UPSC MainsGEOGRAPHY-PAPER-II201415 Marks
Q21.

Evaluate the Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme.

How to Approach

This question requires a comprehensive evaluation of the Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme (BRGF). The answer should begin with a brief introduction outlining the context and objectives of the BRGF. The body should then delve into its implementation, successes, failures, challenges, and impact, supported by data and examples. A critical assessment of its effectiveness in addressing regional disparities is crucial. Finally, the conclusion should offer suggestions for improvement and a forward-looking perspective. Structure the answer into sections covering objectives, implementation, impact, challenges, and recommendations.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

The Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme (BRGF), launched in 2005 by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, aimed to address regional disparities in development by providing funds to 256 identified backward districts across the country. These districts were selected based on criteria like low per capita income, inadequate infrastructure, and poor human development indicators. The BRGF was a significant attempt to move beyond a uniform approach to development and target resources towards areas most in need, reflecting a commitment to inclusive growth. The programme underwent revisions and was subsumed under other schemes in later years, making its evaluation particularly important to understand the efficacy of targeted regional development initiatives.

Objectives and Implementation

The primary objective of the BRGF was to reduce regional imbalances in development and improve the socio-economic conditions of people in backward districts. The funds were intended to be used for infrastructure development, health, education, skill development, and other essential services. The implementation of the BRGF was district-centric, with District Planning Committees (DPCs) responsible for identifying priority projects and utilizing the funds. The funds were released in two tranches – 75% in the first tranche and 25% after the utilization of the first tranche was verified.

Impact and Achievements

The BRGF did contribute to some positive changes in the identified backward districts. Some notable achievements include:

  • Infrastructure Development: Construction and improvement of roads, schools, health centers, and irrigation facilities were undertaken in many districts.
  • Improved Access to Education: Increased enrollment rates in schools, particularly at the primary level, were observed in several districts.
  • Enhanced Healthcare Services: Strengthening of primary healthcare centers and improved access to medical facilities were reported.
  • Livelihood Opportunities: Skill development programs and self-help groups were promoted to enhance livelihood opportunities for the rural population.

According to a 2012 evaluation report by the Ministry of Rural Development, the BRGF led to a measurable improvement in infrastructure and access to basic services in many districts. However, the impact varied significantly across districts, depending on the effectiveness of local planning and implementation.

Challenges and Shortcomings

Despite its objectives, the BRGF faced several challenges that limited its effectiveness:

  • Lack of Capacity: Many districts lacked the administrative capacity to effectively plan, implement, and monitor projects.
  • Poor Coordination: Coordination between different departments and agencies was often weak, leading to delays and inefficiencies.
  • Corruption and Mismanagement: Instances of corruption and mismanagement of funds were reported in some districts.
  • Inadequate Monitoring: The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms were inadequate, making it difficult to assess the actual impact of the program.
  • Political Interference: Political interference in project selection and implementation often led to suboptimal outcomes.

Furthermore, the criteria for identifying backward districts were criticized for being overly simplistic and not capturing the nuances of regional disparities. The programme also suffered from a lack of convergence with other centrally sponsored schemes.

BRGF and Subsequent Schemes

In 2015, the BRGF was subsumed under the Deendayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). This decision was taken to streamline the delivery of rural development programs and improve their effectiveness. While DDU-GKY focused on skill development and MGNREGA on employment generation, the infrastructure component of the BRGF was largely absorbed into other schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

Comparative Analysis of BRGF and other Schemes

Scheme Focus Area Implementation Key Features
BRGF Regional Development, Infrastructure District Planning Committees Fund allocation to backward districts based on pre-defined criteria.
DDU-GKY Skill Development State Skill Mission Placement-linked skill development training for rural youth.
MGNREGA Employment Guarantee Gram Panchayats Guaranteed 100 days of wage employment to rural households.
PMGSY Rural Road Connectivity State Governments Construction and improvement of rural roads.

Conclusion

The Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme represented a well-intentioned effort to address regional disparities in India. While it achieved some success in improving infrastructure and access to basic services, its impact was limited by challenges such as inadequate capacity, poor coordination, and corruption. The decision to subsume the BRGF under other schemes was a pragmatic one, but it is crucial to ensure that the underlying objective of targeted regional development is not lost. Future programs should focus on strengthening local planning, improving monitoring and evaluation, and promoting convergence with other schemes to maximize their effectiveness. A more nuanced understanding of backwardness, beyond simple economic indicators, is also essential.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Regional Disparities
Differences in socio-economic development levels between different regions within a country. These disparities can manifest in terms of income, infrastructure, education, health, and other indicators.
District Planning Committee (DPC)
A committee at the district level responsible for preparing the district plan, identifying priority projects, and monitoring the implementation of development programs.

Key Statistics

As of 2006, the BRGF covered 256 districts, representing approximately 20% of India’s total districts.

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India (Knowledge cutoff: 2024)

A 2012 evaluation report indicated that only 65% of the allocated BRGF funds were actually utilized by the districts.

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Evaluation Report (Knowledge cutoff: 2024)

Examples

Bundelkhand Region

The Bundelkhand region, encompassing parts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, was a major focus of the BRGF due to its chronic drought conditions and high poverty levels. Funds were allocated for water conservation projects, irrigation infrastructure, and livelihood diversification programs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the BRGF discontinued?

The BRGF wasn’t strictly ‘discontinued’ but rather subsumed under other schemes like DDU-GKY and MGNREGA in 2015. The government aimed to streamline rural development programs and avoid duplication of efforts by integrating the BRGF’s objectives into broader schemes.

Topics Covered

GovernanceEconomyRegional DevelopmentSocial WelfareEconomic Policy