NREG Act: An opportunity being wasted

NREG Act- An opportunity being wasted

Political freedom has no meaning without economic freedom.
It took our legislators almost 55 years after the framing of the Constitution to awake to the idea of ensuring employment to (We), the people of India.
On December 21 2004, National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill was proposed in the Parliament for approval as a part of the Common Minimum Programme of the UPA government in the Centre The bill proposes to guarantee at least 100 days of employment every year for at least one adult member of every rural household, for doing casual manual labour at the statutory minimum wages.
According to Census estimates, around 35 per cent of the Indian population is living below poverty line and majority of them are living in villages. The primary reason behind this condition is unemployment in rural areas. The scourge of unemployment is compounded by lack of social security mechanisms. The Act envisages to provide a legal guarantee for at least 100 days of employment every year to at least one able-bodied person in every rural household on asset creating public works programmes. The Act will empower poor in the villages to demand work on the strength of legal entitlement.
For the purpose of giving effect to the employment guarantee, the Act states that within six months of enactment of this Act, each state government shall prepare Employment Guarantee Programme for providing employment to all adults residing in rural areas and the summary of the rules of the programme be publicized through regional and local newspapers and other means. The Act also states that only productive works shall be taken up under the programme in rural areas only. The Act thus provides not only guaranteed employment to adults but also aims to strengthen the rural infrastructure which can bring all round development to rural areas.
One of the salient features of this Act is that it provides job on demand and if the person seeking employment is not given work within 15 days of the day from which the work is sought, he is entitled to the payment of unemployment allowance. The payment of wages has to be made on a weekly basis and if it is delayed by more than seven days after the week in which the work was done, the person is entitled to compensation.
Provision has been made to provide medical treatment free of cost to any person who meets an accident and an ex-gratia payment has to be made in case of death in course of the work, employed under the programme. A proportion of wages not exceeding 5 per cent can be deducted as contribution to welfare schemes organized for the welfare schemes organized for the benefit of labourers under the programme. This in a way also provides social security to labourers.
It has been estimated that the Act would benefit at least 400 crore rural household and the expense incurred on the count would be around Rs 40,000 crores. Skepticism has been expressed that from where the huge resources required will generated. The fund required to enact this Act is a meager one per cent of the GDP and it can easily be generated and allocated if the wasteful and ‘unproductive’ expenses of the government are cut and diverted to the Central and State Rural Employment Guarantee Fund created for the purpose. At least, this much is the social responsibility of a government elected on the plank of upliftment of common man.
The benefits of this Act are immense. The Act will help to curtail migration from villages to urban areas, thus reducing the number of slums and JJ clusters and infrastructural burden on the cities.
The works to be undertaken under this programme would vary from region to region. Potential for huge employment exists in the field of environmental protection, watershed programes, rainwater harvesting, land regeneration, prevention of soil erosion, restoration of tanks, protection of forests, wasteland development, and related activities. These works would provide the rural people employment in agricultural lean seasons as well as ensure good harvest in crop seasons.
With starvation deaths and suicide of farmers being reported recently from different parts of the country, it was high time such an Act was introduced but it seems that an opportunity has once again been wasted due to lack of political will power.
The bill is only a diluted version of the draft prepared by National Advisory Council, constituted by the UPA government itself. Had the original draft been proposed, it could have gone a long way in emancipating the poor and vulnerable sections of the rural society.
The biggest flaw of this Act is that it states that: “[The Act] shall come into force immediately in such areas and for such period as may be notified and shall be extended to cover all the rural areas of India after evaluating the implementation in the districts chosen.”
This provision would limit the guarantee to few districts chosen. The Act would benefit some people in some areas whereas deny same benefit to people living in similar conditions in different areas. Further, this would allow the government to postpone the further extension of the guarantee to other areas indefinitely. Even worse, it is being feared that the government may allow to fail this Act in the districts chosen, and treat such failure as a reason to avoid the financial burden involved in further extension.
The second serious flaw is that the Act allows the government to fix wages for employment under the guarantee scheme as low as it wishes, disregarding existing legislation. It’s ironic that the unemployment allowance to be paid to a person in case of not being provided employment can be as low as one-third of the minimum wage. It should be at least half of the wages.
Instead of every willing person, only one person per household has been promised employment in the bill. This would discriminate against women as only the male members of the family would get to work. Employment of women goes a long way in their empowerment and strengthens their position in taking decisions regarding the size of family and education of children etc. The present draft, if implemented, would deprive the youth and women of whatever work they are now getting under food-for-work-programmes. What is needed is a universal employment guarantee and not just for one-in-a-family.
There is no special component for women in the draft Act, like lesser numbers of working hours per day in view of their household responsibilities like cooking and rearing children etc., and selection of projects to be taken up like drinking water schemes, rural lavatories, etc. which are of special significance to women.
The right to work is very much a fundamental democratic demand. In fact, it is being implemented in almost all developing countries. The Indian Constitution refers to the right to work under the Directive Principles of the State Policy.
In its present form, the draft looks like a bundle of half-baked thoughts and ideas. Compounded with lack of political will, this programme risks being yet another failed rural employment guarantee scheme.
The government must return to a strong draft Act which does away with the flaws of present draft and incorporates recommendations made by National Advisory Council and with provisions to extend employment guarantee from 100 days per household to 100 days per person per financial year at some later date.
The draft Act in its present form, can at best, be described as a reluctant small step in right direction and certainly it would not go a long way in benefiting rural families, as Mr Raghuvansh Prasad Singh boasted in Parliament while presenting the budget.