Dr S Saraswathi
The National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) has recently introduced an intensive strategy to implement the Mission’s project for the rural poor. It will focus on social inclusion by identifying the poor through participatory system, and by universal social mobilization in project implementation. The NRLM is to concentrate at the first instance on 12 high poverty States.
The Mission was launched in April 2013 essentially by restructuring the Swarnajayanti Gram Rozghar Yojana (SGRY). It is a poverty reduction programme through building strong institutions of the poor, particularly women, and enabling them to access a range of financial and livelihood services.
The Mission aims at tapping and nurturing the unutilized social capital and activating a resource already hidden in the society by dedicated and sensitive external support structure. This support is expected to induce social mobilization, institution building, and empowerment process.
The strategy involves creating 400 “intensive blocks” for implementation of the NRLM. Out of this, it is proposed to develop 100 blocks as “resource blocks”, where several activities would be undertaken to promote social mobilization and create as well as promote institutions to include the poor and the marginalized in development avenues.
Inclusive development is sought to be achieved through universal access to rights, entitlements, and services, and empowerment of the weak. Key features of the project include training, capacity building, skill learning as well as access to public financial services.
NRLM is considered as a strategy for building social capital and not just another poverty alleviation scheme. For, it provides for inclusion of the poor in all stages of the process including the identification of the poor. The entire process will be transparent. It relies on community self-reliance.
The NRLM is not a sudden development. It has a solid background in public policy on development models. In the past two decades, voluntary movement has been silently growing across the country perhaps as spontaneous reaction to globalization, economic reforms, and market power that were jointly widening the gap between Government and people.  Decentralization and collective action for common good are partly answers to political and bureaucratic stranglehold.
The spirit of self-help and self-reliance was roused and a demand for effective, responsive, and responsible Government grew. Their political expression was participatory governance reflected in reformulation of government schemes as people’s programmes. Increasingly, the concept of Government as “facilitator” and not “provider” has come to be accepted. But, recognition of the role of “people” as “participants” by the Government, and assumption of the responsibility of the participants by people who are no longer mere “recipients” takes time in view of the gap between the ordinary, “aam admi” and the Government that has existed all along.
Anna’s movement that has its roots in social activism and voluntary service among people rocked the country for the first time after JP’s movement. It seems to have caused a perceptible change in and outside the Governments, and in political parties and corporate houses to think more seriously about the power of the common people.
The Aam Admi Party’s success in Delhi further emphasizes the presence of people in non-election times also. Whether the party achieves any tangible results are not, it has at least notionally raised the status of the common man and the value of social capital in the sense of communal resources.
Social capital refers to institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the size and substance of social interactions. It can be built only by social cohesion. And it is indispensable for economic welfare and sustainable development. It can no longer be ignored under the delusion of political and financial capital or power.
The term “social capital” has been in use since 1890s. The level of social participation which shows the quantity and quality of social capital was said to be high in American society. That resulted in better working of democracy. Social capital has indeed been linked with the success of democracy and people’s involvement in politics.    Social capital is distinct from economic capital, and cultural capital.  Anything that facilitates individual or collective action generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, cooperation, team work, trust, and norms is looked upon as building social capital. The source of social capital is the civil society and not the Government.
Cooperation between mobilized communities and active Governments can achieve a great progress in developmental efforts. Unfortunately, we are still in the process of mobilization for elementary level of development – reducing infant mortality, eliminating illiteracy, and removing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. Under the circumstances, the NRLM is looked upon primarily as a poverty alleviation programme and it is likely to come under the overarching influence of political parties. The Self-Help Groups in some States have been politicized.
From the stage of fighting inadequacies, the nation has to go forward to achieve the real fruits of social capital. Importantly, social capital and political parties are natural allies. For, both believe and engage in mobilizing people for a common cause. Indeed, there is reason to treat political parties also as social capital.
But, political parties – even those having humble beginning – have grown as elite institutions with the main object of winning elections. The successful ones are not those engaging with people on all public matters and encouraging wide participation in party matters. Political parties seem to believe more in financial power and muscle power than social capital – the power of the people.
It is the age of “new politics of community”. Myriads of associations of people are organized on daily basis; group activities flourish despite individualistic aspirations and competitive spirit. Rights-based approach to development places citizens’ groups at the centre of project formulation and implementation.
In some countries, the welfare policy of a Government is based on the twin concepts of entitlements of the people concerned and their obligations in return. It is a system of mutual obligations. In the Indian context, the stress is more on rights and entitlements than on obligations and duties. This may be due to long history of deprivations and inequalities.
Such justifications have over-lived their usefulness. If the object of the NRLM is to harness the “innate capabilities” of the poor, it should undertake the job of complementing their capacities with necessary information, knowledge, skills, tools, resources, etc., and see to it that the support provided yields lasting results and does not go the way of  freebies offered by political parties. (INFA)

K.N. Pandita
Premier Nawaz Sharif’s India policy is a path littered with thorns. It needs courage to walk through at one’s peril. But remember he is the elected leader of his people.  India cannot treat him as he treated the Generals who usurped power in Pakistan through military coups.
Before and after general elections, Nawaz Sharif expressed his conviction in bringing about a thaw in Indo-Pak freeze. But it needs two to tango. The message had gone. Implicit wait is for grabbing the opportunity conducive to active reciprocity.
Let us try to understand. A formidable hurdle in Nawaz’s peace prognosis is Pak Army. It stung him twice in the past. Foreign Affairs and Kashmir are the two areas which Pak Army considers its exclusive fief; hence no tolerance of interference by civilian authorities.
Nawaz Sharif waited to bid courteous farewell to General Kayani. He has brought in General Raheel Sharif, the apolitical Army Chief, who supersedes two Generals.  The arrangement was very carefully and cautiously finalised to ensure smooth change of guard. Even then sadists tried the spoilsport, albeit unsuccessfully.  Both Nawaz Sharif and General Raheel will need time, patience and stage management to familiarise Pakistan Army with the power of a democratic State.
Indo-Pak peace dialogue also implies simultaneous Army-TTP detente, firstly to pull Army brass out of meaningless bloody clashes, and secondly, to indirectly legitimise peace dialogue with a chronic adversary who is also a neighbour.
As covert bilateral peace talk progresses, its impact on rabid anti-India jihadi organizations in Pakistan will become more pronounced. Same will be the case with political hawks in India. Interlocutors are not impervious to this occurrence.
2014 will be crucial for low-key Indo-Pak peace talks. First, we need to sit back and carefully watch the fallout of NATO drawdown in Afghanistan on the region and Pakistan in particular. We will also need to keep a track of Pakistan’s attitude to NATO withdrawal and the contours of her policy in post-NATO Afghanistan.  It is closely connected to the shaping of Indo-Pak talks.
Secondly, nothing significant will happen until a new Government takes over in New Delhi after parliamentary elections of April-May 2014.  For peace talks it will matter little which party comes to power for the simple reason that Indo-Pak liaison is a national and not party issue. Once the new Government is formed, there will be movement in bilateral talks along the chartered path for which foundation has been laid by the interlocutors on both sides.
Recently, speaking to media, Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Adviser to Pakistan Prime Minister on foreign affairs said that Track II diplomacy was in place and representatives of two countries were in constant touch trying to move forward inch by inch. He even said that progress on talks about Kashmir was part of the exercise.
Kashmir is being talked about. Sartaj Aziz’s recent meeting with Kashmiri separatists in New Delhi was probative and not obstructive in character.  The recent split in Hurriyat (M) is a sequel to the meaningful reflections of that meeting. Extremists among Kashmiri separatists are getting sidelined because they fail to read the writing on the wall.
It has to be noted that western powers are uncomfortable with Pakistan giving China a free hand in Gilgit-Baltistan. It impinges upon their security strategy in the region as does to India. For Pakistani official circles it is becoming increasingly difficult official to remain tight lipped on China’s highhanded policy towards the Muslim Uyghur in Xinjiang Autonomous Region.
At the same time, nationalist activists in Gilgit-Baltistan have succeeded to a large extent in mobilising support of western civil society and influential political circles in favour of their struggle for freedom from Pakistani occupation.
In recent days Nawaz Sharif’s brother Shahbaz Sharif was on a short visit to New Delhi. Curiously media gave scant coverage to the visit. It was intentionally kept a low key visit because he was on a sensitive mission. Foresighted Nawaz Sharif is within his right to reach wider sections of Indian policy planners especially when general election is round the corner.
After some hiccups, two Director Generals of Military Operations of India and Pakistan met as follow up to Manmohan-Nawaz meeting in New York. They have agreed to formulate a mechanism of reducing border tension and infiltration of jihadis. However, jihadi infiltration is not still fully under the control of civilian authority in Pakistan. The possibility of new spate in infiltration can happen as the Jihad Council finds Pakistani civilian and military support receding. A wounded tiger becomes more ferocious.
Trade talks between the two countries have resumed. Owing to increase in infiltration attempts and militancy related events, Indian had shown some reluctance to move forward in bilateral trade talks. If in the course of ongoing trade talks, Pakistan indicates her willingness to reiterate giving Indian MFN status, it could increase chances of bringing a wide range of bilateral relations under discussion. That is perhaps what Pakistan would be eyeing at.
Congress’ debacle in Assembly elections in four States has sent a message that the nation wants to wriggle out from stereotypes. Incidentally, the sudden rise of AAP and the euphoria it has created could become a key to ideological change in our country. There is much sense in the new slogan that governance should be divested of its VIP trappings. This is  low and inoffensive semantics for social revolution.
How will it impact the policy of conciliation as envisaged by Nawaz Sharif? Gimmicks and gaffe like those coming from wayward leaders of AAP on Kashmir will not be liked even by Kashmir watchers in Pakistan.  For any amount of success in bilateral relations, the leadership in India has to be above party politics. It has not only to value Nawaz Sharif’s offer of olive branch but also to understand the delicate and tortuous course of negotiations. Highest level of statesmanship on either side is the key to sustainable peace projection in the region.