The trust vote drama in Karnataka has hit the national headlines. The incumbent chief minister, B.S. Yeddyurappa appears to have won the first round. It remains to be seen how the BJP responds to the governor’s direction that a second trust vote be held by the 14th of this month. In the 225-member Karnataka assembly, the ruling BJP had a wafer-thin majority since the 2008 assembly elections. And it was not surprising to find that some political forces in the state felt that there was an opportunity to unseat the government. But what has transpired over the past few days has once again reminded citizens of the ugly side of politics. Leading up to the trust vote, the governor of Karnataka wrote a letter to the speaker of the Karnataka assembly asking that no MLAs be disqualified before the trust vote was conducted on the floor of the assembly. Subsequently, there have been a number of allegations about the conduct of the trust vote itself. The governor openly called the trust vote “farcical”, and wrote to the Centre asking that President’s Rule be imposed in the state, before he directed the government to prove its majority again. This phenomenon of trust votes is not uncommon in our dynamic political culture. Just before the 2009 general elections, the BJD and the BJP had differences over seat-sharing in Orissa. The BJP decided to withdraw support to the Naveen Patnaik government. The BJD passed the floor test by a voice vote. While the opposition claims that the process was not fair, the BJD leadership has maintained that there was no request for a division, which would have required recorded voting. The relatively small Goa assembly has seen a number of similar occurrences in the recent past, with governments changing as a result. But there are some critical issues that merit examination. In some recent trust votes, there have been allegations that large amounts of money have been exchanged. Of course, following the 2008 trust vote in the Lok Sabha on the India-US nuclear agreement, the infamous cash-for-votes scam broke out, with wads of cash being shown on the floor of the House. In the Karnataka trust vote, too, there have been allegations that large amounts of money have changed hands. The second issue is how some of these trust votes are managed on the floor of the House. Both the recent Orissa episode and the ongoing Karnataka one have been very contentious about the procedure that has been used to prove the majority. In both cases, the opposition alleged that they asked for a division, which would require a physical count of votes rather than just a voice vote, and in both cases a division was not held. A parallel issue which needs to be kept in mind is the governor’s power to ensure compliance with procedure in the state legislatures. The third issue that needs some discussion is whether the decision on defections should be judged by the speaker, usually a member of the ruling party or coalition, or by a neutral external body, such as the Election Commission. In the latest episode in Karnataka, the speaker has disqualified MLAs on the ground that they have voluntarily exited the party under which they were elected. In a 1994 case (Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India), the Supreme Court ruled that the words “voluntarily giving up membership” have a wider meaning. An inference can also be drawn from the conduct of the member that he has voluntarily given up the membership of his party. There is a huge paradox in the anti-defection law that was passed 25 years ago. While MLAs and MPs vote along party lines on ordinary legislation, they do not appear to be daunted by the consequences in the case of trust votes. So, in effect, the anti-defection law appears to be effective in controlling members of all parties on policy-making — which could in fact benefit from more open input from across party lines — but ineffective in several cases with regard to trust votes. Clearly, there is much more at stake for all concerned in trust votes, and therefore the scope for greater negotiation. Politics in our large and complex democracy is fiercely competitive. Dissidence is to be expected because there are too many people vying for too few of the top positions. While there are no perfect solutions, the only sustainable and meaningful approach is to encourage inner-party democracy so as to enable a selection process for positions of responsibility that is accepted as free and fair by all concerned. While the political uncertainty continues, the only certainty for India’s citizens is a very unhealthy politics for some time to come. - CV Madhukar This article was published in Indian Express on October 13, 2010
Earlier this month, guidelines for the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) were released by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation. Key features of the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), as outlined in the guidelines, are detailed below. In addition, a brief overview of sanitation levels in the country is provided, along with major schemes of the central government to improve rural sanitation. The Swachh Bharat Mission, launched in October 2014, consists of two sub-missions – the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) (SBM-G), which will be implemented in rural areas, and the Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban), which will be implemented in urban areas. SBM-G seeks to eliminate open defecation in rural areas by 2019 through improving access to sanitation. It also seeks to generate awareness to motivate communities to adopt sustainable sanitation practices, and encourage the use of appropriate technologies for sanitation. I. Context Data from the last three Census’, in Table 1, shows that while there has been some improvement in the number of households with toilets; this number remains low in the country, especially in rural areas. Table 1: Percentage of households with toilets (national)
| Year | Rural | Urban | Total |
| 1991 | 9% | 64% | 24% |
| 2001 | 22% | 74% | 36% |
| 2011 | 31% | 81% | 47% |
In addition, there is significant variation across states in terms of availability of household toilets in rural areas, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 also shows the change in percentage of rural households with toilets from 2001 to 2011. It is evident that the pace of this change has varied across states over the decade. Table 2: Percentage of rural households with toilets
| State |
2001 |
2011 |
% Change |
| Andhra Pradesh |
18 |
32 |
14 |
| Arunachal Pradesh |
47 |
53 |
5 |
| Assam |
60 |
60 |
0 |
| Bihar |
14 |
18 |
4 |
| Chhattisgarh |
5 |
15 |
9 |
| Goa |
48 |
71 |
23 |
| Gujarat |
22 |
33 |
11 |
| Haryana |
29 |
56 |
27 |
| Himachal Pradesh |
28 |
67 |
39 |
| Jammu and Kashmir |
42 |
39 |
-3 |
| Jharkhand |
7 |
8 |
1 |
| Karnataka |
17 |
28 |
11 |
| Kerala |
81 |
93 |
12 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
9 |
13 |
4 |
| Maharashtra |
18 |
38 |
20 |
| Manipur |
78 |
86 |
9 |
| Meghalaya |
40 |
54 |
14 |
| Mizoram |
80 |
85 |
5 |
| Nagaland |
65 |
69 |
5 |
| Odisha |
8 |
14 |
6 |
| Punjab |
41 |
70 |
30 |
| Rajasthan |
15 |
20 |
5 |
| Sikkim |
59 |
84 |
25 |
| Tamil Nadu |
14 |
23 |
9 |
| Tripura |
78 |
82 |
4 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
19 |
22 |
3 |
| Uttarakhand |
32 |
54 |
23 |
| West Bengal |
27 |
47 |
20 |
| All India |
22 |
31 |
9 |
II. Major schemes of the central government to improve rural sanitation The central government has been implementing schemes to improve access to sanitation in rural areas from the Ist Five Year Plan (1951-56) onwards. Major schemes of the central government dealing with rural sanitation are outlined below.
| Central Rural Sanitation Programme (1986): The Central Rural Sanitation Programme was one of the first schemes of the central government which focussed solely on rural sanitation. The programme sought to construct household toilets, construct sanitary complexes for women, establish sanitary marts, and ensure solid and liquid waste management. |
| Total Sanitation Campaign (1999): The Total Sanitation Campaign was launched in 1999 with a greater focus on Information, Education and Communication (IEC) activities in order to make the creation of sanitation facilities demand driven rather than supply driven. Key components of the Total Sanitation Campaign included: (i) financial assistance to rural families below the poverty line for the construction of household toilets, (ii) construction of community sanitary complexes, (iii) construction of toilets in government schools and aganwadis, (iv) funds for IEC activities, (v) assistance to rural sanitary marts, and (vi) solid and liquid waste management. |
| Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (2012): In 2012, the Total Sanitation Campaign was replaced by the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA), which also focused on the previous elements. According to the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, the key shifts in NBA were: (i) a greater focus on coverage for the whole community instead of a focus on individual houses, (ii) the inclusion of certain households which were above the poverty line, and (iii) more funds for IEC activities, with 15% of funds at the district level earmarked for IEC. |
| Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) (2014): Earlier this year, in October, NBA was replaced by Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) (SBM-G) which is a sub-mission under Swachh Bharat Mission. SBM-G also includes the key components of the earlier sanitation schemes such as the funding for the construction of individual household toilets, construction of community sanitary complexes, waste management, and IEC. Key features of SBM-G, and major departures from earlier sanitation schemes, are outlined in the next section. |
III. Guidelines for Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) The guidelines for SBM-G, released earlier this month, outline the strategy to be adopted for its implementation, funding, and monitoring. Objectives: Key objectives of SBM-G include: (i) improving the quality of life in rural areas through promoting cleanliness and eliminating open defecation by 2019, (ii) motivating communities and panchayati raj institutions to adopt sustainable sanitation practices, (iii) encouraging appropriate technologies for sustainable sanitation, and (iv) developing community managed solid and liquid waste management systems. Institutional framework: While NBA had a four tier implementation mechanism at the state, district, village, and block level, an additional tier has been added for SBM-G, at the national level. Thus, the implementation mechanisms at the five levels will consist of: (i) National Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), (ii) State Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), (iii) District Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), (iv) Block Programme Management Unit, and (v) Gram Panchayat/Village and Water Sanitation Committee. At the Gram Panchayat level, Swachhta Doots may be hired to assist with activities such as identification of beneficiaries, IEC, and maintenance of records. Planning: As was done under NBA, each state must prepare an Annual State Implementation Plan. Gram Panchayats must prepare implementation plans, which will be consolidated into Block Implementation Plans. These Block Implementation Plans will further be consolidated into District Implementation Plans. Finally, District Implementation Plans will be consolidated in a State Implementation Plan by the State Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin). A Plan Approval Committee in Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation will review the State Implementation Plans. The final State Implementation Plan will be prepared by states based on the allocation of funds, and then approved by National Scheme Sanctioning Committee of the Ministry. Funding: Funding for SBM-G will be through budgetary allocations of the central and state governments, the Swachh Bharat Kosh, and multilateral agencies. The Swachh Bharat Kosh has been established to collect funds from non-governmental sources. Table 3, below, details the fund sharing pattern for SBM-G between the central and state government, as provided for in the SBM-G guidelines. Table 3: Funding for SBM-G across components
| Component | Centre | State | Beneficiary | Amount as a % of SBM-G outlay |
| IEC, start-up activities, etc | 75% | 25% | - | 8% |
| Revolving fund | 80% | 20% | - | Up to 5% |
| Construction of household toilets | 75%(Rs 9000)90% for J&K, NE states, special category states | 25%(Rs 3000)10% for J&K, NE states, special category states | -- | Amount required for full coverage |
| Community sanitary complexes | 60% | 30% | 10% | Amount required for full coverage |
| Solid/Liquid Waste Management | 75% | 25% | - | Amount required within limits permitted |
| Administrative charges | 75% | 25% | - | Up to 2% of the project cost |
One of the changes from NBA, in terms of funding, is that funds for IEC will be up to 8% of the total outlay under SBM-G, as opposed to up to 15% (calculated at the district level) under NBA. Secondly, the amount provided for the construction of household toilets has increased from Rs 10,000 to Rs 12,000. Thirdly, while earlier funding for household toilets was partly through NBA and partly though the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the provision for MGNREGS funding has been done away with under SBM-G. This implies that the central government’s share will be met entirely through SBM-G. Implementation: The key components of the implementation of SBM-G will include: (i) start up activities including preparation of state plans, (ii) IEC activities, (iii) capacity building of functionaries, (iv) construction of household toilets, (v) construction of community sanitary complexes, (vi) a revolving fund at the district level to assist Self Help Groups and others in providing cheap finance to their members (vii) funds for rural sanitary marts, where materials for the construction of toilets, etc., may be purchased, and (viii) funds for solid and liquid waste management. Under SBM-G, construction of toilets in government schools and aganwadis will be done by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and Ministry of Women and Child Development, respectively. Previously, the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation was responsible for this. Monitoring: Swachh Bharat Missions (Gramin) at the national, state, and district levels will each have monitoring units. Annual monitoring will be done at the national level by third party independent agencies. In addition, concurrent monitoring will be done, ideally at the community level, through the use of Information and Communications Technology. More information on SBM-G is available in the SBM-G guidelines, here.
