cadres got involved ensuring better implementation.
Let us take two other social sector schemes launched by the Madhya Pradesh government as exmaple?Antodaya Mela and Atal Jyoti Abhiyan. Through the melas, held all over the state, we ensured that the government officials inform and interact with the farmers about various incentives given to the latter by the state government. By implementing the Atal Jyoti Abhiyan we have ensured that electricity reaches farmers and rural folk with as much ease as it does in urban areas.
Agricultural credit to farmers at 0% interest also brought us close to the ground realities besides the bonus we offered over and above the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for paddy and wheat?the latter became so popular that it led to a boost in foodgrain production. At the same time, the flagship programme of UPA government such as NREGA could not even generate the guaranteed 100 days of work per year to the rural poor across the country. The states were never consulted before NREGA was formulated. Thus, the programme could not fully take into consideration the ground realities. Even in the case of the National Food Security Act, the Centre is trying to impose its BPL estimates on the states. This is not fair. Let the states draw up their own BPL count. The FSA is bound to face hurdles at the implementation stage. While the infrastructure for foodgrains storage leaves much to be desired, the government is pushing for implementation of FSA?this could lead to serious problems. Thus, the electorate could end up not getting the touted benefits of the scheme.
In the case of Pradhan Matri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had the vision for financing such a scheme, drawing from the cess on petroleum products. Thus, funds were never a constraint. Now, the UPA regime has put PMGSY under the Bharat Nirman Yojana, losing focus entirely. While formulating schemes at the Centre, often diverse ground realities are not taken into account.
The UPA has been failing to get popular support despite launching high profile social sector schemes. The Congress party does not have the organisational network at the grassroots which could oversee better implementation of its schemes. The Congress-led regime must realise that it has to take into consideration the interests of the states before formulating a scheme. Ultimately, the states are going to implement these programmes on the ground level. The top-down approach taken by the Centre in implementing schemes will not work out given the prevalent ground realities. Centre must consult states before drafting a programme or law as the states are not mere implementing agencies.
Sumitra Mahajan
(As told to Sandip Das)
Mahajan is a BJP leader and a member of the Lok Sabha
