ANY
faint hope that the economic policies of the UPA might strike a trajectory
different from the ‘shining India’ obsessions of the NDA is now getting
dimmer. With key policymakers obsessed with burgeoning forex reserves,
the booming stock market and generous inflows of FDI, it is no surprise
that the much touted National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2004 has
run into rough weather even before the draft bill has been presented for
debate in Parliament.
For all those taken in by the progressive sounding promises
in the Common Minimum Programme, the slogan ‘Congress ka haath, aam
aadmi ke saath’ must be appearing particularly hollow. Not only did
it require the intervention of the Supreme Court to energise the mid-day
meal programme in government primary schools, for all its claims to transparency
in functioning the rules governing the Freedom of Information Act have
still to be notified, this despite the approval of the act by both houses
of Parliament.
For a country as deeply marked by poverty, unemployment
and malnutrition, the case for a major intervention in the form of a public
works programme guaranteeing employment at statutory minimum wages for
all those in need seems self-evident. Surely for a regime supported by
the Left Front, this ought to have been an over-riding priority. Yet,
if media reports are to be believed, the draft act is in the process of
being diluted to the point of irrelevance.
Even otherwise, the proposed act was a cautious and limited
proposal, entitling every rural household to 100 days of employment at
minimum wages on asset creating public works programmes, and that too
in only 150 districts. Note that there is nothing for the urban unemployed,
that the entitlement extends to only one member per household with the
number of days limited to 100.
Equally, so far there is little clarity about the wage
rate, how the individuals will be selected, the public works permitted,
whether the payment will be in cash or a mix of cash and food, or the
agencies through which the programme will be implemented. Nor do we know
whether the Central act, once passed, will be uniformally applicable across
the country or whether state governments will have to separately legislate
for their provinces. Nor who is expected to meet the costs of the programme.
Despite all these limitations, many saw the proposed
act as a useful first step. At the least it would shift public works programmes,
currently episodic and dependant on the whims of respective regimes, into
the arena of a legal entitlement. But with both the Ministry of Finance
and Planing Commission uneasy about the likely costs of the programme,
citing fears of inflation and corruption, already efforts are underway
to dilute its provisions – the minimum wage offered, merging existing
employment and food for work schemes into the programme, and not specifying
the time frame within which the coverage would expand from the proposed
150 districts to the entire country.
In addition to fears generated about the enormous costs
of the scheme, with estimates ranging from Rs 20,000 crore to Rs 60,000
crore per year, the act is being derided as deeply divisive, in effect
a coup d’etat by a small bunch of ‘well-meaning’ but ‘woolly-headed’
individuals who in their desire to do good might irreparably damage the
country and the reform process.
Any meaningful EGA would raise the minimum wage floor;
that after all is its raison d’etre. So it’s hardly surprising
that most employers – be they state governments or small farmers – are
not enthusiastic. More distressing, however, is the lack of engagement
of trade unions and the left parties, ipso facto limiting the campaign
for the act to a smaller group of individuals, NGOs and social movements.
Given the simultaneous pressure to introduce a fiscal responsibility bill
and sharply reduce both revenue and fiscal deficits, efforts to redirect
the deployment of public resources to benefit the needy face a hostile
environment.
Clearly the campaign, and the accompanying discourse,
has to more effectively engage with the concerns about the details of
the act and programme and involve legislators. Just reiterating potential
benefits – on poverty reduction, nutrition, creation of public assets,
reduced rural-urban migration, and so on – is inadequate to convince the
sceptical, more so if they are well-entrenched in the power structure.
The challenge then is to widen the constituency of those
believing in, and willing to struggle for, a more equitable, provisioning
of public goods and services. That, after all, is what the UPA promised
and we should compel it to honour its commitments. A failure to do so
will cost us dear.
Harsh Sethi
|