"PURA will not work"!

So says Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, referring to former Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam's development model of Providing Urban Amenities in Rural Areas (PURA). And, while appreciating the idealism inherent in the approach, I am inclined to go with Lee's arguement that given the Indian context, with its far-flung and sparsely populated villages, it may be impossible and economically inefficient to take urban amenities to rural areas.

A more appropriate and realistic model would be to have separate strategies for development in general and infrastructure development in particular, for both rural and urban areas. In urban areas, the focus should be on a gradual and planned expansion of the urban coverage, by improvements in the suburban civic infrastructure and establishment of effective linkages with the downtown areas, and in parallel develop integrated residential and industrial settlements. In rural areas, the strategy should be centered around the development of a basic minimum of physical infrastructure and civic and welfare services.

The demographics of Indian villages, especially in the more remote backward and tribal areas, is very unique. Such areas are characterized by small habitations, consisting of anywhere from 5 to 50 families, with the houses often randomly scattered or laid out in three or four small streets, and separated from the next habitation by atleast a few hundred meters. A few such habitations form a gram panchayat (GP), and ten to twenty GPs (or more) form a tehsil (or block or mandal). And there are millions of such habitations!

In this broad geographical context, and given scarce resources and competing demands, our development strategy for such areas will have to be confined to covering the essential civic and welfare services. Physical infrastructure like internal roads and drains, connecting roads, assured and safe drinking water supply, school, hospital, and anganwadi buildings should be developed in all these habitations. Civic and economic welfare services like basic education, health care, nutrition, assistance to disabled and old-aged, and food security should be assured, and delivered with adequate quality.

Achievement of even this limited goal, one which has so far eluded the Indian state, would itself be a great challenge. The effort and resources required of the government machinery to achieve them will be monumental. For a start, as Lee Kuan Yew asks, where do we get the doctors, teachers, nutritionists, and other professionals to service the millions of such habitations. Given this geographical context, it may be almost impossible to provide anything beyond basic education and health care to the residents of these hamlets.

Further, I am not sure whether this would serve the larger (and more important) objective of providing better economic and livelihood opportunities for the residents of these habitations. The scattered nature of these habitations works against exploitation of any economies of scale, and thereby makes most economic activities unsustainable. It becomes all the more challenging given India's minimal non-farm sector and manufacturing base, and our increasing reliance on a services-led growth strategy, which requires leveraging network and densification effects.

Taking examples from across the world, it is difficult to foresee much relevance for a development model that seeks to deliver these basic physical infrastructure and welfare services, while at the same time keeps these people in the existing widely spread out habitations. The alternatives are difficult and complex, and cannot be seen as a simple issue of increasing urbanization. In this context what should be the objective of our rural development policies? More about this in a later post.