The Origins Of The Ninth Plan

And in states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and even West Bengal, where the Balwantrai Mehta system took root more firmly than elsewhere in the country, planning tended to move out of the panchayats into institutions like the District Planning and Development Council where, as the Sarkaria Commission Report complains (para 11.08.05), the chairman of the zila parishad was reduced to being no more than one of the many members, the chairmanship passing to ministers deputed from the state capital to lord it over the locals, or even, horror of horrors, vesting the chairmanship in the local district magistrate or some other such official.

 

In contradistinction, Article 243-G, which is the heart of the local bodies artichoke, sees the panchayats as institutions of local self-government which function as such by virtue of being charged with responsibility for (a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and (b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice.

Justice Sarkaria points out that while there is constitutional provision for the establishment of a Finance Commission, there is none for the Planning Commission, which plays a much more determining role in the economic life of the nation. While the new Part IX of the Constitution has done nothing to consecrate the Planning Commission with explicit constitutionality, it has now accorded specific constitutional sanction to planning and implementation at the grassroots.

The need of the hour, therefore, is for states to take effective steps to attain the objectives of district and sub-district planning so eloquently identified by Justice Sarkaria (para 11.08.01): The raison d'etre of dece-ntralized planning is the better perception of the needs and resources of local areas, facilitating more informed decisions to be taken. It gives local people a greater say in decision-making about their own development and welfare, resulting in better coordination and integration of the various programmes at the local level, greater mobilization of the resources of the community and at the sametime inculcates the spirit of self-reliance in the local people. Involvement at the local levels leads to fuller exploitation of the growth potential of the area, improved productivity and incre-ased production. Assets created are also maintained more effectively.

To bring all this about, the Constitution now envisages the preparation of plans at each of the three levels, by the panchayats established for the village, the intermediate stage (that is, the block, the taluka or the Union, as the case might be) and at the district level. Simultaneously, the municipalities in the district are also charged with preparing their respective plans. Thereafter, in recognition of the crucial fact that virtually no district in India is today without an urban component whose economy is vitally linked to its rural hinterland, the Constitution provides for a District Planning Committee (DPC), whose members are elected by the panchayats and nagarpalikas from among themselves, in proportion to the rural-urban ratio of the population of the district in question.

The DPC can add to its membership a minority of members nominated for their technical or administrative expertise, as also the local MPs and MLAs (without voting rights). The Rajiv Gandhi draft amendment provided for the chairman of the district panchayat (the zila parishad) to be the ex-officio chairman of the DPC; tragically, the fiddling around with this provision by the VP Singh and Rao governments, as well as by Parliament's joint select committees, has resulted in its being left to the discretion of state governments to devise any procedure they prefer for naming the chairman. The door to abuse has thus been opened, but that does not detract from the constitutional necessity to start the process of national planning from district level plans, constructed on the building blocks prepared by each panchayat and nagarpalika and cast into an approved district plan by a college of elected grassroots representatives.

It is, of course, true that the same Article 243-G, which endows panchayats with the right - and duty - to prepare local plans also hedges this with the provision that it is for state legislatures to by law, endow the panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary in this regard and thatthe devolution of powers and responsibilities at the appropriate level shall be subject to such conditions as may be specified therein. But this is no more than the sub-state equivalent of the Central guidelines that are the necessary pre-condition for state planning bodies to orient their planning exercises to available resources and overarching national priorities.

The significant point is, that howsoever conditioned, the responsibility for planning and implementation including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule (Twelfth Schedule for the nagarpalikas) now constitutionality rests with the local bodies.

Yet, Yojana Bhawan shows no signs of recognising that the Ninth Plan cannot even begin to be formulated without steps being taken to first fulfill the constitutional provisions for district and sub-district planning that are now constitutionally obligatory.

It would be travesty of the Sarkaria Commission report if its recommendations with regard to a more equitable distribution of planning powers between the Centre and the states, were to be undertaken under the present government's Common Minimum Programme, without attention being simultaneously paid to the constitutional imperative for grassroots involvement in the planning process.