A V Rajwade: Not too poor to watch BBC

WORLD MONEY

Advertising for the NREGA on the BBC shows just how mindlessly the programme is being implemented.

I had not imagined that our rural unemployed are regular watchers of BBC World. I have changed my misconception after seeing a couple of badly made ads about the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) on the global news channel, exhorting the poor unemployed to go to their gram panchayats for getting jobs under the Act, rather than paying "application fees" to a middleman. Clearly, the rural poor must be watching BBC World. Or is it that in the advertising charges of TV news channels, BBC World was "L1" and hence got the ad? Or is it just another manifestation of the mindless, bureaucratic fashion in which too many of our programmes are administered?

NREGA, which has had the Supreme Leader's own stamp of approval and support, has been making news in recent weeks. A couple of months back, the Son led a party delegation to the Prime Minister demanding its extension to all the districts in the country and, needless to say, the Prime Minister promptly agreed to this "" no committee of secretaries or group of ministers, empowered or otherwise, to consider the matter. We should see a sharp increase in the budget allocation for the scheme next week: the beneficiaries, intended or otherwise, must be salivating.

On the flip side, the news has not generally been good:

At the micro level, reports convey that at least some of the intended beneficiaries have been driven to suicide by the corruption in the administration of the scheme;

Sarpanchas in UP are threatening a boycott of the scheme because of bureaucratic delays in disbursement of funds;

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has also criticised the way the scheme has been implemented, with only a very small proportion of the rural unemployed really benefiting. Reports by other bodies like the Centre for Environment and Food Security are even more damming. Even Madam Gandhi has criticised the weaknesses in implementation of the scheme, in the party organ Sandesh.

Were the weaknesses in implementation now being criticised not integral to the way the scheme was rushed through? Even a company planning a chain of say 100 retail shops probably does far more spadework in terms of systems, organisation, training of staff, their awareness of what is expected of them, the supply chains, and so on, than the government did in launching a scheme a thousand times bigger in scope, geographical coverage, ambitions and investment. No wonder, the CAG points out that there are serious staff shortages at all levels from the village to the state commissioners, in terms of both administrative and technical personnel. But quantitative shortages apart, what about qualitative aspects like their training, clarity about the roles and objectives, systems, and so on? What about the quality of roads built under NREGA, for example? Arrangements for their repairs and maintenance? In the absence of all this, there is every possibility of the money spent going literally down the drain.

Proponents of the scheme like Aruna Roy and Jean Dreze have loyally argued in favour of the scheme (Hindustan Times, Feb 1; The Indian Express, Feb 2). They rightly argue that "the success of the NREGA depends on sustained attention to details of practical arrangements, such as the distribution of job cards, work application procedures, technical planning, worksite management, staff training, record-keeping, social audits and much more" (HT). But surely, these things should have been thought about before the scheme was implemented? Blaming the states for poor implementation while continuing to have faith in utopian ideals, is less than fair. Surely the proponents of the Act have some responsibility to ensure that its objectives are implementable with at least a modicum of efficiency and honesty before rushing through to spend thousands of crores of public money?

Roy also argues that the NREGA' "legal guarantees have radically altered the relationship of the poor with the state." Is such touching faith in the legal system of the country warranted, at a time when the backlog of court cases is in the millions, and would take decades for clearance, even if no further cases are filed? Legal protection in India is a myth, except for the wealthy and powerful.

But this apart, would it not be more effective to use the money for improving rural infrastructure like roads, schools and water supply than in inefficiently and often corruptly administered "make work" schemes? Even giving the cash directly to the poor would be better than the façade that seems to be on. One cannot but be reminded of what the late Rajiv Gandhi said about most social programmes administered by the government "" that barely 15 per cent of the money spent reaches the intended beneficiaries. Have things changed at all since his days?

avrajwade@gmail.com