Despite criticisms, money and time are being invested in NREGA. The following post attempts to contrast the intent of the Act with the implementation problems it suffers from. A few ways forward are suggested as food for thought.
NREGA recognizes the legitimate role of Panchayats in addressing their fundamental duty as set up in the 73th Constitutional Amendment of “providing economic development and social justice” in their area. However, in reality, bureaucratic implementation has bypassed Panchayati institutions.
‘Demand for work’ is a driver for the implementation of NREGA. Demand is decided by the number of job seekers who obtain job cards. Several surveys and reports indicate malpractices in issuing job cards. When genuine job seekers are not given job cards, there is no official record of demand for work. As it is a demand-based provisioning system, it has failed to monitor the demand for jobs.
Even if a job card is given, it does not guarantee a female or a differently abled person a job. Despite its insistence on inclusiveness, NREGA suffers caste and gender bias in allocation of jobs.
NREGA has an inbuilt structure of disincentive for non-performance of the state government in providing jobs. Inability to provide employment to a job seeker would require the state government to pay an unemployment allowance. This, however, begs attention to the practice of not issuing receipts for applications. With such people are unable to demand unemployment wages if they are not allotted jobs within 15 days of their application.
NREGA suggests that works should be chosen according to developmental requirements of the area and the need for providing employment to the people. However, it turns out that the people’s representatives and government employees arbitrarily decide the projects to suit their vested interests. Thus, the creation of assets through NREGA may turn out to be of little significance to the village or its people.
Rural Development Minister, Joshi himself admitted, “Had we devised a correct way of issuing job cards, maintaining muster rolls, and local planning of works, among other things, we would not have been hearing all the complaints about deficiencies in implementation of the scheme,” while addressing a national workshop on the NREGS in August 2009, organised to commemorate the birth anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi.
Despite such problems, NREGA continues to be defended by intellectuals like Montek Singh Aluwaliah who maintains that NREGA is largely a success albeit its variance in effectiveness. Columnist and social activist Harsh Mander says, “I have observed how much NREGA, again with its flaws, has meant for millions of India's poorest people. It has reduced distress migration and debt, brought more food to their plates and those of their children, and has raised agricultural wages. To me, this is evidence of democracy delivering to its dispossessed people.”
So, is there a way forward? The answer is a yes, provided the present day flaws in NREGA are seen as a call for action. Strengthening demand of jobs can happen if there is an increased awareness brought about through the effective use of mass media.
At present, the government appoints technically sound people to audit the asset building. Similarly, periodic auditing of finance can be taken up, to ensure transparency and appropriate use of funds.
Clear definition and strengthening of the roles of Panchayats will help in increasing the utility of assets which are built. It will also eliminate the domination of bureaucracy. Planning must involve setting deadlines; and any deviance must be punished. Different departments involved must be accountable.
Proactive intervention to fill present lacunae will accelerate NREGA’s success in establishing the dignity of labour for each individual and strengthening democracy in the country as a whole.
NREGA recognizes the legitimate role of Panchayats in addressing their fundamental duty as set up in the 73th Constitutional Amendment of “providing economic development and social justice” in their area. However, in reality, bureaucratic implementation has bypassed Panchayati institutions.
‘Demand for work’ is a driver for the implementation of NREGA. Demand is decided by the number of job seekers who obtain job cards. Several surveys and reports indicate malpractices in issuing job cards. When genuine job seekers are not given job cards, there is no official record of demand for work. As it is a demand-based provisioning system, it has failed to monitor the demand for jobs.
Even if a job card is given, it does not guarantee a female or a differently abled person a job. Despite its insistence on inclusiveness, NREGA suffers caste and gender bias in allocation of jobs.
NREGA has an inbuilt structure of disincentive for non-performance of the state government in providing jobs. Inability to provide employment to a job seeker would require the state government to pay an unemployment allowance. This, however, begs attention to the practice of not issuing receipts for applications. With such people are unable to demand unemployment wages if they are not allotted jobs within 15 days of their application.
NREGA suggests that works should be chosen according to developmental requirements of the area and the need for providing employment to the people. However, it turns out that the people’s representatives and government employees arbitrarily decide the projects to suit their vested interests. Thus, the creation of assets through NREGA may turn out to be of little significance to the village or its people.
Rural Development Minister, Joshi himself admitted, “Had we devised a correct way of issuing job cards, maintaining muster rolls, and local planning of works, among other things, we would not have been hearing all the complaints about deficiencies in implementation of the scheme,” while addressing a national workshop on the NREGS in August 2009, organised to commemorate the birth anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi.
Despite such problems, NREGA continues to be defended by intellectuals like Montek Singh Aluwaliah who maintains that NREGA is largely a success albeit its variance in effectiveness. Columnist and social activist Harsh Mander says, “I have observed how much NREGA, again with its flaws, has meant for millions of India's poorest people. It has reduced distress migration and debt, brought more food to their plates and those of their children, and has raised agricultural wages. To me, this is evidence of democracy delivering to its dispossessed people.”
So, is there a way forward? The answer is a yes, provided the present day flaws in NREGA are seen as a call for action. Strengthening demand of jobs can happen if there is an increased awareness brought about through the effective use of mass media.
At present, the government appoints technically sound people to audit the asset building. Similarly, periodic auditing of finance can be taken up, to ensure transparency and appropriate use of funds.
Clear definition and strengthening of the roles of Panchayats will help in increasing the utility of assets which are built. It will also eliminate the domination of bureaucracy. Planning must involve setting deadlines; and any deviance must be punished. Different departments involved must be accountable.
Proactive intervention to fill present lacunae will accelerate NREGA’s success in establishing the dignity of labour for each individual and strengthening democracy in the country as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment