When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.
A wide range of social and political activists, as well as social movements, played an important role in the enactment of this legislation, which was passed with the support of almost all political parties at the time.
I was among those who strongly supported this effort and its objectives. In numerous writings, I argued that beyond providing much-needed livelihood support close to villages—particularly for women from poorer households—the law could offer an excellent national framework for ecologically protective works essential for improving rural sustainability. In the context of climate change adaptation, and to some extent mitigation, MG-NREGA has significant potential.
For this potential to be realised, however, the law required adequate resources. Budgetary support has consistently fallen well short of what was necessary, limiting what could be achieved.
Further, widespread corruption often deprived those most in need during difficult times. One particularly damaging practice was the use of labour-displacing machinery in a programme designed to generate employment. In many places, there were delays in wage payments and, at times, even non-payment.
Despite these serious problems, it must be emphasised that wherever sincere and honest efforts were made to implement the law, the results were encouraging. This is evident in the many useful assets created, especially in water conservation. Such outcomes were achieved by committed officials and panchayats (elected village institutions of decentralised governance), particularly in areas where constructive cooperation with voluntary organisations and social movements was also present.
Overall, based on close observation of the law’s implementation over the past two decades, it can be stated with confidence that its full potential has never been realised. If the original law were implemented in its true spirit, with adequate budgetary support for even five years, India could achieve results of global significance. With thoughtful and innovative approaches, the programme could also be used more effectively to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation, tailored to local conditions and aligned with people’s real needs.
Unfortunately, the government has decided to move away from the original law at a stage when its potential has not even been properly explored through creative, honest and adequately funded implementation, and to replace it with something substantially different.
There is a strong case for abandoning the proposed changes and instead focusing on sincere implementation of the original law for at least a few years, backed by sufficient financial support. The outcomes are likely to be so positive that they could ensure longer-term commitment while offering valuable lessons for other countries facing similar conditions.
It is counter-productive to create a programme with such promise and then discard it without making a genuine nationwide effort to realise its potential. The original MG-NREGA should therefore be retained and implemented in the right spirit, with adequate support, to achieve what it was designed to accomplish.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine, A Day in 2071, and Planet in Peril
Comments