By Satyaki Chakraborty
Former CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat has alleged that the eight rules published by the centre for the implementation of the new VB-GRAMG Act replacing MGNREGA have been set without having any consultations with rural and MGNREGA workers associations. She has mentioned that the rules of the central ministry go a step further than even the flawed VB-GRAMG law in excluding the voice of the workers and their problems.
In a strongly worded letter to the union minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan sent on June 29, Karat said that on the basis of her interactions with the MGNREGA women workers in adivasi villages in Udaipur district of Rajasthan, she could say that the scrapping of MGNREGA had been disastrous for the rural poor.
According to the letter, the first question that arises is whether the Rules are in violation of Article 258 of the Constitution which deals with laws which “confers or imposes” duties on the states. The VB-GRAMG law “imposes” not only duties but also financial burdens without consultation, leave alone agreement of the state governments. Sub-section (3) of the said article states: “Where by virtue of this article powers and duties have been conferred or imposed upon a State or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of any extra costs of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of those powers and duties.” , the letter pointed out.
The Rules reflect (1) extreme concentration of all decision making in the hands of the union government (2) are an assault on the federal nature of the constitution by denying state governments any say in the implementation of the law except what is decreed by the union government (3) prescribe “objective” parameters for fund allocation which are neither objective nor fair (4) rely excessively on technology (5) lay out no parameters for wage fixation, Karat said.
Explaining the anomalies, the letter mentioned, the law has already changed a demand driven law to one dependent on fund allocation of which only 60 per cent is to be paid by the union government. But the Rules (396 E) go one step further by setting in place a framework of rank discrimination against workers depending on where they reside. What else can be said when the Rules state that the criteria for allocation will be the “horizontal devolution as recommended by the Sixteenth Finance Commission and accepted by the Government of India.” This measures how far a State’s per capita GSDP falls short of the wealthiest States which is given a weightage of over 42.5 per cent. The next highest weightage is given to population (17.5%), benefiting larger States. What have these criteria to do with rural workers demanding work under the law? Karat asked.
According to the letter, Southern states have a lower population. Yet they have been providing the highest number of average days of work. For example the state of Kerala had provided an average of 66 days of work a year, much higher than the national average. However given the 17 per cent weightage to population, Kerala will be deprived of funds. Tamil Nadu is among the top five states as far as GSDP is concerned. Yet it has the highest number of active MGNREGA workers.
Facts show that the criteria of the Sixteenth Finance Commission has no relevance to the demand for work. States which have a high GSDP and a low population will get less funds. Moreover the Rules state that a portion of the allocations will be given as “reward” for better performance. Is the right to work to be held hostage to the efficiency or inefficiency of state governments as decided by the union government? The entire criteria of normative allocation is highly objectionable, discriminatory and requires immediate reconsideration.
According to Brinda Karat, “Excess Expenditure” (Rule 403E): is equally objectionable that the Rules refer to the decision of a state to allocate more funds for the provision of work in a most derogatory way as “excess expenditure.” In fact it is the union government which is guilty of “excess expenditure” to subsidise corporates through tax exemptions and “under expenditure” for the rural working poor. What a state government wants to spend is its concern. However, the Rules mandatorily link expenditure of the state to the central financial monitoring system. This is an example of assault on the rights of a state government to expand and innovate through its own funds, on the right to work, the CPI(M) leader said.
As regards Manner of Payment of Wages (402 E) and Workers Identity (397 E): As per the letter, the Rules are conspicuously silent on any discussion on the actual fixation of wage rates, the mandatory timeline for increase in wages, the linkage with price index and so on. It only mentions the “manner of payment,” which is based not on rural reality, but a projection of the so-called technologically developed India. It is unfair and unjust to insist on individual based online registration of workers. This can take, on a good day when internet is available, between one to three hours. Will wages include this time or is the time of rural workers of no value? Karat asked.
The letter mentions there are other ways to ensure registration of attendance. Why should workers be punished for the dishonesty of officials? The entire method is based on an elitist understanding that technology is automatically equated with justice. Experience of lakhs of MGNREGA workers prove this is untrue. According to the law, wages are piece rated. However the productivity norms are often completely arbitrary and so high that make it impossible for a worker to earn the basic minimum wage. The Rules must ensure regular time-use surveys so as to decide a doable norm. Since women make up a large percentage of workers on these sites, this is all the more necessary to prevent the loot of female manual labour.
Karat mentions that in Rule (397 E) it is said that during the transitional stage existing job cards which are e-KYC verified and Aadhaar seeded can be used. This again is unthinking and unfair. It means that around 44 per cent of active workers will be denied work. The RD Ministry has stated that just over half, 56 per cent, have e-KYC verification. e-KYC verification requires technological tools including a smart phone which many rural workers may not have. If a worker has other identity proof it is entirely incorrect to insist on such verification.
As regards the National Level Steering Committee (397 E) Central Council (399 E), the letter says that the Rules create an NLSC which is nothing but a bureaucratic body nominated by the union government with minimum representation from the states — just five members – and none at all from worker’s representatives or any stake holders. Even the Ministries chosen show the insensitive nature of this exercise. Whereas 18 per cent of all workers are ST and 17 per cent are SC, over 50 per cent are women none of these Ministries are represented. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the Ministry of Social Justice and that of Women are excluded.
Though the states are paying 40 per cent of the cost, they have been treated most unfairly with only five representatives. This is like the union government telling the state governments: it is your responsibility to share the cost but our right to take decisions, Brinda Karat said in his letter. (IPA Service)
