JOIN USAn important decision of the governing council of the NITI Aayog, which has replaced the Planning Commission, was to make a close scrutiny of the many Centrally-sponsored schemes in the country. They have had an important role in addressing development needs and have served as bridges between the Centre and the states. The meeting has set up three sub-groups of chief ministers on these schemes, on ways to promote skill development and on how to make the Swachh Bharat programme a success. Since the success of all these programmes needs a high level of cooperation between the Centre and the states, the Centre has done well to take the states on board on their planning and implementation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has again stressed the idea of cooperative federalism in Centre-state relations and dealings. The experience of development planning in the past underlines the need for such cooperation and the NITI Aayog will do well to focus on that.
The reformulation of Centrally sponsored schemes is likely to be an important step in that direction. The UPA government had pruned the number of such schemes from 173 to 66. This was also on the recommendation of a Group of Ministers. Centrally-sponsored schemes are launched after identifying priority areas and drawing up action plans for them. Most of the funds are allotted by the Centre, and the departments concerned in the states implement the schemes. The problem with them was that most of them were straight- jacketed. Since a large number of schemes existed, there was overlapping between many. Some of them were created for political purposes. Tens of thousands of crores were involved in them, and wastage and misuse had been common. It has always been the complaint of state governments that they could make better use of these funds if they had better control over their formulation and implementation.
The sub-group, which has now been set up, has a specific brief. It will examine which of the existing schemes should be continued, transferred to states or shelved altogether. Development in the country has been uneven and states differ from one another in resources, needs and priorities. So, a one-size-fits-all approach will not suit the needs of all states. The greater sensitivity to the needs of states should be seen not only in the redesign of these schemes but in all aspects of resource allocation. A number of states have demanded a better share of taxes and duties from the Centre. Institutions like the Finance Commission have been sympathetic to these demands and the Centre should pay heed to them.