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
