Last week, I tuned into a meeting convened to discuss the preparation of a new National Capability Building Framework (NCBF) for Panchayats. It was a good opportunity to meet the old stalwarts who had dedicated their professional lives to strengthening democratic decentralisation, as also to meet those who have since entered the field.

In 2005, while working as the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj in the Union government, I was tasked with the job of putting together the first NCBF document. I say ‘putting together’ because I prepared the first draft for discussion and that went through a consultative process both within the Ministry and with civil society representatives and states. The final document carried the stamp of many minds and covered a gamut of issues that related to the capacity development of Panchayats.

Looking back at that effort, I realise now that the scope of the document we prepared was limited. It was confined to defining the contours of training programmes that could reach out to nearly 26 lakh elected representatives of the panchayats across the country.

Before the creation of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj in 2004, the strengthening of panchayats was the task of the Ministry of Rural Development. From its vast budget that covered employment programmes, watershed development, water supply, and rural roads, there was a tiny sliver of a budget dedicated to panchayat training.

Those funds were often grabbed by states with greater capability in preparing training proposals; there was no state-wise quota of allocation of funds. Thus, those states with weak state institutes of Rural Development, lagged in panchayat-level training, often relying on international agencies or civil society organisations to provide episodic training sessions for elected representatives.

The Ministry of Panchayati Raj inherited this measly budget in 2004 when it was carved out as a separate ministry. The same ad hoc system of funds allocation continued for some time; the NCBF was expected to lay down a framework through which states could prepare proposals for funding and all states would be judged by the same standards when funds were allocated.

For a year more, the hiatus continued, as the budget continued to be slim as before. However, all that changed from 2006 onward, when the Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) programme was begun.

The BRGF had a simple, but revolutionary design. For 250 Backward Districts, the Panchayats were given untied grants with which they could undertake any gap-filling programme that they wished. In doing so, no value judgments on their choice of projects were to be imposed by oversight agencies. All that was insisted upon was that every panchayat ought to prepare a participative plan and these plans ought to be consolidated into District Plans, by the District Planning Committees constituted per the Constitutional mandate. 

The allocations under the BRGF were substantial, with each district receiving Rs. 15 to 20 crores on a yearly basis. Additionally, every state was allocated Rs. 1 crore annually for each BRGF district. These funds were to be pooled and used for the training of panchayat representatives in these districts. The state was allowed to retain some money with themselves so that they could beef up their SIRDs, hire staff, build training rooms, and so on, to enable them to handle their tasks of training better.

The NCBF got a new life then, as it became the guidance document based on which states would prepare plans for capacity development. It was a framework that was backed by a large budget, of Rs. 250 crores per annum.

Till such time that the BRGF was crafted, the common refrain heard from states was that panchayats were languishing because adequate funds were not reaching them, as also because adequate funding was unavailable for delivery of training programmes. The BRGF changed all that; it put adequate money in the hands of states, not only to pass through to panchayats but also to design and deliver capacity development programmes. 

Sadly, the BRGF programme funds were not drawn adequately by states in the first two years. Two impediments came immediately to the fore. First, about 50 per cent of the states were ineligible to draw funding for the programme because they had not set up the constitutionally mandated District Planning Committees. Furthermore, they showed an inexplicable resistance to setting up these Committees, revealing thereby that much of their commitment to strengthening panchayats was mere lip service. When it came to actually run the system as mandated by the Constitution, they were lax.

So it came to pass that many states went into a numbers game. While reporting that training programmes were going on in accordance with the standards prescribed under the NCBF, what was happening on the ground was something else.

The weak capacity development system was also exposed by the BRGF programme. About 50 per cent of the Rs. 250 crores annual allocation for capacity development was not picked up by the states, mostly those states that needed the money most, were not able to obtain their funds.

While in retrospect the NCBF was a restricted, supply-driven framework, it did lay down standards for training that were aimed at improving the quality of training. Every Panchayat member was to be touched by an orientation programme within six weeks of being elected. There were supposed to be only 20 participants in each face-to-face training programme, with three resource persons per training session. Taking some of these standards into consideration, the total number of resource persons needed per state was calculated.

However, many states were unequal to the task of organising the infrastructure and the manpower required to comply with the standards prescribed for the training. After eyeballing each other, finally, the Ministry of Panchayati Raj looked the other way and began to release funds, while being aware that at least in some states, the strict standards mandated by the NCBF would not be met. 

So it came to pass that many states went into a numbers game. While reporting that training programmes were going on in accordance with the standards prescribed under the NCBF, what was happening on the ground was something else. Sixty elected people crammed into a room where a boring homily was delivered, with half of those 60 walking out to claim their traveling allowance or have a cup of chai.

Have things changed now? If they haven’t will they, ever? More in my next blog.

T.R. Raghunandan is an Advisor at Accountability Initiative.