Some states have in fact tried tofind a solution to this enormous problem by increasing the number of districts. Such kind of ad hoc treatment only touches the fringe of the problems. If it is accepted that a collector, who is also called the district magistrate, is to efficiently administer the revenue and law and order problems, he should have adequate financial authority, autonomy, freedom in decision-making as well as accountability for the actions that he takes. This is hardly the case at present, since the collector has no financial powers worth the name.

While major developmental activities can be handled by the various ministries in the state government, the collector of a district should be made directly responsible for the following functions/activities/requirements:

Drinking water,iIrrigation system, schools up to X, primary health centres with attending doctor/paramedic/nurses;,fair-price shops, law and order, revenue authority, post office; bus/transport services, internal roads, communication facilities - PTOs, STD boothsand TV centres.

Once it is accepted that these essential activities should be directly under the control of a person designated as the collector or a district magistrate, the number of villages under each collector should be drastically reduced to not more than 100 to 200. Each group of 100 to 200 villages should have an administrative head, who is overall responsible for all the stated activities in these villages. He should be given adequate financial authority commensurate with his responsibilities.

Annual targets under each of the items should be fixed for each district collector, particularly with regard to developing essential services, namely water, lighting, foodgrain distribution, medical services, roads, etc.

Necessary financial budget should be provided for each administrative head to achieve his objectives. His performance would be linked directly to his achieving the annual targets. He should travel extensively in his villages and should be available to personally resolve legal issuesconnected with land.

Another way to organize the setup would be to call the village administrative head as a development officer and have one collector under him 5 to 6 development officers. This way there will be local supervision of the work being done by the development officers. In a small way, such systems are in existence. However, there are no annual targets or accountability of these officers regarding their performance nor do they have financial authority.

The prime minister in his speech while seeking the vote of confidence in the parliament on March 28, 1998, stated that officials must be made responsible to implement IRDP and other schemes. They should also be given adequate financial powers and other wherewithal. This will ensure proper utilisation of funds to reach the target groups and achieve benefits for them.

Decentralisation of social-benefit schemes would be possible only if close monitoring is done at the collector's level. The current practice of such schemes being handled bypoliticians, leaves much to be desired. If the implementation of schemes are left to the collector, in case of misuse/fraud/faulty funding, immediate corrective action can be taken.

While the centre has been talking about decentralisation of powers, including financial powers to the states, the state governments must start thinking about decentralisation of financial powers, particularly for social benefit schemes, to an authority directly under their control such as the collector, who will be in a position to administer the schemes impartially and without fear or favour.

It is recommended that the administrative reforms may be implemented in one of the smaller states like Himachal Pradesh, with its hilly terrain, before trying the same in major states.