Where is NREGS heading?

This piece was carried in InfochangeIndia (www.infochangeindia.org) in October 2009

The web link: http://infochangeindia.org/200910097974/Governance/Features/Where-is-NREGS-heading.html

Where is NREGS heading?

By Pradeep Baisakh

The biggest danger the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme faces is that the people it is meant to benefit will lose faith in it. In far too many instances guilty officials are not punished, social audits are not followed up, payment of wages is delayed and violence against those seeking to make the scheme work goes unchecked

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) is believed to be one of the main reasons for the UPA government’s return to power in the 2009 general elections. The legislation that guarantees 100 days of employment to every rural household that asks for it, while at the same time ensuring that the employment builds infrastructure for villages, is undoubtedly path-breaking. The manner in which it has been implemented, though, has been unsatisfactory in many ways.

Some of the criticism was heard on May 14, 2009, during the observance of the Lalit Mehta Sahadat Divas in Daltonganj, Jharkhand, the first death anniversary of Lalit Mehta. Mehta was allegedly murdered for his crusade against corruption in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS).

Activists from across the country discussed issues such as increasing NREGA-related violence, freezing of wage rates for NREGS by the central government, delayed payment of wages, centralised planning, and poor transparency provisions and grievance redressal mechanisms.

Delay in wage payment
In many parts of India, it is necessary to adhere to the principle of ‘aaj ka kaam aur aaj ka bhoogdaan’ (today’s work and today’s payment) as the poorest section of the rural populace, who are daily labourers, eat only after they get their daily wage at the end of the day. It is for this reason that NREGA provided for at least part payment of wages on a daily basis.

However, in most cases, this provision has remained only on paper. In any case the final payment of wages must be made within seven days and certainly not later than 15 days. This too, is not the uniform practice.

When NREGS began three years ago, payment was to be made in cash to the workers. This practice malfunctioned on a large scale since it was left to individuals in authority to make full and timely payments, which they rarely did. The practice of paying wages through banks and post offices was then started, in the belief that this would be a foolproof system since payments went directly into the bank accounts of the workers.

Social workers, scholars, activists, and academicians from Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Rajasthan and West Bengal who had gathered at the Daltonganj meeting, however agreed that delayed payment is still a serious issue in all these states, though the situation in Rajasthan has improved.

They warned that people would lose faith in NREGS if this most vital element in the programme is not addressed. Sharing his experiences about the severity of the problem in Jharkhand, Prof Jean Drèze, development economist, said, “People in Khunti block (Khunti district) have not received payment for three months, so they are tired.” People in Jharkhand and Orissa reportedly have not received their wages for more than a year. Drèze added that people who previously wanted NREGA are now turning away from it.

The administration has been against NREGS from the start. But when the people too begin to turn away from it, it leads to a very dangerous situation. In Jharkhand, the state administration has had to face mounting pressure to act firmly to expose the widespread corruption in NREGS which was revealed during a series of social audits. The revelations led to violence and even the murder of those like Lalit Mehta who exposed the corruption.

Workers from the Saiyapur gram panchayat in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh have not received wages for work done in December 2008. Consequently, hundreds of labourers from various districts of Uttar Pradesh demonstrated in front of their respective block offices in June 2009 and demanded immediate payment of the pending wages. The method of payment has undoubtedly to be streamlined since many agencies are involved. Money has to be released from the district administration into the accounts of implementing agencies, namely the blocks and gram panchayats (GPs). The pay order in the name of the worker is then transferred to the branches of banks or post offices where the workers have their accounts, and simultaneously payslips have to be issued to the workers. Before all this, junior engineers have to complete measurement of the work done on the basis of which the wage is fixed.

Schedule II of NREGA provides for payment of compensation under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for any delay in paying out wages. This provision must be enforced strictly.

On June 6, 2009, Rs 3.48 lakh was paid in compensation to workers in Khunti district (Rs 2,000 per head) of Jharkhand under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (POWA). This was done after Jean Drèze and Reetika Khera of the Delhi School of Economics wrote to the governor of the state, Syed Sibtey Razi and the case was submitted to the assistant labour commissioner. Penalties were also imposed under Section 25 of NREGA on the erring officers. After the introduction of the bank payment system, the implementing authorities, particularly at the panchayat and block levels, are finding it difficult to manipulate the system. They thus delay the release of the payment. Invoking the provisions of the Wage Act strictly and consistently alone can stop this practice.

The bank system is not without its faults. Banks claim that they do not have the staff required to make payments to the large number of NREGA beneficiaries. If the claim is genuine, it should be addressed. The government should also consider bringing banks and post offices under the disciplinary jurisdiction of NREGA. The state governments while signing agreements with these payment agencies should incorporate this vital element.

Wage freeze by central government
On January 1, 2009 the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), issued a notification freezing NREGS wages state-wise at the existing rates for example, Rs 100 for Rajasthan, Rs 80 for Andhra Pradesh, Rs 92 for Jharkhand, Rs 70 for Orissa etc. There have been two developments since then. One, the minimum wage under NREGA has been increased from Rs 60 to Rs 100 as provided in the central budget, and two, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has suspended the January 1 notification. Despite these developments, the underlying principle deserves debate.

The decision to freeze NREGS wages means that the states cannot now increase the minimum wage rate in their own territories. Though fixing minimum wages is in the state’s jurisdiction under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, section 6 of NREGA gives power to the centre to ‘specify’ NREGS wage rates, which could be different for different states, provided it is not less than Rs 60 (now Rs 100).

Since the centre bears 90% of the expense of NREGS, its burden would increase should states begin to arbitrarily hike the minimum wage, which the centre fears it may do as a populist measure. In fact, many states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Utter Pradesh did revise the minimum wages for unskilled agricultural labourers after NREGS came into force. Some states like UP have even doubled it from Rs 58 to Rs 100.

However, the revision of minimum wages and schedule of rates (SoR) of agricultural labourers has been long overdue and NREGS provided the opportunity for state governments to do some justice to unorganised daily labourers. The proposition that states may arbitrarily increase the wage rate may not be a sound one as the increased rate would apply to all work undertaken in the state and would have financial implications for it. Moreover, the criteria for determining wage rate, like the food, clothing, housing, fuel/lighting etc requirements, vary from state to state. Therefore the states are the appropriate authority to determine wages as they understand the local economy.

According to sources, when the wage freeze was discussed in a special meeting of the Central Employment Guarantee Council (CEGC) in July 2008, every non-official member opposed it. Despite this, the government went ahead with the plan six months after the meeting, in January 2009, without any intimation to the CEGC members. This is understood to have been done under pressure from the farmers’ lobby.

Criticising the decision of the central government, Annie Raja, member, CEGC, said: “While on the one hand the salaries of government employees are increased under the 6th Pay Commission, freezing the minimum wages of poor daily labourers who are already reeling under the sharp price rise is objectionable.”

The argument that it will put a burden on the centre has less force when one considers that allocated funds for NREGS have not been used to the full. Only 73% of the allocated funds for 2006-07 were used, 81% for 2007-08 and 75% for 2008-09. (Source: http://www.nrega.nic.in/)

Nor has the government provided the hundred days of employment guaranteed under the Act. In 2008-09, a total of 48 days’ work was provided to 4.5 crore households. To therefore insist on freezing the minimum wage seems unethical.

Social audits: losing faith
It is mandatory to conduct social audits of all NREGS works. Several audits have consequently been held in different parts of the country usually with the help of research and civil society organisations.

While a social audit is undoubtedly the right way to make the implementing authorities accountable to the people, the key to its effectiveness is the action taken on the findings of the audits.

Action has been taken against erring officials and the money siphoned off has been recovered in Andhra Pradesh, where the audit is owned by the state, and in Rajasthan, due to pressure from a strong civil society. But by and large, the audits have not had the desired effect.

In Orissa, for example, the state administration promised to act on the findings of a series of social audits conducted by the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) in association with civil society groups in early 2008. But more than a year later, no action is forthcoming.

In Jharkhand, an independent survey by the G B Pant Institute revealed several irregularities in Palamu district in May 2008. However the government inquiry that followed submitted a report contrary to the survey findings. If this is the attitude of the administration to the findings of social audits, people will lose faith in the process. The resolution passed by the gathering in Daltonganj demanded that a joint inquiry should be held by the social audit team and government officials and the government should act in a time bound manner on the verifications done by this joint team.

Violence to silence voices against corruption
In Orissa, like in other state, NREGS was welcomed by people and civil society. Spreading awareness and carrying out social audits was essential to the success of the scheme. Several social audits (about 100 till mid 2008) were conducted throughout state with the active participation of the villagers.

However, in the past one year there has been a marked decline in civil society participation in NREGA. The reason, says Rajkishor Mishra, state adviser to the Supreme Court Commission on Right to Food, is “indiscriminate violence by the contractors, implementing officials and their hired goons on the activists and people and no follow-up action from the administration on the findings of social audits.”

Bidyut Mohanty, who has done pioneering work in conducting social audits in Koraput district of Orissa adds, “People are frustrated as the government did not address the issues raised by them during the social audits of NREGS works.” Somay Gagarai, a political activist from Jharkhand, Narayan Hareka, a PRI member from Orissa, Langtuk Phangco, a union leader from Meghalaya have been murdered for their activism on NREGA. Jharkhand has witnessed four murders, and three suicides allegedly due to the same cause, and several incidents of violence directed against activists and the people.

Anis Vanaik, a researcher from Jawaharlal Nehru University, compiled a list of 40 cases of NREGA related violence from 11 states, which showed that apart from murders and suicides, the people and activists have been beaten by officials and contractors and false cases have been indiscriminately registered against them by the administration. Neyamat Ansari and Bhukhan, two social workers of Gram Swaraj Abhiyan, Jharkhand, who mobilised people for the Lok Adalat held on NREGA by the Jharkhand government in Latehar district in February 2009, were later framed in false cases of attempting to murder a forest guard and put in jail for six days. State governments have been apathetic in dealing with complaints relating to such violence. Following the hostile investigation report submitted by the district collector and superintendent of police of Palamu district in Lalit Mehta’s murder, the case was handed over to the CBI in June 2008 after pressure from activists throughout the country. But the CBI has not done much in the last one year. It has met Arpita, wife of Lalit Mehta, and some of his co-workers. Disappointed at the slow pace of the CBI investigation, Mr Balaram, the state adviser to the Supreme Court Commission on Right to Food says, “The investigation should be completed and the murderers of Lalit should be nabbed soon. Otherwise people’s faith in the system will be lost.”

The congregation at Daltonganj demanded early completion of the CBI inquiry, punishment for Lalit Mehta’s murderers and unconditional withdrawal of false cases against the activists. The statement by the new union rural development minister, C P Joshi, that security to the NREGA volunteers is his top priority comes as some kind of reassurance for activists.

Grievance redress, transparency, accountability
In November 2007, Prof Jean Drèze and Annie Raja, both members of the Central Employment Guarantee Council had submitted 20 complaints on behalf of the people of Orissa to the commissioner-cum-secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, who is the state programme coordinator for NREGA. He had given an assurance that action would be taken in a month’s time. Yet, in March 2009, when activists wanted to know what action had been taken, the programme coordinator asked for the copies of the complaint to be re-submitted as they could not be found!

At the meeting in Daltonganj, activists from different states had similar tales to tell about the manner in which the grievance redress system had been reduced to a mockery. In fact, the mechanism itself needs to be changed.

The block development officer (BDO) is the complaint-receiving authority for any grievance at the panchayat level, the district collector for complaints against block officials and the state programme coordinator for complaints against the district collector. What is missing here is an independent final appellate authority like the State Information Commission under the Right to Information Act. For this, the law will have to be amended.

The central government has now proposed to create an ombudsman at the district level and has appointed an expert committee under Moolchand Sharma, vice-chairman, University Grants Commission, to examine the institutional mechanism for establishing such a position. As a survey by the G B Pant Institute in May-June 2008 found, provisions of transparency and accountability too are poorly implemented. The survey was conducted in the five states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Rajasthan was the only exception.

The draft transparency and public accountability rules formulated in April 2008 (http://nrega.nic.in/circular/draft_transparency_rules.pdf ) by the working group constituting Karuna Akella, Nikhil Dey, Jean Drèze, K S Raju, Aruna Roy and others, convened by the rural development ministry, made very specific recommendations on transparency and accountability, grievance redress and social audits.

Weak penalty clause
To ensure that implementing agencies do their job, punishments for violations should be severe. The Right to Information (RTI) Act is taken much more seriously by government officials because the penalties for default are high –Rs 25,000 for not providing the right information on time as against Rs 1000 under NREGA. The action - or lack of it - that attracts the penalty is also clearly spelt out in RTI and is vague in NREGA.

That is the sole reason why the penalty provision under section 20 of RTI has been invoked in innumerable cases at central and state level while the corresponding section 25 of NREGA has been invoked just three times (in Karon block of Devghar district, in Manika block of Latehar district and in Khunti district).

With a renewed mandate in its favour, due, it is said, largely to its pro-poor policies like NREGS, addressing the above issues should be a priority for the UPA government. To have a well meaning scheme falter because of bad implementation would be a tragedy indeed.

......

Box Item:
Life after Lalit “I am not repentant for the work done by Lalit,” says Arpita, wife of Lalit Mehta, who was allegedly murdered to stop the work he was doing in unearthing corruption in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). She was replying to a query about whether she felt her husband should not have taken up work that was to prove so dangerous. “I am proud of Lalit who died a hero’s death while fighting for the interests of the poor people,” adds Arpita. Lalit was an engineer in a programme called ‘Sukha Mukti Abhiyan’, a government-NGO initiative. He married Arpita Tirkey, a co-worker in 1999 despite opposition from both families on account of caste differences.

In 2000 they started Vikash Sahayak Kendra which was later renamed Gram Swaraj Abhiyan and worked towards village infrastructure development.

His crusade against corruption in NREGS made him many enemies among contractors and officials. He was allegedly eliminated by the contractors’ lobby on May 14, 2008 while travelling from Daltonganj to Chhtrapur. The Mehtas have two sons Manish Kumar (5) and Abhisek (2). Arpita is a school teacher now and responsible for the family. “My elder son understands that something has happened to his father, but the younger one cannot know; he still waits for his father to come,” says Arpita.

“One thing that worries me is the future of my kids. Had he been alive, he could have guided them properly.” If they wished to tread the same path as their father she would not stand in the way. “I will rather persuade them to be bold and dedicated like Lalit,” she says bravely.

(The author is a freelance journalist based in Orissa)
Infochange News & Features, October 2009