26
S
tate
of
I
ndia
’
s
L
ivelihoods
R
eport
2015
Any losses arising from procurement and
marketing operations are also borne by the
Fund. However, the Fund does not to seem
have a pro-farmer slant. The procurement
is on behalf of the consumers and with the
objective of keeping retail prices affordable
by procuring crops during harvest when the
prices are low. The scheme states, “When
retail prices of notified agri-horticultural
commodities are anticipated to increase sub-
stantially, then their procurement could be
undertaken from farmgate/mandi to reduce
the cost of intermediation and made avail-
able at a cheaper price to the consumers.”
If the crops were aggregated and stored in
buffer stock on behalf of the farmers, then
the higher realisations could have been
passed on to the farmers. There is an inher-
ent conflict in the scheme as consumers
are preferred over farmers, that too by the
Ministry of Agriculture.
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti
Yojana (DDUGJY)
The ongoing rural electrification programme
has been revamped and relaunched as the
DDUGJY. The components of the revamped
scheme are (a) separation of agricultural
and non-agricultural electricity feeders to
improve supply for consumers in rural
areas, (b) improving sub-transmission and
distribution infrastructure in rural areas,
and (c) electrification of rural areas by
carrying forward Rajiv Gandhi Grameen
Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) targets.
The scheme—over the next seven years—
is estimated to be at
`
823.08 billion. The
Centre is projecting funds support of
`
689
billion. In 2015–16, an allocation of
`
45
billion has beenmade. The implementation
of this programme on time will positively
impact the livelihoods in some of the
remote villages.
There are a number of programmes that
have been announced over the last one year
(Annexure 2.2). Some of these have new
content and ideas while others are a continu-
ation of the earlier programmes with mar-
ginal changes and a new name. The promise
is that the programme implementation will
be improved vastly and intended benefits
will accrue to the target people.
In summary, the Budget andprogrammes
point to a sense of urgency in creating a
better business environment, focusing on
enterprise promotion and employment
creation, balancing the requirements of both
demand and supply sides, easing credit con-
straints and following a bottom-up process
with a strong slant towards providing more
fiscal space for the states to take responsi-
bility for development. While urgency in
delivery is clearly needed, it should not turn
into haste. Revamping the existing laws and
programmes should be carefully analysed
for both positive and negative fall outs. The
decision taken should be objective; whatever
produces greatest good for the greatest num-
ber should be pursued. The signals given out
by smaller allocations for rural development
programmes and perceived weakening of
entitlements of poor such as in the case of
food security should be dealt with by com-
munication of what is in store. Whether the
assumption that states will spend adequately
for developmental activities will be realised,
whether without the Planning Commission,
states will be able to formulate their own
programmes and implement the same,
are other questions for which answers are
awaited with some concern. Finally, one
hopes that the government has got its bal-
ance right between reforming subsidies,
announcing new programmes for the poor
and rationalising tax revenues in favour of
indirect taxes.
