On October 2, 2009 the much admired/reviled (a really severe dichotomy) National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (Scheme)—NREGA(S)—got rechristened as MGREGA(S), Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act (Scheme). Why? The ostensible reasons are many, all traceable to the all too romantic notions of the man, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, about rural economies. But, the real reason is this: the expectation is the trenchant critics of the scheme will now pull in their punches — due deference; a cynical way to avoiding criticism. How long will this continue? I do not know, but I have stopped caring.
Even as a strong votary of the idea behind MGREGA, I endorse reasoned critiques of the legislation, like those of the development economist Jean Drèze, about the unnecessary haste in routing payments through post offices and/or banks, the delays in wage disbursal, the violations in issuing and custody of the all important job cards etc. Of course, I do not suffer motivated criticisms of those who merely want the resources allocated to MGREGS shifted to their pet causes, like tax breaks for SEZs.
I do not know who Y.B. Prasad is. But what (s)he wrote here, an Open Page piece in The Hindu of October 4, 2009 shows (s)he will not cower, be the program NREGA or MGREGA. (S)he has strongly criticized the skewed yet sharp focus on one of the two mandates of the scheme, to the near total exclusion of the other. The mandate under focus is, “right based 100-day unskilled employment” and the ignored one is, “creating productive and durable assets.”
I have often wondered why Prof. Drèze has been less than enthusiastic about endorsing the assets created under the scheme. I used to be suspicious of even the muted claims of the sustainable assets created. But, not having seen the sites of MGREGS works even from airplanes (as Prof. Drèze has caustically commented about those critics who have been, at best, only remotely aware of the ground realities) I accepted his evaluation – assets are being created but they can be done better, much better.
Now, Mr/Ms Prasad says that the lack of focus on the assets is an institutional infirmity; needs concentrated efforts to work through. The outlays for the creation of the assets are proposed in the Central budget, whereas the “maintenance, operation, accountability and the ownership right of the assets created on the public lands are exclusively vested with the State governments.” This is the chasm between the intent of and the realizations under the program. The writer then, going beyond wringing her/his hands, says, “NREGA [MGREGA], therefore, must lay down specifically the authorities accountable to maintain, run, and own these assets to fulfil the objective of strengthening the prosperous rural livelihood resource base.”
I may want to criticize the piece: One, the concluding statement does not go beyond making a pious statement. The retort could be, “I wrote in The Hindu’s Open Page. Even that is civil society participation and what are you up to? Have you ever been even as specific? Did you ever give a thought to systemic problems?” I hang my head in shame.
Two, there is no explicit mention of monitoring and we know how the bureaucracy works. The response, “We cannot create an endlessly expansionary bureaucracy. We have to do with what we already have, use it more effectively, more efficiently.” I agree.
Three, no arguments are presented for even continuing with the program. “You have not read the piece fully and have understood the message to a smaller extent. Ignore what Mahatma Gandhi said about rural development underpinning our national development, but it is a fact that even as we urbanize we have to recognize that rural folks have a right to living with dignity and being protected from the severest forms of deprivations. I cannot suffer those who want to do away with the scheme but am ready to contribute to improving the scheme.” I applaud.
This piece is one of the most focused I have read in the Open Page segment. I put my deepest appreciation on record.
Raghuram Ekambaram
No comments:
Post a Comment