By Amarjeet Sinha
This article was reprinted by permission of the author who is a civil servant. These views are personal. He can be contacted at amarjeetsinha@hotmail.com
How can we make social and inclusive development a reality? The answer lies in assessing the unique conditions that prevail at the grassroots and crafting credible public systems that deliver at the local level.
The last 15 years have taken me to over 570 of India’s 643 districts. These visits were made to understand social development better by meeting people, field functionaries, civil society activists and public servants. Is it possible to set public systems right? Is it possible to move from distrust to trust? What is it that will make a difference? How does one change the character of government employment? How does one bring in new skills of public management?
The first and foremost need is to harness the homogeneity of local communities, women’s organisations, self-help groups and so on. Habitation-level solidarities need to be well integrated with the Panchayati Raj system at the Gram Panchayat level. The identity of hamlets and their organisations is important because in over 60 per cent of India’s villages, five to 10 hamlets will actually constitute a Gram Panchayat. Urban areas need similar efforts to harness community organisations. Organisations of the poor at the hamlet level are our best guarantee for oversight since they have a direct stake in securing the entitlement to social development. The success of the Mahila Samakhya Programme, the Velugu Project in Andhra Pradesh and the Mitanin Programme in Chhatisgarh, are replicable examples of building on habitation-level solidarity.
The second requirement is to realise the unique situation in disadvantaged regions and among disadvantaged communities. Physical and social distance has led to a hierarchy of access to social services. Such hierarchies can be best demolished by recognising the need for incrementally developing local youth as social development workers and providing special incentives for those willing to serve in unserved areas. There is no substitute to a resident development functionary. Poor governance, disparate and difficult living conditions, and the absence of transparent human resource policies often end up making public servants prize comfort, permanence and easy posting. Making teachers out of local Shiksha Karmis in Rajasthan through an assessment and support process, the work of Community Health Workers in Abhay Bang’s Garhchiroli programme to reduce neo-natal mortality, the work of the Aroles in Jamkhed with community workers, are all examples of what is possible through such an approach.
The third requirement is to transfer funds, functions and functionaries right down to communities. Schools, hospitals and Aanganwadi Centres can never function effectively without community monitoring and oversight. Distant bureaucracies are no solution for local-level accountability. This needs a change in the character of government employment, from reporting to a distant bureaucracy to being accountable to local communities. Efforts made with Shiksha Karmis in Madhya Pradesh, the Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery programme in West Bengal and social development workers in Tripura and Mizoram, are examples of how this can be done effectively.
The fourth requirement is to change the character of government employment from job guarantee to a service guarantee. Public employment must be institution-specific and outcome-focused. This calls for reforming public recruitments from a source of unbridled social security, invincibility and insulation from all public protest and action. There is also a need to make recruitments far more professional, since leaving it to community or PRI selection will always be fraught with local pulls and pressures. The electoral performance of parties is beginning to improve cutting edge accountability of functionaries in states like Bihar, Assam and Orissa.
The fifth need is to continuously provide for external assessments of performance of public servants and provision of services. The professionalisation of public services require accreditation of public institutions on standards, quality and client satisfaction. The ISO/NABH accreditation of public system health facilities in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Kerala, the learning guarantee programme of the Azim Premji Foundation, Pratham’s Annual Status of Education Reports (ASERs), are all examples of holding public systems accountable.
Sixth, social development is about identifying the gaps and providing for it. It is not possible without allowing for institutional autonomy and decision-making authority at the local level. There is a very strong case for moving from distrust to trust within an overall framework of community monitoring and institutional-level accountability. The work of hospital management committees under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and school committees under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in many states is an example of the power of trust over distrust.
The seventh need is to realise that public systems need all the modern-day skills of management. From IT experts, planning professionals, managers, accountants, procurement professionals, they are all needed to make public systems deliver quality services. Governments ordinarily do not recruit such skills. The agenda of setting public systems right needs an infusion of new public management skills. Both SSA and NRHM have brought in these professionals into the public system on a large scale. These skills need internalisation.
The eighth need is to accept an entitlement approach to social development and always plan for the universe of people and their rights within the geographical region that is covered by an institution. The provision of financial and human resources has to be based on agreed service guarantees. A legal framework of rights enables provisioning according to minimum standards and norms. A Public Health Act defining standards of access to quality water, sanitation, nutrition, healthcare and education is needed to put pressure on the state to guarantee entitlements. The Centre, state and local governments need to sort out their financing responsibilities within such a legal framework for social development.
The ninth need is to realise the importance of non-governmental organisations in the task of capacity development and professional management. Public systems need partnerships with the non-governmental sector to build capacity for quality service guarantees.
To be sure, languishing public systems need not be given a burial; they need to be revived by crafting a credible public system of delivery. That alone will ensure that inclusive development and social development for all can become a reality.
