Making MGNREGA self sustainable

Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has recently announced his plans for mega mechanisation in agriculture sector in the 12^th Five Year Plan. This, he said, was to address the issue of “scarcity of labour” as a result of the “successful implementation of the MGNREGA” (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Act). While the issue of scarcity of labour in agriculture may be true, the reason behind it cannot solely be attributed to MGNREGA. Further, one doubts if MGNREGA has been implemented “successfully” as the Minister has us believe.

It is in such a situation that there needs to be a serious rethinking as regards the implementation of MGNREGA. While it is true that the scheme has provided widespread employment to unskilled rural masses, what with the Government increasing the budgetary allocations to 40,000 crore rupees in the 2011-12 budget, recent studies have shown that a large amount of work is either non productive or there is simply no work allocated. To add to such miseries, even when labourers have put in work, the salaries have not been paid for days together. (In June this year, in a protest of one of its kind,members of the Karnataka Pranta Krishi Koolikarara Sangha in Gulburga staged a dharna demanding immediate release of dues pending for labourers under MGNREGA.) There are also reports of fake offer letters being circulated in many parts of the country, thus raising concerns if this scheme too will end up becoming just another toothless government scheme.

The drawback

According to Census 2011, since the time census began in India, for the first time ever the urban population has grown marginally more than the rural population. While rural India added 90.6 million people, the same was 91 million for urban area. The only possible explanation for such a development seems to be the large scale migration of rural masses to the cities where the construction industry is booming. If MGNREGA was “successfully implemented”, perhaps such large scale migration would not have happened.

If Mr Pawar thinks that most workers prefer MGNREG scheme to working as daily labourers in the farm sector, the problem lies in the scheme itself. One of the main drawbacks of MGNREGA is that as of now the work can be undertaken only on government owned land. This indeed defeats the purpose. If the ideals of the scheme were to be true, the scheme seeks to become self sustainable in the years to come. However, in the six years since the Act was implemented, it has not shown any signs of becoming self sustainable.

Earlier this year, speaking at the award presentation ceremony of effective initiative under MGNREGA, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, “If MGNREGA work were to help rebuild productivity through water harvesting, drought proofing and ground water recharge, these labourers can go back to full time productive farming. Or they could take up other livelihoods on the foundation of water security created under MGNREGA.” In fact, the purpose of the scheme was exactly that. But, as it has turned out, the productivity has been just minimum.

Work under MGNREGA taken up on government land in most cases turns out to be non productive. It is true in some states like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh construction of kuccha roads have led to rural connectivity. In some places works like water harvesting and a-forestation have also been useful. However, such works are limited. There is a large scale criticism that in most places the labourers end up playing with soil just to get salaries with no productivity. This is unfortunate.

Government needs to bring about an amendment in the scheme and allow works to be taken up in private land as well. Labourers under MGNREGA can be lent to rural private agriculture sector. This will result not only in productivity, but eventually the revenues drawn can help the scheme become self sustainable. Of course, the process has to be strictly monitored and no room should be given for foul play. Certain political will can make a big difference.

Further, if a labourer under MGNREGA has some cultivable land, he or she should be encouraged to work in his/her own land rather than undertake unproductive labour. For this they must be given incentives under the scheme. This too has a double effect. First, the end result will be highly productive and second, one who works in one’s own land has greater commitment to labour than working in an alien land.

While the West has dearth of human resource and hence can justify mechanisation in agriculture, the strength of India is its large scale population. Instead of mechanising the farm sector on a large scale, Government needs to take proactive steps to make good use of the availability of widespread human labour in the rural area. While mechanisation might seem an easy way out, it will rob thousands of people of their livelihood making only a few richer by leaps and bounds. Government must immediately stop any such plans and bring about a policy change in MGNREGA to not only make itself self sustaining, but also to make it credible and viable scheme for the poverty stricken rural India.