Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan and Tribal Sub-Plan
Clearly,
it would be neither feasible nor necessary for all ministries to meet the 16 /
8 per cent benchmark for SCSP /TSP. But if the ministries make serious efforts
along these lines, the combined Plan allocations reported for all ministries is
quite likely to be higher than the benchmarks - if not in the first year itself, then over a span of a few
years
Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes
(STs) have been among the most disadvantaged sections of our society due to
their socio-economic exploitation and isolation over a long period of time.
They lag behind the rest of the population in terms of both human development
as well as economic indicators. Table 1 reflects the marked difference
in the social and economic indicators of SCs and STs as compared to other
social groups. The 12th Five Year Plan noted that the incidence of poverty is
most pronounced among the SCs and the STs across all social groups.
Table
1: Socio-Economic Indicators for Scheduled Castes
Indicators
|
Year
|
SCs
|
STs
|
Other
Groups
|
Literacy
Rate (Rural) %
|
2007-08
|
60.5
|
58.8
|
76.9
|
Literacy
Rate (Urban) %
|
74.9
|
78
|
89.9
|
|
Unemployment
Rate by Current Daily Status (Rural)
|
2007-08
|
11.9
|
7.5
|
8.4
|
Women
with BMI < 18.5 (%)
|
2005-06
|
41.2
|
46.6
|
29.3
|
Women
with Anaemia (%)
|
2005-06
|
58.3
|
68.5
|
51.2
|
Infant
Mortality Rate (per 1000)
|
2005-06
|
66.4
|
62.1
|
48.9
|
Households
with Pucca houses (%)
|
2008-09
|
38.3
|
39.5
|
66.1
|
Households
with electricity (%)
|
2009-10
|
61.2
|
18.8
|
75
|
Though efforts have been made for bringing
them at par with the rest of the population, gaps still exist. The 12th
plan document notes that “This calls for an inclusive growth process which
provides opportunities for all to participate in the growth process combined
with schemes that would either deliver benefits directly or more importantly
help these groups to benefit from the opportunities thrown up by the general
development process.”
It was witnessed that despite dedicated
efforts for the up-liftment of SCs and STs over the years, they continued to face
multiple developmental deficits, which could clearly not be addressed through the
general welfare schemes and programmes that had been in place.
Scheduled
Caste Sub-Plan and Tribal Sub-Plan
The persistence of socio-economic backwardness
of the SCs and the STs, in spite of the development efforts, warranted a
special and focused strategy, to enable them to share the benefits of overall
economic growth in a more equitable manner. In order to ensure direct
policy-driven benefits for SCs and STs through specific interventions, the
Planning Commission during the 1970s introduced plan strategies – the Special
Component Plan for SCs (SCP) and the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP). The SCP
for SCs was later renamed as Scheduled Caste Sub Plan (SCSP). The main
objective of SCSP and TSP is to channel Plan funds for the development of SCs
and STs in accordance with the proportion of these communities in the total
population which was16 per cent and 8 per cent respectively at the national
level as per the 2001 Census.
Under these strategies, Plan funds are to
be earmarked for SCs (through SCSP) and STs (through TSP) under separate budget
heads (SCSP with budget head 789 and TSP with budget head 796) for each
ministry implementing SCSP and TSP. These strategies could include allocations
for area-oriented programmes benefitting SC/ST hamlets or designing new appropriate
developmental programmes for the development of these groups. The SCSP and TSP
funds should be non-divertible and non-lapsable.
Allocations under SCSP and TSP
The sub plans statements show the
allocations reported by various ministries/ departments for welfare of SCs and
STs. Graph 1 and 2 show the trend of the share of allocations for SCs and STs
respectively as a proportion of Total Plan allocations of the Union Government
(excluding the Central Assistance to States and Union Territories). Source:
Compiled from Statement 1, 21 and 21A, Expenditure Budget in with Vol. I, Union
Budget (various years)
Allocations for SCs reached an all-time
high at 10.43 per cent of the total plan allocation of Union Budget 2012-13
(RE), but this too fell short of the 16.2 per cent share stipulated by SCSP
norms. The increase in outlay was mainly due to a substantial fall in the total
plan allocation of the Union government from Rs. 321405.55 crore to Rs.
317184.62 crore, which increased the proportionate share of SCSP in the total
allocations. However, the share of SCSP in the total plan allocations of Union
Budget (excluding Central Assistance to States and Union Territories) has
dipped to 9.92 per cent in 2013-14 BE.
Similarly, it is interesting to see from
Graph 2 that in no year have the allocations under the TSP reached the stipulated
8 per cent mark, remaining below 6 per cent in all the years under analysis. As
has been the case with SCSP, the proportionate allocations under TSP have
remained almost stagnant in the last few years.
Annexure 1: Assessment of Fund Allocation through Statement 21(SCSP) in
Union Budget 2013-14 (In Rs. Crore)
Sl.
No.
|
Ministry/Department
|
2010-11
RE
|
2011-12
RE
|
2012-13
RE
|
2013-14
BE
|
1
|
Department of Animal
Husbandry, Dairying and
Fisheries
|
0
|
160.11
|
291.59
|
328.05
|
2
|
Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation
|
-
|
1401.98
|
1533.71
|
1888.11
|
3
|
Department of Commerce
|
-
|
90
|
94
|
100
|
4
|
Ministry of Civil Aviation
|
0.1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
5
|
Police
|
2.66
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
6
|
Ministry of Labour and
Employment
|
9.8
|
210.6
|
352.59
|
408.89
|
7
|
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
|
0
|
42
|
40.25
|
53.23
|
8
|
Department of Science and
Technology
|
3
|
31.52
|
25.97
|
69.43
|
9
|
Department of Biotechnology
|
3.5
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
10
|
Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment
|
3434.76
|
4019.1
|
3888.93
|
4755.8
|
11
|
UT of Chandigarh
|
10.41
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
12
|
UT of Daman and Diu
|
0.56
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
13
|
Ministry of Agriculture
|
272.5
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
14
|
Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion
|
30.73
|
30.01
|
5.8
|
42
|
15
|
Department of Information
Technology
|
53.2
|
45.08
|
51.74
|
60
|
16
|
Ministry of Environment and
Forest
|
0
|
51
|
43.36
|
53.46
|
17
|
Department of Health and
Family Welfare
|
2163
|
3137.61
|
3712.88
|
4433.08
|
18
|
Department of AYUSH
|
-
|
32.5
|
33.5
|
53.45
|
19
|
Department of AIDS Control
|
0
|
228
|
267.45
|
271.32
|
20
|
Ministry of HUPA
|
0
|
234.91
|
162.5
|
328.5
|
21
|
Department of School Education and Literacy
|
5881.83
|
7791.4
|
8545.8
|
9931.8
|
22
|
Department of Higher Education
|
2175.67
|
1922.85
|
2076.91
|
2431.51
|
23
|
Ministry of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises
|
276.26
|
186.09
|
309.69
|
357.24
|
24
|
Ministry of Panchayati Raj
|
11
|
14.01
|
23.78
|
75.49
|
25
|
Ministry of Power
|
-
|
502.23
|
390.76
|
800
|
26
|
Department of Rural
Development
|
7492
|
4375.06
|
3819.74
|
6358.37
|
27
|
Department of Land Resources
|
0
|
279.75
|
491.69
|
933.85
|
28
|
Department of Drinking Water
and Sanitation
|
0
|
2200
|
2860
|
3358
|
29
|
Ministry of Textiles
|
139.2
|
265.16
|
225
|
231.55
|
30
|
Ministry of Women and Child
Development
|
2349
|
2530
|
3700
|
4070
|
31
|
Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports
|
204.98
|
136.55
|
137.4
|
168
|
Total Allocation
|
24514.16
|
29917.52
|
33085.04
|
41561.13
|
Source: Statement 21 from Expenditure Budget Volume 1, Union Budget various years
Annexure 2: Assessment of Fund Allocation
through Statement 21A (TSP) in Union Budget 2013-14 (in Rs. Crore)
Sl.
No.
|
Ministry/Department
|
2010-11
RE
|
2011-12
RE
|
2012-13
RE
|
2013-14
BE
|
1
|
Ministry
of Agriculture
|
139.3
|
692.33
|
-
|
-
|
2
|
Dept.
of Agricultural Research & Education
|
100.8
|
86.4
|
123
|
|
3
|
Dept.
Agriculture and Cooperation
|
757.3
|
932.5
|
||
4
|
Ministry
of Coal
|
27
|
31.01
|
31.6
|
|
5
|
Dept.
of Telecommunications
|
0
|
5.02
|
5.99
|
14.5
|
6
|
Dept.
of Information Technology
|
0
|
196.2
|
138.46
|
201
|
7
|
Dept. of Food & Public Distribution
|
0
|
1.96
|
3.44
|
6.28
|
8
|
Ministry
of Culture
|
7.4
|
16.1
|
17.28
|
28.7
9
|
9
|
Ministry
of Environment & Forests
|
15
|
14.51
|
16
|
|
10
|
Dept.
of Health & Family Welfare
|
1167
|
1683.7
|
1804
|
2391.53
|
11
|
Dept.
of AYUSH
|
8.21
|
13
|
13.4
|
21.38
|
12
|
Dept.
of AIDS Control
|
0
|
123
|
144.28
|
146.37
|
13
|
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
|
0
|
25.06
|
17.32
|
35.04
|
14
|
Dept.
of School Education & Literacy
|
3441.06
|
4168.4
|
4572
|
5313.52
|
15
|
Dept.
of Higher Education
|
621.29
|
961.33
|
1021.53
|
1219.59
|
16
|
Ministry
of Labour and Employment
|
0
|
106.6
|
169.01
|
206.95
|
17
|
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises
|
147.32
|
133.96
|
211.11
|
244.21
|
18
|
Ministry
of Mines
|
8.12
|
8.72
|
9.72
|
|
19
|
Ministry
of Panchayati Raj
|
11
|
7.08
|
12.27
|
37.55
|
20
|
Ministry
of Road Transport & Highways
|
375
|
500
|
800
|
|
21
|
Ministry
of Rural Development
|
0
|
3081.94
|
2778.87
|
4452.03
|
22
|
Dept.
of Land Resources
|
0
|
246.42
|
302.4
|
576.45
|
23
|
Dept.
of Drinking Water & Sanitation
|
0
|
1000
|
1300
|
1526
|
24
|
Dept.
of Science & Technology
|
3
|
32.75
|
21.86
|
69.43
|
25
|
Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment
|
0
|
46
|
||
26
|
Ministry
of Textiles
|
27.6
|
63.63
|
54.75
|
55.57
|
27
|
Ministry
of Tourism
|
0
|
27.5
|
23.75
|
32.05
|
28
|
Ministry
of Tribal Affairs
|
3203.3
|
3723.01
|
3100
|
4279
|
29
|
Union Territories (Andaman & Nicobar Islands)
|
2.71
|
2.94
|
2.94
|
|
30
|
Union
Territories (D&D)
|
1.16
|
1
|
1
|
|
31
|
Ministry
of Water Resources
|
0
|
10.4
|
17.5
|
19.5
|
32
|
Ministry
of Women and Child Development
|
0
|
1037.3
|
1517
|
1668.7
|
33
|
Ministry
of Youth Affairs & Sports
|
75.9
|
72.55
|
73.23
|
90.28
|
34
|
Ministry
of Civil Aviation
|
0.05
|
|||
35
|
Department
of Biotechnology
|
1.75
|
|||
36
|
UTs of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli,
Daman and Diu and
Lakshadweep
|
367.13
|
|||
Total Allocation
|
9221.31
|
17959.03
|
18721.33
|
24598.39
|
Source: Statement 21A, 2013-14, Expenditure Budget Volume-I, Ministry of Finance, Government of India
Problems
Reporting is not being undertaken by all
the ministries/departments, and some of these are the ones which are liable to
allocate funds under SCSP. Further, a few Departments and Union Territories
(UTs) have discontinued reporting under the statement. Annexure 1 shows
allocations under this Statement by various ministries/ departments.
As per Statement 21 of Union Budget
2013-14, the government’s allocation under SCSP has gone up to Rs.41561 crore
from Rs. 33085.04 crore in 2012-13 (RE). This marks an increase of Rs. 8476.09
crore over the year. Even so, several ministries and departments still remain
out of the ambit of the SCSP.
As has been the case with the SCSP, even in
TSP, not all the ministries/departments are allocating funds under this
Statement (see Annexure 2). The Ministry of Agriculture which had been
reporting funds till 2012-13 BE, has stopped reporting under Statement 21A from
2012-13 RE. Similar is the case with the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Department
of Biotechnology which reported allocations for just one year (2010-11 RE).
There hasn’t been any increase in the number of ministries/ departments
reporting under it from last year. Annexure 2 shows allocations by various ministries/ departments
for TSP, over the years. As per Statement 21A of Union Budget 2013-14, the
government’s allocation under the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) has increased to Rs.
24598.39 crore from Rs. 18721.33 crore in 2012-13 (RE), marking an increase of
Rs. 5877.57 crore.
On the positive side, the Statements (21
and 21A) have, for the first time reported figures of Actual in the Union Budget
2013-14, which could be seen as a step towards greater transparency. Moreover,
the Finance Minister in his budget speech this year emphasised that the funds
allocated to the sub plans cannot be diverted and must be spent for the
specified purposes. However, much remains to be done with regard to the reporting
under these statements. Some concerns that continue to affect the proper
implementation of these plan strategies have been highlighted in the following
section.
Concerns in the implementation of SCSP and
TSP
As noted above, the implementation of these
two strategies has been fraught with three major problems: allocations not
meeting the stipulated earmarking of 16 and 8 per cent; many ministries remaining
out of the ambit of these statements and several ministries not having the
required budget heads for SCSP and TSP in their detailed budget books (Detailed
Demands for Grants). Additionally, there also remain issues regarding the
overall approach of these plan strategies.
Another key issue that has adversely
affected these plans is the approach taken by the Narendra Jadhav Task Force.
The Narendra Jadhav Committee’s roadmap for implementation of SCSP and TSP has not
addressed the core issue pertaining to misplaced rationale underlying the
interventions being reported. In several schemes, the nodal Ministries are
reporting a part of their Plan allocations as a proportion of funds meant for
benefiting SCs/STs even though the schemes/component(s) may not target the
specific needs and challenges of SCs/STs. Reporting under SCSP over the years
has been more in the nature of “retrospective budgeting” where
allocations for SCs are earmarked after the Plan budgets of the ministries are
finalised in the process of formulation of the Union Budget, without any
special measure taken for formulating SCSP and TSP during the budget
preparation phase.
Secondly, a scrutiny of the programmes
/schemes across several such ministries also indicates that they are merely
‘assuming’ that a certain proportion of funds in a certain scheme would benefit
SCs / STs based on the share of SC / ST population in the country’s total
population, giving rise to the debate on ‘notional’ allocation of funds under
the SCSP and TSP. Moreover, in some cases the interventions reported under the statements
are not SC/ST specific; they are more in the nature of general interventions
that cannot be perceived as meant largely for the benefit of SCs / STs. There
are some glaring examples of how the SCSP / TSP funds, particularly the SCSP
funds, are being used for very general purposes that cannot be perceived as
meant largely for the benefit of SCs / STs. This can be clearly seen from some state
level examples outlined below.
Example from Madhya Pradesh State Budget: Madhya
Pradesh State Budget reported interventions like purchase of furniture and equipment,
constructions of channels and survey and mapping of projects, under SCSP. These
interventions clearly do not promote empowerment of SCs or address their
specific developmental needs. Inclusion of such interventions under SCSP does
cast doubts over the reporting under SCSP in the state.
Use of SCSP Funds in Madhya Pradesh in
2010-11 (BE)
·
In the Department of Medical Education, Rs.
22 lakh have been booked for purchase of furniture and equipment for
establishing Homeopathy and Ayurvedic clinics.
·
Under Higher Education department, there is a provision of Rs. 1
crore for construction of staff room.
·
Water Resources Department has allocated
Rs. 6.4 crore for the construction of channels.
·
For Narmada Valley Development Project, Rs.
40 lakh is allocated for survey and mapping of the detailed project for Narmada
Valley Development.
Table: 2
Excerpt from the Detailed Demand for Grant for
Home
Department in Odisha (in Rs. Crore)
|
||
Schemes
|
2009-10
BE
|
2010-11
BE
|
Construction
of Building for Jails
|
2.30
|
4.77
|
Construction
of Building for Fire Services
|
3.32
|
4.11
|
Construction of Building for Police Welfare (37062-
Construction of Office building through O.S.P.H &W Corporation)
|
7.49
|
1.70
|
Example from Odisha State Budget: The
Odisha State Budget for 2010-11 reported Construction of Jail Buildings under
SCSP with an allocation of Rs. 4.77 crore (under the Head 4059-60-789).
Clearly, construction of jails, building for police or fire stations does not
lead to the development of SCs or accrue any benefit to them.
Example from Gujarat State Budget: Similarly,
Gujarat State Budget has reported certain interventions under TSP which do not
have any specific provision for the development of the STs, as shown below.
Reporting general schemes which do not have specific provisions for STs or reporting
allocations on celebrating a birth anniversary cannot be seen as programmes
addressing specific concerns of STs.
Use of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) Funds in
Gujarat in 2012-13 (BE)
·
Under Minor Head 796, Sub Head: 07 -
Celebration of Swami Vivekanand’s 150th Birth Anniversary for which an amount of
Rs. 5 crore is allocated for the year 2012-13.
·
Under Minor Head 796, Sub Head: 08-UDP-
Swarnim Jayanti Mukhya Mantri Shahari Vikas Yojana for which an amount of Rs.
170 crore is allocated for the year 2012-13. This scheme is meant to provide
assistance for basic social infrastructure to ULBs, e.g.
construction/restrengthening school buildings, creating facilities in urban health
centers, kindergartens, e-Libraries, play grounds, Solid & Liquid Waste
Management, e-Governance, Parking and Public Toilets, facilities for Vegetable
& Seasonal Venders Markets, etc.
(Source:
State Budget Documents (2012-13), Govt. of Gujarat)
Such practices of use of funds for general
purposes defy the purpose of initiating strategies like SCSP and TSP. Projects
meant for SCs and STs should have a beneficiary oriented approach as far as
possible and cover SC and ST dominated hamlets in projects related to
infrastructure and basic amenities, ensuring development of these groups with
planned interventions for addressing their specific concerns.
Thirdly, the Narendra Jadhav Task Force has
exempted a number of ministries / departments from reporting under these
statements primarily on the grounds of ‘indivisibility’ of these sectors. But,
it needs to be noted here that no sector is indivisible and the Ministries can
identify some specific challenges confronting SCs/STs in their respective
sectors and then formulate a new intervention / a new scheme to address such
challenges, even if the allocations may be small as compared to the total budget
of the Ministry.
Such concerns do stress the need for
rethinking the plan strategies of SCSP and TSP on how to make them more
responsive to the needs of the SCs and the STs respectively.
Suggested Roadmap
The objective of SCSP / TSP should not be
to merely capture the assumptions / perceptions of Ministries with regard to
‘incidental’ benefits accruing to SCs / STs from their general schemes, but to
ensure availability of adequate budgetary resources with Ministries for providing
direct ‘policy-driven’ benefits to SCs / STs in their respective
sectors. The main objective of SCSP and TSP should not be to just report/show
that 16 or 8 per cent of the total plan budgets of all ministries are for
benefiting SCs and STs, because such an objective pushes several ministries to
focus merely on retrospective reporting. The main objective of the sub plan
should be to encourage all ministries to –
(i) identify what could be the additional difficulties
/challenges confronting SCs / STs in their sectors of concern,
(ii) what kind of measures could be taken
by them to address those special difficulties/ challenges, and
(iii) how much additional resources would be
required for such special measures. These additional resources devoted for the
special measures for SCs/STs should then be reported under SCSP / TSP.
Clearly, it would be neither feasible nor
necessary for all ministries to meet the 16 / 8 per cent benchmark for SCSP
/TSP. But if the ministries make serious efforts along these lines, the
combined Plan allocations reported for all ministries is quite likely to be
higher than the benchmarks - if not in the first year itself, then over a span
of a few years.
By : Saumya Shrivastava
; The author works as a Research
Associate at the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, New Delhi.
0 comments:
Post a Comment