The history of approaches to Rural Development in India

The attempt to define rural areas, according to Whitaker (1982), dates back to 1874 when US bureau of census defined it as indicating the population of a county exclusive of any cities or towns with 8,000 or more inhabitants. And since then, there have been many attempts at defining what rural means, but if one observes the trend of definitions followed, one would clearly see that rural has always been defined in relation with the urban. Even for the latest census of India, the rural area has been defined as “All areas which are not categorized as urban area are considered as Rural Area.” We can infer therefore that rural is characterized by less than 5,000 population with a population density less than 400, and more than 25% of the male population engaged in agricultural activities. It is a separate task to discuss the languages used for our census where rural is yet defined in relative terms as it has no separate existence and is still characterized by only male population’s occupation. I’ll focus here on the dimensions of and approaches to rural development.

To understand the dimensions of and approaches to rural development, we must understand what rural development is. According to the world bank, rural development is ‘a strategy to improve the economic and social life of a specific group of people, the rural poor including small and marginal farmers, tenants and the landless’. Prof Caiden of US-China institute, with research and interest in comparative and development administration, argues that no one now clearly understands what development is. By understanding rural development now we are led to its various dimensions, i.e. economic, political and social. Let me take these, one by one.

The economic dimension of rural development is the capacity and opportunities for people of rural areas to participate in and benefit from the growth process. It includes measures to reduce income disparities among various sectors. Next is social dimensions which encompass overall social development. This includes the development of specific groups, including poor and marginalised communities and disadvantaged sections of society, to reduce the gap on social indicators. It also includes the promotion of gender equality and provisions for social safety nets for vulnerable groups. Political dimensions include provisions for low-income groups, women and ethnic minorities to participate in the decision-making process. With humanitarian approaches penetrating the academic discourses, we can also include the most important and encompassing dimension of rural development, i.e. the human dimension. It focuses on humanitarian principles and values, thus keeping people in the centre.

With definitions of rural and rural development clear and concepts of its dimensions known, let’s see how various approaches to the rural development came into effect in India.

Multi-purpose approach: In India, rural development started with this approach. The community development program brought in with the first five-year plan in 1952 was aimed at developing material and human resource of an area through co-operative efforts of people and the state. The areas covered under community development program included agriculture, animal husbandry, irrigation, cooperation, village and small-scale industries, health and sanitation, education, communication and housing etc.

But this approach failed to bring any observable change in the lives of the people. It was felt that this happened because resources were limited and there was no focus for development.

Sectoral approach: As the previous approach failed, it was decided to focus on a few sectors of importance at that time. By 1960s the main focus was on agriculture. But this approach failed to visualise the linkages of all sectors. The interwoven structure of the rural sectors is such that if any of them is completely ignored, the other can’t be developed in isolation.

Target approach: With several sectors lagging behind severely, rural development was reconceptualised. It was decided that specific groups of people will be targeted under this approach. The target was small and marginal farmers and landless agricultural labourers for whom small farmers development agency (SFDA) and marginal farmers and agricultural labourers development agency (MAFALDA) were established in 1971-72. The SFDA was later merged with Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP). This approach saw little success in terms of better information and administration.

Area development approach: This approach emphasised upon the need to focus on specific backward regions. This was adopted almost along with the target approach. It started in 1970s with the Area Development Programme (TADP, 1972), Hill Area Development Programme (HADP, 1974-75), Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP, 1970), Desert Development Programme (DDP, 1977-78), and Command Area Development Programme (CADP, 1975). These programmes were fairly successful in terms of implementation.

The major drawback of this approach was the potential dangers of disproportionate allocation of resources where a very small number of people are targeted ignoring the overall size of the country.

Integrated approach: As area development approach seemed to fail to address the inequalities in terms of employment opportunities, incomes and assets, several programs were launched under an integrated approach. These included Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP), which was an amalgam of several previous programs, and other programs such as Training Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM), Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA) and Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY). This approach succeeded to some extent in eliminating poverty and uplifting the level of education and training. The major criticism of this approach can be that it did not guarantee the basic needs of all.

Basic needs approach: This approach sees development in terms of the fulfilment of basic needs of all. It is a wider visualisation incorporating social and human dimensions. It aims to satisfy the consumption needs at personal as well as social levels keeping in mind the human rights of each individual. The minimum needs program launched in 1974 was aimed at providing basic support to the poor, thus improving their lifestyle. The major criticism for this approach comes from Amartya Sen’s philosophy of capabilities approach. He argues that instead of consumption-centric programs, we should focus on building the capabilities of people.

Participatory approach: The current approach followed by the government for rural development is of participatory nature. In this approach, people’s participation in the planning process is given much emphasis. “Participatory development is a process through which stakeholders can influence and share control over development initiatives, and over the decisions and resources that affect themselves” (ADB, 1996). With this philosophy, the political dimensions of rural development have been considered essential. The participatory rural appraisal and rapid rural appraisal tools are being used to increase the participation of people. Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojna replaced previous schemes like TRYSEM, IRDP. It was renamed as National Rural Livelihood Mission in 2011 and finally merged with Deen Dayal Upadhyay – Antyoday Yojna (DDU-AY)

Though the approaches adopted were never in separation from one another, the average timeline could be drawn like this: 1950s belonged to the multipurpose approach, 1960s to the sectoral approach and 1970s to both target approach and area development approach. From 1980s integrated approach was taken up with elements of basic needs approach starting in mid-70s itself. The origin of the participatory approach can be traced back to the late 90s.