Anti-Poverty Programmes for the Rural Poor

We have discussed area based programmes and employment generation programmes apart from Minimum Needs Programme. Now we discuss specific anti-poverty programmes. 

In the earlier phase of planning in India, till about the midsixties  it was assumed that the benefits of economic growth would trickle down to the poorest segments of the population. Actual experience did not conform to this expectation. Moreover, by the end of the 1960s it was seen that the benefits of the Green Revolution did not accrue to the poorest groups. The numbers of the landless, small and marginal farmers, and agricultural labourers were increasing throughout the 1960s. Two other factors gave an impetus to the attempts at attacking poverty directly. The first was peasant agitations in certain parts of the country. The second was the idea, steadily gaining currency even in international circles, that developing countries ought to pay attention to absolute poverty and try to remove it. 

It is in this context that poverty received a direct attack since the early 1970s, beginning with the slogan of Garibi hatao (remove poverty) in 1971. The main programme for alleviating poverty  has been the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP). We shall discuss it presently but first let us get down to discussing some anti-poverty programmes in existence before IRDP. 

Anti-poverty Programmes before Sixth Plan 

The principal programmes were launched in the Fourth and the Fifth Five Year Plans. Following the views expressed in the Report of the All India Credit Review Committee (1969) that the normal benefits of development had tended to bypass the poorer section of the rural population. The Fourth Five Year Plan devised two sets of programmes : one for small fanners and the other for marginal farmers and agricultural labourers. 

Special agencies registered under the Societies Registration Act,  1860, were set up for these programmesSmall Farmers Development Agencies (SFDAs) and the Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Development Agencies (MFALs) for marginal farmers and agricultural labourers. Membership in each agency was small, consisting mainly of representatives of institutional agencies and district administrations, with the Collector or Deputy Commissioner as Chairman. Forty six SFDAs were started during the Fourth Five Year Plan. 

The main objectives of the SFDAs were : 

• to identify the target group beneficiaries i.e. small farmers; 
• to study and identify their problems; 
• to formulate suitable schemes; 
• to seek institutional support and to induce credit sources to provide credit; and 
• to arrange for extension services and supplies. 

The basic objective was to help the rural poor to increase their incomes. The principal methods were to help the poor to adopt improved technology, provide greater access to irrigation and diversify farm economy through subsidiary activities like dairy, animal husbandry and horticulture. 

MFALS were started on the same lines as SFDAs. In the Fourth Plan forty one MFL? were started on a pilot basis. The main objectives of the MFALs were to identify eligible marginal farmers and small farmers and investigate their problems; to formulate  suitable economic programmes; to give gainful employment; to promote'rural industries; to help to create common facilities to process, store and market products, and to evolve adequate institutional, financial and administrative arrangements for implementing  various programmes. 

MFALs and SFDAs were to act as catalysts and were not to directly administer any economic programmes. These were to be implemented through institutions sponsored by them. MFAIs mainly aimed to generate gainful employment. SFDAs were launched in 1969. SFDA and MFALs were fully operationalised in 1971-72. On the recommendation of the National Commission on Agriculture (1976), MFALs were merged with SFDAs and all agencies were called SFDAs. 

At the time when the Sixth Plan came into operation in 1980, the SFDAs, then in existence in 1818 blocks, were merged with IRDP. You will read about IRDP in the subsequent sub-section. 

Although the SFDAs and MFALs had some success in generating employment- the main employment coming from road-  works, these programmes had some shortcomings. First, funds were limited. Second, identification of beneficiaries was slow. Little attention was paid to the identification of agricultural labourers. Third, little was done to draw up specific projects to ensure supply of inputs. Fourth, input- loans were often misutilised. Fifth, cooperative infrastructure continued to be weak in  many areas. 

Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM) Programme 

The TRYSEM programme was launched in 1979 as a separate scheme for training rural youth for self-employment, as there was a huge backlog of unemployment. The main objective was to provide rural youth (18-35 years) from families below the poverty line with training and technical skills to enable them to take up self- employment. Forty youth, both men and women, were to be selected from each block and trained in both skill development and entrepreneurship to help them become self-employed. Training is provided  not only by imparting physical skills, but attitudes are changed, motivation is enhanced etc. Self-employment means gainful employment on a full time basis resulting in income sufficient for the family of the youth to cross the poverty  line. In 1980 when IRDP was extended to all blocks in the country, TRYSEM became the self-employment-for-youth component of IRDP. Since 1981-82 separate funds for TRYSEM were discontinued. 

The youth identified  for the programme are put through a period of training, either with a master craftsman.or a training institute. TRYSEM trainees are given a stipend and tool kit. On successful completion of the training they become eligible to receive a subsidy/credit/income generating asset under IRDP. TRYSEM has usually put emphasis on industries and services. The objective of TRYSEM includes wage employment (since 1982-83) in case of certain specific projects. These projects, selected by the State Level Coordination Committee were to satisfy certain condition like being integrated ones, and the beneficiaries were to be from IRDP target groups. 

The BDO selects the eligible youth belonging to the target group with the help of VLWs. The identification of the vocations is done by the DRDA in consultation with district level officers of the different departments, keeping in view their sectoral plan. After this the DRDA prepares a resource inventory of training facilities like ITIs, polytechnics, khadi and village industries (KVIs), Krishi Vigyan Kendras etc. No educational qualification for the trainees has been prescribed. The syllabus is expected to include training in working skills as well as managerial skills. 

The DRDA is responsible for the implementation  of TRYSEM. The Assistant . Project Officer (Industries) and Extension officers (Industries) are responsible for the extension of TRYSEM, in addition to their normal duties. At the state level there is a sub-committee of the State Level Coordination Committee (SLCC) exclusively for TRYSEM. At the apex level which is the central level, the policy guidelines are provided by and overall monitoring done, by the Central Committee on IRDP and related programmes. This committee is presided over by the Ministry of Rural Development. 

Once the youth complete their training and are to be self-employed, the basic support system, infrastructural facilities and backward and forward linkages assume importance. Backward linkages are essentially provision of inputs and infrastructural  facilities and support to the students whereas forward linkages related mainly to the demand for and marketing of the product produced by training. For the trainees, the DRDA is responsible for the provision of these linkages. The infrastructure for training itself  is provided by a network of organisations at the Nationallstate level, including the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) at Hyderabad with a regional sub-centre at Guwahati, the State Institutes of Rural Development (SIRDs), the Extension Training Centre (ETCs) and other institutes of Management Development and Rural Management. These institutes basically aim at training the trainers who, in turn, train the TRYSEM candidates as well as assist in various areas of rural development. 

When we study the performance of TRYSEM, we must focus on two aspects : to what extent the target set in terms of the member of youth to be trained, the financial allowances made  were realised. The second is how easily the trained youth have been able to gain access to self-employment opportunities. In the latter aspect we must examine whether self-employment has helped in ameliorating the conditions of poverty of the families of the youth. 

In the Sixth Plan period the targets (physical and financial) were exceeded in the last four years of the plan. In the Seventh Plan, targets for the number of youth trained were not fixed. In the Sixth plan, the percentage of youth trained who were self-employed was 47.1 and in the Seventh Plan it was 46.6 per cent. Since 1982-83, when wage-employment was included in the scheme, the number of trained youth employed on wages as a percentage of total youth trained has varied between 9 per cent and 17 per cent. Thus, although TRYSEM was initially conceived as a self-employment programme, the wage employment supplement has also contributed in augmenting employment opportunities of trainees. The percentage of employed youth to the total number of trained youth has never been more than 71 per cent. The percentage of SCIST and women among the trained youth has shown a rising trend. 

TRYSEM has had several shortcomings, some of which are mentioned below: 

• Implementation is uneven across areas. 
• Training lacked appropriate technology in the package provided.
• There are deficiencies in training arrangements and in the syllabus prescribed by various training institutes. 
• In the selection of trades, self-employment possibilities and financial viability were not adequately assessed. 
• Assistance in the provision of raw materials and marketing has been lacking. 
• Not every district has training centres for TRYSEM. 
• In many cases, the assistance provided to TRYSEM trainees from IRDP for projects had no link with the training they had received.