Once upon a time, not so long ago, public facilities in the poorest districts of India were few and far between. Most people were left to their own devices and they lived in the shadow of hunger, insecurity and exploitation, with no public support in their hour of need. Many villages had no school, no health centre, no ration shop, no approach road, no post office, no telephone, no electricity, and perhaps even no convenient source of drinking water. Where an anganwadi (government sponsored mother and child-care centre) existed at all, it was often closed. There were no public works around and no pensions for widows or the elderly.
Today, the situation, although not to be claimed as a sea-change, is surely different from what is used to be two decades back. The seeds sown have taken an excruciating period to grow and bloom. The barren land of before is now dotted with patches of green.
Public utilities and facilities have expanded on the lines of people’s expectations. Demand for social goods and infrastructure has grown signaling a positive expectation from the government. Rural development in India has witnessed several changes over the years in its emphasis, approaches, strategies and programs. It has assumed a new dimension and perspectives as a consequence. The Government's policy and programs have laid emphasis on poverty alleviation, generation of employment and income opportunities and provision of infrastructure and basic facilities to meet the needs of rural poor.
Over the years it has been found that the record of implementation of the rural development programs varied in different states, including the worst kind of horrifying stories of corruption. But then, it has also been observed how NREGA has changed the lives in many districts-districts that were once infamous for starvation deaths. More than a decade into the implementation of the flagship program of UPA-I, the time has come to review the success or failure of NREGA in transforming the rural landscape of India. The difficulty lies in the answer to it. Like with every public debate in India, we don’t have a consensus on a straight forward ‘yes’ or ‘no’. While field studies have shown children flocking to schools, cheerfully enjoying their new found freedom, there are other instances where programs have failed to deliver.
Some states, like Tamil Nadu, have a good record of efficient and equitable public services across the board. Others, like Uttar Pradesh, are incorrigible offenders. Behind this variety, however, there is an important pattern: states reap as they sow, in the sense that serious efforts to make things work often produce results. Even states with an embarrassing reputation for corruption and lack of governance, like Orissa or Chhattisgarh for that matter - have shown that change is possible. Recent experience also shows that it is mainly through democratic struggle that advances have been made.
What is important is then not the outcome expected and achieved, rather the change that has infected the system, the state and the polity. There might be differences in the pace of progress, but we’ve come a long way from hearing about frequent droughts, starvation, villages held in the warp of time to villages with cellular network and electricity.
The road is rough and dusty as one drives from the city to the hinterland. Intermittent impediments are likely but the journey is picturesque. So it is with change, it will come at its own pace; the real beauty lays in the way it occurs, how development occurs. The process of development justifies the end-a dignified human life. It should ensure that an individual has entitlements and posses capabilities to function. That is the ultimate objective of development process.
