Opinion The Centre cannot hold on
Heed Nitish Kumars plea,give states latitude in welfare schemes.
-
Share -
-
-
As we enter the new financial year,one of the most pressing and involving debates for Bihar at the moment is the need to minimise the number of Centrally sponsored schemes,and giving the states more latitude to plan their welfare schemes. Under 300-odd Central schemes,we get tied funds tied,because a state government is bound to pool in a fixed percentage as the states share to avail these Central schemes. Second,a state government is bound by several guidelines and riders.
Just sample these figures: Bihar had to earmark Rs 1,300 crore as its 35 per cent share under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) in 2010-11. Now with the Right to Education Act,the Centre has asked states to bear 25 per cent share,which would simply mean that Bihar will have to spare,rather manage,Rs 7,500 crore. We have urged the Centre to accept a 90:10 Centre-state formula for successful RTE implementation. Health and education alone make Bihar set apart funds in excess of Rs 2,500 crore every year,more than 12-13 per cent of our annual plan size. I wonder why the Central government cannot give more space to states in preparing need-based schemes. A state should be given the freedom to know its entitlement,to optimise development funds. A consolidated fund from the Centre is all that we have been asking for. In any case,a state government will give compliance to the Centre on how and where the fund was used.
I,along with finance ministers of several states in 2009,put forward a joint memorandum before the 13th Finance Commission,which,in turn,had duly recommended that the Union government minimise Centrally sponsored schemes. There has been precedence,with the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government curtailing Centre-sponsored schemes during its tenure. The then-Union agriculture minister and now Bihar chief minister,Nitish Kumar had made an integrated scheme,merging 39 schemes. Addressing a National Development Council meeting on July 24,2010,Nitish Kumar said: The 13th Finance Commission had also recommended that initiative should be taken to reduce the number of one-size-fits-all Centrally sponsored schemes. The CM further added that these schemes often have no provision for the implementation machinery and the states existing staff have to execute these programmes in addition to their already heavy workload. Untied funds are,all the more,the need of the hour as the gross budgetary support allocation to a state has come down from 34 to 23 per cent while it has gone up from 66 to 77 per cent for the Central sector.
It is not a matter of political parties,ideologies or state governments. During a meeting of finance ministers from several states with the Union finance minister in 2009,there had been a uniform demand for this. We believe the Centre has taken note of our cumulative concern.
A consolidated fund from the Centre can be best utilised in core areas of development health,education,energy,roads and the social sector. There is a Central scheme that gives Rs 2 crore for starting a model school in every block but it comes with a big rider the state must allocate five acres of land for each such school. If this rider is waived,a state government can build two or three schools with that Rs 2 crore,following most criteria of a model school.
This is where Centrally sponsored schemes have become deterrents rather than a true means of change. Another scheme,called the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Scheme,is sanctioned afresh only after completion of the first scheme. Can a state government wait for three years to get a second scheme? It is about too many guidelines and riders obfuscating the real motto development. Untied schemes are best suited for a states progress. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has taken it up at National Development Council meetings and various others. It is time the UPA government changed the rules of the game. They may well choose key sectors to mandate a Centrally sponsored scheme,but having 300-odd schemes is leading us nowhere. We do not have any reservations against MNREGA,guided by an act of Parliament,but let there be a select few of such schemes. Besides,uniform guidelines for all Indian states may not work. Bihars needs could be different from Tamil Nadu or Kerala,and vice versa.
We have been stressing on direct cash transfer to beneficiaries to stop leakage in the public distribution system. Can the Centre not start it on pilot basis? We also demand that the Centre bring in the right to shelter act,to ensure houses for families below the poverty line.
As told to Santosh Singh
Sushil Kumar Modi is deputy chief minister and finance minister of Bihar
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
