The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Re-engineering CAPART

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jan 12, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Re-engineering CAPART

By Mihir Shah

While "re-engineering" an institution, it must not lose its vital ethos somewhere along the way.

ON DECEMBER 28, 2004 a "National Brainstorming Session on Re-engineering and Repositioning CAPART" was called by its Director General in New Delhi. CAPART (Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology) is an autonomous body within the Ministry of Rural Development, registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Union Minister for Rural Development is Chairman of CAPART. Its General Body and Executive Committee consist of distinguished people from the voluntary sector in India. All decisions made by CAPART's various divisions have to be approved by specially constituted National Standing Committees, which again comprise activists and experts from the field.

CAPART is, therefore, a unique institution at the interstices of state and civil society in India. On the one hand, it represents a reaffirmation of the responsibility of the state in facilitating the role of voluntary agencies in national development. On the other, it affords a space for civil society institutions in critical policy-making concerning rural development.

If one recognises that grass-roots civil society institutions have a vital role to play in enforcing accountability of the state and in galvanising rural development by setting exemplary standards of technical excellence and people's participation, then the role of CAPART becomes extremely important.

Over the last two decades, some outstanding work has been carried out under CAPART aegis. The Support Voluntary Organisation (SVO) concept of CAPART is now being adopted by various national and international agencies. But CAPART's image has suffered because of the widespread perception (articulated by the Minister himself at the brainstorming session) that all has not been above board in some of its work.

The newly-appointed Director-General's base paper presented for discussion at the brainstorming session contains many good ideas — more transparency, revamp of procedures, elimination of red-tape, better monitoring, use of information technology to ensure each of these, and injecting greater professionalism by improving CAPART's human resource profile. CAPART has always had the full support of the voluntary sector for such changes. But some crucial questions remain concerning the process and direction of reform.

To begin with the change in name itself. GANGOTRI is the new name proposed that stands for "Government in Action with NGOs for Transformation of Rural India." "Advancement of People's Action" in CAPART has changed to "Government in Action" in GANGOTRI. CAPART was founded on the conviction of thousands of civil society activists in India that the government must play the role of a facilitator of people's power (lok shakti), rather than usurp that power itself. People have simply disappeared from the new name suggested for CAPART. Whether the name does justice to the cultural diversity of India is another question troubling some activists. The autonomy of CAPART is its most precious resource. The perception among many of CAPART's executive committee and general body members that changes are being pushed through without consulting them is, therefore, not a good sign.

Finally, there are a whole host of proposals towards corporatisation of the institution, such as floating of development bonds by CAPART, opening of rural stock exchanges, receiving even "tied" funds from companies and the like, that produce a great sense of unease in the voluntary sector. If secure returns are to be provided to investors in CAPART development bonds, its programmes will begin to be evaluated in terms of the immediate profits they yield. Expenditures on education, health, drinking water security, drought-proofing, watershed development, and empowerment of the marginalised provide a foundation for future development that cannot be measured in narrow economic terms. There is no doubt that over the last six decades the state has failed to deliver, that it has failed to be a protector of the poor and the socially disadvantaged.

Which way are we to move then? Throw the baby out with the bath water? Privatise all that appears to be not working? Or find ways of strengthening institutions of the state where there is no alternative to them? Armed with an undiluted Right to Information Act, genuine grass-roots organisations can go a long way in ensuring that government schools function, hospitals work, the PDS delivers and rural employment programmes run free of leakage.

Nobody working for profit is going to come forward to do any of this in remote rural India. These are public goods that only the Government can provide. And their effective provision is possible only under civil society demonstration and vigilance.

An institution like CAPART can play a vital role in facilitating best practice in this direction. It would be wrong to tie it down to a narrow business model. While "re-engineering" an institution with years of thought behind it, we must be careful not to lose its vital ethos somewhere along the way.

(The writer is a member of CAPART's executive committee.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

MORE THAN JUST RELIEF

A DECISIVE MANDATE

Fundamentalism, American style

Re-engineering CAPART

Act of vendetta?