DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES OF PRE-INDEPENDENCE ERA
Objectives and Importance
Over a period of about seventy years number of rural development experiments and
programmes were conducted in India. Long before the introduction of the Government managed
extension system at the national level in 1952, there had been sporadic attempts in developing
the rural life. Knowledge of the early extension efforts shall serve as a useful background in
understanding the development of systems of extension in India.
The early extension efforts had two distinct patterns. First, there were attempts by some
benevolent persons and private agencies to improve rural life. Second, attempts were made at
government level to initiate some projects to solve the pressing problems in agriculture.
When these experiments were conducted there existed certain conditions like, agriculture
was the primary occupation to a large percentage of population, extremely low purchasing
power, lack of application of science and technologies, lack of understanding about the natural
resources especially the flora and fauna of the region and their commercial usage, lack of socioeconomic organisations, etc. These realities are to be remembered before understanding the past
rural development works. When these experiment were conducted, colonial rule was existing.
Merits and Demerits
These programmes and experiments were conducted at different points of time, in different
regions, and under different politico-socio-economic conditions. They varied in area, population
coverage, financial and other resources. They were designed according to the policy makers perception of problems and needs of people. Therefore common evaluation is not possible and each experiment for programme is to be studied independently for its approach, performance, effectiveness against the stated objectives, etc.
The projects had one or the other shortcomings which may be summed up as follows:
1. Most of the efforts were based on individual initiative.
2. Government backing and financing were not forthcoming.
3. All attempts were isolated, uneven and discontinuous
4. Staff were mostly inexperienced and untrained.
5. Plans and programmes were ill-defined and unbalanced.
6. Need for proper methods and skills for approach was not realised.
7. No evaluation was carried out, hence the results were not known.
8. Association and coordination other development departments were very limited
9. Involvement of the people in planning and execution i.e. finding out the problems and their
solutions was very limited.
