Over the last two decades, India has emerged as one of the fastest growing economies in the world and an extremely attractive destination for Foreign Direct Investment. Even at a time of world-wide recession, the Indian economy has shown remarkable resilience.
The difficulty has been that not every Indian has been included in this amazing story of success. This is why, since 2004, “inclusive growth” has been a major element in the development agenda of the nation.
Among those who have most acutely felt a sense of exclusion and alienation are the Adivasis, who perform poorly on every indicator of well-being, whether it be poverty, health or education. What is worse, given the specific demography of Adivasi India, the pockets of Adivasi concentration have witnessed an unprecedented upsurge in Maoist militancy in recent years. This is especially true of what may be broadly described as the Central Indian Adivasi belt.
It is now widely agreed that this region has suffered not only from a development deficit but also from a governance deficit. Urgent efforts are needed to strengthen institutions of participatory governance, even while improving systems of implementation in these areas. Without such a change, all the massive resources being allocated for programmes of social inclusion, especially after 2004, will not translate into enduring outcomes on the ground. In the words of the Honourable Prime Minister, the “outlay-outcome gap” will continue to widen. What is remarkable also in the post-2004 period is the unprecedented emphasis given to a rights-based approach to development, through a series of landmark legislations such as the Right to Information Act, Mahatma Gandhi NREGA, Forest Rights Act, Right to Education Act and the upcoming Food Security Act and Minerals Act. The challenge now is to transform systems of administration and levels of awareness at the grass-roots to ensure that these well-meaning pieces of legislation have the requisite impact on the ground.
It has also become clear over the last two decades that some of the best work in terms of innovations in improving livelihoods and creating awareness in these regions have come from civil society initiatives. The difficulty here has been that such initiatives have tended to remain confined to “oases of excellence”. Great work is done but it does not go beyond small pockets of impact and influence. The voluntary sector has tended to be wary of seeking out partnerships with either Gram Panchayats or the district/state administration. On the other side, governments have tended to view civil society action with a modicum of suspicion. In the absence of government support, many civil society activists have faced terrible intimidation from local vested interests, at times leading to catastrophic consequences. In general, the scope of civil society action has tended to remain confined to small areas, in the absence of wider state support.
It is clear that one of the most powerful ways through which the commitment of the state to inclusive growth can be translated into tangible outcomes on the ground, is to foster powerful partnerships between civil society and the state.
