Report of the Committee on Restructuring DRDA. - Ministry of Rural ...

6.2 DRDAs have, by and large, succeeded in ensuring smooth fund flow and
rendering <strong>of</strong> accounts, and particularly in ring-fencing central funds. However
in integrated planning and in bringing about transparency and participation in
<strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>the</strong> experience is at best mixed.
6.3 In <strong>the</strong> constitutional context created by <strong>the</strong> amendments, political
context brought in by functioning <strong>of</strong> elected bodies, development context
giving primacy to participatory development, and administrative context giving
importance to transparency and accountability <strong>the</strong>re is a need for revisiting <strong>the</strong>
raison d’e^tre <strong>of</strong> bodies like DRDAs. The Constitution mandates that planning
for economic development and social justice, and implementation <strong>of</strong> such
plans, should be <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PRIs and it fur<strong>the</strong>r provides for
transferring schemes in <strong>the</strong> functional domain <strong>of</strong> PRIs to <strong>the</strong>m. In this context,
it is necessary to examine <strong>the</strong> role and relevance <strong>of</strong> bodies like DRDAs.
6.4 In <strong>the</strong> changed context, autonomous bodies can end up as parallel
bodies which can be defined as follows:
Parallel bodies are those set up as directed by <strong>the</strong> State or Central
Governments to plan and/or execute development projects in areas which are
in <strong>the</strong> functional domain <strong>of</strong> local governments, using funds provided by <strong>the</strong>
State or Central Governments or donor funds. They are called parallel because
<strong>the</strong>y have a separate system <strong>of</strong> decision making on prioritization <strong>of</strong> projects
and resource allocation to <strong>the</strong>m which is independent <strong>of</strong> and removed from <strong>the</strong>
Panchayati Raj set up. These bodies could have in <strong>the</strong>m bureaucrats, elected
representatives and, even, non-<strong>of</strong>ficials and community representatives. They
have considerable autonomy, flexible procedures and function in isolation
directly reporting to <strong>the</strong> State Government and some times to <strong>the</strong> Central
Government.
6.5 Such bodies need a re-look for <strong>the</strong> following reasons.
i) They compete for political space and usurp <strong>the</strong> legitimate territory <strong>of</strong>
PRIs.
ii) They contest <strong>the</strong> very rationale <strong>of</strong> PRIs and question <strong>the</strong>
conceptualisation <strong>of</strong> PRIs as institutions <strong>of</strong> Local-self Government. They
reduce PRIs to <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> “yet ano<strong>the</strong>r organisation”.
40