NCMP and the Right to Work

National Common Minimum Programme and the Right to Work

Blind Spots of a Grand Vision

 Anindo Banerjee 

An Overview of Key Challenges  

The year 2007-08 witnessed a range of divergent developments that included significant acts of assertion of people’s right to work on one hand, and blatant furtherance of policies endangering the survival of millions of India’s poor on the other. In the month of October, when over twenty five thousand landless agricultural labourers hailing from various dalit and tribal communities of India converged at New Delhi to press for their land rights and succeeded in securing a vital policy decision towards constitution of a high-powered ‘National Land Reforms Council’, they exemplified a valiant act of assertion against their increasing alienation from vital resources like land, water and forests. However, it was an ironical coincidence that by the end of the same month of October, the government had accorded formal clearance to establishment of as many as 396 Special Economic Zones, bearing ominous implications for the survival of thousands of poor citizens in a country inhabited by millions of landless people!

Given that a good number of instances of dispossession of the poor from critical life-support systems have taken effect in the recent past, the issues concerning the right to work need to be examined cautiously, with an eye on the impacts of contemporary trends and policies on the wellbeing of poor communities. While the National Common Minimum Programme of the United Progressive Alliance government contains important provisions towards securing the right to work for India’s citizens, this article seeks to assess its performance in terms of its actual contribution in enhancing livelihood security of different sections of marginalized communities. 

Whose right to work?

While the constitution of India directs the State to make effective provisions for securing the right to work for its citizens (Article 41; directive principles of state policy), several contemporary policy priorities seem to be in conflict with the directive. For instance, the burgeoning thrust on establishment of Special Economic Zones seems to overlook the long-term interests of the poor in many places. One of the largest Special Economic Zones in India proposed to be set up by Reliance Industries Limited in Maharashtra across three tehsils of Raigad district threatens to displace nearly 35,000 farmers based over 25,000 hectares of agricultural land. The threat to the livelihoods of farmers likely to lose ownership of land are sought to be offset merely by providing one-off monetary compensations without any thoughts about the limited livelihood-choices available to them, consequent pressure on limited urban infrastructure, or the implications for a large number of non-owner dependents of farmland, e.g. sharecroppers or wage labourers.

In some cases, even the tokenistic provisions of compensation are made a mockery of. In villages like Nevta located on the periphery of Jaipur town, farmers have been issued notices to vacate their land in lieu of an unbelievably unjust exchange offer by which each loser of land would be allotted land in a different place amounting only to one-fourth of the acquired size, deceptively projected to carry a higher notional value than the value of the land originally acquired! 

The deprivation of poor communities from opportunities to pursue occupations of their choice and capability is probably the commonest and most glaring form of violation of a citizen’s right to work. An important area of concern relates to increasing privatization of common property resources in the country, bearing life-threatening implications for a large number of poor communities. For instance, the increasing scale of operations of mining companies in various forest-rich areas of states like Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have destroyed the age-old forest-based livelihoods of many tribal families. In states like Orissa and Chhattisgarh, the government has already committed several rivers and reservoirs for use by industry for water-intensive activities.

When displaced households migrate to cities, their survival becomes even more arduous, thanks to modern urban policies that increasingly shut out spaces from the reach of the poor. The commonest coping avenues for the poor, e.g. participation is retail trade, accessing state-run basic services, or opting for low-investment livelihoods (e.g. rag picking or plying rickshaws) are made increasingly inaccessible by policies that allow entry of big business houses in retail trade, enhance the cost of basic services by allowing their privatization, or block public spaces for the poor. These are important blind spots of contemporary development policies, which often undermine the right to work of poor citizens in protecting the interest of big businesses.

In a country where the rate of growth of the size of labour force exceeds the rate of growth of employment, and where bulk of the workforce is employed in the unorganized sector, the challenge of creating gainful employment opportunities for a large segment of socially and economically disadvantaged citizens remains the greatest trial of relevance of our welfare state. The eleventh Five-year Plan of India aims at providing employment to 70 million additional people by 2011-12. Given that the incidence of unemployment is substantially higher in the ‘below poverty line’ category, and particularly amongst the scheduled castes and tribes therein (as indicated by successive NSSO surveys), the right to work assumes greater significance in the specific context of marginalized communities and in the light of a state’s commitment to poverty reduction. 

Salient Promises in the National Common Minimum Programme

While the issue of unemployment has historically been accorded significant thrust in successive five-year-plans and public policies of the Government of India, the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has accorded critical importance to the issue by promising a legal guarantee of employment at minimum wages for at least 100 days on asset-creating public works every year, for every rural, urban poor and lower middle-class household. Accordingly, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was promulgated by the parliament in 2005, which stands out in its promise by making employment a legal right of citizens, and by making governments liable to pay compensation for lapses in timely delivery of the same. The Act came into effect in February 2006 and offered a golden opportunity to pro-actively reach out to poor communities affected by burgeoning agrarian crises, devastating disasters and an acute dearth of gainful livelihoods.

Besides, the NCMP was aimed at bringing about an enabling support environment to bolster the agricultural and informal sectors, which provide employment to a massive chunk of the country’s workforce. With the objective of examining problems facing enterprises in the unorganized sector, it promised to establish a National Commission to make appropriate recommendations to provide technical, marketing and credit support to such enterprises, aided by a National Fund created specifically for this purpose. It also promised to expand social security, health insurance and other schemes for workers in the unorganized sector, including weavers, handloom workers, fishermen and fisherwomen, toddy tappers, leather workers, plantation labour, and beedi workers. It also accorded highest investment, credit and technological priority to the continued growth of agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, floriculture, afforestation, dairying and agro-processing to address the challenge of creating new jobs. Similarly, implementation of minimum wage laws for farm labour was accorded a priority and was envisaged through a comprehensive protective legislation for agricultural workers.

Resource Allocation

Despite the thrust on augmentation of employment opportunities, the budgetary allocation for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, originally estimated to cost to the tune of Rs. 40,000 crores per annum, has been relatively conservative, with an allocation of Rs. 16,000 crores for covering 596 districts in the year 2008 – 2009 (entailing a 33% increase over last year, towards scaling up the scheme across 266 additional districts). The allocation forms 41.56% of the total central plan outlay for the department of rural development. While the government’s commitment to generate employment additionally entails outlay of Rs. 2150 crores for the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana, the cumulative value of the outlays on various employment generation schemes, at less than half a percent of country’s GDP at current price level, seem inadequate for effective realization of the right to work.

A comprehensive legislation covering issues of workers in the unorganized sector remains to be brought into effect, though the ‘National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS)’ set up by the Government of India in keeping with its NCMP commitment has proposed to extend social security to unorganized workers in both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. Given that over ninety percent of the country’s labour force works in the unorganized sector under extremely difficult circumstances, mostly as wage labourers or self employed workers, the right to work needs to be secured with the greatest urgency for workers in the unorganized sector. The budget for the year 2008 – 2009 seeks to bring into effect provisions to extend health cover to workers in the unorganized sector falling in the BPL category, and to provide life insurance cover to one crore landless households. In addition, the National Old Age Pension Scheme has been enlarged to include all BPL persons above the age of 65 years. 

Securing the Right to Work through NREGS

The performance of various states in implementing NREGS during 2007 – 2008 is summarized in Table 1. In the absence of data indicating the actual number and distribution of households that effectively availed of a minimum of 100 days of employment during the year, the average number of employment-days delivered per benefited household serves as a proxy indicator, even if not a perfect measure, of the penetration of the scheme amongst benefited households. The average number of employment-days generated per ‘benefited’ household in 2007 – 2008 was nearly 36, varying from as low as 15 (West Bengal) to a high of 65 (Rajasthan). Till February 25, the average number of employment-days generated per benefited household was less than fifty for as many as 23 out of 27 states. 

The inclusion of scheduled castes in states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh did not significantly exceed the actual SC composition in the population of the state (15.17%, 17.16% and 11.61% respectively), despite the fact that these states generated substantially higher number of employment-days than most other states. Coverage of scheduled castes in states like Gujarat and Tripura did not even match up to the existing proportion of scheduled castes in the population of the state. Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh accounted for the highest coverage of scheduled castes under NREGS, delivering between 54%-76% of all jobs to them. In view of the fact the scheme doesn’t differentiate between the poor and the non-poor, or between dalits and non-dalits in terms of eligibility for employment, the relative inclusion of dalits in delivery of employment can be taken as a good indicator of a state’s commitment to equitable development. Given that the scheme needs to be extended with greater urgency to communities known to suffer from greater degrees of poverty, treatment of dalits at par with other population sub-groups points at the lack of a good understanding of poverty and the lack of commitment to use the scheme as an opportunity to reach out pro-actively to the poorest population sub-groups.

As many as ten out of the 27 states failed to deliver a minimum of one-third of all employment-days to women, thus violating a core objective of the scheme. The shortfall was most glaring in the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, where the inclusion of women wasn’t even one-fifth of the total number of employment-days generated under NREGA. Nearly 43.4% of all employment-days were delivered to women across the 27 states of India on an average, with Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Kerala topping the ranks with 82%, 70% and 67% coverage respectively.

Maharashtra, Punjab and Uttaranchal accounted for the lowest level of utilization of available funds amongst all states in the country, registering only 25%, 39% and 42% expenditure respectively. As many as seven states have failed to spend even half of all the funds available till February 25. As a matter of fact, the minimum wages payable to labourers under NREGA fall far short of the corresponding market rates of labour in several states of India, which makes a strong case of periodic upward revision of the same.

Issues in Actualization of the Right to Work and Policy Implications

Practices of implementation of NREGS during the last two years point at several serious issues affecting its delivery in the true spirit. The element of ‘demand-based delivery of employment’ has become largely redundant with demand for employment not being acknowledged in most places, which circumvents the obligation to pay unemployment allowance for delays in employment-provision. Over-reporting of number of employment days delivered under the scheme and underpayment of wages are other common practices, aided by absence of gram-sabha based social audits, which could hold panchayat functionaries, engineers and block level functionaries accountable for their actions and lapses.

The scheme needs to be envisaged as an opportunity to address economic and social disparities in rural India, by according preference to dalit labourers, locating work-sites closer to dalit habitations and deputing a greater number of administrators/monitors hailing from dalit communities. The Act also needs to clearly articulate a schedule of work that could be preferentially allotted to people with disability, and allow self-employment possibilities for them. Facilities like crèche, currently provided in very few worksites despite clear provision in the Act, need to be compulsorily arranged for at all work sites to enable labourers with small children, particularly women, to avail of their entitlements under the scheme. For speedier and more effective implementation of the scheme, procedures and technicalities relating to identification, approval and commissioning of public works need to be made simpler and more decentralized, in order that panchayats can effectively implement and govern the scheme without any undue dependence on engineers. Simplified procedures coupled with timely flow of funds to the panchayats can help in expediting the delivery of the scheme.  

Amongst other necessary areas of intervention, the government needs to expedite processes towards enactment of a comprehensive legislation favouring workers in the unorganized sector. Work conditions facing labourers in the unorganized sector need to be brought under tighter scrutiny with provisions of strict penal measures for employers falling short in discharge of their obligations. Similarly, the government needs to spell out a clear policy for safeguarding the interests of poor vendors and small traders threatened to be affected by entry of giant corporate firms in retail markets. Policies relating to acquisition of land must bear strong deterrents to prevent unjustified acquisition of land, particularly instances affecting small and marginal holders, and provisions for relief and rehabilitation must be thoroughly enhanced to secure lifetime coverage of risks of displacement. 

***