COMMENTARY

Bharat Nirman: A Stocktaking

Mala Lalvani

A prominent feature of Budget

2010, like the previous United
Progressive Alliance budgets, is
the continued support to the
Bharat Nirman a programme
which has come to occupy an
important part in the UPA
governments thrust on rural
development. This article
attempts a stocktaking exercise of
this initiative, and in doing so, it
draws attention to areas where
mid-course correction is called for
if the increased budgetary
allocation is to translate into a
de facto improvement in rural
infrastructure.

Sincere thanks to Abhay Pethe, Ajit Karnik

and Romar Correa for their comments and
suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.
Mala Lalvani (mala.lalvani@gmail.com) is with
the department of economics, University of
Mumbai.

he Bharat Nirman programme,

which has identified six thrust areas
of rural infrastructure, formed the
core of the United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) governments agenda to bolster rural
development. The Union Budget 2010-11
was no exception. It promised continued
support to this programme and an allocation of Rs 48,000 crore (4% of total
expenditure). With Phase I of this programme completed in 2009 and Phase II
having begun in 2009-10, the agenda set
out in this article is to take stock of the
performance in terms of the targets and
achievements of the programmes under
Bharat Nirman. As an aside it would be
interesting to see if allocation to the line
department of agriculture has been sacrificed at the altar of Bharat Nirman!

Budgetary Allocations to
Agriculture

c ommitment to rural development as signalled by the initiative of Bharat

Nirman, this trend reversal comes as a bit
of a surprise. Clearly, for all-round rural
development, higher allocation to agriculture, especially higher capital expenditures must be forthcoming.

Evaluating Bharat Nirman

According to Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh, Bharat Nirman was intended to
be a time-bound business plan for action
in rural infrastructure for the next four
years (2005-09). However, the programme
has continued beyond 2009 as Phase II,
and has come to occupy centre stage of
the UPA governments policy initiatives.
Conceptually, Bharat Nirman was a
good idea as it listed out six core infrastructure sectors in rural areas that needed attention, viz, roads, electricity, water
supply, telephones, irrigation and housing. For each of these sectors, flagship programmes were initiated. For the first time,
setting specific quantitative targets for
public programmes and their achievements took place on such a large scale in
the Indian policy forum. This sent out a
clear signal of instilling accountability
and pinning responsibility most certainly a commendable governance initiative.
Given that the programme has now run
over the initial five-year tenure the time is
opportune to take stock and assess the
physical achievements.
A snapshot of the overall achievement
vis--vis the quantitative targets set out
by each of the six programmes has been
put together in Table 2 (p 21). A detailed
year-wise achievement has been tabulated
in the Appendix (Tables A1 to A9, p 23).
In the remainder of this section we discuss the performance of each of these
programmes, and also draw attention to

Rural development was identified as one

of the priority areas by the UPA government under the umbrella programme of
Bharat Nirman in 2004. While the good
intent in having a focused agenda is unquestionable, it would be interesting to see
if its presence has affected the shares allocated to the line department of agriculture
and allied services which is the mainstay of
improvement in rural incomes. The allo
cation to agriculture and allied services as a
percentage of the gross domestic product
(GDP) reached a peak in 2008-09, i e, in
the first year of the fiscal stimulus but
since then we witness a declining trend
(Figure 1).
Figure 1: Agriculture and Allied Services as Per Cent of GDP: Pre and Post Fiscal
A look at the break-up of
Stimulus
Figure 1: Central Government Allocations
to Agriculture and Allied Services
the shares allocated to Pre- and Post-Fiscal Stimulus (% of GDP)
agriculture and allied ac- 3.00
2.49
tivities into revenue and 2.50
capital account clearly
1.78
2.00
1.56
shows that the already
1.39
1.50
low shares allocated to
capital expenditures in 1.00
agriculture have dipped
0.50
sharply in 2009-10(RE)
and 2010-11(BE) (Table 1, 0.00
Pre-Stimulus
Stimulus Year 1
Stimulus Year 2
Rollback Year 1
Pre-Stimulus (2007-08)Stimulus Year 1 (2008-Stimulus Year 2 (2009- Rollback Year1 (2010p 21). Given the UPAs
(2007-08)
(2008-09)
(2009-10
(2010-11
09)
10 RE) RE)
11 BE) BE)

Economic & Political Weekly EPW April 24, 2010 vol xlv no 17

19

COMMENTARY

20

April 24, 2010 vol xlv no 17 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY
Table 1: Allocations to Agriculture and Allied Activities (on Revenue and Capital Account, % of GDP)

Pre-Stimulus
2007-08

Stimulus Year 1
2008-09

Stimulus Year 2
2009-10(RE)

Rollback Year1
2010-11(BE)

Agri and allied on revenue account as % of GDP

1.38

2.48

1.78

1.55

Agri and allied on capital account as % of GDP

0.007

0.014

0.002

0.003

RE-Revised Estimates, BE-Budgeted Estimates.

Table 2: Achievements under Bharat Nirman (Detailed Tables in Appendix)

Target Variables

Overall Achievement
2005-06 to 2009-10 (%)

Roads: PMGSY (2005-06 to 2009-10)

New Construction

62.17

Upgradation

93.35

Coverage of habitations

58.74

Housing: IAY (2006-07 to 2009-10)

Houses constructed for rural BPL families

Telecommunication:Village Public Telephones

Villages covered

60
92.5

Irrigation: AIBP

Irrigation potential

Drinking Water: ARWSP

Un-covered habitations

98.86

73.0

Slipped-back habitations

108.07

Quality affected habitations

142.85

Total

119.73

Power: RGGVY

Electrification of un/de-electrified villages

61.9

Intensive electrification

29.7

Rural households

25.7

BPL households

38.4

BPL stands for below poverty line households.

some lapses that have been highlighted in

the few evaluation studies or reports that
could be accessed in the public domain.
While some of these reports are statespecific, the essential points made are by
and large applicable to most other states in
the country.
1 Roads (Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak
Yojana: PMGSY): The Ministry of Rural
Development was to ensure that every
habitation with population exceeding
1,000, and every habitation in hilly and
tribal areas with population exceeding
500 is connected with an all-weather road
by 2009. This was expected to generate
multiplier effects in the rural economy by
linking production to markets and services. Targets were set out in terms of new
connectivity, upgradation and habitations
to be covered. An online management,
monitoring and accounting system
(OMMAS) has been developed by the
e-governance department of the Centre
for Development of Advanced Computing,
and it is one of the biggest databases in
India. The system manages and monitors
all the phases of road development right
from its proposal mode to road completion.
The OMMAS system also has a separate
module to track the expenses made on
each road. Based on the data entered by
state and district officers, OMMAS generates
detailed reports which can be viewed in

the citizens section (omms.nic.in). OMMAS

incorporates advanced features like epayment, password protected PDF files,
interactive reports, etc.
We find that the achievement record for
upgradation is fairly good at 93% but for
new connectivity it is only 62% (Table A1)
and for habitations to be covered the
achievement rate is under 60% (Table A2).
Moreover, we find that in some years the
achievement was well below 50% while in
some other years it was even higher than
the targeted amount. Clearly such erratic
performance defeats the very purpose of
setting out targets. Thus, even if we keep
aside for a moment the quality aspect of
the roads constructed, the overall physical
target achievement rate approximating
60% for new connectivity and for habitations covered is well below satisfactory.
On the financial front, expenditure as a
proportion of the amount released has
been 73% during the period 2003-04 to
2008-09, ranging from a low of 48% in
2008-09 to a high of 95% in 2006-07. Further, the amount released is seen to be
merely 60% of the sanctioned amount
(Table A3). Thus underutilisation of funds
and procedural delays appear to be rampant and are most certainly a reason for
the underachievement of targets.
On the quality front, the union minister
of state for rural development Pradeep
Jain Aditya said in the Lok Sabha, Nine

Economic & Political Weekly EPW April 24, 2010 vol xlv no 17

per cent of the completed and 16% of the

on-going works have been found unsatisfactory by the national quality monitors
(NQM) on inspection of (the road construction work under) PMGSY during April 2008
to May 2009 (Business Standard 2009). It
is important to note that while it is the
centre which provides 100% finance for
construction of rural roads under the PMGSY, the primary responsibility to ensure
the quality of the construction works and
maintenance of roads lies with the states.
The shortage of contractors to undertake
rural works is a critical constraint in certain
states though relaxation in the bidding capacity and packaging of works has helped
marginally in overcoming the problem. The
constraint of inadequate availability of
trained human resources has been sought
to be overcome through need-based training programmes and almost 20,000 engineering personnel have been trained so far.
Further, the government is now looking to
build rural roads on the public-privatepartnership (PPP) mode. However, for
private developers to enter the rural road
construction sector an assurance of a fixed
return would be needed (GOI 2010).
Measures to improve the performance
of the PMGSY must tackle the problems of
underutilisation of funds, poor quality of
roads constructed and lack of incentives
to attract private participation. Thus, the
third challenge that the finance minister
mentioned in his budget speech weaknesses in government systems, structures
and institutions at different levels of governance, appears to be at the heart of
underperformance in PMGSY.
2 Housing (Indira Awas Yojana: IAY):
This is a flagship scheme of the Ministry of
Rural Development to provide financial
assistance to the BPL households in rural
areas for construction of a dwelling unit.
The cost of this project is shared between
the centre and states on a 75:25 basis.
The achievement of this programme has
been somewhat erratic ranging from a
low of 3.8% in 2007-08 to a high of
100.44% in 2008-09. For the period between 2006-07 and 2010-11 the overall
achievement has been 60% (Table A4). In
2008-09 the utilisation of funds was 73%
but the physical target achieved was 100%.
The year 2007-08 was a particularly bad

21

COMMENTARY

year when only 3% of the target was

achieved and only 5% of the funds were
utilised. Clearly under-utilisation of funds
seems to be the rule rather than exception
with almost all flagship programmes. The
outcome budget of the Ministry of Rural
Development for 2007-08 shows that 1.55
million houses were constructed under
the scheme in 2005-06 as against the
target of 1.44 million. However, the monitoring reports of the ministry for the
period show that in several states, the
guidelines were not followed, resulting in
a number of deserving families being left
out (Nichenametla 2007).
An evaluation study of the IAY for Jammu and Kashmir in 2009 provides some
insight into problems that are likely to be
present across the board in all states.
Some of the main findings of the study
are: (i) involvement of local Members of
Legislative Assembly in the selection of
beneficiaries, (ii) No standard economic
criterion was followed to identify the beneficiaries leading to some above poverty
line families being included as beneficiaries while not all BPL families were covered,
(iii) Community facilities such as internal
roads, drainage, drinking water supply,
etc, and other common facilities were not
provided to IAY dwellings, (iv) Lack of coordination among various agencies involved with implementation of sanitation,
water supply, smokeless chulla schemes in
the state, and (v) No clear-cut directions as
to which type of houses need upgradation
(Planning Commission 2009).
Thus, apart from smoothening the procedures for the release of funds, some specific measures that need to be taken to
make the IAY a greater success are more
stringent norms for beneficiary selection,
clearer directions on the houses in need of
upgradation, development of community
facilities like roads, water, sanitation, and
greater coordination among the agencies
involved with these associated services.
3 Telecommunication (Village Public
Telephones: VPTs): The significance of
enhancing rural connectivity can hardly be
over emphasised. The Department of Telecom in the Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology was given the responsibility of providing telephone connectivity to the villages that remain uncovered.

22

The achievement under this component

has been very good with 92% of the target
being met (Table A5). This has been one of
the success stories of Bharat Nirman.
4 Irrigation (Accelerated Irrigation
Benefit Programme: AIBP): The Ministry of
Water Resources in collaboration with state
governments took on the responsibility for
the creation of an additional 10 million hectares of irrigation capacity by the end of
2009 through major, medium and minor irrigation projects complemented by ground
water development. The overall achievement on this count seems to be reasonable
at 73%. In the last two years (i e, 2007-08
and 2008-09) the achievement rate seems
to have fallen considerably as compared to
the first two years (2005-06 and 2006-07)
to 60% and 66%, respectively (Table A6).
The findings of the Auditor General of
Rajasthan would be indicative of the potential problems that are likely to exist in
most states, viz, improper selection, lack
of planning, financial mismanagement
and execution (Government of Rajasthan
2005-06). The execution problem includes
lack of construction of Jaisamand dam up
to safety level, extra cost of Rs 60.17 lakh
and liability of Rs 46.87 lakh, avoidable
extra expenditure, irregular payment of
price escalation and huge gap in irrigation
potential targeted, potential created and
its utilisation (ibid).
The Eleventh Plan document points out
that the completion rate has been quite
satisfactory in respect of AIBP-assisted
minor irrigation schemes as these have
low gestation periods. However, the performance of major and medium irrigation
projects in terms of completion of the
projects as well as the potential creation
has not been very satisfactory. The Plan
document suggests that the allocation to
AIBP during the Eleventh Plan should be
increased but with much more effective
monitoring, using remote sensing data to
incentivise the central funds flow to the
states. Also, it suggests that states should
shift to fixed-time fixed-cost and a
greater emphasis on participatory
irrigation management, including col
lection and retention of water rates by
water user associations, to reduce the
gap between potential created and the
actual utilised.

Thus, in addition to the procedural delays in the flow of funds, which have been
consistently noticed in other programmes,
the AIBP suffers from the problem of time
and cost overruns and shortage of community participation.
5 Drinking Water (Accelerated Rural
Water Supply Programme: ARWSP):
Performance on this front seems particularly good with more than 100% of the target being achieved in case of all categories
and nearly 100% in case of coverage of uncovered habitations. While 108% of the
target has been attained in case of slipped
back habitations and 142% in case of quality-affected habitations (Table A7), the fact
that there are slipped back and qualityaffected habitations itself indicates that the
scheme falls short on quality and does not
pay adequate attention to maintenance,
thus allowing habitations to slip back. The
average proportion of slipped back habitations is as high as 65.45% (Table A8).
An evaluation has been undertaken for
a rapid appraisal of the implementation
status of sub-mission projects (SMP) under
the ARWSP to address problems relating to
quality of drinking water in rural habitations. The overriding objective of the SMPs
is to provide safe drinking water in quality-affected habitations. The major findings of the study are (a) in some states,
there is evidence of quality-affected habitations, but no SMP has been taken up. The
focus of the state government is more on
coverage of habitations in the rural areas
rather than on quality, (b) the data on
expenditure under the quality head were
not available for all states. In majority of
the cases, this was due to absence of
separate data maintenance system for
SMPs. Further, it felt that lack of awareness about the possible benefits from the
contamination-free water supply was evident among majority of the beneficiaries.
The awareness was very high only in cases
of West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. This
evidence brings out the need for introducing strong information, education and
communication component (IEC) so that
people can join hands with the government in maintaining the infrastructure
and ensuring availability of contamination free water (Society for Development
Studies 2006).

April 24, 2010 vol xlv no 17 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

The Eleventh Five-Year Plan document

notes that sustainability of the ARWSP has
emerged as a major issue and the Plan
aims at arresting the slip backs. The Plan
document also draws attention to the importance of convergence, ensuring community participation, and an IEC campaign. Further it also emphasises the significance of community involvement. It
says, While our programmes have elaborate guidelines for community involvement, it is obvious that field-level adoption
is far from satisfactory (Planning Commission 2007, vol 2, p 165).
6 Electrification (Rajiv Gandhi Grameen
Vidyutikaran Yojana: RGGVY): The aims
of this programme are (i) electrifying all
villages and habitations as per the new
definition, (ii) providing access to electricity for all rural households, and (iii) providing electricity connection to BPL families free of charge. The achievement is
62% for un/de-electrified villages; 30%
for intensive electrification and as low as
25% for rural households and 38% for BPL
households (Table A9).
In its presentation to the Planning Commission, the power ministry listed out certain factors that have resulted in delays,
including issues like delay on the part of
states in preparing the BPL lists to be provided connections, in issue of panchayat
certificate for village electrification and
land acquisition (Ojah 2008).
The Eleventh Five-Year Plan document
draws attention to the fact that non-availability of electrification materials due to
sudden demand has contributed to underachievement. It also emphasises the need
for fully operationalising the franchisee
system for revenue collection and viable
tariff as the key to sustaining the power
supply in rural areas.
Thus, the overall picture that emerges
from a stocktaking exercise of the Bharat
Nirman is that despite the fact that
Phase I of the programme is over, there
are many general and specific problems
which continue to plague the programme.
These are by and large procedural, implementation and delivery-level problems
which have resulted in underachievement
of targets. In some programmes there
appear to be problems in the design of the
programme itself (such as lack of clarity

on upgradation of houses in IAY). In some

others the quantitative targets reveal only
half truths (such as wrong selection of
beneficiaries in IAY or no indication of
cost and time overruns in case of AIBP).

rural infrastructure on the ground, it is

imperative that detailed stock check of the
programmes be undertaken so that midcourse correctives can be initiated. Evaluation studies, based on both primary and
secondary information at regular intervals
and preferably by independent agents,
could be made an integral part of the design
of all such programmes. This suggestion is

Conclusions
If a higher allocation to Bharat Nirman in
every budget is to translate into improved
Appendix
Table A1: PMGSY Targets and Achievements of Road Length
Year

New Connectivity (Km)

Target

Upgradation (Km)

Achievement

Target

Achievement/Target (%)

Achievement

New

Upgradation

2005-06

15,492.5

18,054.3

11,393.9

3,898.1

116.54

34.21

2006-07

35,182.2

21,422.85

54,669.257

44,306.65

60.89

81.04

2007-08

43,989.9

21,901.76

59,316.284

58,145.386

49.79

98.03

2008-09

35,220

24,026.36

52,720

48,668.82

68.22

92.32

2009-10

24,000

10,262.29

16,000

26,167.39

42.76

163.55

1,53,884.6

95,667.56

1,94,099.441

1,81,186.349

62.17

93.35

2005-06 to 2009-10

http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/bharat_nirman.asp

Table A6: Achievement and Target in Irrigation

Potential (AIBP) (million hectare)

Table A2: PMGSY Targets and Achievements of

Habitations Covered
Year

Target Achievement Achievement/

Habitations
Target (%)

2005-06

1,484

10,409

91.49

2006-07

16,130

8,275

51.30

2007-08

20,071

7,040

35.08

2008-09

18,100

11,395

62.96

2009-10

13,000

3,284

62.96

2005-06 to 2009-10

68,785

40,403

58.74

http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/bharat_nirman.asp

Exp as % of Release

2003-04

81.17

2004-05

71.77

2005-06

81.18

2006-07

95.31

2007-08

64.80

2008-09

48.57

Average

73.80

http://www.omms.nic.in/government/security/login/
dologin.asp#

Year
Target
Achievement

Achievement
as %
of Target

2006-07

15,33,498

14,48,818

94.48

2007-08

21,27,722

82,090

3.86

2008-09

21,27,165

21,36,574

100.44

2009-10

40,52,243

22,94,767

56.63

2006-07 to
98,40,628 59,62,249

60.59

http://rural.nic.in/rural/stmonth1.aspx?flag=2
http://rural.nic.in/IAY/Framemon.asp

Table A5: Status of VPTs

No of villages to be provided VPTs
under Bharat Nirman
VPTs provided (nos)
Achievement/Target (%)

1.69
1.96
1.7
1.9
7.3

88.95
81.67
59.65
66.67
73.00

http://wrmin.nic.in/bharatnirman/CumAch2005-09.pdf
http://wrmin.nic.in/bharatnirman/target_national_yearwise.htm

Table A7: Achievement and Target in ARWSP

Target
2005-09 55,067 3,31,604 2,16,968 6,03,639

2005-06 Target

Ach

11,897 34,373 10,000 56,270

13,131 79,544 4,550 97,225

2006-07 Target

Ach

18,120 40,000 15,000 73,120

12,440 89,580 5,330 1,07,350

2007-08 Target

Ach

20,931 84,915 49,653 1,55,499

11,457 75,201 94,130 1,80,788

2008-09 Target

Ach

16,763 1,01,733 99,402 2,17,898

17,412 1,14,037 2,05,930 3,37,379

http://rural.nic.in/latest/BharatNirman_QuartlyReport.pdf

Table A8: ARWSP Proportion of Slipped-Back and

Quality-Affected Habitations (%)
Year
Slipped-Back Habitations

2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Average

54.93
81.81
83.45
41.60
65.45

Quality Affected
Habitations

35.94
4.68
4.97
52.07
24.41

http://rural.nic.in/latest/BharatNirman_QuartlyReport.pdf

Table A9: RGGVY Achievement and Target as in 2010

62,302
61,526
92.54

Source: http://www.dot.gov.in/uso/implementationstatus.
htm (Table 1A).

Economic & Political Weekly EPW April 24, 2010 vol xlv no 17

1.9
2.4
2.85
2.85
10

Achievement/Target 98.86 108.07 142.85 119.73

Table A4: Achievement and Targets of Rural Housing

for BPL under IAY

2010-11

2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Total

Year

Uncovered Slipped- Quality
Total

Habitations Back Affected

Habitations Habitations

Table A3: Expenditure as Per Cent of Release

in PMGSY
Year

Year
Target
Achievement Achievement/

Target (%)

Electrification of un/
de-electrified villages

Target Achievement Achievement

Coverage
in Nos
(%)

1,18,499

73,357

61.9

Intensive electrification 3,54,375

1,05,213

29.7

Rural households

4,14,55,745 1,06,46,046

25.7

BPL households

2,46,06,500 94,52,281

38.4

http://rggvy.gov.in/rggvy/rggvyportal/plgsheethome3.jsp

23

COMMENTARY

based on the observation in the preceding

paragraphs that in some instances macro
level quantitative targets reveal only half
truths. In fact, making evaluation studies
at regular intervals, preferably by private
independent organisations (like universities or other academic institutions) mandatory would strengthen the culture of accountability and transparency.
Some other principles which could improve performance of the programmes
under Bharat Nirman are community
involvement, private sector participation
and incentive compatible reward systems.
Community involvement and participation would instil a sense of ownership
non-governmental organisations can play
a pivotal role here. In fact, this provision

exists in some of the programmes but has

not been implemented. Specific incentives
for private sector participation, possibly in
the nature of tax breaks, would most certainly help motivate private players. Finally, introducing a set of incentive structures
which would reward performance (if not
penalise non-performance) would go a
long way in improving performance.
References
Business Standard (2009): Road Construction Works
under PMGSY Unsatisfactory: Minister, 17 July,
available at http://www.business-standard.com/
india/news/road-construction-works-under-pmgsy-unsatisfactory-minister/16/47/68078/on
(viewed on 13/03/10).
GOI (2009-10): Quarterly Report of Ministry of Rural
Development (2nd Quarter of 2009-10), available
on http://rural.nic.in/latest/BharatNirman_
QuartlyReport.pdf

Universities in Need of Reform

Attar Rabbani

A sad state of affairs is revealed

when one studies the situation
vis--vis higher education in
state universities. A decisive
shift in higher educational
policy towards reforming the
state universities is required,
particularly in the context of
the recent debates on the rise of
deemed-to-be-universities.

he last four years have seen a

number of new initiatives undertaken by the central government
towards reforming university education.
Two committees, the National Knowledge
Commission (NKC) and the Yashpal Committee have both made a number of significant recommendations towards improving university education. This period
has also seen a huge investment in higher
education. The Eleventh Plan allocation
towards higher education is a whopping
Rs 84,942.79 crore, a very high increase as
compared to the previous Plan. This commentary analyses the situation in higher
education in general and also the controversies vis--vis deemed universities.

Deemed Universities

Attar Rabbani (prince_rabbani@yahoo.com)

teaches political science at Ismail Yusuf
College, Mumbai.

24

What exactly is a deemed university? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be a bit

vague. According to Section 3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act,
19561 the central government may, on the
advice of the UGC, declare, by notification
in the official gazette, that any institution
for higher education, other than a university, shall be deemed to be a university for
the purposes of this Act. On such a declaration being made, all the provisions of

(2010): Economic Survey 2009-10, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

Government of Rajasthan (2005-06): Performance
Review, Audit Report (Civil), available on http://
www.agraj.cag.gov.in/agca/Chapter-3.pdf
Planning Commission (2007): Eleventh Five-Year Plan
(2007-2012), Volumes I, II and III, New Delhi.
(2009): Evaluation Report on Indira Awas
Yojana: Jammu and Kashmir, Programme Evaluation Organisation, available on http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/
peo_iay.pdf
Nichenametla, Prasad (2007): Indira Awas Yojana
Way Off Mark, Business Standard, 23 May, available on http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=285319
Ojah, Oineetom (2008): Rural Power Plan Fails to
Light Up Villages, Financial Express, 10 July,
available on http://www.financialexpress.com/
news/rural-power-plan-fails-to-light-up-villages/333624/
Society for Development Studies (2006): Evaluation
Study of Sub-Mission (Quality) Projects under Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programmes, Stage
I Evaluation Report, available on http://drd.nic.
in/monitor/Eval_study_SMP_ARWSP.pdf

this Act shall apply to such institution as if

it were a university within the meaning of
clause (f) of Section 2 which2 states that,
University means a University established
or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a
Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any
such institution as may, in consultation with
the University concerned, be recognised by
the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.

The Radhakrishnan Commission on

university education in its report (1948)
devoted a chapter on deemed universities.
It says,
During the earlier years of the nationalist
movement a number of institutions of higher education were established independent
of the government and its support, determined to work out their own destinies in the
spirit of free India. Though their difficulties
and discouragement were great and the
mortality among them high, a few of them
survived and have justified the heroic struggle they made.

The commission suggested that in order

to give these institutions university status
the government may consider adopting
the method of creating universities by
charter. As a consequence, a provision
was included in the UGC Act of 1956 that
the institutions which have unique and
distinct character of their own could enjoy
the privileges of a university without losing their distinct character and autonomy.
In the first 10 years after the enactment
of the UGC Act, eight institutions were notified as deemed universities. In the 1970s,
the UGC decided that notification under

April 24, 2010 vol xlv no 17 EPW Economic & Political Weekly