People's Action for
Employment Guarantee called a press conference at Indian Women's
Press Corps (New Delhi) on 8 October, 2014 to oppose the dilution of
Mahatma Gandhi NREGA Act. Addressing the conference, social activist
Nikhil Dey informed that prior to the 16th Lok Sabha
election, BJP and other major political parties promised to improve
the implementation of MGNREGA. However instead of doing so, after the
election the NDA Government tried to roll back the job guaranty
programme in 3 different ways—a. Budget allocation for the
programme has been squeezed despite MGNREGA being demand-based; b.
The Government is changing the nature of programme from labour
intensive to material intensive; and c. The Act is being converted
into a scheme by restricting its implementation in one-third of the
blocks in India that are considered as backward.
Nikhil Dey argued that
the law cannot be abrogated by the Executive. It is illegal to make
changes in the schedule of MGNREGA. The Parliament too cannot be
allowed to make amendments in the MGNREGA since the NDA Government at
the Centre did not get the mandate to make changes in it when it was
voted to power. A recent RTI reveals that due to proposed change in
the labour to material ratio, officials at the Ministry of Rural
Development apprehend that “5 crore households will be adversely
affected by this decision” that goes against the spirit of the
Act.
In order to keep the
expenditure on MGNREGA (as a proportion GDP) the same as it
was in 2007-08, the Government should spend nearly Rs. 60,000 crore
to Rs. 65,000 crore annually at present. Dey said that the motive
behind changing the labour to material ratio is to allow the entry of
contractors. However, the move will also discriminate against
villages where unemployment and poverty is high. The marginalized and
the primitive tribals will die due to hunger and starvation in the
absence of this programme.
Nikhil Dey said that MPs
from across the political spectrum will be approached to oppose the
dilution of MGNREGA. People shall be mobilised against the changes
proposed in MGNREGA.
Former member of the
National Advisory Council and RTI activist Aruna Roy alleged that the
Government is in denial. She said that not all schemes are getting
closed down due to the presence of corruption. However, MGNREGA has
been systematically targeted since its inception. A letter to the
Prime Minister of India opposing the dilution of the Act has been
signed by more than 200 eminent citizens. A recent RTI reveals that
the Union Rural Development Minister Nitin Gadkari has ordered to
make amendment in the schedule for changing the labour to material
ratio from the existing 60:40 to 51:49. This will usher in Contractor
Raj, which was so far restricted to the real estate sector,
anticipated Roy. Despite MGNREGA being demand driven, there has been
rationing of funds. By restricting the Act to 1/3rd of the
blocks, the Govt. is trying to convert the MGNREGA into a scheme. She
argued that poverty cannot be defined geographically. Even in rich
cities and locations, there exists poverty and unemployment. A lot
many myths have been created to tarnish the Act. It is purely a myth
that assets have not been created under the MGNREGA.
Aruna Roy argued that
both unemployment and underemployment can be solved via MGNREGA.
MGNREGA provided employment to women, SCs and STs. Water bodies could
be conserved due to the Act, which helped farming in villages.
Financial inclusion of women has happened under the programme since
bank accounts could be opened in their names. Almost two-third of the
MGNREGA work is related to agriculture.
Retired professor of JNU
Prabhat Patnaik informed that prior to the MGNREGA, India had
food-for-work programme. However, the MGNREGA is different from the
former since it is demand driven and also a rights-based programme.
One is supposed to receive unemployment compensation if demand for
employment is not met. The primary aim of the MGNREGA is to provide
employment and not asset creation. Currently the Act is under danger
from the Executive. If an amendment is made in the schedule of
MGNREGA to change the labour to material ratio, then it will no
longer remain a rights-based programme. The recent statement by the
Rajasthan Chief Minister to convert the MGNREGA into a food-for-work
programme indicates the Act is on the verge of being diluted.
The wages provided to the
labourers employed under the MGNREGA generated demand in the village
economy via the 'multiplier-effect'. It increased purchasing power of
the rural masses during global financial crisis, argued Patnaik.
Ideally Rs. 60,000 crore to Rs. 65,000 crore should be allocated
annually under the MGNREGA to keep the real allocation constant in
the face of inflation. However, presently the programme gets an
allocation, which is nearly half of it.
Prof. Patnaik clarified
that it is not due to fund crunch that funding to the MGNREGA has
been squeezed. The Government has given huge tax concessions to the
corporate rich in successive budgets. The Government has enormous
amount of foodgrain stock, which is being exported. There is
unutilized capacity in the industry. All these indicate that India is
a demand constrained economy and, therefore, MGNREGA should not be
rolled back.
The Government is
presently pressuring the people to reduce demand for employment under
the MGNREGA by altogether changing the Act. Commenting on restricting
the MGNREGA to 1/3rd of the blocks, Patnaik argued that
poor in rich localities cannot be discriminated against poor in backward
localities.
Former Planning Commission
member and JNU Professor Abhijit Sen said that he is concerned about
the recent developments for a number of reasons—a. MGNREGA is an
Act and not a scheme. It is a right which is guaranteed by the Act.
Therefore, changes should be made in the legislation first, and the
Executive has no right to change it; b. The MGNREGA has faced stiff
opposition even during the UPA-2. In many villages, farmers opposed
MGNREGA. Wages given to labourers under the MGNREGA strengthened
their bargaining power vis-a-vis the landowners and farmers. MGNREGA
has changed the political fabric in the rural areas. Therefore, being
a political issue, the Executive has no right to change it; c. The
MGNREGA has been underestimated. Those who are against it say that it
has increased the cost of production. Some of it is exaggeration. For
example, it is the growing construction sector in Bihar that absorbed
labourers in that state, and not the MGNREGA, due to which
agriculture in Punjab suffered.
Abhijit Sen informed that
there used to be a number of employment schemes running in the
country prior to the MGNREGA. Expenditure on the Jawahar Rozgar
Yojana (JRY) as a proportion of GDP prior to 2004 had been higher as
compared to the expenditure made on the MGNREGA (as % of GDP). Many
of the sample surveys done earlier did not show significant increase
in employment under the JRY. However, NSS surveys surely indicate
rise in employment under MGNREGA. Employment generation has been the
main objective of the MGNREGA and not asset creation. However, there
is evidence that more assets are being created under the programme
lately. At the time when Prof. Sen left Planning Commission, the
preliminary findings of the programme evaluation of asset creation
under MGNREGA revealed more assets are being created under the Act.
He said that amendments to the MGNREGA is a political matter and,
therefore, it cannot be left to the Executive.
Abhijit Sen clarified
that the proposed changes in the schedule of MGNREGA is different
from the changes in guidelines that was recommended by Dr. Mihir Shah
of Planning Commission earlier. He said that MGNREGA 2.0 involved an
open and transparent consultation process. It gave more powers to the
panchayats in opting the type of work required in their respective
villages.
Noted lawyer and
Additional Solicitor General of India Indira Jaising informed that
various senior bureaucrats have agreed that the MGNREGA contributed
to the welfare of the poor. Corruption cases in MGNREGA in states of
Bihar and Odisha have taken matters to the court. There is clarity in
the Act on what proportion of funds should come from the Centre and
the state/s. It is widely documented that the MGNREGA enforces the
Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in article 39 and 41.
Norati Devi, sarpanch of
Harmada panchayat in Ajmer district of Rajasthan said that the
MGNREGA provided livelihood security. The programme improved drinking
water facility in her village apart from ensuring food security. She
demanded that MGNREGA should not be rolled back since many people
will become unemployed and fall into poverty in the absence of this
Act.
For more information,
please check the links below:
Government rolling back
rural job scheme, say activists, IANS, The Business Standard, 8
October, 2014,
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/government-rolling-back-rural-job-scheme-say-activists-114100800982_1.html
Do not dilute MGNREGA,
eminent citizens ask government, Business Standard, 8 October, 2014,
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/do-not-dilute-mgnrega-eminent-citizens-ask-government-114100800832_1.html
Human rights groups
criticise govt, PTI/ Business Standard, 8 October, 2014,
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/human-rights-groups-criticise-govt-114100800901_1.html
Proposed changes to rural
job scheme will hit 5 cr households, say activists, The Hindu
Business Line, 8 October, 2014,
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/proposed-changes-to-rural-job-scheme-will-hit-5-cr-households-say-activists/article6482199.ece
* While
utmost care has been taken in good faith to summarize the main
speakers’ views, these may not be exact quotes. Please check with
the speakers for verbatim quotes.
Advance apologies for any factual error.