xxiv
S
tate
of
I
ndia
’
s
L
ivelihoods
R
eport
2015
Development Corporation (RSLDC); C.L. Verma, Deputy Secretary, Rural Development,
Rajasthan; Prashant Kumar, Executive Director, Employment Generation and Marketing
Mission (EGMM), Telangana; A. Murali, IAS, CEO, Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty
(SERP), Telangana; R.K.
Sugoor, IFS, Joint Managing Director, Gujarat Green Revolution
Company (GGRC); Mrinalini Shastry, Director, Livelihoods, SERP, AP, and many others.
NABARD provided excellent support with Dr Benugopal Mukhopadhyay and his team in
Mumbai, Dr R.N. Kulkarni and his team in Bhopal, M.V. Ashok, P.V.S. Suryakumar, P. Satish,
CGMs. Many others provided information and also linkages to sources of information. Our
thanks are due to a number of skill and livelihood training providers like ILFS, Everonn
Skill Development Limited, Functional Vocational Training and Research Society (FVTRS),
Auroville, Swami Vivekananda Rural Community College, Mythili’s Herbal Beauty School
and Clinic, apart from others. The ACCESS teams in Jaipur, Udaipur, Hyderabad and Bhopal
were of great help. The ACCESS team in New Delhi led by RamNarayan anchored the report
inmany ways. Lalitha was her usual efficient self, facilitating all our field visits seamlessly. Our
thanks to the advisory group members namely, Brij Mohanji, ArindomDatta, Meera Mishra,
Vanita Suneja, Ashok Sircar, Sankar Datta, D. Narendranath, M.V. Ashok, Madhu Sharan and
Madhukar Shukla, for their inputs about the report structure. A special thanks to Vipin who
took the risk of handing over the entire report to two untested authors in SOIL. We know
that we have been unable to acknowledge every institution and person who helped us. Our
sincere apologies to those left out by our inadvertence.
The report just does not deal with income-generating activities but also includes some of
the accompanying issues related to quality of life. It retains some of the structure of previous
reports. It provides an overview, analyses the policies and funding framework through an
examination of budget allocations, new policy pronouncements, large programmes initiated
and legislative efforts that have a bearing on livelihoods. Four flagship programmes have
taken up an assessment of performance. We have also examined the dairy sector in some
depth as it provides substantial livelihood opportunities to vulnerable households. The idea
is to take up one sub-sector each year for an in-depth study. A separate chapter looks at a
topical theme of skill development in the country. Non-farm sector livelihoods, especially in
handloom, handicrafts and village industries have been taken up for review. The aftermath
of introduction of CSR obligations and private sector pro bono engagement with livelihoods
have been examined. While we have sourced information from several sources, we are solely
responsible for opinions expressed in the report and none else.
Being our first report, in this new format, a few rough edges are likely. We hope that in the
coming years, the structure will settle down to a more comprehensive and balanced assessment
of what happens in livelihoods. We need feedback from our readers in order to improve the
content and the presentation of the report.
Girija Srinivasan
Narasimhan Srinivasan
