‘Back to Village’ Programme

The bankruptcy of governance and acumen of development administration is evident from widely publicized and media hyped, so-called “Back to Village’ programme. In its official website, the state government claims that,” In a first of its kind, the government of Jammu and Kashmir has embarked on an ambitious and extensive programme of reaching out to people at the grass-root level to create in the rural masses an earnest desire for decent standard of living” . The present development administration seems to be ignorant of its track record of planning and development history and also the commitment and selfless dedication of its predecessors.

 We were preoccupiedwith the preparation of Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79) and first ever TribalSub-Plan for Gujjars and Bakerwalls and also Approach Paper of Fifth Five YearPlan in the Planning and Development department during 1972-73, while the thenCommissioner for Planning and Development, a senior most officer in developmentadministration hierarchy, prepared his schedule for “Back to Village”programme. The Secretary to Government, Commissioner for Planning andDevelopment along with multi-disciplinary team of officers from all developmentsectors visited the areas identified in the district to quantify development-gaps,public feed-back and ensure public participation in the development process. Inrespect of Gurez Niabat, to quote report, ” I visited most of these areas andhead of the teams of senior officers representing various disciplines of thedepartmental hierarchy in the State” ( Report of the Multi-Disciplinary Team onthe Development- Gurez Niabat, 1974, P 2, Planning & DevelopmentDepartment, J&K Government). The Planning Commissioner visited KarnahTehsil, Matchil Area, non-motorable areas of Poonch, Rajouri, and Doda, MahoreTehsil, Dudu Basantgarh, Bani Niabat, Lohi-Malhar and Machhedi Patwar halqas ofBillawar Tehsil and other areas of the districts in the state in routinedischarge of the legitimate duties and functions. The Planning Department wouldthen document reports district-wise and area-wise and these reports must beavailable in the archives of the said department. This practice was followedfor long in routine and executed with supervision. There was no media hype northe visits made with specifics. It used to be routine legitimate functions ofthe development administration in various hierarchies. Similarly the state ispioneer in the country in switching over to decentralized development processthrough the mechanism of what is referred to in administrative parlance,”single line administration’. The state had at that time acute scarcity of dataand fragile data-base.

   

The sample crop cutting surveys carried out by revenuedepartment in coordination with agriculture department and planning departmentwould arrive at realistic estimate of farm production, productivity and acreagedata which stands discarded since.

The state is trapped in acute economic crisis precisely dueto disconnect between the gross-root/ masses and the governance, thedevelopment administration.

Agrarian crisis

Agrarian economy of state has shrunk and devoid ofgenerating wage-employment and sustainable incomes so much so it emerges alosing venture. The structural change demonstrates the consistent decline ofaverage size of holding from 1.07 hectare in 1976-77 to 0.62 hectare in 2011(Agricultural Census 1971 to 2011) and in valley alone 72 percent holdings areof size less than 0.5 hectare, that is, destitute- farms, that cannot providebare subsistence to cultivating households. There are 91 percent holdings lessthan 1 hectare which account for about 65 percent of cultivable area. The shareof agrarian economy in state gross domestic product has steadily gone down from48 percent in 1974-75 to 16.18 percent in 2017 (Economic Survey, 2017), whilethe employment from 68 percent to 41 percent (Census 2011) during 1961-2011.The food-grains production has registered an increase from 13 lac tons 1980-81to 17 lac tons today with growth stagnancy in production and productivity. Thegovernment’s commitment to growth and development of farm-economy is stated inEconomic Survey, 2017 in the following words: “National Mission for SustainableAgriculture proposes to achieve various objectives to make agriculture moreproductive sustainable remunerative and climate resilient by promoting locationspecific integrated/composite Farming System to conserve natural resourcesthrough appropriate soil and moisture conservation measures, to adoptcomprehensive soil health management practices based on soil fertility maps…judicious use of fertilizers etc…” (ES, 2017, p 89). Can super hyped “Back toVillage” programme  retrieve farm economythrough its sponsored schemes like National Mission of Agricultural Extensionand Technology, National Food Security Mission, National Mission on SustainableAgriculture, etc and change its existing structure.

Irrigated acreage

Irrigated acreage is claimed 3.56 lac hectares by therevenue department, the custodian of land records, while the area under fruitsand vegetables 1.08 lac hectares. On the other hand, the department ofhorticulture claims area under fresh and dry fruits 3.37 lac hectares, that is,67.40 lac Kanals as against the claim of revenue department of 60 thousandholdings and area under fruits and vegetables 21.62 lac Kanals. Which land dataare correct remains a question for last several decades. The data base, afundamental perquisite for efficient development planning particularly forrural development must be central focus in “Back to Village” programme and ifthe rural data base constitutes major fault lines in village economy landscape,how can the said programme ensure reliable and efficient feed-back.

Village economy

 Despite highpotential with under-utilized capacity, the bovine economy continues to be animport substitution sector wherein “Back to Village”programme can pay dividend.While the annual milk production has touched 2357 thousand meteric tones in thestate in 2017 and assuming the estimates are correct, the per capita productionof milk is estimated about 500 grams per day which is a significantbreak-through in dairy development. But why is 50.9 thousand quintals milkpowder imported annually?. It means that the state has high consumption of milkwhich does not appear to be realistic. Similarly availability eggs per capitaper day stand 0.15, red meat 0.0074 Kgs and white meat 0.0014 Kgs (ES, 2017)far from the minimum consumption requirements. If “Back to Village” programme,a routine and legitimate function and duty of officials/officers, can ensuresustainability of village/rural economy by infusing measures of importsubstitution policy, its long term impact can be felt over the period in termsof income, wage-employment generation and towards self-sustainability. But itis essentially a political-economy issue not within the competence of districtdevelopment administration.

Unemployment

While the state is preoccupied with quantitative expansionof higher education institutions, the employability of educated manpowerproduced in these institutions remains a pressing problem. The recent NSSreport (2019) reveals a high rural and urban unemployment based on UPS (usualprincipal status), the structure of existing courses, programmes, coursecontents reduce pass-outs without degree of serviceability as these are neithermarket-driven nor industry-link based, hence generate huge unemployment withlong term social and biological implications. The entrepreneurship promotionand training programmes hardly demonstrate physical outcomes visible on theground. Therefore, chronic unemployment shall sustain a pressing issue in thestate. The”Back to Village”initiative is expected to quantify the developmentschemes outcomes, shortfalls and requisite policy amendments through properdocumentation. Does it happen?. 

(The author is Former Member, State Finance Commission,J&K Govt.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight + one =