By D K Areng
India lives in villages. Rural people who account for about three-fourths of the total population have for long lagged much behind the overall progress of the economy. In rural India while majority of the people work in the farm sector and in the activities allied to agriculture such as forestry, horticulture, dairy farming, fishing, pig farming, quite a significant number are engaged in village trade, traditional crafts and household industries. People living in the rural areas are up against three problems of great magnitude. These are: backwardness of rural economy, massive poverty and widespread unemployment and under-employment. All the policies and programmes have failed to do justice and as a result these problems continue to persist. Meghalaya is no exception.
For a predominantly agricultural state like Meghalaya, development of industries and small enterprises is a must. Although steps have been taken to develop industries, but honest assessment will show that it has not given the desired results. It is now an established fact that material riches and industries go together. The Industrially advanced countries amply demonstrate this, and the countries which lack industries, people live in poverty.
To breach the gap between rural and urban development the state government has taken up schemes like, “Integrated Basin Development & Livelihood Programme”. This is not exactly a new programme. All the activities were there with the respective departments but these programmes were not implemented judiciously because funds were not available and there was absence of co-ordination. However, out crafty Chief Minister, to ensure sufficient funds flow launched the “IBDLP” as a new inclusive state project. His game plan worked and the centre placed sufficient funds under this head.
An honest introspection of IBDLP will show that little or nothing has been achieved since its inception. Though the intention of the Chief Minister is good, but implementation is weak or incorrect. Prior to implementation of a specific scheme, departments were not asked to go into whether the scheme/s are economically viable and technically feasible and whether the particular scheme will benefit the masses and will revenue be generated thereafter. Second, no scheme is being evaluated as to whether it is having any impact at the state level. District Officers are doing their part because they were asked to do the job. So they only followed instructions.
T Petrin,of the FAO says “Entrepreneurial orientation to rural development, contrary to development based on bringing human capital and investment from outside, is based on stimulating local entrepreneurial talent and subsequent growth of indigenous companies. This in turn would create jobs and add economic value to a region and community and at the same time keeps scarce resources within the community. To accelerate economic development in rural areas, it is necessary to increase the supply of entrepreneurs, thus building up the critical mass of first generation entrepreneurs.
Former Prime Minister Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee once said, “The present system of pumping funds and external expertise into under- developed areas is not going to transform them into fast growing areas. If this holds good then by now India would have been among the list of developed nations. Without entrepreneurial capabilities, which are well developed or potentially available, the external funds will be wasted on projects that will not provide long term economic growth.
There is a saying, “America was discovered by entrepreneurs, nourished by entrepreneurs, and the United States becomes a world economic power through entrepreneurial activities. More important, our future rests squarely on entrepreneurial ventures founded by creative individuals. They are inspired people often adventurers, who can at once disrupt a society and instigate progress”.
Therefore, Supply of entrepreneurs is a crucial factor for the economic development of Meghalaya. This will harness vast untapped human resources in a state like ours. Most of the developing countries recognize that small and medium enterprises continue to play an important role in their socio-economic development. Concept of entrepreneurship has come up new, afresh; this has already aroused much interest among academicians and policy makers and spreads almost the world over including communist country.
The word entrepreneur is derived from 17th century French word “ENTREPRENDRE”, which means undertaker, meaning those who undertook the risk of new venture. An entrepreneur is basically a change agent who transforms resources into useful goods and services, often creating the circumstances that lead to economic growth. Entrepreneur is also a social activist generating employment avenue for the unemployed youth of the society. He is also a good dreamer who is ready to take calculated risk in the face of uncertainty to translate his dream into reality.
Entrepreneurs tend to be “strategic thinkers “who recognize change and see opportunities where others do not. By creating new ventures based on these strategic changes, entrepreneurs make a contribution and create wealth for their personal satisfaction.
In practice, entrepreneurs have historically altered the direction of national economics, industries or market. They have invented new products, developed the organizations and means of production to bring them to market
At this stage government’s endeavor should be to generate first generation entrepreneurs, give them hand holding if necessary. This is not going to be an easy job especially in a state where we do not have any institution of repute which can impart Entrepreneurship Development Programme. The state badly needs an institute of the likes of NESBUD Noida, IED Gandhinagar, IIE Guwahati, NIRD Hyderabad etc run by people of experience and repute.
Imparting Entrepreneurship Development Programme may be managed by hiring professionals in the field, but this has to be equally backed by other factors. Simple training would not give any dividend to the trainees or the state unless the followings are taken care of.
Access to Finance: Rural artisans and entrepreneurs almost invariably suffer from inability to access finance. Their poverty and indebtedness are only too well known. They don’t get adequate and cheap credit facilities. The financial institutions in general do not advance any loans to the entrepreneurs or artisans; cooperative societies are limited. Low credit to the artisans does not enable him to produce sufficient goods to make it economically viable. Thus the traditional artisans/entrepreneurs are forced to look towards middlemen or moneylenders.
Marketing: Another serious problem faced by rural entrepreneurs and artisans is in the field of marketing. Rural industries do not have a proper market to sell their products at a remunerative price and neither can they compete with mechanized industries that have an advantage over quality and price.
Difficulties in securing raw materials: Then there is the problem of getting raw materials. Cottage industries are unable to get raw materials at a competitive price. The supply of the raw materials is irregular and not up to the desired quality. This gives rise to the production cost and qualitative disadvantage.
Outdated machine tools and equipments: Rural artisans till today use primitive tools and implements. Little attention has been given to produce and supply suitable tools and equipments at a reasonable rate so as to raise their production and quality of produce.
Lack of technical advancement: Entrepreneur or rural artisans being illiterate and poor cannot afford to use advanced techniques in the specific fields of their activity. This has resulted in low production, uneven quality. As a result they do not get the remunerative prices for their produce.
In conclusion we need to create an environment for enterprises and bring change of attitude and mindset of the people towards entrepreneurship. If the government really desires results it should take note of the above- mentioned factors to achieve visible results. Nevertheless, it is not going to be an easy task for the Government since financial institutions are not within its control and nor do we have a State Financial Corporation. For a certain period, Meghalaya Industries Development Corporation was playing the role of SFC, however, due to absence of trained personnel and other factors, most of the advances turned into NPAs and so far no action has been initiated against willful defaulters.
To achieve the desired goal, government should identify EDP training institute (till state has its own institute), develop our own State Financial Corporation (MIDC may be over hauled with the help of Banking experts and entrusted as SFC, however, there should not be any political interference while sanctioning loans), create market linkages, up- date technology especially for the rural sector, identify tools and equipments in close coordination with the empanelled machine suppliers (by the central government). Once this is done, it will not only change the economic scenario of the state but will also reduce unemployment. Mere pumping in money in the name of development is not going to work. Therefore, if government wants to see a change in the economy, social life, unemployment scenario etc., then it has to give a sincere thought and revisit its plan and policies for visible results.