IN the first three quarters of the 20th century, states all over the globe accorded top priority to industrialization and economic development. But in the process, the agricultural sector was deprived of public investment required for sustaining it. This created a disparity in the standard of living between the citizens in the urban areas and those living in rural areas.
The commitment of the states to industrialization and the governance system under it helped promote social and class inequalities including a rural and urban divide.
Saarc countries were no exception. The divide that emerged in that group was of two types: first, there was an ‘income disparity— lack of sufficient income to meet minimum consumption needs. Second, there was ‘human capability gap’ which implies a disparity in access to education, health facilities, potable water, sanitation, nutrition etc.
The ‘income disparity’ in Saarc countries are highlighted in the table 1.
It is evident from the table that the percentage of population living below national poverty line is much higher in rural areas than the urban areas with the gap particularly striking in case of Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
As far as ‘human capability’ is concerned, the disaggregated data on rural and urban basis is highly dispersed. However, on the basis of various sources, a table has been computed and is reproduced in table 2.
The available indicators show a wide disparity in human development indicators between urban and rural areas in all the Saarc countries especially in India and Pakistan.
With a view to bridging the income and human capability gap between the urban and rural population, several programmes were initiated in Saarc countries. These included the community development programme (CDP), integrated rural development programme (IRDP) and infrastructure development programme (IDP) which were undertaken in the Saarc region during the later half of the last century.
The CDP in India aimed at increasing education, health, housing, cottage industry in rural areas along with agricultural development. However, its main focus remained on agricultural development with the social development projects receiving little or no attention.
In Bangladesh and Pakistan, the village AID programme faltered as a result of a rivalry between two local administration and provincial line departments.
The IRDP initiated with the involvement of the communities mainly concentrated on improving of efficiency in agriculture of large and middle level farmers and paid little or no attention to landless and marginal farmers. The IDP—– minimum needs programmes— in India and rural works programme in Pakistan -– run by bureaucracy concentrated on physical provisioning of infrastructure without organizing machinery for proper utilization of physical assets through active participation of communities.
The programme met the same fate as other programmes it was implemented without involvement of communities in conceptualization, implementation and management of the schemes.
With a paradigm shift towards decentralization as an instrument for development, the SAARC countries, as many countries on the globe, have taken bold steps to empower the people at grass roots level. In 1992, India took a major step to strengthen local governments by conferring constitutional status to rural local governments (panchayats) and municipalities, by enacting 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments.
These amendments laid down constitution and composition of panchayats and municipalities, functional and fiscal powers of local governments and the institutional arrangements for economic and social development.
Similarly, Pakistan formulated its Devolution Plan and through the promulgation of Local Government Ordinance, 2001 created and conferred administrative and fiscal powers on local governments for enabling them perform transferred functions of local governments. In Bangladesh, a systematic decentralization has taken place at community level for undertaking development in key areas such as irrigation, drinking water and sanitation, rural infra-structure and income generation activities.
Provisioning of micro credit through Grameen Bank ensures smooth implementation of these community - based development initiatives. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives have also moved towards decentralization and are gradually involving communities and civil society organizations for undertaking development.
Undoubtedly, decentralization is helping the Saarc countries to bridge the gap between the rural and urban population and between one region and the other. There are many success stories, some of which need a special mention. The decentralization of immunization programme for children in Bangladesh, down to village level helped increase immunization from two per cent in 1984 to 80 per cent in 1990.
Decentralization of primary education to ‘Panchayats’ in Madhya Perdesh and Rajistan – two of India’s poorest states-helped raise literacy rate from 44 in Madhya Pardesh and 39 in Rajistan in 1991 to 64 and 61 per cent respectively in 2001. In Sri Lanka, Suiharaja World Hertiage Sites – a protected forest area could be saved by involving local communities with NGOs and local government officials in monitoring of harvesting of timber species, eco-tourism and institutional mapping.
The decentralized participatory model of governance in SAARC countries is in its infancy. It requires careful tending for achieving the goal of bringing the standard of living of rural population at par with that of urban population and for removing the divide between one region and the other. And this tending can only be done by strengthening local institutions so as to attain human-centred social growth.
