Speech delivered by
Shri Bal Apteji, BJP National
Vice-President and Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)
National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill, 2005
SHRI BALAVANT ALIAS BAL APTE (MAHARASHTRA ): Sir, I am grateful to you for this opportunity. Sir, I have the onerous task of responding to this flamboyantly eloquent assault, which was really a relentless assault, almost like a pre-emptive strike, with some rational approach. Sir, we are here to discuss the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill, 2005 as passed by the Lok Sabha. Sir, probably, with his speech, the hon. Minister wanted this House to pass the Bill without discussion. But it is not going to be so. This House is going to discuss the Bill.
Sir, we are going through this legislation and we are in the process of passing it in a kind of tearing haste, and, almost by habit, I find that when you talk about haste, acting in haste, you always are apprehensive of repenting in leisure.
So, this tearing haste should not, I hope, lead us to repentance because this haste is reflected in the formulation and the passage of this Bill. "Æü¸ü ÆüÖ£Ö ÛúÖê ÛúÖ´Ö †Öî¸ü Æü¸ü ÜÖêŸÖ ÛúÖê ¯ÖÖ®Öß" was the dream put forward by Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya 40 years ago, and that has been the cherished dream of this country. But, Sir, today we are not discussing dreams only, but we are also passing a law which will create certain enforceable rights and certain obligatory liabilities. Sir, any Government functions through certain policies and through its law-making. Both are the functions of the Government. But, there is a qualitative difference between the two. In so far as the Government's policy is concerned, it is a matter of expression of intent. And, if it is exposed, you find that expression of intent was hollow. I have the example of the National Education Policy of 1986 which formulated the universalisation of education, and, I believe, in the Planning Commission, at that moment, the relevant Member (Education) was Prof. M.G.K. Menon, who said, "We don't have even a pie for this project". So, a policy formulation was there and there was a failure. But, Sir, when you enact a statute, it is a commitment of Parliament to the people. A statute is not merely a commitment, but it creates enforceable rights for the people. Therefore, everybody has to think more while passing a law, because it is supposed to be implemented. When I was referring to the National Education Policy, I was reminded of an axiomatic saying by Prof. D.S. Kothari, who produced the earlier Education Commission Report. He said that a Report is no substitute for an action. Therefore, a dream brought on paper is no substitute to an action. And, I believe that the present legislation is fated to be disillusionment because there was (i) no homework, (ii) there was no ground assessment and there was (iii) no understanding of a future prospective. Therefore, I am afraid, at the implementation level, this legislation is facing a darker future.
Sir, in so far as the homework is concerned, I find that the bulk of the legislation is on the basis of implementation by the States, and States are, at no stage, involved in the making of this law. They are not involved; they are not consulted. It was clear when the Secretaries of the States gave evidence before the Standing Committee. Without their involvement, this legislation can't be successful and they are not involved at any stage so far.
(ii) Secondly, Sir, the financial implications ought to have been studied beforehand. But that has not been done. Wherefrom the money will come? Nobody knows it. Even the Finance Minister does not know. He says, "We will find money somewhere". In such circumstances, Sir, it is always said if your conclusions are wrong, check your premises.
In the present scheme of things, the premises are that there is unemployment, there are finances, and, therefore, employment is guaranteed. But here it is the other way round. What kind of unemployment is there is not assessed. From where will the finances come? Nobody knows. And, therefore, I believe, the conclusion is that there is no guarantee of getting employment.
(!!) Secondly, Sir, there is no ground assessment before passing this legislation. Today, there are several schemes working. In fact, there is a long list. And the physical performance -- of these schemes -- is noted by the Economic Survey of 2004-05. The National Food-for-Work Programme was started in November, 2004, in which Rs.2,020 crores were invested and twenty lakh tonnes of foodgrains were made available. The Swarnajayanti Gram Swarajya Yojana (SGSY) -- the bureaucrats talk in these terminologies, SGSY or SGRY, which I do not understand immediately -- was initiated in April, 1999. The Sampoorna Grameen Rojgar Yojana (SGRY) was initiated in 2001; it was to be implemented through Panchayati Raj institutions. Then the Rural Employment Generation Programme (REGP) was initiated in 1995, and the Report says that 8.32 lakh jobs were created up to 2003-04, and 5.25 lakh jobs were to be created during 2004-05. Then there is the Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana (PMRY), which was initiated in 1993. Under it, self-employment units so far, are 20 lakhs, and the target for 2004-05 was 16.50 lakh employment opportunities. The Swarnajayanti Shahri Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY) was initiated in 1997, and the Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) was initiated in 1993.
Sir, apart from these, there are several other schemes for rural development which essentially are the schemes for rural employment. What is the yield of all these schemes? What is the correlation between the money spent and the employment generated? And then, what remains to be done? Nobody has studied it. And, Sir, if these or any of these schemes have failed, an inquiry is necessary as to why it has failed. If the earlier scheme has failed due to certain reasons, without eradicating those reasons, any scheme for rural employment is bound to fail. Therefore, I am saying that no ground assessment is made before going into this legislation.
Sir, I remember, every year when a Railway Minister presents his Budget, he sanctions several schemes, and then certain allocation is made for each of those schemes. If there are several Ministers within a period of 5-6 years, then so many schemes are sanctioned. Each scheme is given certain amount of money. Therefore, there are 100 projects pending -- 100 projects at a stage where some money is spent, much more is to be spent, and they continue to be pending. We have scores of such examples in any report of the Railway Convention Committee. Sir, if there are already 10-20 schemes, and one more scheme is going to be added to these; some money is spent on the earlier schemes without results, some more money will be spent on this scheme without results; and, therefore, we will be having schemes but no results.
(iii) The third congenital defect in this legislation is that there is no understanding, no assessment of a future perspective. What projects are we going to undertake? How much money is going to be spent on each of them?
In these projects, how many people will be employed? When the Ministry was asked, the Ministry said that the data in so far as people above the poverty line are concerned, is not maintained. So, there is no data. This makes everything vague, everything doubtful and doesn't generate confidence; there is no question of guarantee. And, Sir, I would like to mention here that apart from those who are unemployed, there are ten crore agricultural labourers who must be treated almost as unemployed because they are never employed throughout the year.
Sir, now, I seek to come to the Bill itself and it abounds, again, in defects. Sir, only one substantial amendment on the basis of the Standing Committee's Report was accepted. If the other amendments proposed were accepted, the Bill would have taken a different shape. And that one amendment is from 'poor' household to 'every' household. The word 'poor' is omitted and, therefore, all calculations have gone haywire. The Financial Memorandum is based on the concept of every poor household, where they have calculated such able-bodied persons to be about ten crore, accumulated in 3.86 families. I don't find any other word for accumulated, but people belonging to 3.86 families. For them, for 100 days, you will require 1,00,464 crores. All these calculations are on this and there also, they say we may not be required to spend this much because every person doesn't ask for a job. Those who demand job may be only fifty per cent. Therefore, we may be required to spend only fifty thousand crore. But that calculation is on the basis that you have to cater to ten crore. The moment, you talk of removing ‘poor’ in every household, then you refer to 38.91 crore of able-bodied persons, not only men, between 18 and 64 age group. Where are the calculations for this, even the rudimentary calculations? And if 100,464 crore is a tall order, four-folds of this will be an order of such a nature that you will lose your cap when looking up. Therefore, one amendment has put the legislation in a state of being haywire.
Sir, the Finance Minister said that we will find money somewhere. I tried to find that 'somewhere' and I found that 26,500 crore is allocated to the social sector; out of which, eight thousand crore is for rural structure and development, part of it can be for rural employment. Even if you consider those eight thousand crore and compare it with 40,000 crore, then, where would you find that money, is a question which is not answered. So, we have only a fraction of the requirement on paper. Otherwise, we don't know where the money will come from?
Now, the second aspect is that the States are the implementing agencies. As I mentioned earlier, the States are not involved and they are not going to spend anything. We find that here, in the Question Hour, whenever a question is asked about the money being sent to a particular State, we find that the contribution by the State is not forthcoming. Therefore, further instalment is not sent.
The Centre does not send money because the State does not want to spend, and therefore, does not want to spend the Centre's money also. The Secretaries, as I have mentioned earlier, have made it clear to the Standing Committee that the States will not be able to spend anything on this.
Thirdly, Now, Sir, I come to the projects. Yes, the Schedule mentions the category of projects to be undertaken, and both things are considered there. But as I have said earlier, Æü¸ü ÆüÖ£Ö ÛúÖê ÛúÖ´Ö, Æü¸ü ÜÖêŸÖ ÛúÖê ¯ÖÖ®Öß. So, irrigation facilities are given the priority. All kinds of water harvesting, and then, rural connectivity is also there. But it is only a categorization. When you go to the implementation level, there should, at least, be a study. Everything may not be done in the legislation, and in this House. I appreciate that. What will be the locations, what will be the cost, what will be the cost of other infrastructure?, there is a rough and ready estimate of 60:40. But we know that we need the skilled personnel and other infrastructure. The Kerala Government has said that 6 per cent of any project is spent on this. Otherwise, Sir, without this home work, there will be money spent, project named, the employed will be †¯Ö®Öê ‘Ö¸ü ´Öë, no payment to him, as is happening in many cases in Maharashtra . The lessons of Maharashtra have to be learnt. The scheme is working there for the last 31 years. Only the other day, it came in the newspapers that there was a scan of about Rs. 9 crores in one small village. No project, no money spent, the people are on the muster roll who are dead, and ‘only’ Rs. 9 crores in one small project, and we are covering the entire country. So, these lessons have to be learnt, which I believe, have not been considered.
Fourthly, Sir, we are talking about the minimum wage of Rs. 60/- or Rs. 66/-. Section 8 of the Minimum Wages Act contemplates the establishment of an Advisory Board which is there, and I know that the Advisory Board is seized of a national wage, of a national floor level minimum wage. Let that Advisory Board go into it. It has representatives of the workers, it has representatives of the employers. That Board will come to a very reasonable figure. This Rs. 60/- or Rs. 66/- is not a reasonable figure, and you can request the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board probably meets casually once a year because, it is obligatory to call the meeting. Activate it and you will get the results. It has to be a national floor level minimum wage which can be variable on the higher side, according to the circumstances, in a particular State.
Fifthly, the machinery contemplated in this is again under a programme officer. We talked about the panchayat raj institutions. But that talk is meaningless because the programme officer is above them. He is going to be the sole decision-maker; he is going to be the sole person who will decide complaints, decide appeals and has the final authority. Sir, in this respect, we are still in that colonial mode where, for the British, Collector was their ultimate authority. We are following the same system, disrespecting the elected representatives of the people. Yes, politicians are corrupt. But, therefore, putting everything in the hands of bureaucracy, is more disastrous. Politicians are, at least, responsible to the people, and if the politician is at a lower level, he is more responsible. He has to face his town every day, he has to face his village every day.
And, therefore, Panchayati Raj institutions will remain only on paper. This Programme Officer will control everything. And this has been done during the entire colonial rule. Therefore, Sir, during the freedom struggle, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, "No new order can be built in India
Sixthly, Sir, we are concerned here with the citizen's statutory rights. Right to work ought to be a fundamental right, but we always say that we don't want the Government to employ everybody, we don't want the governmentalisation of the economy! When you create a right for the citizen by a statute, even if it is not fundamental, it is a statutory right, enforceable at law. The enforcement and redressal machinery is conspicuous by its absence in this statute. Clause 19 talks of the States creating a machinery under the rules. A statutory right cannot be dealt with by a machinery under the rules. It has to be a statutory machinery, with an appellate authority also, and, naturally, with natural justice as well as a time frame provided for redressal of grievances. That is absent. So, you are creating a right without its enforceability, which makes it useless.
Therefore, Sir, lastly, it is necessary for the implementation of this Scheme that the Centre assumes full responsibility; it does not leave any part of the financial burden on the States, and, as has been suggested by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, and as was suggested in the other House, implementation has to be done by the States, with full financial assistance from the Centre, and if it is not implemented, and, therefore, if a person is unemployed, then the unemployment allowance which is guaranteed under this should be paid by the States. So, it will be a kind of coercion on the States that if they do not implement, they will have to pay. The roles in the statute are to be reversed. First, the Centre pays, and if that payment is not utilised, then the State should pay. This is one way of ensuring success through the States. And, secondly, Sir, you have to empower the Panchayati Raj institutions for this. The Seventy-third Amendment did this. But there is a great lacuna that ultimately, it is the State which is controlling the finances. If the money flows directly to the Gram Panchayats, through a proper Finance Commission, if necessary, by a Constitutional amendment, and, then, if money in this also goes directly to the Panchayats for implementation of the Scheme, the Scheme will be implemented, the Panchayats will perform, the people will participate. We are talking about participatory democracy, we are talking about transparency and we are talking about social audit. All that will be possible; plus the villages will have the projects of their choice, not those determined by some bureaucrats sitting in a chamber in the Mantralaya without knowing the ground realities.
Therefore, we hope, and hope is what sustains us....
†Ö¿ÖÖ ®ÖÖ´Ö ´Ö®ÖãµÖÖÞÖÖÓ ÁÖéÓÜÖ»ÖÖ ÛúÖדÖrË †¤Ëü³ÖãrÖ …
µÖµÖÖ ²Ö¨üÖ: ¯ÖÏ¿/kk¾Ö×®ŸÖ ´ÖãDrk% ×ršÓü×r ¯ÖÓÝÖã¾ÖrË ……
Therefore, we run because we hope and I hope that the Government would take necessary steps to cure this and implement the scheme with all the vigour, finding all the money. Otherwise, it will be another scheme on paper. It will again remind us--he mentioned about Shri Rajiv Gandhi--what he said 20 years ago that one rupee, when it reaches to the last man, becomes 15 paise. So, let us save the 85 paise. Maybe, in cases like the one where I have said that the person whose name is on the muster roll was already dead, not even the 15 paise reach him. So, let us save that by doing something on that. With this caution, I wish this Government success in the implementation of this measure.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment