The Sub-Plan as presented in the summary is unique in many respects. It is mentioned in the preface that 'through the planning process was initiated about 25 years ago in the country, the rate of economic development of all the weaker sections of the community including the Adivasis has been extremely low in spite of special programmes for them'. The Sub-Plan proposed an allocation of Rs 130 crores for tribal areas in different districts.
2. INTRODUCTION
● Purpose:
○ Aims at decreasing Socio - economic deprivation and disadvantages
suffered by SCs and STs
○ Adopt measures to close the gaps and reduce development differences
between SC/STCs and the rest of the population.
○ Benefits from the general sectors flow to SC, and STs at least to their
population both in physical and financial terms.
● States prepare the plan as per the proportion of SC and ST population of the
state.
● Funds provided central/ministries and departments , state/UT government.
3. TRIBAL SUB-PLAN
● Fifth Five-Year Plan ( 1974-75)
● Socio-economic Development.
● Proportion to ST population.
● Applicable to 22 states and 2 UT.
● General program not Compatible.
● HDI lowest among ST.
● Mid-term appraisal of the eleventh plan shows funds are not adequate.
4. WHY TSP?
● Exploitation in all forms.
● Isolation from the mainstream of community life due to communication barriers.
● Unstable and uneconomic agriculture.
● Lack of self-confidence and in-ability of the Adivasis and their leadership to make
their needs heard in the process of planning.
● Lack of supporting economic means of livelihood.
5. OBJECTIVES OF TSP
● Substantial reduction in poverty and unemployment.
● Creation of productive assets in favour of Scheduled Tribes to sustain the growth
likely to accrue through development efforts.
● Human resource development of the Scheduled Tribes by providing adequate
educational and health services, and
● Provision of physical and financial security against all types of exploitation and
oppression.
6. ISSUES OF TSP
● TSP funds which should not be diverted for other purposes.
● Provision of less TSP budget in annual plans.
● Realistic physical target for TSP schemes / Programmes.
● No periodical benchmark surveys regarding the socioeconomic status of the tribal
people.
● SC and ST development department is spending less.
7. SUGGESTIONS FOR TSP
● TSP programmes/schemes should be made transparent and monitoring is needed.
● Only those schemes should be included under TSP that ensures direct benefits to
individuals or families belonging to Scheduled Tribes.
● Priority should be given for providing basic minimum services like primary
education, health, drinking water, nutrition, rural housing, rural electrification
and rural link road.
● Schemes to develop agriculture and allied activities like animal husbandry, dairy
development, vocational training, etc. that provide a source of livelihood to ST
population should be included.
● Innovative projects that draw upon institutional finance to supplement plan
allocations may be drawn up.
8. THE SPECIAL COMPONENT PLAN
● Sixth Five-Year Plan ( 1979-80)
● Nomenclature changed to - Scheduled- Caste Sub Plan
● Strategy of SCSP consists of important interventions through planning process of
social, educational and economic development and improvement in their working
and living conditions.
● Human resource development
● Enhancing quality of life
● Reduction in poverty and employment
● Financial assistance
10. SPECIAL CENTRAL ASSISTANCE
● Provide an added thrust to the Scheduled Castes Sub-Plan (SCSP) and the Tribal
Sub-Plan (TSP) in order to accelerate socio-economic development.
● Provided to State Governments/UT Administrations as an additive to their
Scheduled Castes Sub-Plan (SCSP) and the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP)
● The main objective of SCA to SCSP and TSP is to boost the development
programmes with reference to their occupational pattern and the need for
increasing the productivity of and income from their limited resources.
12. PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PLANS - PLANNING COMMISION
● States/UTs were allocating funds from the divisible
sectors/programmes
● Plan outlays from schemes/programmes were not reaching the SC/ST
habitations outside the village/towns.
● Priority sectors and need-based schemes/programmes for the benefit of
SC like education, health, technical/ vocational training etc. were not
devised based on beneficiaries’ actual needs.
● Development schemes/ programmes of infrastructure relating to roads,
major irrigation projects, mega projects of power and electricity sector
were not accruing any direct and immediate benefits to SCs.
● Schemes related to minor irrigation, asset creation,housing and land
distribution were not given importance.
13. ● The allocations made were only notional in nature, showing benefits
supposedly accruing to the SCs for their welfare and development from the
general sector.
● The funds in any of the states/uts were not even 50% of the allocated funds.
● No proper budget heads/dub-heads were created and so the funds were easily
diverted to the general sectors.
● The allocations made were only notional in nature, showing benefits
supposedly accruing to the SCs for their welfare and development from the
general sector.
● The funds in any of the states/uts were not even 50% of the allocated funds.
● No proper budget heads/dub-heads were created and so the funds were easily
diverted to the general sectors.
● As the secretary of the Ministry of Social Welfare was not made a Nodal
Officer, there was no controlling mechanism for the planning, supervision
and allocation of funds to priority sectors benefiting SCs.
