Smt. Brinda Karat, senior leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and former Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, has written a letter today to Shri. Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Union Minister for Rural Development, regarding the Draft Rules for VB-GRAMG Act.
We are herewith releasing the text of the letter for publication.
Adarniya Shivraj Singh Chauhan ji,
I am writing to you on the eve of the rollout of the new Act, Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act.
Yesterday (June 28), I was at a designated MGNREGA worksite in an adivasi village of Barapala in Udaipur district Rajasthan interacting with the workers who were predominantly women. Rajasthan has special summer timings because of the heat. For four hours, from 6.30 am till 10 am, scores of women waited for the online official attendance site to open. But despite repeated efforts, the connection was not available and the “mate” in charge had to finally declare there could be no work that day. This, I was told, is a common occurrence.
From December last year when MGNREGA was scrapped, even though Parliament was assured that work would continue till the new law was implemented, these women workers have got only 18 days of work from January till June. At least 12 elderly women workers said the biometric face recognition had excluded them as their eyes could not be captured by the technology. I met several workers across the adivasi villages in Udaipur district. All had the same complaint. The scrapping of MGNREGA has been disastrous for the rural poor.
The reason I give you these details is because your Ministry has published a set of eight Rules for the implementation of the VB-GRAMG Act on May 22 without any consultation with rural and MGNREGA workers’ organisations and unions. Perhaps if they had been consulted, the very real problems I have described above would have been addressed by the Rules. On the contrary, it is a matter of great concern that the Rules go a step further than even the flawed VB-GRAMG law in excluding the voice of the workers and their real problems.
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 Rules not just impose duties but deny the states any role whatsoever in decision making. This is a critical question which I request you to respond to.
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.
Apart from the constitutional issue I will elaborate some of the major issues which I request you to consider:
Normative Allocation (Rule 396 E): 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?
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. Tamilnadu 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.
“Excess Expenditure” (Rule 403E): It 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.
Manner of Payment of Wages (402 E) and Workers Identity (397 E): 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? 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.
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.
National Level Steering Committee (397 E) Central Council (399 E): 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.
The Central Council formed has included “non-official” members, and representatives of ST, SC and women etc. However the Council itself has no rights. It can make recommendations which will be placed before Parliament but these are not binding.
It is ironical that a set of Rules ostensibly drafted to ensure transparency and control corruption has no separate body for social audit or any independent authority. The task of social audit or “oversight” cannot be left to government appointed bureaucrats. It must be an independent body with full authority. This is not there in the Rules published so far.
The top heavy, bureaucratic nature of the entire exercise is underlined by the total lack of recognition in the Rules of the rights of panchayats and their voice in decision making.
For all these reasons, the Rules need to be withdrawn. The MGNREGA should remain in operation. To repeal it on July 1st as planned will be a most cruel blow to the rural working people of our country.
Yours sincerely,
Brinda Karat