By Sumarbin Umdor
The recent admission of Chairman of the Meghalaya State Planning Board that it has no real powers and effective mandate and is more of a rehabilitation centre of politicians, comes as no surprise as it is a fact that is well known to the people of the state. While the Chairman has called for more powers to the Board for effective functioning, nothing has been said about the need for decentralisation of planning in the state to allow for participation of the people at the grassroots level in the planning process.
Since the beginning of planned economic development in the early 1950s, several measures have been initiated and recommendations made towards increasing people’s participation in identifying and implementing development programmes. A major impetus to involve people in development planning in the country was achieved by the passing of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (CAAs). The Acts paved the way for establishment of local self governments at the rural and urban areas devolved with powers and functions to plan development programmes for the social and economic upliftment of the local population. The plans formulated by the local bodies are to be consolidated into a district plan by the District Planning Committee (DPC). As a step towards implementing the new decentralised planning model throughout the country, the Planning Commission had provided state governments with guidelines for formulation of district plans by the DPC and incorporating these in the state annual plans from financial year 2007-08 and also for preparing the Eleventh Five Year Plan (FYP) proposal. Meghalaya has been exempted from constitution of DPC as the state falls under the Sixth Schedule.
The present economic planning structure in Meghalaya comprises of the Planning Board at the apex level with the District Planning and Development Council (DPDC) at the district level. In 2004, another level of planning organisation was added through the constitution of the two Regional Planning and Development Councils (RPDCs). The RPDCs have been created to function as additional layer of planning unit between the Planning Board and DPDCs. One RPDC was constituted for areas covered by East and West Khasi Hills, Ri Bhoi District and Jaintia Hills District and another for the areas under East, West and South Garo Hills districts. However, it is not clear whether the two RPDCs have been constituted. The State Planning Board was constituted in 1972 as an advisory body. The Board is headed by a chairman. Its main functions are to advise the government regarding the formulation of the annual plans and Five Year Plans, monitoring and review of development plans and conduct special studies. Originally the Board was constituted with one Chairman, one Deputy Chairman, five Members and one Member Adviser. Since then the Board has been reconstituted many times and in recent years the number of members have been increased to accommodate political appointees. The main functions of the District Planning and Development Councils are drawing of plans based on the need and potential of the district and within the objectives of the state and national plan, co-ordination and monitoring of district plans projects and programmes, undertaking of special studies and providing advice to the state government on development issues. The DPDCs is headed by the Chairman who is a Cabinet rank minister from the district. The Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district is also the Vice Chairman of the Council. The other members consist of all the MLAs of the district, the Chief Executive Member or representative of the Autonomous District Council of the district, Additional Deputy Commissioner/District Planning Officer who is the member Secretary.
A comparison of the role of the DPDCs in Meghalaya and the DPC elsewhere in the country clearly shows the absence of any mechanism in the present planning structure of the state for community participation in formulation of development plans. Under the 73rd and 74th CAAs, the preparation of development plans is a key functional obligation devolved on the panchayats and municipalities. Article 243ZD has explicitly laid down the role of DPC in formulating the district plans by consolidating the plans of the panchayats and municipalities which is then forwarded to the state government. The planning role of the panchayats and municipalities at different tiers is clearly laid down in Articles 243G and 243W which provide for devolution of powers and responsibilities to these local bodies with respect to (i) preparation of plan for economic development and social justice, and (ii) implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice in relation to 29 subjects given in the Eleventh Schedule in case of panchayats and 18 subjects for municipalities as listed in the Twelfth Schedule.
While DPCs are required to formulate the district plans by consolidating the plans of the panchayats and municipality bodies, in contrast the formulation of district plan by DPDCs in Meghalaya is based on departmental proposals submitted by the departments in the district with no framework for dovetailing or consolidating of plans from villages/ village clusters. The plans prepared by DPDCs are mere compilation of the departmental proposal prepared by district government offices. These proposals are placed at the meeting of the DPDCs for approval and forwarded to the planning department of the government. Apart from the MLAs, there are no non-government representatives such as those from the farmers, co-operatives, non-government development organisations, entrepreneurs, women groups, academicians, and representatives of the village councils. There is also no system for undertaking of planning below the district level (ie, at block, village cluster or village levels). Similarly, the state plans are formulated by the planning department from the sectoral proposal of government departments. Thus, the planning structure that exists in Meghalaya does not support community participation in formulation of development plans at the district nor at the state level. The preparation of FYPs and Annual Plan in Meghalaya is therefore an exercise limited to government officials. There is no consultation or discussion on objectives or proposals under the plans and no information is available to outsiders as to what is contemplated or proposed.
Furthermore, a review of the aims and objectives of the state FYPs formulated shows a lack of clarity and consistency in identification of plan priorities. For instance, the development of horticulture in the state is identified as a priority sector in the Ninth and Eleventh FYPs. However, this sector does not figure as a priority sector in the Tenth FYP. Similarly, while the Tenth FYP identifies animal husbandry including dairying and poultry as priority sectors having potential for generating livelihoods in the state, in the Eleventh FYP these sectors are replaced by sericulture and weaving. The Eleventh FYP of the state mentions about the decentralisation of planning and involvement of the people in the development process as one of the priorities of the Plan. However, no concrete measures have been initiated towards achieving this stated aim. It seems that this objective has been included only to conform to national plan.
The observation made by the then deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Dr. D. R. Gadgil in 1966 on the status of the state level planning in the country, best sums up the present state of development planning in Meghalaya. In his address, Dr. Gadgil had remarked that state planning in India is centralised and highly officialised. The state plan is prepared by piecing together departmental proposals formulated by respective government departments. There is no consultation or discussion of general or specific objectives or proposals and no information is available outside as to what is contemplated or proposed.
Hopefully, the Chairman of the Planning Board while pursuing the matter of strengthening of the Board would also take up the cause of decentralisation of planning in the state. This is help in the prioritisation of issues and requirements at the micro level and mainstreaming important requirements at the macro level. A truly decentralised planning exercise also makes its subsequent implementation process much linear, thereby reducing frictions and conflicts.
( The writer is teaching in Department of Economics, NEHU)