1

QUESTION NO. 1 : Critically discuss the challenges of democratic

decentralization in context of India

Decentralization can be defined as transfer or dispersal of decision making powers,

accompanied by delegation of required authority to individuals or units at all levels of
organization even if they are located far away from the power centre.

In the context of the present discussion, decentralization signifies the devolution of powers and
authority of governance of the Union Government and State Governments to the sub-state level
organizations i.e. Panchayats in India.

History and Evolution

History of decentralization in India is, as a matter of fact, the history of evolution of Panchayati
Raj System in the country.

During the period of British domination of India there was no particular urge for economic and
social development except only those activities necessary for safeguarding the rule. Naturally,
the issue of decentralization was not in the agenda of the rulers, though local government
institutions in the form of Union Boards, District Boards etc. were established as per law.

In the course of the freedom movement it became clear that after independence India’s
nationhood would evolve within a democratic political and institutional setting. Some leaders
believed that it should be a representative democracy much in the mould of western countries.
But Mahatma Gandhi’s development discourse hinged on a village based participatory
democracy embedded in his vision of the Panchayati Raj. Gandhi advocated for a democratic
polity that would have its foundation in thousands of self-governing village communities.
Gandhi felt that real development of India can take place only through its political system of
Gram Swaraj in which the State Government would only exercise such powers which are not
within the scope and competence of the lower tiers of participatory governance institutions.

Rural local governments, in the form of Panchayats, were included in the chapter on Directive
Principles of the State Policy (Article 40). It stated that the states shall take steps to organize
village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to
enable them to function as units of self-government.

Mechanics of workings of Panchayats and their significance in local governance received

serious boost with the setting up of the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (constituted to study the
 2

impact of CD Programme and National Extension Service) in 1957. The committee observed
that the country’s development cannot progress without the co-location of responsibility and
power at even the lower tiers of Government. Community development objectives can
materialize only when the Community understands its problems, realizes its responsibilities,
exercises necessary powers through chosen representatives and maintains a constant and
intelligent vigil on the local administration. The committee further observed that the character
of the development programmes should change from “Government’s programme with people’s
participation to people’s programme with Governments participation.”

Journey towards political and administrative decentralization started with the

recommendations of the Mehta Committee. All the states enacted Panchayat Acts and by 1960
Panchayats were established throughout India. But these steps could hardly change ground
realities as laws were weak and inexplicit. Local administrations resisted devolution of
functions and powers, regular elections to Panchayati institutions were not held.

The country experienced significant political changes during mid-1970s, with which the
process of resurrection and strengthening of Panchayati Raj System regained momentum.
Many State Governments delegated authorities and schematic funds to the Panchayats for
implementing various development programmes. But in the absence of appropriate statutes
defining the role, functions, duties, authorities and powers, the Panchayats were not successful
enough to ensure de facto involvement of people in development programmes. In most cases,
Panchayats came about to be nothing more than the State Government’s agency for
implementation of a few programmes, and delivery of a few services.

Under-performance with regard to poverty alleviation, development and even social assistance
programmes to reach and benefit target groups (i.e. the rural poor) disconcerted decision
makers both within and outside Government. Demands for suitable empowerment of
Panchayats in order to mould them into effective self-governments started to gain momentum.
It was argued that provisions of Article 40 were not enough to ensure development of village
Panchayats the way it was desired. Instead of leaving the issue entirely at their discretion, the
states had to be bound by some constitutional mandate.

This led to the 73rd amendment of the Constitution in 1992, given effect from April 24, 1993.
This land-mark amendment of the Constitution declared the Panchayats as units of self-
government, directed the states to devolve functions of 29 subjects directly related to social
and economic development of an area, made provisions for resource sharing between the
 3

Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Governments, regular elections to local bodies,
reservation of socially disadvantaged classes and women etc.

In order to make sure that the people can have a say in the process of local governance. The
institution of “Gram Sabha” was given high importance. Consultation with the Gram Sabha on
all important matters including planning and implementation of development programmes was
made a necessary requirement. The amendment, to a great extent, paved the way for
decentralization of governance and transforming village Panchayats as institutions of self-
government.

Effectiveness

It is widely recognized that effective decentralization is dependent on existence of the

following necessary conditions:

a) Strong political commitment from higher level authorities within the Government.

b) Autonomy of the local bodies in decision making and implementation of local schemes:
Since Panchayats implement state and union government schemes they are required to adhere
to the guidelines without any authority to deviate even a little as per necessities emanating from
local conditions. In the absence of Panchayats’ own financial resources they can hardly
undertake programmes on their own in line with local requirements. It is here that
decentralization of political decision making needs to be complimented by measures to ensure
fiscal autonomy for PRIs so that such institutions can muster necessary financial resources on
their own to be truly self-reliant in local decision-making and its implementation. It is however
true that under the govt. sponsored schemes the schemes and / or beneficiaries are selected by
the Panchayats in the Gram Sabha meetings. But often such meetings are captured by the
village elites and the capacity of common villagers to register their claims gets limited.

c) Availability of the internally generated resources at the local level: In the federal system
of governance that is existent in India, almost all the sources of tax or non- tax revenue come
under the jurisdictions of the State and Union Governments. This leaves little scope for local
governments to generate resources on their own. Their own revenue generation capacity
remains limited vis-a-vis their requirements and expenditure obligations. In view of this the
constitution mandated for setting up of the State Finance Commissions that would help
determine the devolution of state’s revenue to the local governments.
 4

Major Challenges :

1. The progress of decentralisation has been dwarfed by the numerous systemic challenges
and institutional bottlenecks. For instance, while majority of the States appear to have
met the necessary conditions, such as enactment of the State Panchayat Act; setting up
of the State Finance Commission and the State Election Commission, and constitution
of the District Planning Committee, a majority of them have not devolved funds and
functions to these bodies. While some States like Kerala and West Bengal have
devolved as many as 26 departments to Panchayats, several States have devolved only
few functions, even as low as 3 functions. Therefore, Article 243G of the Indian
Constitution, which requires the State governments to devolve distinct functional items
to Panchayats, remain a constitutional promise even this very day.
For instance, the recently concluded "Expert Committee on Leveraging Panchayat Raj
Institutions for more Efficient Delivery of Public Goods and Services" revealed that
except for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA) and the Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF), none of the over 150
centrally sponsored schemes had provided a role for the PRIs despite the Cabinet
Secretary’s explicit directions through a circular dated November 8, 2004 and the
guidelines of the Planning Commission.
2. Despite two decades of its initiation, there have been little efforts to strengthen the
functioning and delivery capacities of these institutions. Not only that very few States
have done anything on internalising the planning process (activity mapping) of
panchayats, several States have not paid any serious attention to building the capacities
of newly elected representatives, many of whom are first-timers and many belong to
the most marginalised sections. So, the lack of capacity has come hard on the credibility
of this very promising institution. No wonder, many elected representatives remain
totally dependent on officials to perform even rudimentary responsibilities, often
becoming subject of ridicule. This is more evident in the poorest and backward areas
wherein the elected representatives find it extremely difficult to perform well in
implementing rural development schemes. Ironically, such lack of capacity is being
used as a smart pretext by the political and bureaucratic leadership to not devolve many
functions to these bodies. This situation is more precarious in the case of PESA Act
(Fifth Scheduled Areas).
 5

3. There has been little progress in terms of bringing panchayats under the ambit of e-
governance. There is not an iota of doubt that leveraging of new age technologies (ICT)
can transform accountability, transparency and effectiveness of panchayats. However,
out of over 2.4 lakh panchayats in the country, only about 50,000 of them have
implanted e-Panchayat project. And ICT initiative for panchayats was set up as early as
2004. In short, the journey towards decentralisation remains slow, tardy and
unsatisfactory. Late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s memorable words "Maximum
democracy and maximum devolution" continues to remain elusive words even after two
decades of its arrival.
4. Accountability, both of officials to elected representatives and of elected local
governments to citizens, requires effective systems of accounting and auditing that
create trust in the information about how resources have been used. Elected
representatives, never mind ordinary citizens, are rarely in a position to check the details
of the use of resources. Yet accounting systems are often extremely weak in local
government and are open to all manner of disputes. Annual accounts are often finalized
long after the end of the financial year (if at all in some cases). Meanwhile, the central
governments rarely have the capacity to perform comprehensive external audits on all
local governments.
5. In view of the weaknesses of local democratic practices in many states, the central
government must continue to play a key role in ensuring that resources are properly
used – and corruption prevented – at the local level. This should not be a concern just
for the money transferred from the centre. Central governments have an over-riding
concern to ensure proper use of all public money, at whatever level that money was
collected or used. Indeed the distinction between “central government money” and
“local government money” is quite arbitrary: all public money is contributed by
taxpayers, and it is a matter of administrative convenience which level of government
collects which revenues.
6. Central governments have a raft of instruments that they can use to oversee the use of
money by local government: specifications about the use of transfers, conditions
attached to transfers, requirements for approval of plans, budgets and major projects,
appointment of staff and external audit, are all common approaches. Yet these all raise
issues about the nature of decentralization, and about what should be the balance
between central direction and local choice in a decentralized system. It clearly makes
little sense to decentralize if the centre then seeks to control in detail the use of
 6

resources locally. Indeed, such detailed control would be politically unacceptable in

most decentralized systems. Nevertheless, given the risks to public resources, a well-
defined and properly executed system of central oversight is required.
7. In practice, central supervision of local governments is weak (Fjeldstad, 2001). All too
often, central controls create more problems than they solve, including delays,
frustrations, additional costs and perverse behaviour. Central approval of budgets can
take many months, and in some cases is not given until after the end of the financial
year to which the budget relates (Lewa et al., 2004). This clearly undermines the whole
purpose of budgeting. Meanwhile, centrally appointed staff may become the focus of
local political discontent , seen as serving the interests of the centre rather than the local
government.
8. Challenging corruption in local government cannot rely solely on upward
accountability to the centre. It also requires building local accountability. Traditionally,
periodic elections are the mechanism for holding local decisionmakers accountable. But
elections are a crude mechanism for local accountability. In developing countries like
India , they are often dominated by personalities and by ethnic loyalties, with little
information about policy alternatives and little access to information about the real
performance of those in power.
9. Local priorities in all development programmes vary from region to region and it is,
therefore, necessary that the States and the Union Territories should have adequate
scope for evolving their own list of functional priorities.
10. Functions cannot remain static. Periodic adjustments would, therefore, have to be made
in the functions devolved upon Panchayati Raj Institutions to suit the changing
requirements. But this does not mean that decentralisation can be viewed as a political
charity or administrative concession. The functional agenda of Panchayati Raj
Institutions would be inescapably determined by the unfolding logic of "dynamics of
development"; in the interests of effective implementation State Governments would
have no choice but to decentralise adequate powers and functions and provide
proportionate financial resources at the relevant local levels.
11. The entrustment of development functions to Panchayati Raj Institutions remains
incomplete unless all the Panchayati Raj Institutions are vested with the authority to
take their own decisions and plan according to their own requirements.
12. Studies of decentralisation have consistently highlighted the fact that the 73rd
Amendment and earlier attempts at decentralisation have failed to prevent a local (and
 7

primarily landed) élite from controlling local Panchayats. Micro-level studies have
shown that Gram Sabha often fail to fulfil their role as deliberative bodies or as a
mechanism for accountability (Alsop et al., 2000; Deshpande and Murthy, 2002;
Nambiar, 2001). This is partly attributed to low levels of participation among the
electorate as well as the non-cooperation of local officials. Examples of the latter
include officials delaying or postponing Gram Sabha meetings, officials not attending
Gram Sabha, and, more generally, official decisions having no bearing on decisions
reached during the Gram Sabha (Crook and Manor, 1998: Chapter 2; Deshpande and
Murthy, 2002; Nambiar, 2001). Explanations for poor participation in the Gram Sabha
include (e.g. Alsop et al., 2000; Nambiar, 2001):
a. limited benefits of participation;
b. opportunity costs, particularly on the part of very poor groups;
c. fear of disrupting existing patron-client relations;
d. corruption;
e. agenda fixing;
f. factionalism;
g. fear of exclusion from community.

Four broad conditions under which local political bodies can be made more accountable to
poor and politically marginal groups in society. These are:

• active participation among broad elements of society, including voting, campaigning,

attending meetings, running for office, lobbying representatives, etc.;

• fiscal and political support from higher level authorities within government;

• the existence of competitive political parties whose legitimacy depends at least in part on
the support of the poor;

• deeper economic transformations which embolden traditionally subordinate groups to

challenge local authority structures.
 8

Conclusion

Decentralization provides new challenges in the fight against corruption. While there is a
common perception that decentralization increases corruption, the evidence is quite mixed.
The solution is not re-centralization but rather developing effective instruments to check
on the use of resources locally and to promote local accountability. In this, the lack of
capacity and systems at both central and local levels can be serious obstacles. The power
of local elite interests is another major obstacle. It is therefore important, in promoting
decentralization, to understand the nature of the power relationships and informal networks
of patronage at the local level that can undermine local accountability. It is also important
to design sufficiently robust systems of central monitoring and dissemination of
information that are capable of effective implementation in fragile situations.
 9

QUESTION NO 2 : History of Community Development Program in India

and reasons of its failure.

The Community Development Programme (CDP) was the first major rural development
programme launched after independence in 2nd October 1952. It constitutes the first organised
effort at rural reconstruction. The CDP was conceived as an instrument to transform the social
and economic life of the village community as a whole cutting across caste, religious and
economic differences.

Initially, it covered 55 projects with a wide range of programmes for developing agriculture,
animal husbandry, rural industries, education, housing, rural communication etc. It was,
however, soon realised that covering the entire country under CDP was not possible due to
shortage of funds and personnel.

Funds were also drawn from the central and state governments to meet the local expenditure
on the implementation of the CDP.

Aims and Objectives of CDP:

The main aims and objectives of CDP are as follows:

1. CDP intended to promote rural welfare through the improvement of education, public health
and sanitation, medical facilities, housing, drinking water, hospitals, community centres and
sports and cultural activities.

2. To secure total development of the material and human resources in rural areas.

3. To develop local leadership and self-governing institutions.

4. To raise the living standards of the rural poor by means of rapid increase in food and
agricultural produce.

5. To ensure a change in the mind set of people instilling in them a mission for higher standards.

6. It intended to create an interest among the rural people for better economic, social and
cultural life and make them satisfy their interest by self-help.

7. It also aimed at encouraging community thinking and collective action.

8. It intended to increase people’s participation in developmental programmes.

Overall CDP intended to improve the many-sided development of rural life.

 10

Basic Features of CDP: The CDP exhibits several basic features:

1. It is focused on the development of the rural people.

2. It is a process, not an event.

3. It is a dynamic unified problem solving approach.

4. It is an attempt to bring about a socio-economic transformation of village life through

people’s participation.

5. It develops self-reliance in the individual and initiative in the village community.

he CDP is instrumental in raising the standard of living of the rural people and in reconstructing
the rural India. The basic objectives of CDP in India are the development of people or
“Destination man”.

Prof. S.C. Dube has emphasized on two basic aims of CDP. They are:

(i) Achieving substantial agricultural production and considerable progress in the

sphere of communication, rural health.
(ii) Transforming the socio-economic life of the village through a process of integral
cultural change.

The objectives of the Community Development Programmes may be summed up under the
following heads:

1. Help in Planning: The Community Development Projects are aimed at helping the
villages in planning and developmental activities. Through these projects, schemes for
improving the agricultural production are undertaken.

2. Involving Villages in National Reconstruction: An important objective of Community

Development Project is to make village people self-dependent and encourage them to take
part in the activities of national reconstruction. This is done through the following methods:
i. Changing the traditional and conservative outlook of the village people.

ii. Organizing youth and women bodies to take part in the developmental and welfare
activities.

iii. Making arrangements for recreation of the village youth and women.
 11

3. Providing Educational Facilities in Villages: Through these projects, an attempt is being

made to provide educational facilities for the village people. This is done by the following
methods: i. Arranging centres of social education. ii. Arranging recreational programmes. iii.
Training village people in the activities of planning and development.

4. Improving the Standard of Living of Villagers: The main objective of Community

Development Programmes is to improve the standard of liv-ing of the village people. They
have been provided with various employment facilities and opportunities to set up industries
and the training to improve their agricultural production. Cooperative societies and other such
bod-ies have been set up for them to undertake various activities of development planning.

5. Political Training: Through the Community Development Projects, village people are also
given training in administrative activities. Through the work-ing of Community Development
Projects, people are trained in the practi-cal working of democracy. The village people are
trained in the area of civic affairs.

6. Other Objectives of Community Development: The above mentioned objectives are the
general objectives of the community development. There are also specific objectives intended
basically at ‘all-round Development of the Rural Society’. The specific objectives of the plan
may be categorized under the fol-lowing heads: i. Agriculture and improvement of agricultural
production ii. Setting up of cooperative societies in each village iii. Animal husbandry iv.
Public health v. Rural education vi. Improving the means of communication and transport in
rural areas vii. Setting up village level small-scale cottage industries viii. Organizing and
strengthening the village panchayats.

Scope:

Needless to say that the Community Development Programme is a universal phenomenon

practised both in developed and developing countries. But, the programme assumes vital
significance in developing countries because of their low-level of development in various
segments of social life.

Owing to its wider applicability in multifaceted fields of operation, it is not practically feasible
to evolve a theoretical framework of the scope of Community Development Programme.
However, for the sake of convenience, the field of Community Development Programme can
broadly be divided into the following items.
 12

1. Agricultural and allied fields: Under this category activities regarding following items are
included, (a) reutilisation of virgin and waste lands, (b) repairing of old wells, digging new
wells and provision of major/minor irrigation facilities, (c) adoption of qualitative high-
yielding seeds, manures, fertilizers, use of tractors etc., (d) provision of credit facilities for the
development of animal husbandry, poultry farming, fishery, soil conservation etc. and (e)
growth of vegetables and plants etc.

2. Organisation: Organisation of ‘co-operative service societies’, multi-purpose cooperative

societies, ‘marketing co-operatives’ and other types of people’s institutions.

3. Education: Attaching importance to primary education, adult education and social education
with the aim of expanding the mental horizon of the ruralites.

4. Employment: For solving the problem of rural unemployment, attempts have been made
for the setting up of small scale and cottage industries.

5. Health Services: Provision for mobile, permanent dispensaries, arrangements for maternal
care, medical aid during pregnancy, midwife service, child care etc.

6. Communication: Repair of old roads, construction of new roads and arrangement for
transportation and communication facilities.

7. Vocational training: Imparting vocational training in the field of tailoring, embroidery,

carpentry etc.

8. Supply of drinking water: Attempting to provide safe drinking water by repairing old wells
or constructing new ones.

9. Social welfare: Social welfare activities include rehabilitation of old, disabled and destitute,
provision for better housing, organisation of sports, promotion of cultural activities etc.

Underlying Philosophy and Principles of Community:

Development Projects: Community Development Project is a new experiment in the

development and planning activities of the world. Such projects have been specially launched
only in Asian Countries. It is an experiment intended at fulfilling the various need of the village
society and also making it self-dependent. It is a part of the Indian Constitution aimed at
estab-lishing a socialist society in this country.

The Community Development Programmes are based on the following principles:

 13

1. Drawing programmes for fulfilling various needs of the community.

2. Involving the people in planning and developmental activities.

3. Bringing about material as well as psychological betterment.

4. Teaching rural people the political set up in democracy.

5. Creating the local leadership.

6. Drawing up of national policy for the development of the country.

7. Setting up of cooperative societies for carrying developmental works.

8. Development based on socialism.

These Community Development Projects are based on the decentralization of economy,

administration and political power. They are the means of training the people in the art of ‘self-
administration’. These programmes employ all the resources for the development of nation.
They focus their attention at training people to become self-dependent and self-reliant. These
programmes are basically aimed at changing the face of rural society.

Features of Community Development Programme:

This project in India is an integrated programme for rural development, which has the following
features:

1. The basic characteristic feature of community development is self-dependence. It means that

through this programme people are trained to become self-reliant economically.

2. To bring about a change in the administration is another important feature of community

development.

3. The most important feature of this programme is the involvement of the people in the system.

4. All-round development of blocks is another important feature of community development.

Community Development Projects and their Implementation:

As already stated, these programmes are socio-economic programmes undertaken for the
reconstruction of rural society, implementation is aimed at the involvement and par-ticipation
of rural people, which is carried out by the institutions of local self-government and local
administration.
 14

Institutions for Implementation of Programmes: The programmes of community

development are carried out by the following three basic institutions at the village level: 1.
Village Panchayat 2. Cooperative Societies

3. Village School : In rural development and programmes of community development, the

village school and the village teacher play a very vital role. The village teacher is the centre of
activity and encourages people and involves them in the programme of village develop-ment
and reconstruction.

4. Community Centres: In villages, there are various community centres that look after the
various aspects of life of village people.

Criticisms:

Critics point out that the Community Development Programme has not yielded desirable
results. It is worth mentioning in this connection that for a vast country like India with as many
as 5,50,000 villages, a hoary history and diversities pertaining to races, languages, religions
and cultures, a period of little more than five decades is insufficient to bring about any
substantial changes. Ensminger, a noted sociologist, has rightly cautioned critics to exercise
patience before pronouncing any judgement regarding the success of the community
development programme.

Another difficulty of evaluation of the programme is that it is extremely difficult to establish a

cause-effect relation because the village communities of India are exposed to multifarious
forces of social change. Since the multifarious forces are operating in unison, it becomes an
uphill task to know the role of each force in bringing about social changes in the villages. Under
these circumstances, the evaluation reports are to be considered with a certain amount of care
and caution.

The strategy of community development programme is essentially global, aiming at a uniform

pattern of staffing and planning all over the country. No attempt has been made to relate the
block development plans to local problems and needs. The spatial aspect of the rural
development plan has largely been ignored.

Political observers envisage that democracy as a system of governance in India has failed
miserably. Caste system prevailing in India has made a mockery of democracy. Traditionally
dominant castes have seized the reins of power and manipulate the administrative machinery
to their advantage. They enjoy all powers and privileges whereas the lower caste people are
 15

still saddled with galling responsibilities and enjoy little privilege. The schism among castes
grows wider day by day and the lower castes still reel under the exploitative pressure of the
higher castes. In such a context community development programme fails to achieve the
desired consequence.

The next serious stumbling block in the way of community development is the bureaucratic
temper. Bureaucracy in India is proverbially negative in attitude and impervious to any
innovation. Imprisoned in red tape they render all Endeavour’s of community development
ineffective through inordinate delay. Instead of trying to win the goodwill, confidence and
cooperation of the people, the bureaucrats have incurred the displeasure and distrust of the
beneficiaries. This unfortunate attitude of the bureaucrats has come under severe criticism.
Observers like Dube, Lewis and others have warned the planners against such adverse
situations. Even Nehru once severely chastised the development workers to shed this
despicable superiority complex which he cynically called the ‘jeep mentality.’

Leadership studies in the village communities of India show that although there is increased
representation of youths on the Panchayats and cooperative committees, they function only as
the henchmen of their elders. Important and vital decisions are taken by the elders. The office
holding youngsters are required to implement the decisions in their statutory capacity.

The officers in charge of the Community Development Programme claim that the programme
has succeeded in narrowing the gulf existing between the rich and the poor in the villages. But
such a claim does not seem to have any logical foundation.

In practice, the programmes are so implemented that the lion’s share is monopolised by the
rich, leaving the bulk of the poor masses to fend for themselves. Indeed, writers like Dube have
pointed out that in the name of shiamdana and other voluntary services, the poor people of the
village air exploited and made to offer voluntary service to the rich groups in the village.

The success of the Community Development Programme depends, for the most part, on the
emancipation of the rural women. But the emancipation of the rural women is possible only
through the active cooperation and support of a large number of trained female workers. But at
present they exist in very small number.

The failure of the Community Development Programme is attributed to the lack of harmony
among various departments of the government. Furthermore, there is lack of coordination
between the bureaucrats and the ruralites.
 16

General apathy on the part of a sizeable number of ruralites also stands in the way of the CDP.
In the absence of the proper and active cooperation of the public, the programme has failed to
take the shape of a genuine public movement.

Community development –whether be of villages or urban slums- most of them have failed
because of lack of commitment of those responsible for the implementation and monitoring of
these programmes. Paper is substituted for action. Conferences are substituted for work.
Perquisites are substituted for truly earned rewards — and there are no penalties for corruption,
laziness and divisive rabble-rousing. Adept at diplomacy and wordplay, the people in charge
obscure the real concerns behind a fog of jargon and euphemism

Suggestions:

A number of suggestions have been made for the successful working of the Community
Development Programme. They are as follows:

1. Greater stress is called for increasing agricultural production both quantitatively and
qualitatively in order to meet the needs of the country’s fast multiplying rural population.

2. The Community Development Projects should lay utmost stress upon the solution of
problems peculiar to the locality.

3. Only those officials having expertise in rural psychology should be appointed.

4. Both male and female workers should be selected or appointed from among the villagers
themselves. They should undergo extensive training in social work. Efforts should be made to
motivate them to work in the villages with missionary zeal and a spirit of service.

5. Efforts should be made to impress upon the ruralites that the Community Development
Programme is not oriented to any specific group rather it is for the entire village. Community
development work should be so arranged that cooperation of all castes, classes and parties
becomes available.

6. Efforts should be made to involve reputed voluntary agencies in Community Development

Projects. A harmonious nexus between governmental agencies and non- governmental
agencies will go a long way in making the programme a signal success.

7. The development of the village community should come substantially and essentially from
the people themselves, the government being only a guide and source of the wherewithal which
the people themselves cannot provide.
 17

8. Balwant Rai Committee has suggested that village Panchayats and Panchayat samitis should
function as the veritable instruments for making the programme a success.

In fine, the Community Development has started a new fire in the country side, a fire that is
burning the sloth and filth that we have inherited over centuries, and purifies us for a pilgrimage
to our new destination. One only hopes that this fire will be kept burning and that neither lack
of people’s enthusiasm nor lack of finance will prevent us from reaching that destination in the
shortest possible time.
 18

REFERENCES :

1. http://www.arthapedia.in/index.php?title=Decentralization_and_Rural_Governments_in_I
ndia . Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 ,12.00PM
2. https://www.academia.edu/12084759/challenges_of_democratic_decentralisation_and
_rural_development_in_North_East . Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 ,12.16PM
3. https://www.orfonline.org/research/even-after-20-years-decentralisation-still-
remains-a-challenge/ . Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 ,12.18PM
4. https://www.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/decentralisation_india_challenges_opp
ortunities.pdf Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 ,12.29PM
5. http://www.accountabilityindia.in/sites/default/files/document-
library/38_1235911166.pdf . Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 ,12.33PM
6. https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/decentralisation-challenge-in-
india-118071601347_1.html. Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 , 1.08PM
7. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-
files/2440.pdf . Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 , 1.25PM
8. http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/community-development-programmes-in-
india-objectives-features-and-other-details/35008 . Access Date and Time :
10.09.2019 , 2.18PM
9. http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/community-development-
programme/community-development-programme-cdp-in-india/66683 . Access Date
and Time : 10.09.2019 , 2.25PM
10. https://www.thebetterindia.com/topics/community-development/ . Access Date and
Time : 10.09.2019 , 2.28PM
11. http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/the-community-development-programme-
of-india-2405-words/4866. . Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 , 2.33PM
12. https://www.countercurrents.org/qazi170915.htm .
Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 , 2.48PM
13. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ138995 . Access Date and Time : 10.09.2019 , 2.46PM