Developmental Strategy: The village is still relevant

ECONOMY/GOVERNANCE/WELFARE

Topic: General Studies 2,3:

• Indian Economy and issues relating to planning, mobilization, of resources, growth, development and employment. 
• Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Developmental Strategy: The village is still relevant

Context: The COVID-19 crisis should inspire society & governments to review past developmental policies particularly regarding the rural areas

How did the developmental discourse change after 1990s?

• Changed role: Government was considered as facilitator in the free-market economy where private sector was considered as growth engine. As a result, state’s own infrastructure shrank
• Impact on Public goods: Health and education was opened up for private enterprise which was considered as part of the bigger package of economic reforms.

• Impact on Public employment: Several States decided to stop giving permanent appointment letters to doctors and teachers in the mid-1990s.

• Lack of safety nets: Working on short-term contracts, with little security or dignity, became common

How did the changed developmental discourse (after 1990s) impact villages?

• Villages were no more considered viable as sites of public investment
• Providing basic amenities such as running water, electricity and jobs to rural people was considered easier if they moved to a city
• Hence, emigration from rural areas to cities was both justified and encouraged
• Rural-to-urban emigration was considered natural that happens in the course of economic development
• The village was considered as having no future other than becoming a copy of the urban and eventually dissolving into it.
• This resulted in overall shrinking of rural livelihoods 

Consequences on Urban-oriented developmental strategy

• It led to discriminatory funding in every sphere, including health and education leading to increased inequality between rural & urban areas
• Reduced quality of life in villages as the availability of qualified doctors and teachers willing to work in villages reduced drastically
• Growth of vast slums in mega-cities was considered as normal & inevitable
• Loss of HR in villages: Emigration led to depletion of working-age people in villages. 
• Agriculture, the main resource of livelihood in villages, was declared as no longer profitable enough to attract the young which led to its stagnation
• Decline of village handicrafts: It was argued that handicrafts were destined to die as it was believed that craftsmen and women cannot survive without state support
• Loss of Gram Swaraj: Stuck between state minimalism and commercial entrepreneurship, villages lost the capacity they had for regenerating their economy or intellectual resources.

Impact of Pandemic

• The new urban architecture denied the rural migrants their visibility. This lead to their issues being overlooked by administration while declaring the lockdown
• Cities could not offer protection to rural emigrants against such exigencies which lead to their mass migration often by foot
• It exposed the weakness of City driven developmental model.
• The crisis has demonstrated the unsustainable socio-economic arrangement of the post-1991 developmental model.

Way Ahead

• Decentralised developmental strategy
• Regenerating rural economic capabilities
• Agriculture to be given prominence in policy making ( Ex: separate Agricultural budget)
• Skilling of rural people

Conclusion

As the pandemic crisis shows, villages have a right to flourish as habitations with their own distinctive future

Connecting the dots:

• Gandhian Gram Swarajya Model
• Philosophy behind 73rd & 74th Constitutional Amendment Act