A Thesis submitted for the partial fulfillment of M.Sc. (Ag.) degree in Agricultural Economics in the Department of Agricultural

Economics of Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya

TITLE

“PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT OF

MNREGA PROGRAMME IN THE DISTRICT OF

COOCH BEHAR OF WEST BENGAL.”

BY

B. SWAMINATHANB.Sc. (Agri.)

2010

i

for pri

ii

My-Word

My sincerest and most gay some thanks are for my guide and my dear chairman Dr. Tuhin Narayan Roy sir for his immense help, calculated expertise, targeted approach, result oriented methodology, ceteris paribus’ guidance, strict perusal, deft handling, and committed efforts at every level of my dissertation. It is also a wholesome lot of pleasure in thanking my dear head sir, Dr. Ashutosh Sarkar sir for his ablest mentorship, sure- footed methods, immediate thoughts, strict atmosphere, dedicated support, committed efforts, germane touch, guaranteed approach and careful patience at every time and every rhyme of my academic work. Enough thanks cannot be dedicated, however level best I try for my course teacher Dr. Satyan sarkar sir for his thoughts and perceptions and profundity, of how to approach a particular topic and how best to bring out the best from it, in the best way that should be possible. My better than the best of all thanks and gratitude that could be possible from my level best, could only be to my course teacher Dr. Kalyan Kranti Das sir, who as a leader of efforts, ladder of support and harbinger of rapport goaded me to complete every academic activity on time giving final touches in his intimate style, every time himself running the extra mile. I also hijack this opportunity to pay my humble thanks to Dr. Arunava Ghosh sir, the member of my Advisory Committee, of the Department of Agricultural Statistics.

I also feel happy in thanking the entire family of my Agricultural Economics department. Thanking all the staff, all my seniors and juniors is a memory to cherish and perish with.

In also especially mentioning the names of my seniors Ms. Banani Das and Mr. Dheeraj Rai, I like to show them that it is easy to include their names in my thesis report but don’t know how to have their love and labour that they bestowed upon me.

My most honest thanks are to the university itself, for it gave me some of the best people, some of the best books, some of the best friends, some of the best moments and some of the best memories that I could never have, even if I take all the seven reincarnations.

I feel pleased within, in thanking the MNREGA officials or those officials additionally holding responsibility to implement this mega scheme, of every PRIs or LPs that I have had covered. Especially, I thank Sri Krishna, Village Level Worker ( VLW ) of the Pundibari LP who single-handedly- often using his own funds- made me to contact other LP officials, that too those LP officials who can converse in Hindi, my medium. The MNREGA Cell of Cooch Behar needs to be specially mentioned with gratitude for providing all data of PRIs that are not available on the Public Domain then, and for patiently answering my queries about the scheme’s progress in every Local Panchayats (LPs).

Many, many happy thanks to all the beneficiaries of the scheme, all the migrants – of some who even spoke Tamil – and the rural households that I contacted for this study. More special thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Biplap Dutta, in whose house I’m a tenant for now.

iii

Ultimately, I thank my krsna, the lovely god and loveable friend, for loving me so much and giving me lovely parents and lovely pri and a lovely life with lovely gifts plus lovely chances with all lovely puns and dances, and this lovely dissertation of 1,62,087 characters.

“For even a single person should starve without food, Let this whole world get destroyed.”

- Subramaniya Bharati

iv

MNREGA JUSTIFIED!

When Nobel Laureate Prof. Arthur Lewis had written in 1954 a masterpiece article entitled ‘Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor’, hardly could he have imagined that nearly 50 years down the line the most populous democracy of the world will launch a scheme called MNREGA to prove, disprove or improve upon the following ideas manifested in his article:

“…In the neo-classical model capital can be created only by withdrawing resources from producing consumer goods. In our model, however, there is surplus labor, and if (as we shall assume) its marginal productivity is zero, and if, also, capital can be created by labor without withdrawing scarce land and capital from other uses, then capital can be created without reducing the output of consumer goods. This second proviso is important, since if we need capital or land to make capital the results in our model are the same as the results in the neo-classical model, despite the fact that there is surplus labor. However, in practice the proviso is often fulfilled. Food cannot be grown without land, but roads, viaducts, irrigation channels and buildings can be created by human labor with hardly any capital to speak of -- witness the Pyramids, or the marvelous railway tunnels built in the mid-nineteenth century almost with bare hands. Even in modern industrial countries constructional activity, which lends itself to hand labor, is as much as 50 or 60 per cent. Of gross fixed investment, so it is not difficult to think of labor creating capital without using any but the simplest tools. The classical economists were not wrong in thinking of lack of circulating capital as being a more serious obstacle to expansion in their world than lack of fixed capital.

.............we assume that surplus labor cannot be used to make consumer goods without using up more land or capital, but can be used to make capital goods without using any scarce factors. If a community is short of capital, and has idle resources which can be set to creating capital, it seems very desirable on the face of the matter that this should be done, even if it means creating extra money to finance the extra employment……”

[Quoted from W.A.Lewis (1954) ‘Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor, Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies. May 22(2): p. 152].

So, it seems Prof. Lewis has provided the strongest possible justification for MNREGA, much before the scheme was conceptualized.

v

CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE NUMBER

PROLOGUE 1

INTRODUCTION 3 to 12

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13 to 17

METHODS & METHODOLOGY 18 to 20

FINDINGS & INTERPRETATIONS 21 to 68

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION 69 to 76

FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH 77 to 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY 81 to 84

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The Timeline of MNREGATable 2: The rural hhds requiring the running up of MNREGATable 3: Agrarian structure of Cooch BeharTable 4: Distribution of cultivable lands among labour householdsTable 5: The number of respondents selected from every Gram PanchayatTable 6: Demand for wage-employment in Cooch BeharTable 7: Years in which MNREGA got actually carried outTable 8: Average number of person-days generated per house-hold & per job-card Table 9: Gram Panchayat wise performance in the generation of employmentTable 10: Expenditure per Gram PanchayatTable 11: Types of works carried out in Gram PanchayatsTable 12: Arbitrary nature of work implementation under MNREGATable 12: Bank and Postal Accounts opened under MNREGATable 13: Number of first time account holders in the sample.Table 14: The prevailing level of awareness among the massesTable 15: Assessment of difficulties faced by the locals Table 16: Demand and lean periods of MNREGA Table 17: Comparison between farm works and works under MNREGATable 18: Distance of the MNREGA’ work-site from the dwellingsTable 19: Delays in wage-paymentsTable 20: Conductance of Social Audits in Cooch BeharTable 21 Accessibility level of MIS in Cooch BeharTable 22: Establishment of MNREGA cellTable 23: Inappropriate wage ratesTable 24: Utilization of funds by the Gram Panchayats Table 25: Responses of GPs for slack in fund utilizationTable 26: Material costs incurred by the Gram PanchayatsTable 27: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Pundibari Table 28: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in MadhupurTable 29: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in DhangdhinguriTable 30: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in PatlakhawaTable 31: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in DeoanhatTable 32: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in GhughumariTable 33: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in SukthabariTable 34: Number of working days and the wages earned by the hhds in PanishalaTable 35: Average amount of wage payment of a household in the sampleTable 36: Pattern of utilization of wage paymentsTable 37: Expenditure Pattern in agricultural activitiesTable 38: Tangible assets purchasedTable 39: Perceived Changes in Socio-economic ParametersTable 40: Migration in Cooch Behar

vii

Table 41: Types of works done by in the places of migrationTable 42: Income earned in the places of migrationTable 43: Participation of women in MNREGATable 44: Allocation in Union Budget on Employment SchemesTable 45: Percentage of rural hhds completing one hundred days of employmentTable 46: Performance of Cooch Behar in MNREGA

LIST OF FIGURES USED

Figure 1: The promise of MNREGA

Figure 2: Profile of the contact-members

Figure 3: Process of MNREGA implementation.

Figure 4: Average number of days of employment per household

Figure 5: Average expenditure per Gram Panchayat

Figure 6: Types of MNREGA woks done in Cooch Behar

Figure 7: The workload involved in MNREGA

Figure 8: Consequences of improper fund utilization

Figure 9: Average material costs incurred in West Bengal

Figure 10: District- wise participation of women in MNREGA works

Figure 11: The performance of MNREGA so far

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

1. PRI - Panchayati Raj Institution

2. LP - Local Panchayat

3. MANAGE - National Institute of Agricultural Extension and Management.

4. EGA – Employment Guarantee Act of Bombay Province ( Maharashtra)

5. GP - Gram Panchayat.

6. MNREGA – Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

7. CEGC – Central Employment Guarantee Council.

8. SEGC – State Employment Guarantee Council.

9. UA – Unemployment Allowance.

10. VLW - Village Level Worker.

11. SA – Social Audits

12. SROI – Social Recovery Operative Investment.

13. MR - Muster Rolls.

14. PEO- Panchayat Executive Officer.

15. DEO- Data Entry Operator.

16. MIS – Management and Information system.

17. CB – Cooch Behar.

18. WB – West Bengal.

19. MS – Measurement Sheet.

20. UC – Utilization Certificate.

21. DP – District Panchayat

22. SGRY- Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana

23. NFWP – National Food for Work Programme.

24. SOR – Schedule Of Rates

25. RH – Rural Households.

ix

26. RLH- Rural Labour Households.

27. SRI – System of Rice Intensification.

28. VCMs – Village Council Meetings.

29. hhd - Household

PROLOGUE

According to the Seventh report of the Rural Labour Enquiry (Labour Bureau, 2004) there were 13.7 crore rural households (RH) in the country in 1999-2000, of which 5.51 crore RH were rural labour households (RLH). Projecting that the number RLH to grow at an annual compound rate of 1.93 per cent (the national growth rate of population between 1991 and 2001) we get a figure of 8.42 crore RLH in the country by April 2010. Understandably, the RLH form a large chunk in the country.

Since, of all the sections of population it’s the RLH which are more disadvantageous to escape poverty and so poverty alleviation schemes are set to enhance their livelihood security. MNREGA was scripted to do more to such rural households by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to all households whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.

Thereby MNREGA, actually, aims to achieve the objective as enunciated in the Article: 41 of the Indian Constitution- “giving citizens the right to work”

This scheme is different from earlier schemes because while the earlier ones did not provide any guarantee of job, this makes job providence a legal right which can be contested. No responsibility could be fixed upon the official concerned for doing the needful in earlier schemes, while this scheme ensures providing jobs as a legal right (Abhay Singh, 2008).

Well, this may not be a novel Act of providing job guarantee; as such an attempt was made by the Government of Bombay, now Maharashtra, in 1966 itself. Yet, this guarantee for wage employment is now uniformed all over the country like never before.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that this is not a welfare programme dishing out doles (Vijay Shankar, 2008). It is a development initiative, chipping in with crucial public investment for creation of durable assets, without which the growth process will not get the requisite momentum in the most backward regions of rural India. Its emphasis on water conservation, drought-and-flood-

x

proofing is also critical as it underscores water security as the pre-requisite and foundation for rural transformation.

But what is of vital necessity for the success of MNREGA is raising the awareness of the people. Those for whom the Act was passed should practically ‘own’ it or otherwise, it will go down in the foot-notes of India’s history as another item in the wish-list of the top politicians, bureaucrats and academicians and sincere souls of struggling India.

INTRODUCTION

xi

2

“To be the same is not going to be your question, But it is going to be your answer.” (Lakshmi Priya Halan)

1.0 Introduction: The water had not turned into wine, but happy bells started to jingle when MNREGA in its earlier avatar as NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) got passed in the parliament with thumping majority in 2005, as rural distress was growing rapidly at the time the Act was passed. The growth of agricultural production fell from 3.5 per cent in the 1980s to 2.0 per cent per annum in the 1990s (the latest edition of Economic Survey puts it at 1.1 per cent in the last fiscal year), and real income growth fell from 4.5 to 2.5 per cent per annum over the same period. By 2008, per capita food grain availability had fallen to lower than that in the 1950s. Workforce participation rates in rural areas declined, more for women than men. The Planning Commission reports a fall in employment growth from 2.04 per cent during 1983-94 to 0.98 per cent during 2000-2008. Even though this was accompanied by a deceleration in the rate of growth of the labour force from 2.29 per cent in 1987-94 to 1.03 per cent in 2003-2008, unemployment has grown since labour force growth outstrips the growth of employment.

MNREGA, which is of immense significance in the context of the widespread rural distress and growing unemployment in the countryside, has come after almost 56 years of experience of other rural employment programmes, which include both Centrally Sponsored Schemes and those launched by State Governments. These comprise the National Rural Employment Programme

xii

[NREP] 1980-89; Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) 1983-89; Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) 1989-99; Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) 1993-99; Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY) 1999-2002; Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) from 2001; National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) from 2004 were national rural employment schemes. The Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme (MEGS), launched in 1972-73 (the Act was passed in 1977), is an important state programme. Among these, the SGRY and NFFWP have been merged with NREGA in 2005.

So Poverty Alleviation Programmes in India can be categorized in to two types: i) Universal Programmes and ii) Targeted Programmes.

Universal programmes are those in which beneficiaries are self-selected, whereas Targeted ones are exclusively for pre-determined target groups. Most anti-poverty programmes are Targeted ones. The Public Distribution System (PDS) for the provision of essential commodities (like food grains, kerosene, etc.) with fair prices and the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) are very fine instances of this type. But MNREGS is a Universal Programme in which “any rural household whose adult member/s volunteer/s to do unskilled marginal work” gets qualified for wage employment.

MNREGA was legislated by an Act forwarded in the Parliament in August 2005 and became India’s first law to codify development rights in a legal framework (Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey, 2007).

The differences between MNREGA and other Wage Employment Programmes (WEPs)

Issue

Other Wage Employment Programmes

MNREGA

Status Programme Statute

Focus Infrastructure Employment generation

Process Supply led. Works opened by implementing agencies & then

labour is engaged

Demand-based. Application by Wage seekers for employment and

then works are opened

Labour Any one can be engaged as labour

Only Job Cards holders that apply for employment

xiii

Time frames None Employment within 15 days of demand,

Payment within 15 days of work

Duration of Employment

Dependent on duration of work by implementing agency

Legal Guarantee of as many days of employment as a job card holder applies for, subject to maximum

100 days

Nature of works Any workNo 60:40 ratio of wage -

material

60:40 ratio of wages and materialPermissible works:

Financial Support -25% State share-75% Centre share

-Fixed Allocation to State-Fixed share toeach PRI tier:

20%-ZP30%-IP50%-GP

-Demand Based.-No fixed allocation to State-No fixed allocation to PRI.

The following Table 1 portrays the timeline of MNREGA whereby the scheme got its modifications during the years of its running.

Table 1: The Timeline of MNREGAAUG 2005

FEB 2006

APR 2007

APR 2008 OCT 2008 16 FEB 2009

Oct 2009

NREGA legalize

d

Came in to force in 200

districts.

130 more

districtsinclude

d.

Universalization of the scheme.

wage transactio

nsthrough banks/post

offices.

MOU with the postaldepartmen

t.

changed

MNREGA

Source: www.nrega.nic.in

xiv

As the Table 1 depicts, when the scheme got first introduced in 200 most backward districts of the country in February 2006, it was proposed to have this scheme extended to the remaining districts only after five years, after seeing the popularity of the scheme. But the very next year itself the scheme was extended further to 130 more districts and within months after that the scheme got universalized by bringing the entire country under its purview and got soon named after Mahatma Gandhi (in October 2nd 2009) to make the scheme more reachable to the masses and thus became Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) for life.

Coming to West Bengal, West Bengal Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme was framed as per section 4(1) of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in September 2005 and came into force from 2nd February 2006. In Cooch Behar MNREGA got initiated from 1st April 2007.

The objectives of the Act in brief are:

1. To provide up to one hundred days of guaranteed employment in a financial year, on demand, to every household in the rural areas, registered under the Act.

2. To augment livelihood resource base of the rural poor through creation of durable assets for employment generation in a sustainable manner.

3. To guarantee grievance redressal within seven days, social audit twice a year, proactive disclosure and mandatory transparency.

Salient features of MNREGA

xv

Source: Guidelines of MNREGA, 2009.

The implementation structure: The very nature of MNREGA is programmed in such a way for it to get successfully implemented co-ordination is required at all levels, starting from the local populace right unto the District Administration.

xvi

The responsibility of implementing the scheme in letter and spirit is divided among various entities of administration, as given under:

(i) Gram Sabha: Responsible for Planning and Selection of works, according priority to works and for conducting Social Audits.

(ii) Gram Panchayat: Responsible for preparation of plan for the scheme implementation, registration of workers, providing Job Card to workers, payment of wages and monitoring the performance of programme in its locality.

(iii) Programme Officer: Responsible for planning for the Block, integrating village-wise plans, allotment of works, implementation of Programme and providing the employment and to provide Unemployment Allowance.

(iv)District Programme Coordinator: Responsible for overall planning in the district and coordination and implementation in the District.

(v)District Panchayat: Responsible for planning and monitoring of the programme.

1.1 The promise of MNREGA: MNREGA is landmark legislation in the history of social security legislation in India after Independence. Enacted after a successful struggle for a comprehensive employment guarantee law, this legislation is a partial victory towards a full-fledged right to employment. The essential feature of this legislation, as already seen, which separates it from any other public service provisioning scheme is its enactment through the Parliament of India. Coupled with the Right to Information Act, this legislation is looked upon as one bringing about a silent revolution in rural areas of the country. MNREGA creates a social safety net for the vulnerable by providing a fall-back employment source, when other employment opportunities are scarce and inadequate. It adds a dimension of equity to the process of growth.

As The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA): Design, Process & Impact: UNDP: Chapter 1, p.9] puts it:

“..The primary objective of the Act is augmenting wage employment. Its auxiliary objective is strengthening natural resource management through works address causes of chronic poverty, like drought, deforestation, and soil erosion and so encourage sustainable development. The process outcomes include strengthening grass-root processes of democracy and infusing transparency and accountability in governance”

The figure 1 given below gives a glimpse of how MNREGA could be seen to render rural transformation for the good of the country as a whole.

xvii

Figure 1: The promise of MNREGA

1.2 Need for such a scheme: Now we have got to know, whether a scheme like MNREGA is needed at all in the first place. If the scheme promises so many things, is it possible for all such promises to get fulfilled? Who are going to be the beneficiaries of the scheme? Or in fact, for whom the scheme is actually for. Who are to be the target population for the scheme? Is there a section of population in every village for whom the scheme would mean a lot of significance and who, by all means, need such a scheme for running their very livelihoods? In what proportions the intended beneficiaries of the scheme are present in the villages and what is their economical position in the villages and if the scheme is implemented at all, how benefited would be the beneficiary for whom the scheme is intended for.

According to the estimates of Planning Commission (2008), the expenditure needed to meet the minimum calorie intake is Rs. 368 per capita per month for every rural household. And indicating that poverty ratio in India to be around 53 per cent, the estimates of commission portray that more than half the numbers of the rural households are mired in poverty.

PROMISE OF MNREGA

during non- agricultural period

providing jobsin the locality itself

more disposable amount of money

people spend more improved

spending pattern

diversified consumption pattern

increase instandard of living

lifestyleimprovement

xviii

In West Bengal, the picture is not colourful (Raghuraman, 2009). With the State’s poverty ratio lying a little above 50 % and all the six districts of North Bengal, one among them being Cooch Behar on which this dissertation is constructed, fall in the ratio between 40 and 60 % in terms of poverty.

Moreover, the state’s rural unemployment is also at a staggering 26.6 %, which makes the state to be ranked second among all the 16 major states in rural unemployment rates.The rural poverty line, which is now in the approximate region of Rs. 400 per capita per month means that an average household that is below the poverty line (BPL) will have income of something in the range of Rs. 24,000 per annum or less, assuming a five- member household.

In other words, if a BPL family were to get full promised benefit of MNREGA then they could earn the equivalent of more than 40 per cent of their annual income from this scheme alone. And if every individual of any assumed rural BPL family manages to get wage employment for hundred full days, then that family would earn more than twice of what it could earn with its regular occupation.

But the government promises one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment to every rural household and not to all the adult-members of any rural household. Nevertheless, this alone is enough to see why MNREGA should not be seen as just another plethora of poverty alleviation schemes that the country has had since Independence (Shankar Raghuraman, 2009). And coming to farmer’s households, the poverty alleviation schemes are much needed for them as the estimates of the planning commission put them in a bitter economic position than all the rural households of a locality. This refers to those households which are involved in farming majorly as labourers, with marginal holdings to work at, with little diversification of farming in them, with no secondary occupation, with much little opportunities to look elsewhere and remaining with no or less work to do during off-season.

Under such conditions, MNREGA seems to be the best scheme that a poor rural farm labourer’s household could ever wished for.

In whatever way, we may picturise a farmers’ household one thing is stark clear: Among the rural households, it’s the farmers’ households which are always identified with poverty by all the commissions so far, and they are in a high risk situation to not to get out from the poverty-trap as easily like other rural households.

xix

So, this scheme may be needed for them. But it would do good to see how much is the constitution of farmers’ households among rural households to have an idea about the appeal that MNREGA could create, if implemented. The following table 2 exactly tries to surmise upon this idea.

Table 2: The rural hhds requiring the running up of MNREGA

Source: ‘Conditions of Indian Peasantry’ by G S Bhatia, www.coochbehar.nic.in and Situational Assessment Survey (SAS) of the Planning Commission, 2008.

The Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) shows how much a family consumes. With lower the level of expenditure, lower will have to be the areas of spending as the family will be left with fewer options to allocate the needs, for want of money. Situational Assessment Survey (SAS) of the Planning Commission (2008) shows that the average monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) for farmer households at all- India level, during the year 2008, was Rs. 503 compared to Rs. 554 for all rural households. Thus, once again, it drives the point that the schemes like MNREGA are needed among those regions where farmers’ households form a major chunk with MPCE lower than other households.

The Table 2 puts farmers’ households in larger proportions among all rural households. That too in Cooch Behar, the percentage farmer’s households crosses both the nation’s and state’s average. Plus, in Cooch Behar the level of indebtedness is alarming larger. So, there is high chance for such schemes like MNREGA to become a sudden river in a ridden desert, only if properly implemented.

But not all the farmers’ households can be categorized as poor. Fair, this is a point not to argue with. And, MNREGA scheme is not just for the poor farmers’ households but the BPL rural households in general. This means that it is

Location

Per cent of BPL hhds among rural hhds

Per cent of farmers’ hhds

among rural hhds

Per cent of indebted

farm hhdsINDIA 50.32 % 60.30 % 48.60 %

WEST ENGAL 49.76 % 65.00 % 50.10 %

COOCH BEHAR 58.13 % 72.00 % 55.00 %

xx

important to see the share of poor rural households, to understand the need of the scheme. The Table 2 demonstrates the poor rural households in higher proportions the country over, especially Cooch Behar topping the charts. So, MNREGA if gets implemented could serve as a fall-back employment source.

The above assumptions hammer in the point that a scheme like MNREGA is very much needed for those rural regions which are predominantly agricultural and where,

i) labourers form a majority of farm households, owning land or no land ii) the land holdings too segregated and too small ii) the cultivation is uneconomical.

If we could see whether any of the conditions tally with the ground reality of Cooch Behar, then we can certainly ascertain that a scheme of such a magnitude like MNREGA fits the bill, and if it gets introduced and implemented effectively it will be the people who will call the shots.

Table 3: Agrarian structure of Cooch Behar

S.No Agrarian Category % to the total households

1. Self-cultivator 31.07

2. Tenant cultivator 12.15

3. Agricultural labourers

40.37

4. Non-agricultural households

16.41

Source: Agrarian Bengal: Economy, Social Structure and Politics by Bose (2001)

Table 3 shows the agricultural labourers in larger percentage. Since there is more chance for agricultural labourers to be wanting of work during off-season times, it seems that MNREGA might serve as a mean to get some income for sustenance.

Table 4: Distribution of cultivable lands among labour households

S.No. Size Class (in acre)

Distribution of cultivable lands among labour households (in percentage)

1. 0 49.22 2. <1 37.89

xxi

3.1<3 12.89

Source: Agrarian Bengal: Economy, Social Structure and Politics by Bose (2001)

Table 4 suggests that about nearly half of the agricultural households owned no land; they are landless agricultural labourers. 37.89 per cent of the total agricultural households owned below one acre of land that is uneconomical for cultivation. Here, thereby, the district of Cooch Behar makes a strong case for the need of schemes like MNREGA.

1.3 Objectives of the study: Thus more than anything else, Cooch Behar is pre-dominantly rural in nature. The Census Estimates say that more than 80 percent of the house-holds reside in the rural areas. And of them 72 percent are either directly or indirectly involved in agriculture or allied activities. Moreover, the rural farm-labour work force touches a staggering 52 percent of the total agricultural populace (table 2), thus forming the major bulk. Though cropping intensity stands at 177 percent, many parts in Cooch Behar are still mono-cropped, with little or less diversification in agricultural activities. Thus, the district seems to be perfectly qualified for a scheme like MNREGA, which gives right to the people to demand any skilled or unskilled work that could be done in their very own locality thereby ultimately leading to the development of their society as a whole, in terms of improvisation of living conditions.

With agricultural being seasonal, though there is no recent onslaught of drought, and with very less area under assured irrigational set-up, it should have to be easy for the job- demanding rural households to have some months off from their normal agricultural season, to complete the guaranteed quota in MNREGA of one hundred days. If such is the case, then it would be of interest to study the durable assets created and conservational works undertaken because of implementation of MNREGA as this very scheme is set to achieve the over-all improvement of the infrastructure of every functioning village in terms of physical, conservational and ecological through the use of manual labour.

Moreover, though Cooch Behar is not a degraded area, over the decades large scale migration has taken place. If Rs. 400 per capita per month, as claimed by the Planning Commission, is enough to support the basic livelihood wants, then the maximum wages that the MNREGA guarantees in full-implementation ( i.e., Rs.10,000) for a house-hold can come up to nearly 40 % of the annual income of a household as a whole. This could act as a good incentive for the migrants to return to their folds and start working in the local schemes. Even then, if the

xxii

migrants are not returning then it’s an all together different scenario that makes up another interesting study.

As it has happened in other States, even in Cooch Behar MNREGA could provide a pillion ride for the launch of agricultural technologies or agronomical developments for the largely conventional, technology starved agricultural masses.

Finally, it would also be interesting to study the impact of MNREGA on the people themselves. As all these factors point out that Cooch Behar is an ideal place for the implementation of MNREGA and the verisimilitude is very high for some innovative solutions to crop up, if the scheme is implemented in its very letter and spirit.

Thus, in view of above observations, an attempt has been made in this study to conduct a farm/micro level survey with the following specific objectives:

1. Present status of MNREGA programme in Cooch Behar district,2. Impact of MNREGA on inter alia rural development,3. Women empowerment & MNREGA,4. Migration & MNREGA.5. Impact of MNREGA upon agricultural activities,6. Identification of constraints stand in the way of proper implementation

and 7. Based on the findings, recommendation for effective implementation of

MNREGA programme in the area under study.

2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A. Importance of MNREGA

Having a thorough grasp over the structure of MNREGA as he is one of the founding fathers of the scheme, Jean Dreze (2007) opines that the MNREGA is one of the greatest experiments to eradicate rural poverty. He further adds that the scheme is both powerful and effective as the implementation of the scheme is styled in a genuinely democratic and decentralized manner in a rights based approach* altogether different from the earlier Wage Employment Programmes (WEPs).

*Differences between a Needs-based Approach and a Rights-based Approach

xxiii

Needs Approach of other WEPs Human Rights Approach of MNREGA Works toward outcome goals Work towards outcome and process goals Recognises needs as valid claims Recognises that rights always implies

obligations of the state Empowerment is not necessary to meet all needs

Recognises that rights can only be realised with empowerment

Accepts charity as the driving motivation for meeting needs

Regards charity as an insufficient motivation for meeting needs

Focuses on manifestations of problems and immediate causes of problems

Focuses on structural causes of problems, as well as manifestations and immediate causes of problems

Focuses on the social context with little emphasis on policy

Focuses on social, economic, cultural, civil and political context and is policy-oriented

Because of this decentralization and rights based approach on which the MNRGEA is constructed, large scale participation of masses has been noticed. For instance, 2.10 crore households were provided employment during 2006-07; 3.39 crore during 2007-08; 4.49 crore during 2008-09 and 1.59 crore households have so far been provided employment during the current year.

As being one of the working members of Central Employment Guarantee Council (CEGC) which looks after the implementation of MNREGA all over the country, Aruna Roy (2008) asserts that the scheme (MNREGA) creates a social safety net for the vulnerable by providing a fall-back employment source, when other employment alternatives are scarce or inadequate. She validates her point by pointing that MNREGA has resulted in the generation of more number of person days (i.e. 98 crore in 2007-2008, 119 crore in 2008-2009 and 110 crore person-days in 2009-2010) than any other scheme that free India has ever seen.

Looking at the basic needs of the poorer section of the country, Anish Vanaik (2009) puts his observation that the Act (MNREGA) which guarantees one hundred days of employment per household at minimum wages is the first piece of legislation that compels the State to provide a social safety net for the improvised households and thereby deserves a special place among all the poverty alleviation schemes so far.

B. Impacts of MNREGA

xxiv

Commenting on the effectiveness of the programme, Ambasta (2008) makes a note that the immediate objective of MNREGA, which is to provide manual employment and decent wages to the neediest in a capable environment – has been more or less realized. From Rs 8,823 crore on the programme in 2006-07, now the allocations of funds for MNREGA have reached to Rs 39,000 crore or Rs 390 billion in 2009-10.

Scanning all the regions that need a scheme like MNREGA to the immediate effect, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (2009) opines that MNREGA addresses, the ‘geography of poverty’ as it generates higher employment in the most deprived areas. So far the works taken up number to: 8.3 lakh and completed works: 3.8 lakh and works in progress: 4.5 lakh.

Specializing on the impact of MNREGA upon agriculture Raghunathan (2009) confirms that an important aspect of the programme (MNREGA) is its undeniable contribution to capital formation in agriculture. MNREGA seem to have led to an 18% increase in agricultural wage rate for three important reasons: first, increased demand for labor resulting from increased land productivity; second, higher reservation wage due to off-season employment opportunity, and; third, increased collective bargaining power.

Linking the aspect of migration with MNREGA eminent agricultural scientist, Swaminathan (2009) feels that MNREGA may be a quantum jump, thought wise, in promoting public participation, but to stop migration need of creating links between the scheme and other developmental activities including public health, safe drinking water, literary programmes and promotion of skilled labour should see the light of the day.

C. Problems in scheme implementation

After seeing the running up of the scheme in all over the years of its implementation, Lalit Mathur (2008) apprehends that the improprieties that have come to be associated with any poverty alleviation scheme of the Government of India have not left the scheme alone.

Adding more force to the running stream, Abhay Singh (2008) cites the evidence that many inspection teams were not able to locate the ponds that were allegedly dug under the scheme (MNREGA).

The very important thing for MNREGA is the periodic assessment of performance. And this comes though regular conductance of Social

xxv

Audits, for at least twice a year as put by the guidelines of the scheme. But Amitabh Behr (2008) is of the opinion that in West Bengal the progress towards Social Audits (SAs) has been shoddy at best which betrays the entire set up.

Reetikha Khera (2008) comes up with a valid point to show the level of impropriety that is existent when she underlines that job-cards in Orissa and in some other states like West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh do not have a column for recording wages paid to labourers. Thereby the beneficiaries will not be able to track down the wage amount that is due to them.

Studying on the aspect of dissemination of wages, Soumya Kidambi (2008) shows the defects in the state of West Bengal’s infrastructure in maintaining transparency towards payment of wages as more than 43 percent of the total payments get distributed through sources other than the accounts maintained in banks and post offices.

Sudha Narayanan (2009) puts a lid over the issue of improprieties running wild in MNREGA by expressing her concern that there is no passion in owning the scheme as a priority or even as a sense of identification and it has been marginalized and relegated to a mere scheme of the Ministry of Rural Development.

Commenting on the works done through MNREGA, Murugavel (2009) points out that in states like West Bengal and Maharashtra MNREGA is not leading to the creation of productive and useful community assets which could promote livelihoods in rural areas. For example, the following table shows that among the works done under MNREGA between the years of 2007 and 2010, the works under rural connectivity get the lion’s share thereby putting the most important need of creation of durable assets with conservational aspects to the back burner.

Type of work done via MNREGA in West Bengal

Percentage of shareover all the years

Rural connectivity 41.04

Water harvesting 12.36

Flood control and protection 11.08

Renovation of water bodies 10.97

Land development 7.09

Sreelatha Menon (2009) after observing the success case studies of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, where only delayed wage payments get transacted through accounts, makes her observation that the bank accounts make payments more expensive and not feasible.

xxvi

Zeroing in on the slack in demand for works under MNREGA all over the country, and especially with the case of larger states, Magsaysay award winner Sainath (2009) comments that most of the government officials do not give publicity to the scheme as they want to show that labour is not certainly available. For instance, the following table shows the number of rural households in the district of Cooch Behar and the very low number of households that demanded works under MNREGA.

District

Total rural HH

(lakh)

HHDemandingEmployment

(lakh)

Cooch Behar

5.98 2.29

On finding some of the states evidently paying less than the promised statutory minimum wage, Jean Dreze (2009) cautions that it amounts to flagrant violation of the act.

D. Future scope

A study undertaken by an expert team of IIM-Calcutta on MNREGA (2008) shows that if in each village the scheme could recover around 300 bigha (about 100 acres) and make it fit for cultivations of three crops namely, aman, ravi and boro per year. Then, cultivation of the recovered land thrice a year will generate around 22.5 lakh person-days per year. And the money value of the man days generated will be 14 crore 50 lakhs.

For MNREGA to leave a long lasting effect, S K Rao (2009) prescribes that the government should provide highest priority to water conservation in the choice of works under MNREGA and the nature of works should be such that it should lead to the creation of green jobs.

Commenting upon the implementation mechanism of MNREGA, Gopi Nath Ghosh (2010) projects that the future of MNREGA lies in activating the work application process, implementation of transparency safeguards, timely wage payments, need for a wage policy, women’s participation and redressal systems.

Total number of Operational Holdings in the category of small and marginal farmers (SF, MF) i.e., those owning less than 2hectares or 5 acres: 537.21lacs as per the statistical Hand Book of Directorate of

xxvii

Economics and Statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. To make MNREGA a better deal for the underprivileged small and medium farmers who were untouched by the first Green Revolution of the 1960s, Jean Dreze (2010) favours that by working with smaller and poorer farmer households MNREGA can aim in stimulating the productivity levels to a significant account and thereby leading to another food revolution.

Selected quotes expressing strengths/hopes as well as notes of caution around MNREGA

Strengths/hopes Notes of caution 1. NREGA as anchor for sustainable development: “In terms of time, space and units of planning covering economic, human and infrastructural aspects, the NREGA makes a very good anchor for sustainable development.” – Amita Sharma

1. Need for capability building: “If we are competent, capable, and equipped with the technical competency, we would be able to draw on this program and transform rural India’s economy.” – Deep Joshi

2. Raising hopes for wage-earning people: “NREGA has demonstrated that its important wage giving aspect gives people hope.” – Amita Sharma

2. Need for careful investments: “If you utilize all the investment to trigger economic and agriculture growth, all the people who are now currently seeking work can withdraw to their own farms and demand for work will actually go down in a period of time.” – P. S. Vijay Shankar

3. United funds for local area programs: “It is the only programme which gives united funds for local area programmes.” – Amita Sharma

3. Success criterion for NREGA: “The success of NREGA will perhaps lie in making the Act itself redundant someday when the scheme is or the act is no longer required.” – Chinmoy Basu

4. Creation of development assets: “The NREGA represents the one concrete occasion when the government physically, as a matter of right, has committed so much money. This opportunity can be utilized fully and properly only when it is linked to the creation of development assets.” – P. S. Vijay Shankar

4. Need for professional support: “If it is thought that NREGA does not require professional competency and professional support, and that half-baked situations can work, then I think livelihoods will remain a very distant dream.” – Ram Lubhaya

5. Resource restoration & enhancement for next generation: “Resource restoration and enhancement of carrying capacity are important so that we pass on resources on the next generation in a better condition.” – Madhu Khetan

5. Importance of user-participation & user-perspective: “The user perspective and user involvement is very critical in the entire process of livelihood generation which is not only just creation of assets.” – Madhu Khetan

6. Convergence for sustainable livelihood opportunities: “Convergence for livelihood was an approach that was taken right from the very beginning in Madhya Pradesh. We

6. Building up a complementary system for improving productivity and net incomes: “The issue at stake is how do we build NREGA into a system that complements the

xxviii

are using NREGA and drawing from the resources of other schemes to create sustainable opportunities for the poor.” – Rashmi Shami

existing production systems, the small farmers and the livestock traders and improves their productivity and net incomes.” – A Ravindra

Source: Pradan (2009): “NREGA - Beyond Wages to Sustainable Livelihoods”: Report of a Workshop organized by National Resource Centre for Rural Livelihoods on November 21, 2009 in New Delhi.

METHODS & METHODOLOGIES

xxix

3.0 SURVEY: The study was undertaken in the following steps which were reflective as well as conclusive in nature. The first step involved review of literature and identification of issues and concerns. This was supplemented by an analysis of secondary data pertaining to MNREGA and related matters available from Ministry of Rural Development website and other secondary sources. The next step involved collection of primary data from a random sample of households. For that Sample survey was conducted in two blocks of Cooch Behar district namely Cooch Behar I and Cooch Behar II. From each block, four Gram Panchayats were selected thereby selection totaling up to eight Gram Panchayats in all. These Gram Panchayats have been considered as the unit of location from which respondents (here sample farmers/beneficiaries) were purposively chosen for survey works. Ten persons who happen to be the beneficiaries of the MNREGA programme were contacted from each of the Gram Panchayat. So, the sample size was 80 (eighty). But other beneficiaries of the households, apart from the 80 contact members were also considered for study. The details of the sample have been provided in the Table 5 and Figure 2.

The samples were selected based on the following conditions:

#) They are the beneficiaries of the scheme at least for the past two years of its operation.

#) They get benefited from the scheme in the form of maximum number of days of wage employment that the GP offered so far during the operational years between 2007 and 2010.

Table 5: Details about the number of respondents in the sample

S.No NAME OF THE GPIN STUDY

CONTACT MEMBERS

NO. OF OTHER BENEFICIARIES

IN THE hhd

TOTAL NO.OF

BENEFICIARIES IN THE hhd

# FROM COOCH BEHAR II

xxx

1. PUNDIBARI 10 17 27

2. MADHUPUR 10 05 15

3. DANGDINGGURI 15 13 28

# FROM COOCH BEHAR I

4. PATLAKHAWA 10 04 14

5. DEOANHAT 15 12 27

6. GHUGHUMARI 10 17 27

7. SUKTAHBARI 15 13 28

8. PANISHALA 10 10 20

#TOTAL

95 86 181

Figure 2: Profile of the contact-members.

As far as possible, the households chosen were kept in such a way to reflect all the walks of life of a rural society (as shown in figure 2). That’s why the surveyed 80 (eighty) contact members were a cocktail, compromising land-owners, farm labourers, migrants, non-agricultural households and households doing agricultural works as part time activity with main occupation being some other.

xxxi

0

Part time agri –

5 Nos

Local migrants-05

Non agri – 10 Nos

Agri land owners – 15 Nos

Agri labourers – 60 Nos

The focus was kept to determine the impact of MNREGA in the rural society as a whole. And the expressions and suggestions of the other beneficiaries of the household, apart from the member-in-contact, were also taken note by staging mock group interviews as and when necessary as demanded by the methodology set.

Tools for analysis: The collected data from the survey works have been compiled according to the aim of the study. Usually tabular forms of analyses were followed to arrive at interpretation of the findings so derived from the micro level. Besides, different secondary sources of information were also consulted to make comparative study as well as conclusion therein.

In view of conducting the sample survey, a structured schedule was prepared for interview purpose keeping all aspects of the objectives of the study. Focused group interviews with the members and beneficiaries of the rural households were also carried out to ascertain the required data on the following issues like:

i) impact of MNREGA on migration ii) women empowerment & MNREGA and iii) impact of MNREGA upon agricultural activities.

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS

xxxii

4.0 DEMAND FOR EMPLOYMENT UNDER MNREGA: MNREGA is basically a demand driven programme. Actual provision of employment is based on demand expressed by the registered persons at the Gram Panchayat. According to the mandate of MNREGA, there should be a need of demand for work from at least ten persons to start up a new work for providing employment. The following table 6 deals with the demand for work under MNREGA in the Cooch Behar district.

Table 6: Demand for wage-employment in Cooch Behar.

S.No. District Total hhds (lakh)

Total rural hhds(lakh)

No. of hhds registered (lakh)

% of ruralhhds gotregistered

No. of hhdsDemandingEmployment (lakh)

No. of hhdsProvidedEmployment (lakh)

1. Cooch Behar

6.43 5.98 5.19 86.73 2.29 2.26

Source: MNREGA Cell, Cooch Behar

Table 6 shows the finding of low demand for work under MNREGA, among the registered house-holds. One of the reasons for low demand for work may be less local participation, which in turn may be due to lack of awareness prevailing among people for MNREGA. There may be also some other reasons for low demand for wage-employment. For instance during the survey works in the

xxxiii

Gram Panchayat (GP) offices, it was possible to interact with the officials, in charge of MNREGA implementation, browsing on this topic and it was gathered that when an applicant demands work in writing by submitting Form B-1 (work application or demand form) to the Panchayat, the rule requires that the application has to be acknowledged in writing by the Panchayat through the issue of notice to the applicant for reporting to work (Form B-2). But this process is quite difficult and clumsy. That too when the Gram Panchayats has to face up with shortage of staff, the process becomes burdensome.

So Form B-2 is not given to the applicants seeking jobs. It is kept with the Panchayat itself. Since there is no record for demand of works it becomes possible for the Gram Panchayats to allocate works on their own discretion and to show data and reports in their convenient angles. The most important drawback of this kind of set up is that the scheme ceases to be a demand based on and begins to exist in the form of supply based programme like any poverty alleviation scheme. This may also be one of the reasons for low participation from the locals. But the participation of the people is vital, as the scheme’s founding fathers have very heavily based their entire faith on decentralization and local participation for the scheme to achieve its intended targets. The following figure 3 show how important is the demand for employment from the people which forms the basement for the entire scheme to run. In fact, as the figure 3 shows the participation of people in the running up of MNREGA at all levels, begins with their very demand for work in the primary level.

Figure 3: Process of MNREGA implementation.

xxxiv

As Table 6 revealed less demand for works under MNREGA from the local people,Table 7 shows that the works were not carried out in the Gram Panchayats in all the years of implementation of the scheme. In all the eight GPs that were studied there is at least one full year in which the scheme was kept dormant with little or no activity at all.

Table 7: Years in which MNREGA got actually carried out

FORM 4 A

demand by job seeker

FORM 4 B

recruitment

JOB-CARD ISSUE opening accounts

“lengthy and inter-linked process“

Gram Sabha Meetings, Under 16 A of PA

enumerating local needs

that fit MNREGS

Submitting decisions to GP

To GP sub-committee

COLLECTORATE

DISTRICT MNREGA CELL

FUND ALLOTTMENT

SCHEME ALLOTTMENT

xxxv

Note: The tick marks in the table stands for the years in which MNREGA works were carried out.

3.2 GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT: The important indicator for successful implementation of this programme is the generation of employment. The secondary sources were consulted and the MNREGA records of the Gram Panchayats were seen, to ascertain the generation of employment in the years of scheme implementation between 2007 and 2010. The total number of days of employment per rural household and total number of days of employment per job-card in all the Gram Panchayats that were surveyed have been given dutifully in the following Tables 8 & 9.

As the Table 8 shows that less than 20 days of wage-employment per household and per job-card on an average was provided in the district of Cooch Behar. Although the average number of days of employment calculated for the entire state or even the country is not so high, Cooch Behar’s performance is much wanting.

The Table 9 displays the performance of Gram Panchayats in delivering the number of days of employment on the basis of per household and per job-card. As we could see from the table that there is always at least one year present in every Gram Panchayat where no morsel of activity in the form of employment providence seem to have taken place. The scheme was supposedly kept dormant in those years of non-providence of jobs.

S.No. Gram Panchayat( GP)

Year/s in which MNREGA works was/ were done

2007- 2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

1. PUNDIBARI

2. MADHUPUR

3. DHANGDHINGURI

4. PATLAKHAWA

5. DEOANHAT

6. GHUGHUMARI

7. SUKTAHBARI

8. PANISHALA

xxxvi

Table 8: Average number of person-days generated per house-hold & per job-card during the financial years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 & 2009-2010

S.No YEAR National Average

West Bengal Average

Cooch Behar Average

National Average

West Bengal Average

Cooch Behar Average

per house-hold per job-card1. 2006-2007 32 18 - 39 22 -

2. 2007-2008 43 27 12 45 29 17

3. 2008-2009 25 19 10 37 23 15

4. 2009-2010 35 21 08 42 27 13

Source: Jean Dreze & Christian Oldgies (2010) and data collected from www.nrega.nic.in

Table 9: Gram Panchayat wise performance in the generation of employment

S.No. Gram Panchayat

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010Average number of person-days generated per hhd

Average number of person-days generated per job-card

Average number of person-days generated per hhd

Average number of person-days generated per job-card

Average number of person-days generated per hhd

Average number of person-days generated per job-card

1. PUNDIBARI 15 19 14 18

2. MADHUPUR 12 15 06 10

3.DHANGDHINGURI

14 19 11 17

4. PATLAKHAWA 08 10 07 12

xxxvii

5. DEOANHAT 14 19 12 18

6. GHUGHUMARI 13 16 09 17

7.SUKTAHBARI 06 15 14 17

8.PANISHALA 06 11 14 19

(Note: The black boxes indicate the years in which the scheme was not run).

Figure 4 indicates the performance of Cooch Behar in generating number of days of employment per household and the figure compares the performance with the levels of performances of other districts of the state. From the presented figure 6 it can be resented that as the average of the state is 26 days of employment generation per rural household, our Cooch Behar lags behind by generating only 15 days of employment and takes a penultimate place in terms of performance.

Figure 4: Average number of days of employment provided per household in West Bengal during the Financial Years 2006-2007, 2007-2008,2008-2009 & 2009-2010.

Source: www.nrega.nic.in

xxxviii

The reason for the decline in the providence of works was attributed to the holding of Panchayat elections during the year 2008. It was also said by the officials of the Gram Panchayats that it took time for the newly elected Panchayat bodies to get oriented and start functioning the MNREGA programme. In addition to these, migration to payment through accounts instead of paying through cash also resulted in initial difficulty.

3.3 EXPENDITURE PER GRAM PANCHAYAT: Gram Panchayat (GP) is the most important unit of local government in respect of MNREGA, since the responsibility of issuing Job Cards after registering the households (that demand employment) and providing employment on demand are the responsibilities of the GPs. Expenditure per GP of a district is very important as it discusses the effectiveness of fund allocation by the concerned districts. It also tells to a loathsome extent of how the funds were utilized, on what factors the funds were spent and much more about whether the funds got utilized in such a way as it is required by the mandate on which the programme was verily framed.

Figure 5 Average expenditure per Gram Panchayat .

Source: Data collected from www.nrega.nic.in.

xxxix

Overall, in the state of West Bengal, the average expenditure as percentage of available fund for the year 2008-09 has decreased to 69.62% from 74.70% in the year 2007-08 (Source: Reports submitted by the State Government in the legislative assembly). But Cooch Behar gets itself to one of the top positions, as it is ranked fourth overall, in the expenditure per Gram Panchayat (GP) as the figure 5 and table 10 reveal. The per GP expenditure of the district standing at an average of Rs.46.71 lakh over the years between 2007 and 2009 is much higher than the state’s average spending of Rs.26.86 lakhs.

So, it can be inferred as a good indicator taking that Cooch Behar could have performed more by MNREGA than many other districts in West Bengal as its spending is high. But it may also be referred that in any case percentage expenditure of available fund is not however the right indicator in a demand driven programme like the MNREGA as more important is the availability of funds at the time of works getting carried out.

Table 10: Expenditure per Gram Panchayat

S.No. Gram Panchayat Year wise expenditure (Rs.)

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

1.PUNDIBARI 33,86,081 24,69,994 28,65,671

2. MADHUPUR28,55,338 37,66,411 35,38,346

3. DHANGDHINGURI27,48,022 20,78,293

12,22,206

4. PATLAKHAWA18,65,000 27,88,063 27,88,056

5. DEOANHAT23,18,092 18,64,147 24,32,891

6. GHUGHUMARI27,08,643 23,80,022 18,79,243

7. SUKTAHBARI17,86,919 22,59,642 15,86,292

8. PANISHALA23,85,617 18,67,342 21,67,614

3.4 PERMISSIBLE WORKS UNDER MNREGA: "Poverty" is not simply 'lack of income', but it is also a 'process' which is influenced by the state of health, level of education, demographic characteristics, socio-cultural environment (of the poor households) that determine their access to development opportunities (Sen, 1985). The recognition of poverty as a multifaceted concept has brought to the centre-stage the need for complementing poverty alleviation

xl

strategy with special programs for building the capabilities and assets of the poor and disadvantaged. The reorientation of the Indian social sector polices in the form of special component plans/schemes for the poor and disadvantaged to accommodate their basic material and capability-building needs started from the late 1970s and early 1980s onwards and this got itself well established in the MNREGA programme as the works that are permissible under the scheme are purposively meant for the creation of local infrastructure:

a) Durable assets: An important objective of Scheme is to create durable assets and strengthen the livelihood resource base of the rural poor, so that even if Scheme is closed after five years, the rural poor will have means for sustenance and they are not forced to migrate in search of employment. Such assets could come under the category of:

(i) Water conservation and water harvesting;

(ii) Drought proofing, afforestation and tree plantation.

(iii) Irrigation canals including micro and minor irrigation works;

(iv) Provision of irrigation facility to the land owned by households belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or to land beneficiaries of land reforms or that of the Beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojana of the Government of India.

(v) Renovation of traditional water bodies including desilting. (vi) Land development;

(vii) Flood control and protection works including drainage in water logged areas

(viii) Rural connectivity to provide all weather access. The construction of roads may include culverts wherever necessary and within the village area may be taken up along with drains.

(ix) Any other work which may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. For instance, awareness about the practice of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) technique in rice was given to the farmers over various parts of Orissa. Such-like cases which are found to be especially suitable for a locality can also be routed through proper channels to get acceptance from the administration.

3.5 Types of works done in Cooch Behar:

Figure 6: Types of MNREGA woks done in Cooch Behar

xli

between 2007 and 2009.

Source: As per the details provided by the MNREGA Cell of Cooch Behar.MNREGA, when framed, was envisaged to help in the resuscitation of rural livelihoods. This could only be possible if the works under MNREGA leave a long term impact in the locality by creating durable assets for the society as a whole. Such kinds of asset generation would help in the strengthening of rural infrastructure on one-hand and on the other hand they focus on improving the standards of life of rural society. Moreover, there is also a chance for fostering conservational aspects in the conventional agricultural practices through MNREGA.

But here in Cooch Behar, as fig.6 shows, maximum number of MNREGA works was allotted under rural road and repair and refurnish. Road works require less planning and is one of the easiest and safest things to get allotted. But to start-up works on conservational aspects which lead to the creation of durable assets a lot of planning is required. This is the reason for why MNREGA mandate necessarily stress the Gram Panchayats to keep shelf of plans ready before commencing the scheme in a financial year.

3.6 Types of works done in the Gram Panchayats: As the Table 11 depicts that the share of works leading to the creation of durable assets like: water-proofing, creation of farm-ponds, cleaning up of traditional water bodies or nallas and erosion control works received much little attention in all the surveyed Gram panchayats.

Table 11: Types of works carried out in Gram Panchayats

xlii

Note: The listed numerals indicate the following type of works

3.8 Broken rules during implementation: i) To allot the type of job to be done, MNREGA requires the decision should be taken with the local people’s participation in the Village Council Meetings (VCMs), as per Panchayat Act 16 A. But, as table 12 enunciates, this procedure was not at all followed in the Gram Panchayats that were studied, in the selection of work-sites and even in the allotment of works. This perfectly reveals the arbitrary nature of implementation of the programme by the Gram Panchayats.

Table 12 Arbitrary nature of work implementation under MNREGA

S.No. Name of the

Gram PanchayatWorks undertakenunder MNREGA

1. PUNDIBARI 1, 2, 3, 5

2. MADHUPUR 1, 5 3. DANGDINGGURI 1 4. PATLAKHAWA 1

5. DEOANHAT 1, 5 6. GHUGHUMARI 1, 2, 4

7. SUKTAHBARI 1

8. PANISHALA 1

1. Rural Connectivity 4. Land Development

2. Tree Plantation 5. Facilitating Land Beneficiaries

3. Seeding fish fingerlings

xliii

Note: The figures inside parentheses indicate the total number of days of employment per household in a financial year.

ii) Unemployment allowance need to be provided to every registered job seeker if work is not allotted with a stipulated period of 14 days after registration of demand for wage employment. This rule of MNREGA was also not followed.

iii) MNREGA prescribes that the work stretch should not exceed, 14 days at a time. But this regulation was also not paid any heed.

3.9 Financial Inclusion:

Table 12 Bank and Postal Accounts opened under MNREGA in Cooch Behar between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010

S.No.GRAM

PANCHAYAT

No. of times MNREGA works getting detailed or at least brought up in the VCMs

2007 -2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

1. PUNDIBARI 0 ( 28) 1 (22) 0 (-)

2. MADHUPUR 0 (18) 0 (14) 0 ()

3. DANGDINGGURI 0 ( 14 ) 0 (09) 0 (--)

4. PATLAKHAWA 0 ( 14) 0 ( 22 ) 0 ( - )

5. DEOANHAT 0 ( - ) 0 ( 07 ) 0 ( 12)

6. GHUGHUMARI 0 ( 10 ) 0 ( 15) 0 ( - )

7. SUKTAHBARI 0 ( - ) 0 ( 17 ) 0 ( 14 )

8. PANISHALA 0 ( 12 ) 0 ( 18) 0 ( - )

xliv

Bank accounts between 2007 &2010

Postal accounts between 2007 & 2010

Total accounts opened between 2007 and 2010

1,75,482 2,43,162 4,18,644

Source: From the reports submitted by the State government in the legislative assembly between the financial years 2007 and 2010.

The report submitted in the legislative assembly by the government of West Bengal and other expert studies on the subject reveal that among the accounts for MNREGA that get opened in post offices and banks nearly 68 % are first time accounts. This means that those rural households who were left untouched by the benefits of banking can now revel in all the facilities that a bank or post office could provide.

The Rangarajan Committee on financial Inclusion had noted that 45.9 million households (51 %) of the total 89.3 million households do not access credit from the institutional sources. The aim of the National Rural Financial Inclusion Plan is to provide access, by 2012, to financial services for an estimated 5.5 crore households that are currently deprived of any credit. So MNREGA could be seen as a good wagon for furthering financial inclusion among rural masses.

‘Financial Inclusion’ which is the delivery of banking services to the disadvantaged and low-income groups at an affordable cost is a good one to look for. Opening of bank account is expected to result in larger access to credit, insurance and other financial services for the rural poor, besides encouraging savings (Lakshmi Priya Halan, 2009).

Apart from ensuring transparency in payments, the accounts in banks and post-offices also acts as an incentive for thrift and small savings ( Lalit Mathur, 2008).

In our study the questions were raised to ascertain the number of account holders in the sample who did not hold any previous account and got them opened for the first time through MNREGA. The following table 13 elaborates the details obtained.

But it was also found out that the opening of accounts in banks and post-offices and thereby facilitating wage-payments through them lead to many adverse effects. The main problem was delay in wage-payments. People in many GPs had to wait for more a month and some more than two months after the completion of works to get the payments. Moreover, the Post Offices and Banks run in their own restricted space and in their face-off with the MNREGA beneficiaries some unremarkable incidents did happen. Moreover the transaction of wages through banks and post-offices made people to go in groups and

xlv

received payments in bulk which further created some more scope for embezzlement.Table 13: Number of first time account holders in the sample.

S.No. GRAM PANCHAYAT No of first time account holders (out of ten)

Percentage

1. PUNDIBARI 3 30%

2. MADHUPUR 5 50%

3. DHANGDHINGURI 7 70%

4. PATLAKHAWA 6 60%

5. DEOANHAT 8 80%

6. GHUGHUMARI 5 50%

7. SUKTAHBARI 10 100%

8. PANISHALA 7 70%

4.0 Participation of the rural populace: It would be fair to assess the awareness quotient of the rural people of Cooch Behar about MNREGA, i.e. how far they know about the scheme and how far they are involved with the scheme and how they came to know about the scheme and how they were assisted by the scheme in their day-to-day living and how far the scheme let an impact to happen in their lives and how much the scheme facilitated them to improve their standard of living. To cut a long story short, it would be interesting to know how much is the scheme meant to them.

To estimate the existing level of awareness prevailing among the masses, an indicator schedule consisting of 12 parameters was set-up. Since this entire scheme rests on the condition of being demand- based the awareness of the people about the programme becomes very important. As the regulation of the scheme itself states: “the Act provides a legal guarantee of 100 days of wage employment per household for doing unskilled manual work on demand”. So the people have to demand their work and for that they should have to be aware about the scheme in general.

It can be said that the very success of MNREGA largely depends upon the awareness of it among the masses for whom the programme is intended for. When the people are aware about the existence of the scheme then they would

xlvi

come forward to the Gram Panchayats to enquire about the scheme. Then the GPs could help in getting their queries cleared. So the people could place their demands. And the works would get allotted. If these take place in their order – as every one of these is interlinked- the programme becomes successful. Any breakup in the order means that the Gram Panchayat is not able to run the programme as it is supposed to run. The objective of the awareness schedule was intended to find out whether the people were self propelled to perform the work or did they simply accept what was in offer. If the demand from the people is self-propelled, then it would lead to two conclusions: First of all, the people of that particular Gram Panchayat (GP) are very well aware of the programme that is running in their villages. And the GP is also effective in making the people to become aware of the benefits of the programme. Secondly, the people are in need of jobs or at least they have got some free time to dispense with, which they could profitably use in earning their livelihoods to improve their standard of living. The following table 14 effectively illustrates the indicators that were used for the study and the response of the sample, GP wise.

Table 14: Assessment of awareness among the masses about MNREGAS.NO AWARENESS INDICATORS PUND

BARIMADHUPUR

DANGDINGGURI

PATLAKHAWA

DEONAHAT

GHUGUMARI

SUKTHABARI

PANISHALA

1. Wished for any such scheme * * * * * * *2. Self enquiry about the scheme X X X X X * X X3. Means of knowing GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP4. Possession of job card X X X X X X X X

5.About the types of works that can be done under this scheme

X X X X X X X X

6.About unemployment allowance

X X X X X X X X

7.Awareness about the works to get allotted by Village Council Meetings (VCMs)

* * X X X X X X

8. Number of VCMs attended NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL9. About social auditing and

bank/ post office accountsX

X X X X X X X

10.Awareness about jobs to get provided within a stipulated period of 14 days after demand

XX X X X X X X

11. Awareness about that 10 people with demand are enough to get a job allotted

XX X X X X X X

‘X’ – stands for ‘NO’ and ‘*’ – stands for ‘YES’.

xlvii

A Badaga proverb says, “Wishes never wash dishes”. The same seems to be true with the people who were contacted for the survey. All of them wished for such a scheme, but when they heard about it- no one seemed it fair enough to inquire about the scheme by themselves in the Gram Panchayats thus perfectly making it a ‘supply based programme’. Only a handful responded affirmatively confirming their knowledge about Village Council Meetings and almost all seem to be in their best negligent mood when it comes to having the knowledge about various entitlements that the scheme guarantees one.Assessing the local participation: So it is said that the scheme in entirety is based upon two main objectives: decentralization and local participation. MNREGA structure expects this participation from the locals to happen on every front – right from planning of works to implementation to facilitating social audits.

In Cooch Behar as MNREGA is being in operation for over three years, the study expected the participation from the people on the fronts including:

1) The people’s demand to the Gram Panchayats to start-up wage employment.

2) People’s active participation in Gram Sabha Meetings to discuss the priorities that could be worked out with the scheme.

3) People’s participation in helping/ aiding the Gram Panchayats to spot works that could be done in their locality.

4) The level of awareness about the scheme that is prevailing with the rural masses.

5) People’s realization about the rights and privileges that the scheme confers on them.

6) People’s active participation in social audits.7) Instances of people voicing against the irregularities that the scheme is

mired with.8) Instances of people confronting the GPs, when demanded jobs getting

not allocated.9) Instances of people organizing themselves to choose priorities that could

result in the creation of durable assets or help in conservational aspects.

With all the above mentioned considerations the study was set to gauge the local participation in every Gram Panchayat. The households were questioned about their participation. And it was found that there is no clear difference in the perception of people between MNREGA and any other poverty alleviation schemes that were in run so far. It was also noticed that there is also lack of expertise in the Gram Panchayats to choose works, if at all, which could build durable assets. The following Table 15 shows the set of parameters that were put forth to the beneficiaries to reason out their level of participation in the scheme and the difficulties they came to see in the functioning of the scheme which by the way hampered their effective participation.

Table 15 Assessment of difficulties faced by the locals

xlviii

S.NO

DIFFICULTIESFACED UP

PUND

BARI

MADH

UPUR

DHANGDHINGURI

PATLA

KHAWA

DEON

AHAT

GHUGU

MARI

SUKTHA

BARI

PANISHAL

A

1. Irregular employment

*

2. Jobs not popular

3. Low wage rate

4. Unresponsive GP

5. Corruption6. Difficulty in wage

transaction

7. Working site too distant

8. Agri. activities getting affected

9. Getting more money elsewhere

10. Presence of Contractors

Note: Tick-mark indicates the presence of difficultiesThe above Table 15 shows that i) irregularities in providing jobs, ii) wage-payments getting delayed and iii) low wage rates to be the most important problems that the locals have to brace up with. May be the irregularities that happened, in creating and providing jobs, rest wholly with the Gram Panchayats. But the locals also failed to appreciate the nature of the scheme which is actually based upon their willingness to demand for works. 4.2 Seasonal pattern of demand for works: A study of the seasonal pattern all over the country in the demand for work under MNREGA shows that the July – October period is the lean period while May-June is the peak period. While there may be other factors, the monsoon and the kharif crop seem to have a major role to play in providing farm employment opportunities during the July- October period and hence reducing the demand for employment under MNREGA.

To observe the seasonal pattern of farm-activities i.e. the months in which the people whose main occupation is farming involve in it in such a way that they would not be able to dispose their time off for any kind of special activities that are not on their routine like MNREGA questions were raised to the contact-members of the households which were interviewed. And when the need arose, mock interviews were also staged in the respective households, to gauge the intensity of participation of other members of the households in farm activities and their free time off.

xlix

Table 16: Demand and lean periods of MNREGA

S.No. GRAM PANCHAYATHectic farm work period

Lean period of farm work

Period of no or nil farm work

1. PUNDIBARI June - October

November - December

February –April

2. MADHUPUR May/ June - October

November - December

January & March

3. DANGDINGGURI June - October

November –January

March & April

4. PATLAKHAWA June - October

October –December

January &February

5. DEOANHAT July-Oct/ November

January-Feb/ March

February –April

6. GHUGHUMARI June - October

November - December

February/March

7. SUKTAHBARI June - October

November - December

-

8. PANISHALA June - October

November – Decem / Jan

February –April

From the table 16, we can ascertain that the months of January, February, March, April and December of a cropping season are found to be suitable for works under MNREGA, as in these months there is comparatively less farm works happening around in the GPs.

jan feb mar april may june july august sep oct nov dec

(The shaded months signify common months of less or little farm activities in Gram Panchayats)

4.3 Farm work & MNREGA work- A Comparison: The seasonal pattern of works revealed that farm people who form the majority in Cooch Behar and constitute most of the rural poor households for whom this entire scheme is mean for, can relieve themselves off regular farming for nearly four months in a year which works out to be sufficient for carrying out MNREGA successfully without omitting any of its desired mandates.

But our findings reveal that the participation of the people is very low (see Table 16). So there could be two basic reasons for this state of affairs. One: Gram

l

Panchayats themselves failing to have the scheme implemented or, otherwise: people finding the scheme too much inconvenient.

Table 17 : Comparison between farm works and works under MNREGA

S.No. Farm Work MNREGA Work

1. 8 am to 4 pm 11 am to 4 - 5 pm

2. Wage/day: (in Rs.)75 to 80-90 /100

Wage/day: (in Rs.)65 to 72 / 75

3. Wages are regular Irregular

4. Wages get paid within a week.

Delay in payment

5. Worksite: nearer to dwellings or walk-able distance

Details appended in the Table 21

As the Table 17 suggests, it has been observed that a casual agricultural labourer generally works from 8 am to 4 pm with one hour lunch break. S/he brings food from her/his house. Wages of a casual labourer varies between Rs 75 and Rs 80 per day. A casual female agricultural labourer gets Rs 10 to Rs 20 less than the male labourer. (But in MNREGA there happens to be no discrimination on account of gender with wage payments). Under all conditions farm works seem to be more suitable and more profitable to the locals. The wage-payments getting delayed and the allocation of works being irregular only adds woes to the whims.

Distance of the work site: Distance of work sites from dwellings of the people who were interviewed for the sample is given in the table 18.

The contact-member and all the other beneficiaries of the ten households that were interviewed in the GPs were asked to give an approximate distance of what they felt that the distance of work-site was, when they attended MNREGA’ works during the previous season. If their response indicated distance exceeding more than 5 kms, they were further casually questioned the means employed by them to reach for their work-site, as MNREGA guidelines prescribe vehicles to be arranged to ferry people to their work-sites if the distance exceed five kms from the dwellings of the beneficiaries. The intention of the study was to find out whether people gave up their need to do MNREGA’ works just because of frustration that might have resulted from too much distant the worksites happen to be.

Table 18 Distance of the MNREGA’ work-site from the dwellings

li

S.No.Gram Panchayat

Distance of the worksite from the dwelling (in km)

1. PUNDIBARI5 – 10

2. MADHUPUR5 -15

3. DANGDINGGURI 5-154. PATLAKHAWA 5 - 10

5.DEWANHAT

10 - 15

6. GHUGHUMARI 10 – 157. SUKTAHBARI 5 – 158. PANISHALA 5 – 15

Generally, the interviewed people didn’t have any problems with the distance of the work-sites from their dwellings. In some cases, even vehicles were arranged to ply people to their work-sites but that was not provided in all the working-days. The people under study were much concerned about the wage-payments they receive and the delays associated with their transaction and are not troubled by the physical hardships.

5.0 Problems that cropped up

5.1 Delays in wage payments: Employing labourers without paying the minimum wages is forced labour insofar as it amounts to “(taking) advantage of the helpless condition of the affected persons”. Sanjit Ray Vs State of Rajasthan 1983 SCC (1) S (25).

Table 19 Delays in wage-payments.

Name of the Gram Panchayat

Period of time taken for wage transaction and the year associated with it 2 - 4 weeks

more than 1 month

about 2 months

more than2 months

lii

PUNDIBARI (1) (2)MADHUPUR (2) (3)DANGDINGGURI (1) (2)PATLAKHAWA (1) (3)DEOANHAT (1) (2)

GHUGHUMARI (2,3)

SUKTAHBARI (1) (2)PANISHALA (1) (2)

The numerals given inside parentheses stand for the respective years of scheme implementation, as given in the following tablet.

1 2 32007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

The table 19 shows that there are cases in which the wage payments got delayed for more than two months after work completion, whereas the mandate requires the payments to get awarded within 7 days of works getting completed.

According to the Gram Panchayats that were interviewed the reasons for delays lies behind the ground level fact that the critical information about the attendance of workers, progress of a project and wage payment made against are not getting relayed on time to all the concerned officials. This slack in the mechanism makes the payment process getting tough and finally leading to delays.

5.2 Fidgeting JOB-CARDS AND MUSTER ROLLS: A serious problem with the job-cards that were seen in the Gram Panchayats is that they do not have a column for recording wages paid to the labourers. This omission defeats the main purpose of the job-card, which is to allow the labourers to monitor their wages.

Even the operational Guidelines of MNREGA require that ‘every agency making payments of wage must record on the job-card without fail the amount paid and the number for which payment has been made’.

Muster rolls are like attendance sheets that record the names of labourers employed at a particular worksite in a given week, and the wages paid to them. Muster roll data form the basis for withdrawing money from every Gram Panchayat’s MNREGA account for the purpose of wage payments.

Thus transparency of muster rolls is essential to prevent corruption in the labour component of MNREGA, which amounts to more than sixty percent of MNREGA funds. The Operational Guidelines of MNREGA require that Muster Rolls be available at the worksite and displayed outside the Local Panchayats

liii

(LPs). They are also supposed to be read out in public at the time of wage payments. But our findings never seemed to be in parallel run along with all these desired requirements.

5.3 Dismal Social Audits: It is the first national programme of consequence which has woven transparency and accountability into the mundane fabric of daily interaction of people with government (Aruna Roy, 2008).

Social Audits of government works is a unique tool of establishing government’s direct accountability to the people. In MNREGA (Section 17, sub section 1, 2, 3) it has been made an integral part with the purpose to enforce the constitutional and democratic rights of the citizens to take the ‘hisaab’ of the public money and act as a regular lateral accountability system coupled with Management Information System (MIS)..

The need for conducting Social Audit of all works is another requirement under MNREGA. A team comprising of an official from the Block, an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, two representatives from Gram Unnayan Samiti, one member each from two Class I SHG groups, a representative from a registered NGO working in the locality can all be included for conducting Social Audits. The calendar of the dates of social audit of each gram panchayat had to be announced publicly, approximately one month in advance. But our findings reveal that such a thing never happened in the Gram Panchayats and the people are particularly unaware of the existence, meaning and purpose of Social Audits.

Since, this is a relatively new concept the unequal capacity for its conductance in the Gram panchayats can be understood in the initial period. But since a year has been passed, the Gram Panchayats remaining with the same standards of capacity as they were in the initial year of the introduction of Social Audits need to be oriented suitably.

However, as many as 25% social audits (SA) of the target set have been conducted in the year 2008-’09 in the whole state. The performance of the Cooch Behar district with reference to social audits (SA) is given in the Table 20.

It may be mentioned that there is a system, as prescribed in the West Bengal Panchayat Act, of reporting to the village assembly of all works under any programme twice a year and that forum also provides good scope for social audit of MNREGA works also.

The people interviewed were found to be with little or no knowledge about Social Audits (SA). As even the Village Council Meetings (VCMs) were not used as a forum for discussions of the work-allocation, the knowledge of Social Audits was not present in the common understanding of the people.

liv

Moreover, the Social Audits are not found in the common parlance of the administration set-up of the Gram Panchayats. Of all the Gram Panchayats, only Pundibari GP did hold the process of Social Auditing with the involvement of the people. It becomes also a matter of consideration that the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are not having any presence in the GPs that were surveyed.

Table 20 Conductance of Social Audits in Cooch Behar

YEAR Conductance of Social Audits

Total no.that have tobe conducted

Actual no.that wereconducted

Percentage ofperformance

2006-2007

989 127 12.83

2007-2008

1024 221 21.58

2008-2009

1,630 456 26.98

2009-2010

1727 434 25.13

5.4 Missing MIS (Management and Information System): MNREGA is landmark legislation because it has inbuilt systems of transparency and accountability, amongst its several other progressive features. Detailed documentation of each aspect of the job performed, estimation and payment of wages are to be done in such a way that they can be cross-checked to ensure that there has been no denial of just wages to the beneficiaries. This has been done not only to discourage corrupt practices but also encourage beneficiaries to participate in governance of the Act at all stages of implementation (Kidwai, 2008).

And one of the best ways to make all the documents within the hand-reach of the aam admi is to use the technology and get all the proceedings computerized and having the issues and results detailed in the public domain. Thus Information Technology could play a greater role in making the scheme in achieving all its set objectives. This is what the concept of MIS set to achieve.

When a proposal is made on paper, signed and physically dispatched to the sanctioning authority, huge delays are possible. But with a computer network, where the same data is available to everyone concerned online, the time taken

lv

for physical passage of paper files is removed. The proposal can be put up online and can be sanctioned online too.

The fact that information getting speedily available induces transparency and leaves fewer channels for escape and ensures that the task is done. The fact that different users have different access and privileges in the system also deters the possibility of misuse (MANAGE, 2009).

Thus, Information Technology is becoming a key player in the management of MNREGA. The use of IT has effectively made possible,

reduction in time taken for tasks such as estimation, planning and managing fund flows as also standardization of procedures.

reducing or eliminating the scope of ‘discretions’ and ‘judgements’ exercised to disguise malpractices.

reduction in time taken over administrative decisions, particularly on sanctions and releases by pro-actively offering information.

making data transparently available on network for monitoring, thus enabling concurrent vigilance and audits.

Works getting executed at any village gets identified by the Gram Sabha and data entered in to input sheets. But our findings reveal that the data regarding work implementation in Cooch Behar are incomplete and many input sheets have been kept blank in the MIS. So the standards of MIS have not been met. As the Table 21 given below, illustrates the level recordings of some of the important requirements of MNREGA in the public domain thereby making it easier for the public to access.

Table 21 Accessibility level of MIS in Cooch Behar

S.No PARAMETERS Percentage covered under MIS

1. JOB-CARD 72.05

2. EMPLOYMENT DEMANDED 09.50

3. COMPLETED WORKS 03.50

4. WAGE EXPENDITURE 06.34

The table 21 shows that only 09.50 percent of any works demanded by the people were reported in the MIS for common access of the people. And more importantly, only 3.50 percent of all the works undertaken by the scheme got reported in the MIS. With expenditure that occurred on wage-payments getting less coverage, the chances of more money being spent on procuring materials get

lvi

to alarming proportions. This will hunt down the very essentiality set out by the scheme: transparency. If the ignorance and inertia of the people not crumbles then the urge to improve one’s material conditions would never develop (DEY, 2008).

5.5 Workload of the implementing officials: The officials interviewed in the GPs complained about the burden involved in implementing the programme. As ‘everything that is going on the scheme’ needs to be properly recorded in proper form and to be sent to proper channels no doubt the implementing officials face the grim situation as in many of the surveyed GPs the officials hold additional responsibility of chalking out for MNREGA along with their usual responsibility. The following Figure 9 shows a shade of the workload that each of the GPs has got to do in getting the signatures of the job-seekers in various records that are to be maintained.

Figure 7 The workload involved to record signatures of the beneficiaries.

The Gram Panchayats showed that they were ill-equipped with both men and materials, that becomes the very important consideration which hinders the otherwise normal and safe and result-oriented implementation with proper ethos as enunciated in the guidelines that govern the mandate, which forms the very solid root of MNREGA and without it the whole scheme would lose its meaning. It would be a pity if such a magnificent initiative flounders only because we could not have the foresight to invest in its management ( Lalit Mathur, 2008).

measurement sheet

muster roll

wage slip / voucher

identity card

bank / post office account

job-card

lvii

5.6 Shortage of staff

Table 22: Establishment of MNREGA cell

The proclamations of the employment guarantee as the flagship programme of the government, the fanfare and the speeches – despite all these – there seems to be missing, the essential belief and faith in working of the scheme itself.

MNREGA mandate require appointment of a full-time programme officers (POs) in every blocks, exclusively dedicated to the implementation of MNREGA. But our findings reveal that the existing Block Development Officer (BDO) has been appointed as PO and given “additional charge” of MNREGA for the year 2009-2010. Unfortunately MNREGA is not a programme that can work on some

“additional charge” basis.

Moreover an Employment Guarantee Assistant (EGA) is to be appointed in each local panchayat (LP), in view of the pivotal role of the LPs in MNREGA implementation. Such EGAs were also found to be not appointed in all of the Gram panchayats, except Pundibari and Madhupur. MNREGA guidelines also administer constitution of panels of accredited engineers at the district and block levels. Without timely and transparent costing of works and their measurement and valuation of such a panel neither sanction of works nor payment to labour can happen on schedule. But such panels was found missing in all of the Gram Panchayats.

The MNREGA guidelines also require the commission of the Technical Resource Support Groups at the state and district levels to assist planning, design, monitoring, evaluation, quality audit and training. The Gram Panchayat

S.No.

Name of the Gram Panchayat

Year of establishmentof MNREGA

cell 1. PUNDIBARI 2008- 2009

2. MADHUPUR 2008-2009 3. DANGDINGGURI NOT ESTABLISHED

4. PATLAKHAWA NOT

ESTABLISHED

5. DEOANHAT NOT

ESTABLISHED 6. GHUGHUMARI 2009-2010

7. SUKTAHBARI NOT ESTABLISHED

8. PANISHALA 2008-2009

lviii

officials who were interviewed in the survey never seemed to be aware or to have the knowledge of such a requirement.

Thus in the absence of dedicated technical resources, the administrative and technical scrutiny and approval of works was seen routed through the normal departmental channels which are already burdened with existing responsibilities. This was further compounded by the failure to specify time frames for processing and approval of proposals at different levels. The main deficiency is the lack of adequate and technical manpower at the Gram Panchayat level as the Table 22 disposes. Besides affecting the implementation of the scheme and the provision of employment this also impacts adversely on transparency and thereby making the verification of the legal guarantee of 100 days of employment on demand getting difficult.

As a result, the material cost shot-up in the Gram Panchayats (see figure 9 and table 26) as the unutilized funds were somehow to be utilized. This led to the deterioration of wage-payments. And even those low wage payments got delayed as there were a lot of difficulties in transaction (see Table 19) Shortage in human-resource in the Gram Panchayats made the problems worse. This led to some Gram Panchayats not carrying out any works at all in the locality (see Table 9) and people lost interest. Even, Social Audits don’t have any effects as the Table 20 shows that over three years of implementation of the scheme, Social Audits have taken place only in two of the Gram Panchayats.

5.5 Delays in administration: The Junior Engineer (JE) has to prepare the work plans and estimates. Our findings reveal the shortage of staff at such levels, so every JE present has to bear overloaded responsibility. Once the plan is made, it is submitted to the Assistant Engineer (AE) for approval. Since each AE is given the responsibility of more than one block, approval at AE level also takes extra time. When the AE approves the proposal it is sent to the PO (BDO) who has powers to approve a plan only up to Rs. 3 lakh.

If the proposal exceeds three lakh rupees, it is sent to the district headquarters. Once the work is approved and funds released for it, the cheque is signed by the Sarpanch, the Panchayat EO and the PO-BDO. The shortage of staff at every level in the district of Cooch Behar makes the process to get extremely delayed.

Once work reaches a certain stage, the work done has to be valuated and payments made to workers are to be based on this valuation. This requires the expertise of technical people, who are in short supply throughout the district of Cooch Behar as the interviewed officials claim. This makes the measurement to take several months which is supposed to get finished within a week.

A utilization certificate (UC) has to be submitted by the Local Panchayat (LP) to the PO-BDO. The PO-BDO then waits for all the LPs to submit their UCs so that

lix

they can be pooled together and sent to the district panchayat (DP) for the next tranche. If one or two Local Panchayats delay the submission of their respective UCs then the time lapse gets carried forward. This was also cited as the major reason for the work allotment under MNREGA getting folded up in the district of Cooch Behar.

There is also general absence of annual plans in the Gram Panchayats, which is the most important reason for why most of the works get usually done under rural road construction and repair, as the table 11 and figure 8 show off.

Moreover, wage rate that prevailed during the year 2008-2009 was Rs 75 in the Gram Panchayats that were surveyed. With effect from 01.01.2008 the wage rate was raised to Rs 81 (vide order No. 8985(56)-RD/ PAC (SGRY)/175-16/05 dated 29.12.08). However, in all the GPs that were surveyed the implementation of the revised wage-rate was not seen. When the question was raised to seek the response for the revisal of wage-payments under the new order from the officials, it was found out that the carrying out works under MNREGA with already formulated plans is quite easier but to start works under the new revision would make the entire procedure cumbersome as all the calculations and estimations needed to be done again.

5.6 Inappropriate wage payments:

Table 23 Inappropriate wage rates

S.No.GRAM PANCHAYAT

PREVAILING WAGE RATE (Rs.)

2007-2008(msr=72)

2008-2009(msr=75)

2009-2010(msr=81)

1. PUNDIBARI 65 70 -

2. MADHUPUR - 65 65 3. DANGDINGGURI 60 60 - 4. PATLAKHAWA 65 - 70

5. DEOANHAT 60 58 - 6. GHUGHUMARI - 60 65 7. SUKTAHBARI 58 60

8. PANISHALA 55 60 Note: “msr” stands for Minimum Statutory Requirement of wage payments.

Work done on rural employment programmes in India is measured through the Schedule of Rates

lx

(SOR). This schedule provides rates at which work done by labour is valued. Workers are paid according to the value placed on their work by the SOR.

But the present SORs are meant for a system that uses machines to carry out public works, while under MNREGA use of machines is completely prohibited. Thereby, deploying the same SORs under MNREGA makes it impossible for workers to earn minimum wages (Mihir Shah, 2008).

And moreover, existing SORs make inadequate provisions for variations in geology and climate and do not get revised in line with increments in statutory minimum wages as deploying old SORs make impossible for Gram Panchayats to correctly calculate the cost of works undertaken by them (Mihir Shah, 2008).

The MNREGA has an innovative clause for estimation of wages. The wages paid are based on several factors like minimum wages, gender, the kind of soil that has to be dug, the depth of the digging and the distance the beneficiary has to walk to throw the soil from the site of work etc. In other words, they get paid more for the same amount of work depending on relative hardships at the worksite.

But all these complex formalities need not be seen at all when as the Table 23 reveals that the wage-payments made by all of the Gram Panchayats are well below the minimum statutory requirement of wages that have to be necessarily paid.

5.7 Improper fund utilization:

Table 24 Utilization of funds by the Gram Panchayats

S.No.

Name of the GRAM PANCHAYAT

UTILIZATION OF FUNDS

Combined percentageof utilizationof funds

2007 -2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

TotalFund(Rs.)

FundUtilized(Rs.)

TotalFund(Rs.)

FundUtilized(Rs.)

TotalFund(Rs.)

FundUtilized(Rs.)

1. PUNDIBARI 33,86,081 24,16,087 24,69,994(U+A)

12,88,456 28,65,671(U+A)

03,22,031 43.16 %

2. MADHUPUR 28,55,338 03,18,097 37,66,411(U+A)

27,28,065 35,38,346(U+A)

22,17,181 33.28 %

3. DANGDINGGURI 27,48,022 14,69,729 20,78,293 (U+A)

8,56,087 12,22,206(U) + (A)

07,69,453 38.07 %

4. PATLAKHAWA 18,65,000 09,82,335 27,88,063(U + A)

09,18,000 27,88,056(U+A)

14,62,676 27.55 %

5. DEOANHAT 23,18,092 11,08,126 18,64,147(U+A)

09,67,073 24,32,891(U+A)

07,65,400 31.37 %

lxi

6. GHUGHUMARI 27,08,643 03,28,621 23,80,022(U+A)

15,76,634 18,79,243(U+A)

13,76,623 26.82 %

7. SUKTAHBARI 17,86,919 09,88,491 22,59,642(U+A)

11,03,243 15,86,292(U+A)

07,18,417 18.45 %

8. PANISHALA 23,85,617 07,54,625 18,67,342(U+A)

11,45,612 21,67,614(U+A)

03,28,197 21.63 %

Note: ‘U+A’ refers to Unutilized Fund of the previous year + Allotted Funds

As the table 24 shows the percentage of allotted funds under MNREGA to get utilized is not up to the mark. Many Gram Panchayats seem to have not utilized even fifty percentage of the fund that is meant for them.

The question was raised before every Gram Panchayat to know why the allotted fund was not effectively put in to use. The responses given by the GPs are listed below in the table 25. Some of the GPs gave over-lapping responses, i.e. the same response was cited by one or two Gram Panchayats. Such overlapping responses are also indicated in the table along with other responses.

Table 25: Responses of GPs for slack in fund utilization

S.No.

Responses cited by GPs for improper fund utilization

Name of the GPs citing the responses

1. Absence of staff / personnel. 3, 4, 7, 8

2. Lack of interest with the people.

2, 5, 6. 7. 8

3. Difficulty in spotting works. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 4. Difficulty in mobilization of

men. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

5. Fund shortage. 4, 5 6. Much money spent on the

materials. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

7. Too much work load. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

8. Unwanted responsibility. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Note: Each listed numeral refers to a particular Gram Panchayat

lxii

Consequences: As Table 24 shows that in the Gram Panchayats fund utilization for implementing the scheme as not even forty percentage of the allotted fund with only Pundibari (43.16) and Dhangdhinguri (38.07 %) manage to come up with decent performance. This whole problem is just like a kick-start as it can lead to various consequences. Like a vicious cycle each consequence prevails upon one another and thereby hunting down the very element of the scheme itself.

The consequences that were felt in the Gram Panchayats have been depicted in the Figure 8.

Figure 8: CONSEQUENCES OF IMPROPER FUND UTILIZATION

1. PUNDIBARI 5. DEOANHAT

2. MADHUPUR 6. GHUGHUMARI

3. DANGDINGGURI 7. SUKTAHBARI

4. PATLAKHAWA 8. PANISHALA

lxiii

RESULT:All the desiredoutcomes go

unmet.

5.8 Surges in material costs:

Spending more on materialsthan on men

No more future funds get allotted if the already available fund remains

unutilized

Paving way for mismanagement

Reworking on the same site

People losing interest

Less enthusiasm among GPs

lxiv

MNREGA

MNREGA guidelines require that the material cost should not exceed 40 % of the total cost. In some states the material cost is zero (like Tamil Nadu) and they do work without any materials or with minimum materials, often it would be the workers themselves bringing in all the farm implements required for doing all the digging jobs, requiring high manual labour. That’s why the prevailing wage rates are considerably high in Tamil Nadu over other states.

But over the years of scheme implementation, Cooch Behar has had to reel under the spiraling material costs as shown in Figure 9. The material costs of Cooch Behar are much ahead than the average of the entire state which is an understandable cost and it is below the permit level of 40 percentage. This huge material cost is also one of the reasons for revised wage rates, not getting implemented in many of the Gram Panchayats that were surveyed (see Table 23 for details).

lxv

Figure 9 Average material costs incurred in West Bengal

STATE AVERAGE: 33.82 %

The table 26 shows that the Gram Panchayats also reflect same huge material costs scenario of the Figure 9.

Table 26 Material costs incurred by the Gram Panchayats.

6.0 Impact of MNREGA: MNREGA, as already seen, has been implemented in Cooch Behar right from the financial year 2007-2008. So three financial years viz., 2007-2008, 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 have already been passed. In these three years of implementation, there is a definite scope of MNREGA having an effect directly or indirectly upon the beneficiary households.

On an average, the wage amount received from MNREGA’ works by the sample touches a figure of more than Rs.2000 per household over all the three years of its operation in the Gram Panchayats (see Table 35). The MNREGA’ earnings form a fair sum and that too earned in less time, ranging from 14 to 22 days of work on an average, it works out to be a good sum.

The sum obtained by the beneficiaries of a household should be surely a welcome boost for them. While using their regular income for running the day-to-day activities, there is a high chance for the households to put in to use their MNREGA’ payments for some special purposes. This purpose may be in the form of purchase of any tangible assets, or may be used for house-renovation, may also be used for agricultural activities like purchase of cattle or inputs and there is always some social ceremony which the household has not done, so far, for want of money and with this payment from MNREGA coming as a blessing, they should have used it to fulfill their social obligation.

S.No.

Name of the Gram Panchayat

Avg. mencost

Avg.material

cost

Total costof per

man-dayon an avg.

1. PUNDIBARI60.34 39.16 118.13

2. MADHUPUR 60.76 43.14 121.45 3. DANGDINGGURI 62.35 45.71 119.67 4. PATLAKHAWA

58.72 42.67 108.76

5. DEOANHAT 58.89 48.91 123.94 6. GHUGHUMARI 61.23 52.36 118.17 7. SUKTAHBARI 64.76 54.18 109.12 8. PANISHALA 55.63 43.16 117.82

# Cooch Behar 60.34 52.84 119.45

lxvi

Whatever may be the purpose, it would be beneficial to know how the wage-payments were utilized. By this we can not only guess their spending pattern but also their level of demand for schemes like MNREGA. Moreover with this look-out it would be easy to find out the impact of MNREGA on the people, during the years of its implementation.

Number of working days and the wages earned by the hhds of Pundibari: The works under MNREGA was carried out for two successive years in the Pundibari GP (i.e. 2007-2008 & 2008-2009). It was good to see the works getting carried out in the first year of the implementation of the scheme itself. But in the third year, until April 2010 of the financial year 2009-2010, no works were carried out. When asked, the officials alluded it to the burden that the scheme under implementation gives one.

The following table 27 illustrates the total number of working days of all the ten households interviewed in Pundibari and their total wage payment received.

Table 27 - Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Pundibari

S.No Local Panchayat (LP)

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries

fromall the hhds

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays bythe hhds

Wagegivenperday

(Rs.)

Totalwagesearnedby thehhds(Rs.)

Wagesearnedper hhd

(Rs.)

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

1.PUNDIBARI

2007-2008

10 19 14 266 65 17,290 1,729.0

2. 2008-2009

10 23 18 414 72 29,808 2,908.8

The above table 27 shows that MNREGA getting better by the second year. The wages were increased considerably and also the work was provided for more number of days. In the second year a family or a household is shown earning about Rs. 3000 – a neat sum which can square all the pending needs. With more number of working days leading to more sum of money, there is likely a chance for increase in demand for employment. The local panchayat (LP) answered in the affirmative, but even then it had some difficulty in allocating works for the next financial year.

lxvii

Table 28 - Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Madhupur

S.No.

Local Panchayat (LP)

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries from

all the hhds

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays bythe hhds

Wagegivenperday

(Rs.)

Totalwagesearnedby thehhds(Rs.)

Wagesearned

per hhd(Rs.)

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

1.

MADHUPUR 2008-

2009

2009-2010

10 15 14 210 60 12,600 1,260

2.10 10 07 70 70 4,900 490

In Madhupur, as the table 28 shows that MNREGA is not very effective. It did not bring any huge amount of income to the households. The second year of its implementation is worst for it provided income that is under Rs.500 on an average to the households. With such low earnings, it’s obvious that people lost interest. Moreover, the payments were also delayed as one had to transact from the banks or post offices.

Table 29 - Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Dhangdhinguri

S.No Local Panchayat (LP)

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries from

all the hhds

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays bythe hhds

Wagegivenperday

(Rs.)

Totalwagesearnedby thehhds(Rs.)

Wagesearnedper hhd

(Rs.)

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 81.

DHANGDHINGURI

2008-2009

10 18 10 180 62 11,160 1,160.0

lxviii

2.2009-2010

10 12 14 168 68 11,424 1,114.4

As the Table 29 in Dhangdhinguri GP the implementation is at large fair. The only complaint that the beneficiaries had was the much delay in wage payments. That too in the second year, people had to wait for more than two months to get their payments cleared.

Table 30- Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in PatlakhawaS.No Local

Panchayat (LP)

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries

fromall the hhds

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays bythe hhds

Wagegivenperday

(Rs.)

Totalwagesearnedby thehhds(Rs.)

Wagesearned

per hhd(Rs.)

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

1.PATLAKHAWA

2007-2008

10 10 07 70 72 4,550 455.00

2. 2009-2010

10 10 06 60 65 4,320 432.00

The above table 30 reflects Patlakhawa GP in poor light. Not only the number of days under wage employment was very low, but in the second year – the wage paid per day declined to a considerable level. In both years of its implementation, the interviewed households were not able to get even a sum of Rs. 500. That too, in the second year delays in payments made the effectiveness of MNREGA in addressing its core issues debatable.

Table 31- Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in DeoanhatS.No Local

Panchayat (LP)

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries from

all the hhds

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays bythe hhds

Wagegivenperday

(Rs.)

Totalwagesearnedby thehhds(Rs.)

Wagesearnedper hhd

(Rs.)

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

lxix

1.

2.

DEOANHAT

2007-2008

10 15 14 210 55 11,150 1,150

2008-2009

10 13 05 65 58 3770 377

As the table 31 shows the performance of Deoanhat is fair and good in the first case. But then the scheme turned to be mere eyewash to the households that were interviewed. There was erosion in not only allocating works to the number of people but also in the number of working days. Moreover, in this GP the sum offered as wages was too low, not even touching the figure of Rs.60.

Table 32- Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in GhughumariS.No Local

Panchayat (LP)

GHUGHUMARI

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries from

all the hhds

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays bythe hhds

Wagegivenperday

(Rs.)

Totalwagesearnedby thehhds(Rs.)

Wagesearnedper hhd

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

1.

2007-2008

2008-2009

10 19 07 133 65 8645 864.50

2.10 23 07 161 65 10465 1,046.50

Table 32 shows that Ghughumari was not able to allocate a decent number of working days, as the work-days were fewer than 10 days every year of its run. Even, when the wages were raised over-all in the Gram Panchayats in the second year of MNREGA getting implemented, there was no rise in wages to the households that were interviewed for the study.

Table 33- Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in SukthabariS.No Local

Panchayat (LP)

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries from

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays by

Wagegivenperday

Totalwagesearnedby the

Wagesearnedper hhd

(Rs.)

lxx

SUKTHABARI

all the hhds

the hhds (Rs.) hhds(Rs.)

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 81.

2008-2009

2009-2010

10 19 10 190 65 12,350 1,235.00

2. 10 23 07 161 70 11,120 1,120.00

In Sukthabari, table 33, the numbers of work-days provided were very less, barely touching the double-digit figure. But, the person-days generated were better than most of the Gram Panchayats as many members of the hhds were given jobs, though not for a longer period.

Table 34- Number of working days and the wages earned by the hhds in Panishala

S.No Local Panchayat (LP)

Year No. of

hhds

Total no.of benefi-ciaries from

all the hhds

No. ofworking

daysprovided

Total no.of

workingdays bythe hhds

Wagegivenperday

(Rs.)

Totalwagesearnedby thehhds(Rs.)

per hhd

1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

1.

2.

PANISHALA

2007-2008

10 10 10 100 55 5,500 550.00

2008-2009

10 10 12 120 60 7,200 720.00

The households interviewed in Panishala table 38 GP provide a picture of worst-performing GP among all, as the Table 34 proposes. Our findings reveal that as is the case of Gram Panchayats showing a dismal state in implementing the scheme, Panishala GP also was not able to provide good number of working days, to good number of households and thereby not able to generate good-number of person-days. Plus the wages offered were very less. Obviously, the people should have lost interest in the scheme in total.

Table 35 Average amount of wage payment of a household in the sampleS.No. GRAM

PANCHAYAT (GP)2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Total

wages obtained

Total no. days of

Total wages

Total no. days of

Total wages

Total no. days of

Total wages

lxxi

employmentof the

sample

earned(Rs.)

employmentof the

sample

earned(Rs.)

employment of the

sample

earned(Rs.)

perHousehold

(Rs.)1. PUNDIBARI 266 17,290 414 29,808 - - 4,709.802. MADHUPUR - - 210 12,600 70 4,900 1,750.003. DHANGDHINGURI - - 180 11,160 168 11,424 2,250.804. PATLAKHAWA 70 4,550 60 4,320 - - 887.005. DEOANHAT 210 11,150 65 3,770 - - 1,492.006. GHUGHUMARI 183 8,645 161 10,465 - - 1,910.007. SUKTAHBARI - - 190 12,356 161 11,120 2,347.608. PANISHALA 100 5,500 120 7,200 - - 770.00

# Average wage-payment of a household in the sample 2,014.00

6.1 Pattern of utilization of wage-payments: MNREGS is basically a demand driven programme. Actual provision of employment is based on demand expressed by the registered persons at the Gram Panchayat. Based on demand from at least ten persons, a new work is to be started for providing employment.

Although the average days of employment calculated over the entire district is not high, however in areas with high demand for work, wage employment could have been provided for substantial numbers of days, provided, the schemes executed not only generate employment for the villagers in the implementing year but should also make a provision for generation of employment at a greater scale on a sustained basis. The schemes that are executed under MNREGA apart from provided wages for decent standard of living during off-season times should also strengthen the agrarian economy of the locality.

Low or high, the earned wages constituted fairly a larger share in the months of demand. So it was proposed to study what was done by the households with the wage-payments obtained. As in many cases, wages were not paid on a daily basis, but were given in bulk amounts at the end of their work period, whether the work-period was for seven days or seventeen days. So, the wages obtained in bulk must have been used for some special purpose- which must have been decided earlier, of what to buy on obtaining such a wage amount. It is to be understood that their day-day living wants should have been covered with the money they obtain by their usual sort of ways, that they are used with before the implementation of MNREGA. The households should have even procured debts from their neighbours by counting on their wage payments. And in this way the wage-payments from MNREGA was also seen in the light of debt-clearance.

Plus, as even the labour households which were interviewed had some bigha of land in their possession, the MNREGA wage payments could have also been used in their agricultural activities. Since, one of the purposes of this study was to determine how far the MNREGA implementation has had impacted agricultural activities in the locality, questions were also raised on how much the

lxxii

households utilized their payment especially for agricultural and agricultural related activities.

The below Table 36 indicates the number of contact-members who agreed to the priority given and had spent some amount of money obtained through MNREGA wage payments on such agreed priority. Thus the table 36 shows, given ten households in a particular Gram Panchayat were taken in to study of how the wage amount obtained was used then these are all the parameters that could be taken in to account.

Nevertheless, the table shows the intensity of the wages obtained being used over a particular option. It can be seen that all the households in every Gram Panchayat cited agriculture in their usage of wage payments. So a considerable sum of money should have been used in this option either directly or indirectly.

Table 36 Pattern of utilization of wage payments.

S.No.

GRAM PANCHAYAT

Of what the obtained wages were used for

Food Clothing Entertai-nment

Healh Educa-tional

Agricul -tural

Socialcerem-ony

Debtclearance

1. PUNDIBARI & * * & @ *

2. MADHUPUR & & @

3. DHANGDHINGURI & & @

4. PATLAKHAWA & & *

5. DEOANHAT & * & &

6. GHUGHUMARI & & *

7. SUKTAHBARI @ * * & *

8. PANISHALA & & @

lxxiii

Note: Each sign listed in the table shows the number of affirmative contact- members against each response.

SIGN no. of contact members who agree

with the view

* 2 – 4 @ 5 – 7 & 7 - 10

All the households that were interviewed as the table 36 asseverates also agreed to have spent on social ceremonies. By social ceremony, all the family obligations like arranging a special feast for the newly married or buying presents for any function or staging of any family ceremony or donations that were forwarded to anything specifying religious interest were all included. Even if the priorities were met only when the wage payments obtained were to be utilized along with money obtained from various other sources of day-day living of the households, then also the responses were taken into account.Agricultural needs and ceremonial needs may be mentioned as special cases. But food and clothing form the basic options. Needless to say, as the table 36 shows, all the households utilized the money for these two options. But the households in Patlakhawa and Panishala gave the responses in the negative, when asked about the wage amount spent on clothes. It can be understood, that since the households of these two Gram Panchayats reported very low earnings under MNREGA, and so the programme had no special impact on them. And the small amounts of wage-payments obtained by these households were much like ordinary day-to-day wages that they receive on doing their usual works for livelihood.

Very few households spent on medical needs. Well, that can be understood as special and specific need but a fewer households spending on entertainment, that too reported in only one Gram Panchayat-Pundibari and no households spent particularly on education- it just means that these are not on their priorities’ list. But, in any case- they also reflect their lack of interest. Once again, Engel’s Theory gets vindicated. With lesser the wage received, the pattern of spending is restricted to only a few priorities, food forming the major one and larger the wage received the spending pattern was seen diversified with larger amounts getting used on status related priorities, like social ceremonies and lesser amount on basic necessities like food.

Expenditure pattern in agricultural activities: Table 37: Expenditure Pattern in agricultural activities

lxxiv

S.NO. GRAM PANCHAYAT

Wages obtained and their utilization in agricultural activities

seeds fertili-zers

pesti-cides

imple-ments

cattle sheep/goat/poultry

clearance of loans

agri.facilities

1. PUNDIBARI @ & * @ *

2. MADHUPUR @ * * & &

3. DANGDINGGURI * & * & *

4. PATLAKHAWA * @ * @

5. DEOANHAT * & * @ &

6. GHUGHUMARI * @ * *

7. SUKTAHBARI @ & *

8. PANISHALA * * @

Note: Each sign listed in the table shows the number of affirmative contact- members against each response.

SIGN no. of contact members who agree

with the view

* 2 – 4 @ 5 – 7 & 7 - 10

As almost all the households holding land- however small it may be- reported spending on agricultural activities, it would be of special interest of how diversified their spending was on agriculture. With much diversification happening on spending over agricultural needs (table 37), it can be guessed up to what level agriculture gets the priority over all the options mentioned. Moreover a household’s monthly requirement for agricultural activities gets determined and with money at hand, how far a household goes in making the agricultural activities get wider could be seen.

lxxv

In case of seeds, very few households reported spending on seeds, that too only in the case of the purchase of the seeds for Chilly crop (as in Deoanhat and Sukthabari) and for purchase of seeds of Tomato in Panishala. These seeds purchased are all hybrid seeds, and for paddy which is the main crop, a certain quantity of the harvest was put forth in the previous season itself for the purpose use it as seeds. The households which reported the purchase of seeds were, actually, land owners by class. And in the case of agricultural labour households having lands not much was cared about seed-purchase.

The same was true for the MNREGA’ wage amount getting utilized for agricultural facilities (table 37) as none of the households of the Gram Panchayats under study utilized or were able to utilize the wage-payments for facilitating agriculture. By agricultural facilities it was meant all those that would lead to improvisation in their farming practices than what was being done like establishing drip irrigation or constructing bore wells or buying pumps or fencing their fields.

But almost all of the households agreed in principle that a certain part of their wage amount was put in to the purchase of agricultural inputs.

Another interesting case being, all the households- whether land owners or agricultural labourers had some debts ranging from a few hundreds to small thousands. And the response, for putting the wage amount via MNREGA to clear wages at least to some extent was overwhelming. It can be understood that borrowing credits is a life-issue, more specially with agricultural labourers and clearing it anyway forms the major priority for many.

Purchase of tangible assets: In most cases it may be difficult to recall how the wage-amount obtained a year ago from the Gram Panchayats was allocated for various uses. But this could not be possible in the case of tangible assets, as one can easily account it and show it, why flaunt it. On accounting the wage-amounts used for the purchase of tangible assets some of the conditions were imposed in our study:

1. It is not required that the entire amount to be used in the purchase. It is enough even if a few hundreds were allocated for the purchase meeting only part of the purchase price. Thus the need is to account not how much the wage-amount was used but rather how the wage-amount was used on purchasing various tangible assets.

2. Secondly even the second hand-purchases were accounted for and they were not discriminated from the new-buys.

lxxvi

3. Thirdly even if the money was given for the purchase to others and not the beneficiary himself or herself purchased then also the tangible asset that was bought with the wage-amount was also accounted to. The objective is to include the purchase made with the wage-amount and not the purchaser.

Table 38 Tangible assets purchased.S.NO. GRAM

PANCHAYAT Purchase of tangible assetsMobilephones

Televi-sion

Gasstove

Agriimplements

Cattle Goldornaments

Others

1. PUNDIBARI *     *      

2. MADHUPUR         *    

3. DANGDINGGURI *            

4. PATLAKHAWA              

5. DEOANHAT     *        

6. GHUGHUMARI            

7. SUKTAHBARI *            

8. PANISHALA             *  

Note: Each sign listed in the table shows the number of affirmative contact- members against each response

SIGN no. of contact members who agreed

with the view

* 2 – 4 @ 5 – 7 & 7 - 10

The Gram Panchayats which obtained very low or less wage-payments like Patlakhawa (Rs. 455 & Rs. 432 on an average) or Panishala (Rs. 550 & Rs. 720 on an average) (see tables 30 & 34) didn’t make any purchase. The wage-amount obtained, more likely should have been consumed in the day-day activity itself. On the other hand, Gram Panchayats with fairly good earnings like Pundibari (Rs. 1,729 & 2,980 on an average), see table 28, reported on the purchase of many assets of various uses like purchase of mobile phone, livestock and agricultural implements in the Pundibari GP.

This study advocates the point that more the wages getting earned, then more improved would be the spending pattern of the people. But overall, the performance of the Gram Panchayats in implementing the scheme is lack-lustre

lxxvii

and the people didn’t bother to demand as our findings reveal (see table 35). And even if the demands were made the recalcitrant Gram Panchayats didn’t burden themselves to create works (see table 11 and figure 8). But, certainly the people are interested to do any work that the Gram Panchayat allocates, as our survey reveals. This shows that the people want the Gram Panchayats to take full control of all the responsibilities that the scheme bestows on them. In short, to the people interviewed MNREGA programme was just like any other governmental poverty alleviation programmes that were in effect so far. It did not cut any ice.

At principle level, MNREGA made no difference and it was bundled together with all other schemes that were run so far, not only by the populace but also by the implementing agencies (Vijay Shankar, 2008).

6.2 Impact on socio-economic features: Even though MNREGA was introduced for just about three years before in Cooch Behar it will be interesting to know the initial responses of the villagers about their perceived impact of MNREGA on certain socio-economic features in the villages. The respondents of the sample were asked about their perceptions about the following features:

1. Improvement in school dropout rates;

2. Improvement in availability of health services;

3. Decline in incidence of crime; and

4. Decline in incidence of child labour.

The respondents were asked to record their response in two steps. In the first step, they were asked if any change in the above features were identified during the last three years. In the second stage, respondents who replied positively were asked if MNREGA activities had specifically contributed to such perceived change.

In Table 39 impact scores are constructed as [(number of respondents who believe that MNREGA has contributed positively to a change/number of respondents who believe that a change has actually taken place over the last 3 years)*100]. These scores are displayed in the table 39.

Table 39 Perceived Changes in Socio-economic Parameters

lxxviii

The table 39 displays all numbers of sample households which are the believers in social change and who have specifically attributed this change to MNREGA.

Gram Panchayat % of householdswith positive response

In general Due to MNREGA

Panel A: Improvement in school dropout rates PUNDIBARI 78.00 20.51MADHUPUR 65.75 18.23DHANGDHINGURI 54.19 22.16PATLAKHAWA 55.00 31.00DEOANHAT 62.34 22.81GHUGHUMARI 75.44 33.00SUKTAHBARI 38.12 11.54PANISHALA 62.16 28.34Panel B: Improvement in provision of health servicesPUNDIBARI 5.00 80.00MADHUPUR 62.00 18.23DHANGDHINGURI 36.84 60.80PATLAKHAWA 39.76 56.81DEOANHAT 14.00 36.32GHUGHUMARI 85.00 100.00SUKTAHBARI 18.31 29.14PANISHALA 42.54 56.88Panel C: Decline in incidence of crimePUNDIBARI 36.50 58.42MADHUPUR 84.00 28.17DHANGDHINGURI 53.13 62.75PATLAKHAWA 2.00 50.00DEOANHAT 82.16 100.00GHUGHUMARI 64.33 29.16SUKTAHBARI 16.22 87.00PANISHALA 14.38 36.80Panel D: Decline in incidence of child labourPUNDIBARI 23.00 82.61MADHUPUR 38.51 47.19DHANGDHINGURI 64.00 64.00PATLAKHAWA 36.23 81.19DEOANHAT 54.32 66.00GHUGHUMARI 18.12 36.34SUKTAHBARI 12.32 7.00PANISHALA 38.44 43.00

lxxix

Looked in this way, from the viewpoints of BPL families we could notice significant reduction in school dropout, improvement in health services, decline in alcoholism, and decline in crime rate and decline in child labor in all the Gram Panchayats.

6.3 Impact on migration: Migration of labor from one area to another within a country or across the globe is always a welcome feature of a free world, as long as it is not distress migration, i.e., migration under compulsion. Unless such distress migration is operationally distinguished from induced migration to take advantage of better economic opportunities in a new region, one would tend to overplay the disadvantages of migration. So, the aim of MNREGA should not be or should never be stoppage of all kinds of migration, but only distress migration (Vijay Shankar, 2008).

The people are mostly agriculturalists. When there is no work in the field men may be found willing to serve for wages [Chaudhury 1901]. This is the case with the agricultural labourers of Cooch Behar and hence, if works under MNREGA get provided throughout the off-season, no doubt, they will be benefited.

Table 40 Migration in Cooch Behar

Census Year

SexTotalMale

LabourersFemale

Labourers1951 9.31 9.61 9.341961 7.35 2.70 7.101971 15.28 26.07 15.591981 26.58 38.37 27.241991 23.91 45.47 26.042001 24.21 43.46 29.40

The table 40 shows that until 1961 the percentage of agricultural labourer to the total workers was below 10. The percentage decreased from 1951 to 1961, which might be due to implementation of land reforms legislation and surplus lands might have been distributed among landless people. There was however, a gradual increase in the number of agricultural labourers from 1961 to 1981. The point to be noted is that the percentage of increase is comparatively higher in the case of female labourers than male. Migration might be responsible for such an increase.

How profitable is migration: The World Bank’s report on migration claims that migration helps in the generation of economical assets. To find out, how profitable the migration is and how profitable MNREGA should have to be to counter distress migration, the following tables 41 & 42 may help a lot.

lxxx

Table 41: Types of works done by in the places of migration.

S.NO. GRAM PANCHAYAT

Types of works done in the places of migration

1. PUNDIBARIC, M , H

2. MADHUPUR C, M, S, H

3. DANGDINGGURI C

4. PATLAKHAWA C, ML

5. DEOANHAT C, H, S

6. GHUGHUMARI C, H

7. SUKTAHBARI C

8. PANISHALA C

Note: The letters given in capitals indicate a particular activity which has been again referred in the table 42, under the index column

Table 42 Income earned in the places of migration

IndexActivity done in the

place ofmigration

Income per

month(Rs.)

IndexActivity done in the

place ofmigration

Income per

month(Rs.)

C CONSTRUCTION2000-3000

H HOTELS1500-2500

M MANUFACTURING4000-6000

S SHOPS1500 –2000

ML MALLS2000-2500

lxxxi

When we compare the average amount wage payments received by the households under study (see table 35) with table 42 which gives out the amount received on migration, then we can effectively hit the hammer upon the idea of MNREGA and can lend a thought that MNREGA wage payments so far have been never be a good substitute for the people who migrate and find some work which could pay them regularly.

Moreover agrarian society sees transformation as changes in forces of production take place and also when shifts occur. The conditions of agricultural labourer have also changed with changes in the agrarian structure. Changes in the forces of production would also bring about a fundamental change in relations of production. “Modernization of agriculture brings about fundamental changes in relations of production leading to freeing of agricultural labour from all kinds of patronage and institutionalized dependency relationships” [Jodhka 1994]. Bardhan (1986) observed “as forces of agrarian commercialization gather strength and erode traditional patron-client relationships and age old custom often have a way of adjusting to economic changes”.

So the development of technology in agriculture and changing political forces in favour of weaker sections of agrarian society contribute to change the agrarian structure. But our study reveals that, so far, this has never happened by the works taken up under MNREGA. That’s why it was generally noticed throughout our study that neither MNREGA stop migration that is rampant among the young migration, nor the scheme lead to bringing back the migrants who had gone in search of better pastures. 6.4 Women empowerment: As per mandate, “Priority” should be given to women in the allocation of work “in such a way that at least one-third of the beneficiaries shall be women”. But our study found out, though women population in Cooch Behar is not discriminated on wages or on any other account in the scheme and much like men they express or can express their linkage to rights- empowerment is still not happening in the grassroots for women because their participation in the scheme is found to very less to the desired one-third levels as the following table 43 portrays.

Elements of MNREGA Entitlements of women in Cooch BeharExpress linkage to rights YES

Non-discrimination YES

Attention to vulnerable groups YES

Accountability YESEmpowerment NO

Table 43: Participation of women in MNREGAYEAR Total no of

beneficiariesNo of women beneficiaries

% of womenbeneficiaries

2007-2008

2,69,039 65,376 20.35 %

lxxxii

2008-2009

1,69,035 34,045 20.14 %

2009-2010

3,63,427 69,553 21.54 %

It is true that by generating employment for women at fair wages in the village, MNREGA can play a substantial role in economically empowering women and laying the basis for greater independence and self-esteem. But our study shows that it is quite not a prominent feature in the district (Table 43) and that the participation of women in Cooch Behar over all the years of scheme implementation between 2007 and 2010 is not one-third as desired by the mandate but the figures hover a little above 20 percent on an average and the following figure 10 shows that the participation of women in the district is well below the state average of 26.75 % which itself is not the desired one-third level for women empowerment..

Figure 10: District- wise participation of women in MNREGA works

But this low level of women participation is not a pan-India phenomenon. There are some large states where the participation of women is found to be much higher than the desired level of at least one-third participation. For example, there are some states where the participation of women (over all the years of MNREGA implementation) has found to be more than satisfactory. A good list to showcase our observation has been given below:

STATE AVG: 26.57 %

S.No. State % of women participation

1.2.3.4.5.6.

Tamil NaduAndhra PradeshOrissaRajasthanGujaratMadhya Pradesh

83 % 59 % 58 % 43 % 43 % 41 %

lxxxiii

Source: www.nrega.nic.in & Dreze (2010)

SUMMARY &CONCLUSION

lxxxiv

7.0 CONCLUSION:

MNREGA ranks among the most powerful initiatives ever undertaken for transformation of rural livelihoods in India. The unprecedented commitment of financial resources is matched only by its imaginative architecture that promises a radically fresh programme of rural development. May be

The initiatives that the scheme has got within were never seen in any poverty alleviation schemes that were run before. The innovations like Social Audits (SA), gives the right to the people to air their views and concerns in proper platforms set by the community itself on specific intervals, thereby aiming to address all the loopholes and make the scheme to become more progressive. The scheme is also woven with transparency, if one would like to believe only the guidelines upon which the scheme has been framed. Making every information of every work of every village in every operation to get available in public domain, MNREGA makes the mandatory use of technology and sees that every progress happening all over the country strictly gets recorded with Management and Information System (MIS), thereby becoming available for public scrutiny. But all is not well with MNREGA, as the Table 44 suggests that it suffers the same fate of any other Wage Employment Programme (WEP): lack of funds.

Table 44 : Allocation in Union Budget on Employment Schemes as % of GSDP

Year Rural Employm

ent

Urban Employment (Swarna Jayanti Sahari Rojgar Yojana)

Total Employment Generation Programmes

1998-99 0.21 0.01 0.221999-00 0.19 0.01 0.202000-01 0.13 0.00 0.142001-02 0.20 0.00 0.202002-03 0.40 0.00 0.402003-04 0.37 0.00 0.372004-05 0.23 0.00 0.232005-06 0.33 0.00 0.342006-07 0.33 0.01 0.342007-08 0.55 0.01 0.56

lxxxv

2008-09 0.51 0.00 0.51

Source: Pradan (2009): “NREGA - Beyond Wages to Sustainable Livelihoods”: Report of a Workshop organized by National Resource Centre for Rural Livelihoods on November 21, 2009 in New Delhi.

But table 44 asseverates though the Wage Employment Programmes (WEPs) have generated much needed wage employment for the unemployed and poor, the allocation of funds from the government is low all over the budget years all over the country. This generally prevailing scenario is also ailing the MNREGA programme in Cooch Behar.

7.1 PERFORMANCE OF MNREGA: The Figure 10 given below was prepared by Jean Dreze and Chritian Oldgies by taking the performances of all the States during the years of scheme implementation, 2007 -2008 & 2008-2009.

Source: Jean Dreze and Christian Oldgies (2010).

Note: The radius of each circle indicates the number of person-days of employment

generated between the financial years 2007 and 2010 of MNREGA implementation.

YEAR: 2006 TO 2010

Fig.10 THE PERFORMANCE OF MNREGA SO FAR IN THE ‘INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT’:

lxxxvi

In this figure 10, every radius of the circle stands for the relative performances of the States in creating the number of person-days: the main motto of the scheme. By figure 13 we could see that only a few states have been witnessed with the kind of performance that is desired with a substantial show in number of person-days created. And in the state of West Bengal the radius of the circle is as small as it could be but should not be. “When something is small then there should be some other thing which makes that something small” (Dostoyevsky).

One hundred days of wage guarantee: None of the states have completed one hundred days of guaranteed employment so far in any of the three financial years of programme implementation. The details given in Table 45, illustrates the message for certain.

Table 45. Percentage of rural households completing one hundred days of employmentYEAR INDIA WEST BENGAL COOCH BEHAR

% of rural hhd provided with jobs

% of rural hhd completing 100 days

% of rural hhd provided with jobs

% of rural hhd completing 100 days

% of rural hhd provided with jobs

% of rural hhd completing 100 days

2006-2007

43 09 44 03 - -

2007-2008

62 15 68 06 32 0.00

2008-2009

72 23 59 01 18 0.03

2009-2010

61 12 67 02 06 0.01

Source : Data obtained from MNREGA Cell OF Cooch Behar and from www.nrega,nic,in

As the table 45 shows, the States were left with no means to implement the scheme in such away so as to provide employment for all registered rural households to complete one hundred days of wage employment. In fact, it can be seen that even the allocation of jobs to all demanding households was not made possible and not to speak about 100 days of work.

lxxxvii

But our findings in the district of Cooch Behar revels that the nature of employment is seasonal and that the duration of employment sought varies according to the prevailing opportunities of employment offered in local agricultural practices and other alternative forms of employment and all job-card holders do not necessarily sought or need for the full one hundred days of employment.

MNREGA in Cooch Behar: Though the details discussed in the tables 2, 3 & 4 make Cooch Behar, a favourable spot for the implementation of the scheme like MNREGA. So, the scheme should have got implemented successfully. There must have been large scale participation from the local people of every Gram Panchayat as their conditions seemed to match with the targets set-out by the scheme to achieve.

But all that the scheme could show was a dismal performance. Apart from our findings from the study, this is also vindicated by the reports of the MNREGA implementation presented in the State Legislative Assembly, by the West Bengal government as required by the scheme’s guideline: Section 7 (3a).

The reports submitted by the government rated the performance of MNEGA in all the districts and ranked them accordingly, based on a few parameters as chosen by the government. Those rankings and the parameters on which those rankings were based are given in the following Table 46.

Table 46: Performance of Cooch Behar.

S.No

PARAMETERS TAKEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT

2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009COOCHBEHAR’SPERFORMANCE

OVERALLRANK

COOCHBEHAR’SPERFORMANCE

OVERALLRANK

lxxxviii

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Expenditure per GP

Percentage of women person-days

Employment provided per hhd

Employment provided per job-card

Percentage of person-days achieved to the targets set

34.86 lakh

20.75

12 days

17 days

29.28

5

13

18

18

15

46.71 lakh

22.72

15 days

22 days

27.32

4

14

18

17

16

Moreover our study revealed that MNREGA in the district suffers from the

following shortcomings:

Utilization of funds is lower (see table 35)

The number of person-days of wage employment provided per family is

also very low, inadequate to help the beneficiaries to derive a sustainable

livelihood and become non-poor (see table 8, 9 and figure 4).

Minimum wages are not paid due to high productivity norms (see table

23).

There are also huge delays in wage payment (see table 19).

The worksites are devoid of any facilities.

Village level monitoring and vigilance committees are usually not

constituted in most places, which results in very little accountability and

transparency (see table 18).

No attention has been given to capacity building of the PRI functionaries

and workers at the village level.

There is a top-down bureaucratic approach and centralized character of

implementation and planning

Women’s participation in planning and works has been low and their

tasks at worksites are invisible, unpaid and subsumed under the overall

labour process (see table 43).

It has had become a supply-driven programme.

lxxxix

Suggestions: No doubt, MNREGA creates a social safety net for the vulnerable by providing a fall-back employment source, when other employment opportunities are scarce and inadequate. It adds a new dimension of equity to the process of growth. It creates a right-based frame-work for wage employment programmes, by conferring legal entitlements and the right to demand employment upon the workers and thereby making the government accountable for it.

In its operational design built around strong decentralization and lateral accountability to local community offers a new way of doing business and it is a model of governance reform anchored on the principles of transparency and grass root democracy. So far. So good.

Even it is agreeable that the nature of employment is seasonal and that the duration of employment sought varies according to the prevailing opportunities of employment offered in local agricultural practices and other alternative forms of employment and all job-card holders do not necessarily sought or need for the full one hundred days of employment (see table 14).

That’s why there is always a verisimilitude for MNREGA likely to be low in employment generation in regions that are comparatively more developed, more urbanized, with greater opportunities of employment in other avenues both in agriculture and rural non-farm activities. Anyhow, this has not the case with our district (see table 2, 3 & 4).

Some of the suggestions that may help in stemming all the rot that the findings show are given below. These suggestions have been offered after close perusal of the findings of the study.

1. Quality of planning is a vital chug in the implementation of MNREGA in entirety. The demand for work can be met with proper work-openings only if shelf of projects is kept ready in each village by the Gram panchayats with technical and administrative approvals.

2. Instituting transparency safeguards is a tenet assured through maintenance of Job Cards, maintenance of authentic muster rolls, continuous campaigns for 100 % verification of muster rolls, random sample verification of muster rolls by external agencies.

3. All critical parameters should be clearly monitored as per the MNREGA mandate which proposes 100 % verification at block levels, 10 % at district levels and 2 % verification at state level, including:

i) workers’ entitlement data and documents such as registration, job-cards, muster rolls;

xc

ii) work selection and execution data including, shelf of approved and sanctioned works, iii) employment demanded and provided.

4. One effective way to have muster rolls to be available at worksites is to make each labourer to enter his or her signature in the muster roll everyday of employment period by way of making attendance (Halan, 2009). This apart from ensuring the availability of muster roll for public scrutiny at work-sites, as demanded by MNREGA’ guidelines also make the workers to physically see it everyday and thereby enabling them to monitor their work by themselves.

5. Works like road construction, soil conservation and afforestation could also be taken up in a way to improve quality of life in villages rather how they were taken up so far, as the much-needed thing is infrastructure development. The bottom-line is to change the geography of the village to help over-all social and human development.

6. However for MNREGA to realize its potential it must focus on raising the productivity of agriculture, especially in Cooch Behar. Orissa has been very successful in introducing the concept of System of Rice Intensification (SRI), to increase the productivity of rice. SRI techniques holds good even for the tracts of Cooch Behar region where paddy cultivation is prominent. Such techniques lead further to the creation of allied livelihoods or the foundation of water security. Moreover, this is the only way where one can envision a decline in work guarantee, after all the set objectives have been achieved. As such an implementation leads to higher rural incomes, which in turn spur private investment, and greater incomes and employment.

7. MNREGA is by far the most ambitious attempt to tackle the unemployment problem head-on. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and even the best laws are powerless to bring significant changes in the lives if not backed by the will of the political functionaries, the commitment of the bureaucracy, and most importantly, the demand of the people.

8. The rural populace can be motivated to understand the immense benefits that the Act has in store for them (S R Rao, 2008).

9. Equally compelling and more immediate is to bring co-ordination in implementation- so that all works taken up in rural areas are included under the MNREGA, this will optimize the benefits and returns. Such co-

xci

ordination is ensured for works under drought relief, flood and other natural calamities.

10. There is no passion in owning it (MNREGA) as a priority, or even a sense of identification. It has been marginalized, and relegated to a mere scheme of the ministry of rural development (Nikhil Dey, 2008). This seems to be the underlying condition in Cooch Behar, too. So there is a need for Information, Education and Communication (IEC) set-up to enhance awareness of the programme among the rural workforce, which is critical for generating demand. Various initiatives like one day orientation of all Sarpanches, Rozgar Diwas every fortnight, use of vernacular newspapers, radio, TV, films and other local cultural forums are to be given a serious thought. Awareness could also be raised through wall paintings, leaflets, brochures in simple local language, and simple primers for workers and PRI functionaries.

11. Though the scheme is not popular throughout the country, but certain states like Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh come out as top states in terms of performance of the scheme ( Dreze, 2009) and score high in the over all rankings in the country. When we studied the reports of their successful implementation, when compared to rest of the country, we have found some commonalities between them. These common things if followed in other regions, especially in Cooch Behar may improve the scheme from the present state of running. The points which were commonly observed in almost all the states which run MNREGA successfully well above than the national average are given below:

Selection of any five types of works to run at a time in a given financial year.

The cost of each work taken at a time to be less than three lakh rupees so as to implement the works effectively with strict monitoring.

Implementing works in such a way that in a financial year at least 30 days of

employment getting provided.

To have the number of works at the site reported to the block office through

Short Message Service Facility ( SMS) of the cellular phones.

Mandatory supervising on week-ends of the work implementation.

Clearing the wage payments within a week of work completion.

xcii

12. MNREGA funds have to be allocated for the provision of safe drinking water, shade for periods of rest, first aid and child care facilities at the worksites in the district of Cooch Behar. The last of these, in particular, is significant in order to make MNREGA work a viable option for women with young children who cannot be left alone at home.

13. Moreover what is acceptable in emergency situations will not be easy to ensure in ordinary times. This is nevertheless essential, and arrangements could be put in place to ensure the integration of the MNREGA with other departmental schemes – for water supply, agriculture, irrigation, horticulture, animal husbandry, forestry, fisheries and handlooms. This might help in dovetailing the programme outcome and result in sustained basis of employment generation

SCOPEANDHOPE

xciii

8.0 FUTURE-SCOPE: A study undertaken by IIM-Calcutta on MNREGA in 2008 shows that if in each village the scheme could recover around 300 bigha and make it fit for cultivations of three crops namely, aman, ravi and boro per year. Then, cultivation of the recovered land thrice a year will generate around 22.5 lakh person-days per year. And the money value of the man days generated will be 14 crore 50 lakhs.

May be nothing is wrong with the very idea of MNREGA, as the Act and the Guidelines actually provide a fairly clear and comprehensive roadmap for putting in place effective transparency safeguards, and the main issue is to ensure that these safeguards are strictly enforced and adhered to (Reetika Khera,2008).

8.1 Convergence of MNREGA with other programmes:

In West Bengal convergence of MNREGA with other poverty alleviation programmes have been attempted from the very beginning. The most

xciv

important is convergence with the SGSY (Swaranjayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana) programme. This has been done in many ways. The Self Help Group (SHG) members, formed under SGSY, are involved in a big way in supervision of schemes and mobilizing their members who can benefit from the individual benefiting schemes. The SHGs are also involved in raising nurseries under MNREGA and it is estimated that 1207 numbers of nurseries were raised during the year 2008-09 in the whole state. Thus efforts can be made to develop at least one nursery in every Gram Panchayat of Cooch Behar for providing saplings to be planted under MNREGA.

The other major area of convergence can be in expansion of agriculture and pisciculture with the water stored in tanks excavated under MNREGA. Many plots of lands can be developed and access to water can also be provided so it will be possible to get assured Kharif crop as well as at least one more crop after harvesting Kharif. A part of the tanks excavated can also be been taken under lease by the SHGs formed under SGSY for taking up pisciculture using their access to credit under the SGSY programme. In East Midnapore district, where an assessment was made by the DRDC (District Rural Development Council) it was found that 122 tanks, excavated under MNREGA, have been taken on lease by the SHGs for taking up fishery as an income generation activity. It might work out as well as in our Cooch Behar.

Development of horticulture can also be taken up under MNREGA in the district of Cooch Behar.

The other area of convergence, which can be attempted in the district, is the taking up of earthen embankment of roads which will be taken up for construction or up gradation under the PMGSY (Pradhan Manthri Gram Sadak Yojana). Such an effort would strengthen opportunities for livelihood of the rural people.

Thought wise MNREGA may be a quantum jump in promoting public participation, but we need to create links between the scheme and other developmental activities including public health, safe drinking water, literary programmes and promotion of skilled labour (Swaminathan, 2009).

The state government can involve other departments like public works, irrigation, forests in a bid to expedite the process (Biman Bose, 2008). This suggestion can be given a thought as it would result in not only expediting the process but also lead to the creation of more number of days and along with useful creation of assets apart from ensuring more number of developmental works getting carried out.

xcv

Moreover the above given suggestion can also be extended to include all the developmental works that a Gram Panchayat has to carry out in a financial year. Literally, MNREGA should get to become into such a scheme that should comprise of all the employable developmental activities that come under the purview of every Gram Panchayat (Rao, 2009). This would lead to more planning and thereby less arbitrary nature of works getting selected for implementation.

EPILOGUE:

World Bank’s report on MNREGA:

The World Bank has described the much acclaimed MNREGA as a policy barrier hurting economic development which discourages migration as lifting people out of poverty which requires shifting people from demand surplus areas

xcvi

to demand deficit areas, including cities in all walks of livelihood options (Halan, 2008).

In its ‘World Development Report, 2009’ the world monetary authority argues that the schemes like MNREGA act as ‘policy barriers to internal mobility’ (Murugavel, 2008).

The report further concludes that “lifting people out of poverty requires shifting population from villages (of surplus labour) to demand areas, including cities”.

The report proceeds listing out the benefits from ‘population mobility’. And takes a dig at the policy making bodies of India which come up with such schemes like MNREGA, as this reflects the non- recognition of the benefits of migration on one hand and disallowing communities to fully capture the benefits of labour mobility on the other.

No doubt, MNREGA ranks among the most powerful initiatives ever undertaken for transformation of rural livelihoods in India. The unprecedented commitment of financial resources is matched only by its imaginative architecture that promises a radically fresh programme of rural development.

But, an inadequate emphasis on capacity building has been a characteristic failure of rural development schemes in India. Government should seriously consider recognizing a one-year diploma course on MNREGA conducted by the whole range of government and non-government institutions spread across the country (Mihir Shah, 2008). In such a case, the expertise of institutions like MANAGE will be of immense help. Om Shivoham!

xcvii

ANNEXURES

xcviii

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Chhabra, Sangeetha, Ghosh, Anand (2009) – Report on Management of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act : Issues and Challenges, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Institute of Management, Kanpur, pp: 02 – 16, 87 & 243

2. Sainath,P (2008) – ‘Everybody loves a good drought’, Macmillan Publishers, Mumbai

pp: 55 & 79

3. Bhatia,G S (2008)- ‘Condition of Indian peasantry’, National Book Trust, New Delhi.

pp: 11 &16 – 18.

4. MNREGA reports 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 submitted to the State Assembly, under Section 7(3a) of the Act.

5. Guha, Ramachandra – ‘India after Gandhi’, Picador (India Ltd.) , 2007 – pp: 243

6. Rand, Ayn – ‘The Atlas shrugged’, Siemens Publishers,2000 – pp: 143 & 171

7. Laharia, B C – “The Problems of Indian Agriculture’, Kita Mahal,2004 – pp: 67, 69 & 75

8. ‘World Development Report’ of the world Bank, 2009, pp: 75, 82,161 & 243-292

9. IIM-calcutta, report on ‘The need for man-management in MNREGA’

10. India Today, transforming from a workable economy in to a global force – Competition success Review, May 2010 – Pg. no. 16.

11. Yojana August 2008 special issue on NREGA

12. Frontline, special issue on NREGA October 2009.

13. MNREGA in Andhra Pradesh spinning a success story: bulletin issued by National Institute of Agricultural Extension and Management (MANAGE).

xcix

14. Comptroller and Auditor General report on MNREGA, 2008-2009

15. Seventh Report of the Rural labour Enquiry ( Labour Bureau, 2004)

16. Priya, Lakshmi & Halan, Ganga: Economic and Political Weekly, ‘Agrarian Changes and Attached Labour’, Vol XXIX, No 39, September 24, 2007. pp: 1227-1238.

17. Thiruchelvan,A The prospects of MNREGA, Financing Agriculture Volume 42, Issue 1 – January 2010

18. Lalit Mathur: Fulfilling the promise, Yojana, September 2007, pp: 28-33

19. Singh, Raghuvansh Prasad: Two years of NREGA, Yojana, April 2008, pp: 32-33.

20. Gopi Nath Ghosh: Social Audit and MNREGA, Kurukshetra, February 2008,

pp: 54

21. Pradeep Baisakh: Social Audit scenario in West Bengal, Yojana, April2009, pp:48-53

22. Reetika Khera : The Black Hole of NREGA Records, The Times of India, February 16, 2009.

23. Abhay Singh : Awareness in the development of tribals, Kurukshetra, March,2009, pp:18

24. Mihir Shah, P S Vijay Shankar: MNREGA: The road ahead, The New Indian Express, June 16, 2008

25. S K Rao: Need For Introspection, Yojana, August,2007, pp: 28-32.

26. Jhunjhunuwla, Bharat: Taxes and Employnent – Rozgar subsidy more important than the guarantee, The Statesman, June,11,2009

27. Kumar, V Raghunathan: Adding skills to NREGA, The economic Times, Jan 1, 2010.

28. Devjyot Ghoshal: SMS to boost MNREGA projects, The Times of India, June 6, 2009.

c

29. Raj, Gopalan: Poverty Alleviation: A drama underperformed, The Hindu, June 11, 2008.

30. Biswadeb Bhattacharya : Poverty alleviation in West Bengal, The Statesman, April 28, 2010

31. Sinha, VS: ‘The malaises pounding on NREGA’, The Telegraph, May 17, 2009.

32. Priya, Chatterjee: Boost to NREGS projects ‘The Times of India’ June,1, 2009.

33. Rahul, Sanghvi: NREGA: Hope and Despair, The Statesman, March 15, 2009

34. The Hindu, June 22 – 25, 2008 : Interview with Jean Dreze.

35. Dreze, Jean: Act fair , give rural workers their due,The times of India, April 4,2008

36. Debraj Bhattacharya: ‘The 100 –day wonder’ The Statesman, February 16,2010

37. Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey: ‘ MNREGA: Breeding new grounds, The Hindu, February, 16, 2010.

38. S.Raghunathan : NREGA is a promise half-kept, The times of India – July 12, 2009

39. Lakshmi Priya Halan: Card Carrying but jobless in Bengal: The Times Of India

Feb 21, 2008

40. Sharma, Aananth: Suicide Belt on debt row, The New Indian Express, Feb 16, 2009

41. Shyam Saran: Pucca work, kaccha payment, The Times of India, July 12 2009

42. Management of NREGA: in a shambles, Business standard, 04.10.2010

43. The second Generation Issues of MNREGA, M S Swaminathan, The Hindu, September O5, 2009

44. Sastry, Shyama: NREGA: yet to get intensified in rural Bengal, The Hindu, July 3, 2008

ci

45. http://www.indiadevelopmentblog.com/2009/06/nrega-analysis-of-payment-method.html

- accessed on February 16,2009

46. http://business.rediff.com/column/2010/nregs-successstory - accessed on Jan. 12, 2010

47. www.rediff.com/report-nregaholdstriggerfor nextgreenrevolution - accessed on 31/10/2009.

48. www.indiadevelopmentblog.com/2009/nrega-analysis.html - accessed on April, 2009

49. www.nrega.nic.in – accessed between January 2009 and April 2010

50. www. rediff.com/ NREGA-wage- employment – accessed on June 08, 2009.

51. http://business.rediff.com/column/2010/mar/29/column-why-nrega-is-a- dud.htm

52. http://www.nrega.net/pin/pin-members-and-coverage/

53. www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2414/stories – Jean Dreze and Christian Oldgies

- accessed on May,2010.

SCHEDULES

Schedule 1: General information about an agricultural rural household benefitted from MNREGA.

Name: Address:

No. Of Family Members:

Educational Status:S.No Family

MemberEducationStatus

cii

Primary Occupation: Whether member of any body:

Secondary Occupation (if any) :1.2.3.

Operational Holding (size) :

Major Crops: Kharif – Rabi - Pre- Kharif -

Cultivation in the previous season:i) Area :ii) Cost of cultivation:

Seed Fertilizer CropProtection

Irrigation LabourCharges

Harvest

iii) Yield:iv) Price Obtained:v) Appx. monthly earnings:

Wealth possession:

SCHEDULE 2 : Extent of participation of a rural household in MNREGA

Name : Age:

before MNREGA

afterMNREGA

ciii

Job-Card Number: ID Card Number:

No. of beneficiaries in the household:

S.No. MNREGA beneficiaries of the hhd

Job-Card Number

1.2.3.4.5.

Year of joining MNREGA;

S.No. MNREGA

beneficiaries of the hhdyear of joining

1.2.3.4.5.

Amount paid:S.No. MNREGA

beneficiaries of the hhdWages received (in Rs.)

Type of work done:S.No. MNREGA

beneficiaries of the hhdType of work done

Providence of unemployment allowance, to any if:

S.No. MNREGA beneficiaries of the hhd

Receival of unemployment allowance

civ

Participation in any other govt. schemes before:

S.No. MNREGA beneficiaries of the hhd

The govt. scheme participated

Medium of knowing about MNREGA :

i) Newspapersii) Television/ Radio:iii) Local Panchayat ( LP) :iv) Word-of-mouth :

Approach to the LP by-self : Yes / No

How often one goes to the LP : O Frequently O Rarely O Never

Did MNREGA made one to go to LP often : Yes / No.

Where the MNREGA account has been opened: Bank / Post Office.Any account previously held, whether in banks or Post Office : Yes / No.How much one gets as payment :Any knowledge about social Audit : Yes / No.Does the Job-Card is kept in self-possession? Yes / No.Any knowledge about unemployment allowance : Yes / No.

SCHEDULE 4 : Estimation of disposable income that a household gets through MNREGA.

Income through MNREGA :

S.No. Year Income earned byMNREGA

Purchase of any tangible asset with MNREGA income : Yes / No.

SCHEDULE: 3 Estimation of the prevailing awareness among the beneficiaries

cv

S.No. YEAR Purchase of tangible asset with MNREGA income

Utilization of MNREGA income in Agriculture:

Any increase in farm-labour income, due to MNREGA : Yes / No

SCHEDULE : 5 - Impact of MNREGA upon migration

Name : Age : Education:

Previous Occupation:

Duration of migration, in the last time:

Place of migration :

Type of work done in the place of migration :

> Whether skilled-work :

Income earned:

Is the income earned more than what could be earned through MNREGA at its full capacity ? Yes / No

S.No. Agricultural activity in which the income was employed

yes /no YEAR

1.2.3.4.5.

Purchase of seedsPurchase of inputsPurchase of fodderPurchase of cattlePurchase of farm implements

cvi

i) Average age of peoples under MNREGA :

Age Group % of Men % of Women

< 2020- 3535-4545-60< 60

ii) Amount of migration :

Age-Group % of Men % of Women

< 2020- 3535-4545-60< 60

iii) Amount of returnees to the village due to MNREGA : O significant O negligible O trace O not-at-allSCHEDULE : 6 – MNREGA and women empowerment

Percentage of women participation :

YEAR % of women participation

Allotment of work to women:

i) same as men -ii) same as men, but less physical -iii) totally different from men -

Data to be obtained from the Local Panchayats (LPs) :

cvii

Any discrimination in payments :

Are works under MNREGA, much easier: yes / no

Whether member of any SHG : yes / noMNREGA payments were mainly put in to use for: ( specify )

O Household O Health O Agricultural activity O Education O Social CeremonyDistance of worksite from dwelling, in the previous time: O less than 5 km O 5-10 km O 10-15 km O > 15 km.

Name : Education: Age:Address: Size of land :Type of land : O Irrigated O Unirrigated

#) If irrigated, specify the type of irrigation :

i) Wellii) Tube-Welliii) Canaliv) Drip

SCHEDULE 7 : Seasonal pattern of agricultural activities for land owners, who are MNREGA beneficiaries.

cviii

Cropping Pattern of the last season:

s.no. Major Field Crops Major Vegetables Other Crops

name area duration name area duration name area duration

cix

Cropping Intensity :

Income from farming :

s.no. Major Field Crops Major Vegetables Others

yield market rate

net income

yield market rate

net income

yield market rate

net income

Secondary Occupation :

Farm animals (if any):

Avg. Monthly Income:

s.no from farmactivities

from allied to farm activities

from non farmactivities

TOTAL

Number of MNREGA beneficiaries from the household :

MNREGA works done in the last year :

S.No. MNREGA beneficiaries

from the

Month/s in whichthe work was

done

No of daysof work

done

Wagesearned ( Rs.)

cx

household

Do you think that MNREGA works can be done side-by-side along with farm works during a normal season ? Yes / No.

Did working in MNREGA affect your farm-activities ? Yes / No.

Did you have account in the banks/ post offices already before MNREGA ? Yes/ No

Are you indebted to anybody ? Yes / No.

If indebted, then state the type of agency : O Institutional O Non-institutional

SCHEDULE: 08 – Seasonal pattern for agricultural activities and the impact of MNREGA ( for agricultural labourers).

Name : Age : Education: Address:

Size of land ( if any) :

Crops in cultivation :

How the harvest was used in the previous season : O Home O Market

Avg. monthly income :

No. of family members :

Participation in governmental schemes :

cxi

S.No Members ofthe family

Age Education

Members of the family who are MNREGA beneficiaries

Members of thefamily, beneficiariesof any previousscheme

Members of the hhdwho are agiculturallabourers

Wages earned in the previous season :

S.No Members ofthe family

Wages earnedfrom MNREGA

Wages earnedas agriculturallabourers

Total amountearned in theprevious year

Seasonal pattern of farm-work in a normal farm-season :

S.No Month/s of hectic farmwork

Lean period offarm work

Period of no ornil farm work

Participation in MNREGA :

S.No Members of the household

Month/s in whichMNREGA wasdone

Number ofworking daysin a month

Did MNREGA participation affect the prospects of your usual farm-activities: Yes / No.

Did MNREGA participation lead to the increase in farm wages: Yes / No.

Before MNREGA, what was used to be done during lean season or offseason:

1. 2. 3.Were you a migrant, once or before ? Yes / No.

cxii

What was mainly done with the wages obtained from MNREGA ?

1.2.3.

Any plans to migrate in search of better-work? Yes /No

Which work is more difficult ?

O Farm- work O MNREGA-work

Distance of worksite of farm-work and MNREGA from dwelling :

Distance fromdwelling ( km)

Farm work MNREGA worksite

2 – 55 – 77- 10> 10

Usual time of farm work :

Time of MNREGA works done in the last season :

Type of work done :

Member of the

household

Type of usual Farm workdone

Type of MNREGA work done in the last

season

Are you indebted to any agency : Yes / No.

If yes, then specify ;

cxiii

O Institutional O Non- Institutional

Was the wage amount earned from MNREGA used to part with the indebtedness, at least to some extent ? Yes / No.

Number of times participated in the Gram Sabha Meetings in the last season :

Was the issue of MNREGA implementation discussed in those meetings ? Yes / No.

Did you ever participae in those meeting to air your concerns about MNREGA :

SCHEDULE: 09 – Performance of the Local Panchayat ( LP )

Name of the LP :

Name of the Official : Age : Position :

Is a separate MNREGA Cell established with all staff ? Yes / No

Vacant positions at the MNREGA Cell, at present :

1. 2. 3. 4.

Implementation of MNREGA :

O 2007 – 2008 O 2008 – 2009 O 2009 - 2010

Was the unemployment allowance given ? Yes / No

Performance of MNREGA in the LP :

cxiv

s.no.year ofimplementtation

no. of workingdays provided

total no.of hhds

no. ofhhdsunderMNREGA

no. ofjobcardsprovided

no. of hhdsprovidedwork

totalman-daysgenerated

Minimum wages provided ; YEAR Minimum Wages

How the work-sites were chosen ?

via Village Council Meetings ( VCMs). Arbitrary

Number of times the VCMs were held in the LP for the last season :

How do you rate the type of demand from people for MNREGA ?

O High O Satisfactory O Low O Poor O Trace O Insignificant

Completion of works ;

S.No YEAR Works Taken Works completed

Works in progress

Case of any works abandoned for want of fund : Yes / No

cxv

Difficulties being faced in MNREGA implementation :

1.2.3.

Profile of the beneficiaries :

S.No. % of beneficiaries from the total hhds

% of womenparticipation

% of SCparticipation

% of STparticipation

Utilization of funds:

YEAR Fund Allotted

Fund Utilized

Types of MNREGA works that are done so far?

YEAR TYPE OF WORKS

cxvi

Any innovative solution or technique or way of approach that suited the local needs, discovered so far and forwarded to the next level of hierarchy in the administration;

What, in your opinion and experience, needs to be done to expedite the process of implementing MNREGA?

cxvii

cxviii

cxix

cxx