The need for Centre-state partnerships at every rung

India has a strange paradox. Of the 29 subjects assigned to rural panchayats in the 11th Schedule and 18 to urban local bodies( ULBs) in the 12th Schedule of the Constitution, several have centrally sponsored programmes (CSPs). This has been the case because, historically, panchayats’ resources have been low. The central government gave states funds to run these programmes. CSPs came up on the “equalising principle” — no citizen should be denied basic entitlements because a state has inadequate revenues — sectors in the domain of state governments and on the State List have received central funding. Even education, brought into the Concurrent List by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment

(1976), has significant central funding. The need for Centre- state partnerships on such programmes is key since state and local governments have field presence and lead programme planning and implementation. Given India’s diversity, this calls for a shift from the cast in stone guidelines on Frameworks for Implementation (FFIs).

The Sarva SikhshaAbhiyan, now called SamagraShiksha, the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and the recently launched Ayu sh ma an Bharat initiatives, and all rural development programmes modified and launched in the last seven years, have FFIs, which allow state-specific tweaks for better implementation and outcomes. States played an integral part in drafting these frameworks. For the central government, CSPs are an opportunity to push for reforms in states and local governments. The insistence on technology, Aadhaar validation, geo-tagging, direct benefit transfers, social audit, transparent online monitoring system, use of the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011-deprived households as the basis for beneficiary selection, and the adoption of good practices are all results of the partnership for reforms.

State legislatures have the authority to transfer funds, functions, and functionaries to local governments. However, many states are slow to do so to not lose control over resources. The role of the central government is to convince the states about such decentralisation, with communities playing a substantial role in them.

For the central government, it is not only funds transfer that matters. Professional support for driving reforms is essential. This is why SSA, NRHM, and rural development programmes have insisted on establishing institutions that provide handholding, appraisal, and technical support to states. The SSA’s technical support group, the National Health System Resource Centre (NHSRC) in NRHM, the National Rural Infrastructure Development Authority, and the National Rural Livelihood Promotion Society were all crafted to build capacity in technical areas. As a result, states started devising district and state plans. The organic partnership between the central and state governments became deeper through preappraisal, appraisal, and final approval of agreed objectives and targets.

The involvement of top professionals from such institutions in the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PGSY), the partnerships with national resource organisations in the livelihood mission, and the diversity of region-specific housing designs in the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awas Yojana (Gramin) are all examples of how professionalism could be instilled with the support of technical institutions and individuals. The NHSRC’s leadership in the capacity development of ASHAs, public health thrust, mainstreaming of AYUSH, studies on health financing, and developing health Management Information Systems (MIS) are also examples of capacity support. In addition, programmes such as the National Rural Livelihood Mission are human resource-centric since it builds community capacity for livelihoods.

Good practice-sharing workshops where states or districts showcase their initiatives are integral to these partnerships, promoting a culture of learning from each other. Again, the central government has a critical role in providing this platform to states for knowledge sharing and learning. The organic partnership will be incomplete without any accountability framework. TransparentMIS, geo-taggingofassets, an advisory group on community action in the health sector with civil society organisations carrying out audits of health institution performance and services to citizens, building up social and financial audit systems, independent annual joint review missions with academics, sector experts, civil society representatives to critically comment on a programme are required for effectiveness.

Both the central and state governments learn from these independent processes. Independent evaluation studies, audits, and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s performance audit hold everyone accountable for outcomes and quality.

The central, state, and local governments must work together to improve policy outcomes and deepen reforms. Also, with states on board for projects, explaining the genesis of the project and its positive impact on the local people becomes easier to explain to local communities.