SCSP and TSP

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 12^th 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

Source: Data compiled by National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), a Delhi based NGO, from Detailed Demands for Grants in the State Budget of Madhya Pradesh for 2010-11

 

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.