Only the Neo Liberals argue MGNTEGA will
not save the poor!
“Do no bet on MGNREGA to save the
poor”. Mr. Swaminathan has given us an eagle’s
point of view of MGNREGA, full of big names and overwhelming statistics. But at
a closer look he has tried to shoot in the dark by relying on ambiguous information. I hope he is not deliberately trying to
discredit the positive changes brought about by MGNREGA.
Mr. Swaminathan suggests making tar
roads have long term impact, and not mud roads, building embankment or
de-silting tanks. He gives the example
of Bihar where double the amount spent on PMGSY. In Bihar and for that matter in any other
place when capital intensive rural spending is done it will definitely double the
spending in comparison to spending on MGNREGA.
Under MGNREGA 60% is spent on wages which directly goes into the hands
of the wage seeker. But capital
intensive spending will involve much higher spending on equipments and material
compared to wages. Here great proportion
of spending will go into the hands of the material and machine owners and less
in the hands of the wage seekers. Tar roads improve geography of rural areas
but it does not speak of removing poverty of the wage seekers. Building
embankments and desilting tanks improves water availability. Will he say that
reduction of poverty in Bihar is because there was no MGNREGA?
Rural
poverty is of the small, marginal farmers, landless labourers, dalits adivasies
and women. Capital investment goes to
the people who have large tracks of land.
It does not benefit the small, marginal farmers and landless labourers. They
will continue to remain wage labourers. Capital investment in agriculture (pump
sets, tractors, and improved irrigation systems) benefitting
the landlords, reduced employment in agriculture to less than 120 days a year.
He claims though Narasimha Rao
introduced 100 workdays in 1994 and increased rural employment from 875 million
person days to 1232 million and yet Congress was thrashed in the 1996 election.
Clearly, voters didn’t think it solved poverty.
But he failed to mention that Congress won in 2009 because of right to
work given by NREGA.
To relate the defeat of Congress in
1996 to non recognition of NREGS is trying to deliberately discredit the
MGNREGA of 2005. If congress was
defeated it was due to devastating effect on the people of the structural
adjustment policy adopted Liberalization
and privatization has led to closing down of innumerable small scale industries.
The dismantling of the public sector, HMT, ITI, BEL, has led to innumerable people
into unemployment. Government has
offered golden hand shake to force voluntary retirement scheme. NREGS was a
safety net to prevent the poor from further falling into poverty and
starvation. Growth is not directed to the agriculture sector. On the contrary land acquisition for mega
projects, destruction of forests, and displacement of rural population has very
negative impact on the poor.
When NDA government was pushing
reforms vigorously it was thrown out of power.
When Manmohan Singh came to power he started speaking about inclusive
growth to overcome the scars of vigorous reform which had excluded the rural
masses and the poor.
He claims that after 2008 rural wages
more than doubled. But he wants to
attribute this to some extraneous factors.
We on the field have seen from a very close distance that when NREGA was
paying higher wages and equal wages to women than the landlords who were paying
much below minimum wages the NREGA made the rural labourers demand higher wages
from the rich farmers.
Food prices rising globally might
have raised wages only because under MGNREGA minimum wages were higher than the
wages the landlords paid. MGNREGA
strengthened the fight of the agricultural labourers for better wages. Rise in
food prices did not result in equal wages for men and women. It is the NREGA equal wages for men and women
made women to demand equal wages.
MGNREGA has given more money in the hands of the rural poor and their
health, nutrition, children’s education has improved.
“MGNREGA is only palliative; it will
prevent them from starvation”. But the
present growth oriented economy is putting all the propertiless in the urban
and rural areas on palliative care. The difference
between the urban wage seekers and the rural wage seekers under MGNREGA is that
the rural wage seekers will demand work as a matter of their right to
work. Of course these finer points
Swaminathan will not understand.
Further he must also acknowledge that
when the poor have rights to work, health care, education, food security,
housing that their needs will be attended to.
In a capitalist society the poverty is not solved by the growth in the
economy.
GDP growth has attracted better off
of rural population with education rather than unskilled labourers. The National Sample Survey organization has
come out with facts which show that the unemployment rate in the urban area
between 2004-2005 and 2011-2012 has come down.
But in the rural areas the unemployment rate has remained the same.
MGNREGA has brought changes in the
conditions of the people not in term of owning capital and accumulation of
wealth but it has made rural poor get united and fight for their rights. They now think that they have rights in the
society and the government should ensure that they rights are delivered to
them. MGNREGA has given more money in the hands of the rural poor. Their
nutrition and health has improved. The fact that the children of the rural poor
have access to education as their parents need not migrate periodically from
one place to another is an important factor that will contribute to the
sustainable change.
The capitalist society which spear
heads for growth will essentially result in economic and social inequality in
the society. Growth and accumulation
will result in concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. It will create a few multi billionaires
leaving the large majority of the population property less having to depend on
wage labour. It is only the struggles
for rights that will keep the property less people afloat. In the capitalist society people cannot fight
for a share in the capital of the capitalist.
But they can fight for their rights enshrined in the constitution. They can demand for right to health, right to
food, education, and housing.
Swaminathan’s last statement speaks
for itself. He holds a view that MGNREGA
is palliative and sustainable poverty reduction required capital intensive
rural investment. “Today I make bold to claim victory”. We get an impression that he has already
taken a stand against MGNREGA and he goes about searching for arguments to
defend his stand. He calls MGNREGA palliative,
but he does not say a word about what he means by capital intensive rural
investment.
If Swaminathan had boldly stated that
the rural people should be made owners of capital, land, irrigation, access to
credit and market which would reduce their poverty then his view would be
credible. But he would argue for growth that
would deprive the rural poor of capital and turn them into wage labourers, not
in MGNREGA but in the toll plaza, in the urban industries, working under
contractors with no right to be organized or fight for better wages.
Alex Tuscano, Ganesh Iyer, and N.S.Bedi
No comments:
Post a Comment