Published Aug 22, 2026 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 22, 2026 | 8:00 AM
Local Government Minister KM Shaji launched a year-long programme marking the 30th anniversary of People’s Planning.
Synopsis: Launched on 17 August 1996, Kerala’s People’s Plan Campaign transformed local development by giving communities a greater role in deciding how public funds were spent and shaping projects around their needs. Thirty years on, the state is revisiting that legacy through “People’s Planning 2.0”, with a renewed push to bring young people into participatory democracy and strengthen grassroots governance.
Thirty years ago, on 17 August 1996, Kerala embarked on an experiment that sought to change not merely how development funds were spent, but who decided how they should be spent.
In the presence of former chief ministers, then Chief Minister EK Nayanar and Local Self-Government Minister Paloli Mohammedkutty, the state’s first chief minister, EMS Namboodiripad, inaugurated the People’s Plan Campaign, setting in motion one of Kerala’s most consequential experiments in democratic decentralisation.
The campaign, launched as part of the Ninth Five-Year Plan, attempted to take planning out of the exclusive domain of government departments and pass it to the neighbourhood, village and local community.
The idea was straightforward but ambitious: a substantial share of the state’s development budget would be placed with the local governments, allowing people to identify their priorities and help decide how public money should be used.
The government committed itself to devolving around 35 to 40 per cent of the plan or development budget to local communities. The campaign subsequently became one of the defining chapters in Kerala’s post-land-reform development history, creating an institutional framework through which ordinary citizens could participate directly in planning and monitoring development programmes.
The experiment did not mean that every project selected through local participation was successful, nor did decentralisation eliminate the problems of local governance.
But it fundamentally altered the institutional space available to people to articulate their needs, question priorities and participate in decisions affecting their communities.
Also Read: True democracy lies in decentralisation and participatory governance
Kerala’s experiment with decentralised governance gathered momentum in the mid-1990s, following the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution.
In 1994, the state enacted the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Municipality Act, defining the responsibilities of rural and urban local governments.
Yet the laws stopped short of clearly separating the developmental functions of local bodies from those of the state and Central governments.
A significant shift came in September 1995, when the government ordered the transfer of many institutions and staff to local self-government institutions (LSGIs).
The move established a clearer framework for assigning responsibilities and, importantly, placed greater emphasis on Village Panchayats and Urban Local Bodies.
Only a relatively small number of institutions and personnel were transferred to Block and District Panchayats.
The foundations of Kerala’s decentralisation drive were further strengthened in February 1996, when the State Finance Commission recommended ways to share the state’s financial resources with Panchayats and strengthen the revenue base of local governments.
The Finance Commission, along with the Committee on Decentralisation, subsequently submitted its reports, providing the basis for further reforms.
At the same time, the State Planning Board took another crucial step by introducing a participatory approach to development planning.
The People’s Campaign for the Ninth Plan was launched on an experimental basis, marking a deliberate attempt to shift planning from the government offices to the grassroots.
The next major step came in the March 1996 State Budget.
The idea of untied plan funds, first introduced in 1990 in a limited form for Village Panchayats, was expanded dramatically. The allocation, which stood at ₹28.58 crore in 1995-96, rose to ₹155.72 crore and was extended to all rural and urban LSGIs.
The Budget also introduced two important changes.
A separate budget document for local governments was created, while Head of Account 191 ensured that designated grants could be credited only to LSGIs. Some departmental plan schemes were also brought under the new system, laying the foundation for what came to be known as state-sponsored schemes.
The year 1996 also marked another important step in Kerala’s effort to deepen decentralisation.
A committee headed by Dr Sathyabrath Sen was constituted to examine ways to strengthen local governance and give greater institutional backing to the decentralisation process being pursued through the People’s Plan Campaign.
The Sen Committee underlined that decentralisation could not be achieved simply by transferring responsibilities to local bodies. Existing laws and the state’s administrative machinery would also have to change to enable local governments to exercise the powers entrusted to them.
It made it clear that decentralisation meant more than allowing local bodies to function under the direction of higher-level officials. It said that what was required was the transfer of genuine decision-making powers to local self-governments in the areas assigned to them.
The recommendations provided an important institutional basis for the decentralisation drive.
Acting on the Sen Committee’s recommendations, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the municipal laws were comprehensively amended in 1999, giving a stronger legal framework to the powers and functions of local governments.
Then on 17 August, corresponding to Chingam 1 in the Malayalam calendar (the Malayalam New Year), the People’s Plan Campaign was launched.
Also Read: Social justice, not growth, key for ending poverty
The real test of Kerala’s People’s Plan Campaign began after the much-publicised launch in August 1996 — when the idea of decentralisation had to be turned into decisions on the ground.
Between August and December that year, grama sabhas were held in every ward of the state’s 990 grama panchayats, with similar neighbourhood meetings in urban areas.
Across 14,149 assemblies, an average of 159 people took part.
The meetings were not designed simply for officials to explain government schemes. People broke into smaller groups, discussed local problems and identified priorities, with health, agriculture, education, housing, roads, women’s development and other sectors on the table.
The discussions were then carried forward into Panchayat Development Reports.
All 1,212 local communities prepared such reports, creating a detailed record of what people believed their areas needed.
At the next stage, seminars involving around 300 people examined these findings.
Task forces, supported by volunteers including retired professionals and government officials, turned the priorities into project proposals. The elected panchayat councils finally decided which projects would take precedence.
The process was initially slow, taking nearly 13 months in the first year. With experience, it was reduced to about four months.
By 1997-98, the campaign had produced 67,766 locally conceived projects, backed by ₹749 crore in devolved funds.
Yet the exercise was not left entirely open-ended. Spending on infrastructure was capped at 30 per cent to prevent roads from swallowing the development budget.
Alongside planning came training. Citizens, elected representatives and local officials were taught basic cost-benefit analysis, rapid rural appraisal and other tools — turning participation into a practical skill rather than just a slogan.
The decisive breakthrough came in July 1996, when the new LDF government resolved to earmark 35-40% of the Ninth Plan outlay for projects and programmes prepared by local governments.
In August, the People’s Plan Campaign was launched to turn this financial devolution into a participatory planning process.
What set the campaign apart was not merely the transfer of funds or responsibilities, but the scale of public participation it sought to create.
People were brought into discussions on local development priorities. They identified needs and shaped projects through a campaign-style mobilisation.
Also Read: Elephants sans passage, people without peace
Three decades after People’s Planning reshaped Kerala’s decentralisation experiment, the state is looking at what comes next — with a clear focus on bringing a new generation into local democracy.
Local Government Minister KM Shaji launched a year-long programme marking the 30th anniversary of People’s Planning.
Discussions held simultaneously took stock of what the campaign had achieved and, more importantly, where it has lost momentum.
The consensus was that decentralisation has delivered significant gains for Kerala, with the benefits still visible. But the participatory spirit that gave People’s Planning its distinctive character has weakened. Participation has declined in many places, while what was once a vibrant democratic exercise has, in several instances, turned into a routine process.
The discussions also underlined a striking generational shift.
People’s Planning was arguably Kerala’s largest informal education programme, bringing large numbers of ordinary people into planning and local governance. Those who formed its core volunteer base three decades ago are now older. Around 80 per cent of those attending the convention belonged to that generation, highlighting the absence of young people from the current local democratic process.
That gap is now being identified as the central challenge for People’s Planning 2.0.
The 30th anniversary programme will centre young people, aiming for 80 per cent of participants in the anniversary activities to be youth. Universities and local governments will be brought together to create structured internship and apprenticeship opportunities for students within local government institutions.
The volunteer and technical networks that powered the original People’s Planning campaign will also be revived. They are expected to work alongside students and assist local governments that want to experiment with new ideas, strengthen governance and develop innovative activities.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
