In contrast to other states in India, Nagaland state receives some of the largest funds from the Central Government for development and “big reports” are highlighted but real work has yet to be seen. This fact was brought out during a discourse held on March 27, in Dimapur with participation from various non-governmental organizations, which discussed various challenges that are in the way of implementation of urban development programmes in Nagaland. Whether our State receives more development funds than others or not, at least one thing is for sure: 92 percent of the total revenue came from the Government of India as Central transfers (14 percent) and grants-in-aid (78 percent). This is the statistics brought out by the latest report of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) on Nagaland for the period 2010-11. The same report goes on to inform that during 2010-11, an approximate amount of Rs 1033.62 crore was directly transferred by the GoI to the State implementing agencies. So perhaps given the size of our State, the amount of central funds we get is quite good enough. However, as brought out during the recent consultation on urban development programmes, how do we ensure accountability? That is the big challenge.
The General Secretary of the Kerala unit of the Self-Employed Women’s Association Nalini Nayak during the same consultation mentions about the urban development program Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and how in Nagaland JNNURM funds have been spent “gloriously” but in real there is no evidence of any development taking place. In a coincidence of sorts the latest CAG report has done a performance review on the implementation of JNNURM in Nagaland and it has found “major deficiencies”. This is not at all surprising given the poor level of checks and balances within the existing system. It is also enlightening to learn that as per the 74th Amendment Act (Municipal/Urban Local Bodies), the public has the power to decide what kind of development they want. And under this very act 40 % of the state’s fund is decentralised to the ‘panchayats’ and 10 % for women development. Also social audit has to be conducted after every project or programme is implemented, for which the report has to be made available to the public.
This could perhaps explain the reason why the State government would rather not conduct democratic election to put in place the Municipal Bodies. Rather through its discretionary power it would better serve its interest to appoint ‘advisors’ to run the affairs of the Urban Bodies. At least elected Councillors even if they are corrupt can be voted out. But in the case of the appointed ‘Advisors’ they are accountable to none. The contention over the implementation of 33% women reservation has come at a good time to serve the purpose of withholding democratic election to Urban Local Bodies. For a party and government that speak highly about the grass root people as their ‘high command’, the failure to conduct local election has deprived people of their due participation in the democratic process and is tantamount to imposition of Governor’s (State government’s) rule. As one of the participant—Professor at Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary Dr Gabriele Dietrich—mentioned during the consultation, “People’s participation will challenge the nature of how government programmes are implemented”. Perhaps this is a food for thought for all of us.
