You are on page 1of 123

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. SWAMINATHAN
B.Sc. (Agri.)

2010

i
for pri

My-Word

ii
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.

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.

iii
“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

LIST OF TABLES

vi
Table 1: The Timeline of MNREGA
Table 2: The rural hhds requiring the running up of MNREGA
Table 3: Agrarian structure of Cooch Behar
Table 4: Distribution of cultivable lands among labour households
Table 5: The number of respondents selected from every Gram Panchayat
Table 6: Demand for wage-employment in Cooch Behar
Table 7: Years in which MNREGA got actually carried out
Table 8: Average number of person-days generated per house-hold & per job-card
Table 9: Gram Panchayat wise performance in the generation of employment
Table 10: Expenditure per Gram Panchayat
Table 11: Types of works carried out in Gram Panchayats
Table 12: Arbitrary nature of work implementation under MNREGA
Table 12: Bank and Postal Accounts opened under MNREGA
Table 13: Number of first time account holders in the sample.
Table 14: The prevailing level of awareness among the masses
Table 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 MNREGA
Table 18: Distance of the MNREGA’ work-site from the dwellings
Table 19: Delays in wage-payments
Table 20: Conductance of Social Audits in Cooch Behar
Table 21 Accessibility level of MIS in Cooch Behar
Table 22: Establishment of MNREGA cell
Table 23: Inappropriate wage rates
Table 24: Utilization of funds by the Gram Panchayats
Table 25: Responses of GPs for slack in fund utilization
Table 26: Material costs incurred by the Gram Panchayats
Table 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 Madhupur
Table 29: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Dhangdhinguri
Table 30: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Patlakhawa
Table 31: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Deoanhat
Table 32: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Ghughumari
Table 33: Number of working days and wages earned by the hhds in Sukthabari
Table 34: Number of working days and the wages earned by the hhds in Panishala
Table 35: Average amount of wage payment of a household in the sample
Table 36: Pattern of utilization of wage payments
Table 37: Expenditure Pattern in agricultural activities
Table 38: Tangible assets purchased
Table 39: Perceived Changes in Socio-economic Parameters
Table 40: Migration in Cooch Behar
Table 41: Types of works done by in the places of migration
Table 42: Income earned in the places of migration
Table 43: Participation of women in MNREGA
Table 44: Allocation in Union Budget on Employment Schemes
Table 45: Percentage of rural hhds completing one hundred days of employment
Table 46: Performance of Cooch Behar in MNREGA

LIST OF FIGURES USED

vii
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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

viii
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.
26. RLH- Rural Labour Households.
27. SRI – System of Rice Intensification.
28. VCMs – Village Council Meetings.
29. hhd - Household

PROLOGUE

ix
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-
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.

x
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
[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,

xii
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)

Other Wage
Issue Employment Programmes MNREGA
Status Programme Statute

Focus Infrastructure Employment generation

Process Supply led. Works opened by Demand-based. Application by


implementing agencies & then Wage seekers for employment and
labour is engaged then works are opened

Labour Any one can be engaged as Only Job Cards holders that apply
labour for employment
Time frames None Employment within 15 days of
demand,
Payment within 15 days of work

Duration of Dependent on duration of work Legal Guarantee of as many days of


Employment by implementing agency employment as a job card holder
applies for, subject to maximum 100
days

Nature of works Any work 60:40 ratio of wages and material


No 60:40 ratio of wage Permissible works:
-material

Financial Support -25% State share -Demand Based.


-75% Centre share -No fixed allocation to State
-Fixed Allocation to State -No fixed allocation to PRI.
-Fixed share to
each PRI tier:
20%-ZP
30%-IP

xiii
50%-GP

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 MNREGA


AUG FEB 2006 APR APR 2008 OCT 2008 16 FEB Oct 2009
2005 2007 2009

NREGA Came in to 130 more Universalization wage MOU with name


legalized force in districts of the transactions the postal changed to
200 included. scheme. through department. MNREGA
districts. banks/
post offices.
Source: www.nrega.nic.in

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:

xiv
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

during
non- agricultural period

lifestyle
improvement

providing jobs
in the locality itself

increase in
standard of living
PROMISE OF
MNREGA more disposable
amount of money
diversified
consumption pattern

improved
spending pattern people spend more

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.

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

Per cent of BPL Per cent of Per cent of


hhds among farmers’ hhds indebted
Location
rural hhds among rural hhds farm hhds
INDIA 50.32 % 60.30 % 48.60 %
WEST ENGAL 49.76 % 65.00 % 50.10 %
COOCH BEHAR 58.13 % 72.00 % 55.00 %

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’

xx
households but the BPL rural households in general. This means that it is
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
40.37
labourers
4. Non-agricultural
16.41
households
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 Distribution of cultivable lands among labour


(in acre) households (in percentage)
1. 0 49.22

xxi
2. <1 37.89
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

xxii
return to their folds and start working in the local schemes. Even then, if the
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).

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

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 Recognises that rights can only be realised
needs with empowerment
Accepts charity as the driving motivation Regards charity as an insufficient
for meeting needs motivation for meeting needs
Focuses on manifestations of problems and Focuses on structural causes of problems,
immediate causes of problems as well as manifestations and immediate
causes of problems
Focuses on the social context with little Focuses on social, economic, cultural, civil
emphasis on policy 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.

xxiv
B. Impacts of MNREGA

• 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).

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


in West Bengal over 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

xxvi
transacted through accounts, makes her observation that the bank
accounts make payments more expensive and not feasible.

• 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.

Total HH
rural Demanding
District
HH Employment
(lakh) (lakh)

Cooch 5.98 2.29


Behar

• 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.

xxvii
• 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
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 1. Need for capability building: “If we are
development: “In terms of time, space and competent, capable, and equipped with the
units of planning covering economic, technical competency, we would be able to
human and infrastructural aspects, the draw on this program and transform rural
NREGA makes a very good anchor for India’s economy.” – Deep Joshi
sustainable development.” – Amita Sharma
2. Raising hopes for wage-earning people: 2. Need for careful investments: “If you
“NREGA has demonstrated that its utilize all the investment to trigger
important wage giving aspect gives people economic and agriculture growth, all the
hope.” – Amita Sharma 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: 3. Success criterion for NREGA: “The
“It is the only programme which gives success of NREGA will perhaps lie in
united funds for local area programmes.” – making the Act itself redundant someday
Amita Sharma when the scheme is or the act is no longer
required.” – Chinmoy Basu
4. Creation of development assets: “The 4. Need for professional support: “If it is
NREGA represents the one concrete thought that NREGA does not require
occasion when the government physically, professional competency and professional
as a matter of right, has committed so much support, and that half-baked situations can
money. This opportunity can be utilized work, then I think livelihoods will remain a
fully and properly only when it is linked to very distant dream.” – Ram Lubhaya
the creation of development assets.” – P. S.
Vijay Shankar
5. Resource restoration & enhancement 5. Importance of user-participation &
for next generation: “Resource restoration user-perspective: “The user perspective and
and enhancement of carrying capacity are user involvement is very critical in the
important so that we pass on resources on entire process of livelihood generation
the next generation in a better condition.” – which is not only just creation of assets.” –
Madhu Khetan Madhu Khetan

xxviii
6. Convergence for sustainable livelihood 6. Building up a complementary system for
opportunities: “Convergence for livelihood improving productivity and net incomes:
was an approach that was taken right from “The issue at stake is how do we build
the very beginning in Madhya Pradesh. We NREGA into a system that complements the
are using NREGA and drawing from the existing production systems, the small
resources of other schemes to create farmers and the livestock traders and
sustainable opportunities for the poor.” – improves their productivity and net
Rashmi Shami 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 GP CONTACT NO. OF OTHER TOTAL NO.


IN STUDY MEMBERS BENEFICIARIES OF
IN THE hhd BENEFICIARIES
IN THE hhd

xxx
# FROM COOCH BEHAR II
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.

Part time agri



5 Nos

Local migrants-05

Non agri – 10 Nos

Agri land owners – 15 Nos

Agri labourers – 60 Nos

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

xxxi
doing agricultural works as part time activity with main occupation being some
other.
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 Total No. of % of No. of hhds No. of hhds


hhds rural hhds rural Demanding Provided
(lakh) hhds registered hhds got Employment Employment
(lakh) (lakh) registered (lakh) (lakh)

1. Cooch 6.43 5.98 5.19 86.73 2.29 2.26


Behar

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
FORM 4 A

demand by job seeker

FORM 4 B

recruitment
opening
JOB-CARD ISSUE accounts

“lengthy and inter-linked


process“

Gram Sabha Meetings,


Under 16 A of PA
enumerating local
needs
SCHEME that fit MNREGS
ALLOTTMENT
Submitting decisions
to GP
FUND
ALLOTTMENT

DISTRICT MNREGA To GP sub-


CELL committee

COLLECTORATE

xxxv
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

S.No. Gram Panchayat Year/s in which MNREGA


( GP) works was/ were done

2007- 2008- 2009-


2008 2009 2010
1. PUNDIBARI
 

2. MADHUPUR
 

3. DHANGDHINGURI
 

4. PATLAKHAWA
 

5. DEOANHAT
 

6. GHUGHUMARI
 

7. SUKTAHBARI  

8. PANISHALA  

xxxvi
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.

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 West Cooch National West Cooch


Average Bengal Behar Average Bengal Behar
Average Average Average Average

xxxvii
per house-hold per job-card
1. 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. 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-20


Gram Panchayat Average Average Average Average Average
number of number of number of number of number of
person- person- person- person- person-
days days days days days
generated generated generated generated generated
per hhd per job- per hhd per job- per hhd
card card

1. PUNDIBARI 15 19 14 18

2. MADHUPUR 12 15 06

3. DHANGDHINGURI 14 19 11 17

4. PATLAKHAWA
08 10 07

5. DEOANHAT 14 19 12 18

6. GHUGHUMARI 13 16 09
SUKTAHBARI 06 15 14 17
7.
PANISHALA 06 11 14 19
8.
(Note: The black boxes indicate the years in which the scheme was not run).

xxxviii
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

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.

xxxix
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.

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.

xl
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

Year wise expenditure (Rs.)


S.No. Gram Panchayat
2007- 2008- 2009-
2008 2009 2010
PUNDIBARI 33,86,08 24,69,99 28,65,671
1.
1 4
28,55,33 37,66,41 35,38,346
2. MADHUPUR 8 1

27,48,02 20,78,29 12,22,206


3. DHANGDHINGURI 2 3

18,65,00 27,88,06 27,88,056


4. PATLAKHAWA 0 3

23,18,09 18,64,14 24,32,891


5. DEOANHAT 2 7

27,08,64 23,80,02 18,79,243


6. GHUGHUMARI 3 2

17,86,91 22,59,64 15,86,292


7. SUKTAHBARI 9 2

23,85,61 18,67,34 21,67,614


8. PANISHALA 7 2

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 strategy with special programs for building the capabilities
and assets of the poor and disadvantaged. The reorientation of the Indian social

xli
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


between 2007 and 2009.

xlii
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

xliii
S.N
Name of the Works undertaken
o.
Gram Panchayat under 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

Note: The listed numerals indicate the following type of works

1. Rural Connectivity 4 Land


. Development

2. Tree Plantation 5 Facilitating Land


. Beneficiaries
3. Seeding fish
fingerlings

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

xliv
No. of times MNREGA works
getting detailed or at least
brought up in the VCMs
GRAM
S.No.
PANCHAYAT
2007 2008- 2009-
-2008 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 (-)

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

xlv
Bank Postal Total accounts
accounts accounts opened between 2007
between between and 2010
2007 &2010 2007 & 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

xlvi
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 Percentage


account holders
(out of ten)

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

xlvii
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 MNREGA


S.NO AWARENESS INDICATORS PUND MADH DANG PATLA DEON GHUGU SUKTHA PANI
BARI UPUR DING KHAWA AHAT MARI BARI SHALA
GURI
1. Wished for any such scheme * * * * * * * *
2. Self enquiry about the scheme X X X X X * X X
3. Means of knowing GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP
4. Possession of job card X X X X X X X X
About the types of works that
5. X X X X X X X X
can be done under this scheme
About unemployment
6. X X X X X X X X
allowance
Awareness about the works to
7. get allotted by Village Council * * X X X X X X
Meetings (VCMs)
8. Number of VCMs attended NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
9. About social auditing and X X X X X X X
X
bank/ post office accounts
Awareness about jobs to get
10. X X X X X X X
provided within a stipulated
X
period of 14 days after
demand
11. Awareness about that 10 X X X X X X X
people with demand are X
enough to get a job allotted

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

xlviii
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.

xlix
Table 15 Assessment of difficulties faced by the locals
S.NO DIFFICULTIES PUND MADH DHANGD PATLA DEON GHUGU SUKTHA P
FACED UP BARI UPUR HINGURI KHAWA AHAT MARI BARI SH

1. Irregular employment   
   
*
2. Jobs not popular 

3. Low wage rate   


   
4. Unresponsive GP   
   
5. Corruption
6. 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 difficulties
The 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.

Table 16: Demand and lean periods of MNREGA

l
Hectic farm Lean period of Period of no or
S.No. GRAM PANCHAYAT work period farm work nil farm work

1. PUNDIBARI June - November - February –


October December April
2. MADHUPUR May/ June - November - January &
October December March
3. DANGDINGGURI June - November – March &
October January April
4. PATLAKHAWA June - October – January &
October December February
5. DEOANHAT July- January- February –
Oct/ November Feb/ March April
6. GHUGHUMARI June - November - February/
October December March
7. SUKTAHBARI June - November - -
October December
8. PANISHALA June - November – February –
October Decem / Jan 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 Panchayats themselves failing to have the scheme implemented or,
otherwise: people finding the scheme too much inconvenient.

li
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.) Wage/day: (in Rs.)


75 to 80-90 /100 65 to 72 / 75
3. Wages are regular Irregular

4. Wages get paid within a Delay in payment


week.
5. Worksite: nearer to Details appended in the Table 21
dwellings or walk-able
distance

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

S.No. Distance of the worksite

lii
Gram Panchayat from the dwelling
(in km)

1. PUNDIBARI
5 – 10
5 -15
2. MADHUPUR
3. DANGDINGGURI 5-15
4. PATLAKHAWA 5 - 10

5. 10 - 15
DEWANHAT
6. GHUGHUMARI 10 – 15
7. SUKTAHBARI 5 – 15
8. 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.

Period of time taken for wage transaction


Name of the Gram and the year associated with it
Panchayat 2-4 more than about 2 more than
weeks 1 month months 2 months
PUNDIBARI (1) (2)
MADHUPUR (2) (3)
DANGDINGGURI (1) (2)

liii
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 3
2007-2008 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
(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.

liv
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.

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

lv
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

Conductance of Social Audits


YEAR
Total no. Actual no.
Percentage of
that have to that were
performance
be conducted conducted
2006- 989 127 12.83
2007

2007- 1024 221 21.58


2008

2008- 1,630 456 26.98


2009
2009- 1727 434 25.13
2010

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

lvi
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 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

lvii
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.

measurement sheet

muster roll

job-card

wage slip / voucher

identity card

bank / post office account

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).

lviii
5.6 Shortage of staff

Table 22: Establishment of MNREGA cell

S.N Name of the Year of The proclamations of the employment


o. Gram Panchayat establishment guarantee as the flagship programme of the
of MNREGA government, the fanfare and the speeches –
cell despite all these – there seems to be
1. PUNDIBARI 2008- 2009 missing, the essential belief and faith in
working of the scheme itself.
2. MADHUPUR 2008-2009
3. DANGDINGGURI NOT ESTABLISHED MNREGA mandate require appointment of
NOT a full-time programme officers (POs) in
4. PATLAKHAWA ESTABLISHED every blocks, exclusively dedicated to the
NOT
implementation of MNREGA. But our
5. DEOANHAT ESTABLISHED findings reveal that the existing Block
6. GHUGHUMARI 2009-2010 Development Officer (BDO) has been
7. SUKTAHBARI NOT appointed as PO and given “additional
ESTABLISHED
charge” of MNREGA for the year 2009-
8. PANISHALA 2008-2009 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
officials who were interviewed in the survey never seemed to be aware or to
have the knowledge of such a requirement.

lix
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 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

lx
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. PREVAILING WAGE RATE (Rs.)


GRAM PANCHAYAT
2007- 2008- 2009-
2008 2009 2010
(msr=72) (msr=75) (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
(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.

lxi
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

lxii
Combined
S.No. Name of the UTILIZATION OF FUNDS percentage
GRAM of
PANCHAYAT 2007 -2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 utilization
Total Fund Total Fund Total Fund of funds
Fund Utilized Fund Utilized Fund Utilized
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
1. PUNDIBARI 33,86,08 24,16,08 24,69,99 12,88,45 28,65,67 03,22,03 43.16 %
1 7 4 6 1 1
(U+A) (U+A)
2. MADHUPUR 28,55,33 03,18,09 37,66,41 27,28,06 35,38,34 22,17,18 33.28 %
8 7 1 5 6 1
(U+A) (U+A)
3. DANGDINGGURI 27,48,02 14,69,72 20,78,29 8,56,087 12,22,20 07,69,45 38.07 %
2 9 3 6 3
(U+A) (U) + (A)
4. PATLAKHAWA 18,65,00 09,82,33 27,88,06 09,18,00 27,88,05 14,62,67 27.55 %
0 5 3 0 6 6
(U + A) (U+A)
5. DEOANHAT 23,18,09 11,08,12 18,64,14 09,67,07 24,32,89 07,65,40 31.37 %
2 6 7 3 1 0
(U+A) (U+A)
6. GHUGHUMARI 27,08,64 03,28,62 23,80,02 15,76,63 18,79,24 13,76,62 26.82 %
3 1 2 4 3 3
(U+A) (U+A)
7. SUKTAHBARI 17,86,91 09,88,49 22,59,64 11,03,24 15,86,29 07,18,41 18.45 %
9 1 2 3 2 7
(U+A) (U+A)
8. PANISHALA 23,85,61 07,54,62 18,67,34 11,45,61 21,67,61 03,28,19 21.63 %
7 5 2 2 4 7
(U+A) (U+A)

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.

lxiii
Table 25: Responses of GPs for slack in fund utilization

S.N Responses cited by GPs for Name of the GPs


o. improper fund utilization citing the responses

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


2. Lack of interest with the 2, 5, 6. 7. 8
people.
3. Difficulty in spotting works. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8
4. Difficulty in mobilization of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
men.
5. Fund shortage. 4, 5
6. Much money spent on the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
materials.
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


1. PUNDIBARI 5 DEOANHAT
.

2. MADHUPUR 6 GHUGHUMARI
.
3. DANGDINGGURI 7 SUKTAHBARI
.
4. PATLAKHAWA 8 PANISHALA
.
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.

lxiv
Figure 8: CONSEQUENCES OF IMPROPER FUND UTILIZATION

No more future funds Paving way for


get allotted if the already
available fund remains mismanagement
unutilized

Spending more
on materials
than on men People losing
interest
Reworking on the
same site

Less enthusiasm
among GPs

RESULT:
All the desired
outcomes go
unmet.

lxv
MNREGA

5.8 Surges in material costs:

Figure 9 Average material costs incurred in West Bengal

STATE AVERAGE: 33.82 %

lxvi
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).

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.


S.N Name of the Avg. Avg. Total cost
o. Gram Panchayat men material of per
cost cost man-day
on an avg.
1. PUNDIBARI
60.34 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

6.0 Impact of MNREGA: MNREGA, as already seen, has been


implemented in Cooch Behar right from the financial year 2007-2008. So three

lxvii
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.

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

lxviii
S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per hhd
from provided days by day by the (Rs.)
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

1. 2007 10 19 14 266 65 17,290 1,729.0


PUNDI -
BARI 2008

2. 2008 10 23 18 414 72 29,808 2,908.8


-
2009

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.

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

lxix
S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
. Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per
from provided days by day by the hhd
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds (Rs.)
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8
MADHU
PUR 2008 10 15 14 210 60 12,600 1,260
1. -
2009
2.
10 10 07 70 70 4,900 490
2009
-
2010

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

lxx
S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per hhd
from provided days by day by the (Rs.)
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8
1.
2008 10 18 10 180 62 11,160 1,160.0
DHANG -
DHINGURI 2009

2.
2009 10 12 14 168 68 11,424 1,114.4
-
2010

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 Patlakhawa
S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per
from provided days by day by the hhd
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds (Rs.)
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

2007 10 10 07 70 72 4,550 455.00


PATLA -
1. KHAWA 2008

2. 2009 10 10 06 60 65 4,320 432.00


-
2010

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

lxxi
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 Deoanhat
S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per hhd
from provided days by day by the (Rs.)
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

2007 10 15 14 210 55 11,150 1,150


DEOAN -
1. HAT 2008

2008 10 13 05 65 58 3770 377


2. -
2009

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
Ghughumari

lxxii
S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per hhd
from provided days by day by the (Rs.)
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

GHUGHU 2007 10 19 07 133 65 8645 864.50


MARI -
1. 2008
2.
10 23 07 161 65 10465 1,046.50
2008
-
2009

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 Sukthabari

S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per hhd
from provided days by day by the (Rs.)
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8
1.
SUKTHA 2008 10 19 10 190 65 12,350 1,235.00
BARI -
2009
2. 10 23 07 161 70 11,120 1,120.00
2009
-
2010

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.

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

S.No Local Year No. Total no. No. of Total no. Wage Total Wages
Panchayat of of benefi working of given wages earned
(LP) hhds -ciaries days working per earned per hhd
from provided days by day by the (Rs.)
all the the hhds (Rs.) hhds
hhds (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 = 3X4 6 7=5X6 8

2007 10 10 10 100 55 5,500 550.00


PANI -
1. SHALA 2008

2.
2008 10 10 12 120 60 7,200 720.00
-
2009

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 sample


S.No. GRAM 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Total
PANCHAYAT (GP) Total no. Total Total no. Total Total no. Total wages
days of wages days of wages days of wages obtained
employment earned employment earned employment earned per
of the (Rs.) of the (Rs.) of the (Rs.) Household
sample sample sample (Rs.)
1. PUNDIBARI 266 17,290 414 29,808 - - 4,709.80
2. MADHUPUR - - 210 12,600 70 4,900 1,750.00
3. DHANGDHINGURI - - 180 11,160 168 11,424 2,250.80
4. PATLAKHAWA 70 4,550 60 4,320 - - 887.00
5. DEOANHAT 210 11,150 65 3,770 - - 1,492.00
6. GHUGHUMARI 183 8,645 161 10,465 - - 1,910.00
7. SUKTAHBARI - - 190 12,356 161 11,120 2,347.60
8. PANISHALA 100 5,500 120 7,200 - - 770.00

lxxiv
# 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
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.

lxxv
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. Of what the obtained wages were used for


GRAM Food Clothing Entertai- Healh Educa Agricul Social Deb
PANCHAYAT nment -tional -tural cerem- clea
ony

1. PUNDIBARI & * * & @

2. MADHUPUR & & @

3. DHANGDHINGURI & & @

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

lxxvi
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
S.NO.
GRAM Wages obtained and their utilization in agricultural activities
PANCHAYAT

seeds fertili pesti imple cattle sheep/ clearance agri.


-zers -cides -ments goat/ of facilitie
poultry loans

1. PUNDIBARI @ & * @ *

2. MADHUPUR @ * * & &

lxxvii
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.

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

lxxviii
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.
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 Purchase of tangible assets
PANCHAYAT Mobile Televi Gas Agri Cattle Gold Others
phones -sion stove imple orna
ments ments
1. PUNDIBARI * *
2. MADHUPUR *
3. DANGDINGGURI *

lxxix
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
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

lxxx
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


Gram Panchayat % of households 4. Decline in incidence
with positive response of child labour.
In general Due to
MNREGA The respondents were asked
Panel A: Improvement in school dropout rates
to record their response in
PUNDIBARI 78.00 20.51 two steps. In the first step,
MADHUPUR 65.75 18.23 they were asked if any
DHANGDHINGURI 54.19 22.16 change in the above features
PATLAKHAWA 55.00 31.00 were identified during the
DEOANHAT 62.34 22.81 last three years. In the second
GHUGHUMARI 75.44 33.00 stage, respondents who
SUKTAHBARI 38.12 11.54 replied positively were asked
PANISHALA 62.16 28.34 if MNREGA activities had
Panel B: Improvement in provision of health specifically contributed to
services such perceived change.
PUNDIBARI 5.00 80.00
MADHUPUR 62.00 18.23 In Table 39 impact scores are
DHANGDHINGURI 36.84 60.80 constructed as [(number of
PATLAKHAWA 39.76 56.81 respondents who believe
DEOANHAT 14.00 36.32 that MNREGA has
GHUGHUMARI 85.00 100.00 contributed positively to a
SUKTAHBARI 18.31 29.14 change/number of
PANISHALA 42.54 56.88 respondents who believe
Panel C: Decline in incidence of crime that a change has actually
PUNDIBARI 36.50 58.42 taken place over the last 3
MADHUPUR 84.00 28.17 years)*100]. These scores
DHANGDHINGURI 53.13 62.75 are displayed in the table 39.
PATLAKHAWA 2.00 50.00
DEOANHAT 82.16 100.00
GHUGHUMARI 64.33 29.16 Table 39 Perceived Changes
SUKTAHBARI 16.22 87.00 in Socio-economic
PANISHALA 14.38 36.80 Parameters
Panel D: Decline in incidence of child labour
PUNDIBARI 23.00 82.61
MADHUPUR 38.51 47.19
DHANGDHINGURI 64.00 64.00
PATLAKHAWA 36.23 81.19
DEOANHAT 54.32 66.00
lxxxi
GHUGHUMARI 18.12 36.34
SUKTAHBARI 12.32 7.00
PANISHALA 38.44 43.00
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.
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.

lxxxii
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

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.

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

S.NO. Types of works done in the places

lxxxiii
GRAM PANCHAYAT of migration

1. PUNDIBARI
C, 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

Income
Income
Activity done in the per Activity done in the
per
Index place of month Index place of
month
migration (Rs.) migration
(Rs.)
2000- 1500-
H HOTELS
C CONSTRUCTION 3000 2500
4000- 1500 –
M MANUFACTURING S SHOPS
6000 2000
2000-
ML MALLS
2500

lxxxiv
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 Behar
Express linkage to rights YES
Non-discrimination YES
Attention to vulnerable YES
groups

lxxxv
Accountability YES
Empowerment NO

Table 43: Participation of women in MNREGA


YEAR Total no of No of women % of women
beneficiaries beneficiaries beneficiaries

2007- 2,69,039 65,376 20.35 %


2008
2008- 1,69,035 34,045 20.14 %
2009

2009- 3,63,427 69,553 21.54 %


2010
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

STATE AVG: 26.57 %

lxxxvi
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:
S.No. State % of women
participation
1. Tamil Nadu 83 %
2. Andhra Pradesh 59 %
3. Orissa 58 %
4. Rajasthan 43 %
5. Gujarat 43 %
6. Madhya Pradesh 41 %
Source: www.nrega.nic.in & Dreze (2010)

SUMMARY
&
CONCLUSION

lxxxvii
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

lxxxviii
Year Rural Urban Total Employment
Employm Employment Generation Programmes
ent (Swarna Jayanti
Sahari Rojgar
Yojana)
1998-99 0.21 0.01 0.22
1999-00 0.19 0.01 0.20
2000-01 0.13 0.00 0.14
2001-02 0.20 0.00 0.20
2002-03 0.40 0.00 0.40
2003-04 0.37 0.00 0.37
2004-05 0.23 0.00 0.23
2005-06 0.33 0.00 0.34
2006-07 0.33 0.01 0.34
2007-08 0.55 0.01 0.56
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.

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

YEAR: 2006 TO 2010

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.

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

xc
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


employment
YEAR INDIA WEST BENGAL COOCH BEHAR
% of rural % of rural % of rural % of rural % of rural % of rural hhd
hhd hhd hhd hhd hhd completing
provided completing provided completing provided 100 days
with jobs 100 days with jobs 100 days with jobs

2006- 43 09 44 03 - -
2007
2007- 62 15 68 06 32 0.00
2008
2008- 72 23 59 01 18 0.03
2009
2009- 61 12 67 02 06 0.01
2010
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.

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).

xci
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.

2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009


S.No PARAMETERS TAKEN BY THE COOCH OVER COOCH OVE
STATE GOVERNMENT BEHAR’S ALL BEHAR’S ALL
PERFOR RANK PERFOR RAN
MANCE MANCE
1. Expenditure per GP 34.86 lakh 5 46.71 lakh 4

2. Percentage of women person-days 20.75 13 22.72 14

3. Employment provided per hhd 12 days 18 15 days 18

4. Employment provided per job-card 17 days 18 22 days 17

Percentage of person-days achieved to


5. the targets set 29.28 15 27.32 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.

xcii
 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.

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.

xciii
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;

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

xciv
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-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.

xcv
 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.

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

SCOPE
AND
xcvi
HOPE

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.

xcvii
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
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.

xcviii
• 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.

• 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.

xcix
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
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!

c
ANNEXURES

ci
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’

cii
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).

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

ciii
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.

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

civ
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

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.

cv
Name: Address:

No. Of Family Members:

Educational Status:
S.No Family Education
Member Status

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 Crop Irrigation Labour Harvest


Protection Charges

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

before
Wealth MNREGA
possession:
after
MNREGA
cvi
SCHEDULE 2 : Extent of participation of a rural household in MNREGA

Name : Age:

Job-Card Number: ID Card Number:

No. of beneficiaries in the household:

S.No. MNREGA Job-Card Number


beneficiaries of the hhd
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Year of joining MNREGA;

S.No. MNREGA year of joining


beneficiaries of the hhd
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Amount paid:
S.No. MNREGA Wages received
beneficiaries of the hhd (in Rs.)

cvii
Type of work done:
S.No. MNREGA Type of work done
beneficiaries of the hhd

Providence of unemployment allowance, to any if:

S.No. MNREGA Receival of unemployment


beneficiaries of the hhd allowance

Participation in any other govt. schemes before:

S.No. MNREGA The govt. scheme participated


beneficiaries of the hhd

SCHEDULE: 3 Estimation of the prevailing awareness among the beneficiaries

Medium of knowing about MNREGA :

i) Newspapers
ii) 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.

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

Income through MNREGA :

S.No. Year Income earned by


MNREGA

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

S.No. YEAR Purchase of tangible


asset with MNREGA
income

Utilization of MNREGA income in Agriculture:

S.No. Agricultural activity in yes /no YEA


which the income was R
Any employed
increase in 1. Purchase of seeds
farm-labour 2. Purchase of inputs
income, due 3. Purchase of fodder
to 4. Purchase of cattle
MNREGA : 5. Purchase of farm
Yes / No implements

SCHEDULE : 5 - Impact of MNREGA upon migration

Name : Age : Education:

Previous Occupation:

Duration of migration, in the last time:

Place of migration :

cix
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

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

i) Average age of peoples under MNREGA :

Age Group % of Men % of Women

< 20
20- 35
35-45
45-60
< 60
ii) Amount of migration :

Age-Group % of Men % of Women

< 20
20- 35
35-45
45-60
< 60
iii) Amount of returnees to the village due to MNREGA :
O significant O negligible O trace O not-at-all
SCHEDULE : 6 – MNREGA and women empowerment

Percentage of women participation :

YEAR % of women participation

cx
Allotment of work to women:

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

Any discrimination in payments :

Are works under MNREGA, much easier: yes / no

Whether member of any SHG : yes / no


MNREGA payments were mainly put in to use for: ( specify )

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

SCHEDULE 7 : Seasonal pattern of agricultural activities for land owners, who


are MNREGA beneficiaries.

Name : Education: Age:


Address:
Size of land :
Type of land : O Irrigated
O Unirrigated

cxi
#) If irrigated, specify the type of irrigation :

i) Well
ii) Tube-Well
iii) Canal
iv) Drip

Cropping Pattern of the last season:

s.no. Major Field Crops Major Vegetables Other Crops


name area duration name area duration name area duration

Cropping Intensity :

Income from farming :

s.no. Major Field Crops Major Vegetables Others


yield market net yield market net yield market net
rate income rate income rate income

Secondary Occupation :

Farm animals (if any):

Avg. Monthly Income:

cxii
s.no from farm from allied to from non farm TOTAL
activities farm activities activities

Number of MNREGA beneficiaries from the household :

MNREGA works done in the last year :

S.No. MNREGA Month/s in which No of days Wages


beneficiaries the work was of work earned
from the done done ( Rs.)
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

cxiii
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 :

S.No Members of Age Edu Members of the Members of the Members o


the family cation family who are family, the hhd
MNREGA beneficiaries who are
beneficiaries of any previous agicultural
scheme labourers

Wages earned in the previous season :

S.No Members of Wages earned Wages earned Total amount


the family from MNREGA as agricultural earned in the
labourers previous year

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

cxiv
S.No Month/s of Lean period of Period of no or
hectic farm farm work nil farm work
work

Participation in MNREGA :

S.No Members of Month/s in which Number of


the household MNREGA was working days
done in 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.

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 from Farm work MNREGA worksite


dwelling
( km)

cxv
2–5
5–7
7- 10
> 10

Usual time of farm work :

Time of MNREGA works done in the last season :

Type of work done :

Member of Type of usual Farm Type of MNREGA


the work work done in the last
household done season

Are you indebted to any agency : Yes / No.

If yes, then specify ;

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 :

cxvi
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 :

s.no.
year of no. of working total no. no. of no. of no. of hhds total
implement days provided of hhds hhds jobcards provided man-da
tation under provided work generat
MNREGA

Minimum wages provided ;


YEAR Minimum Wages

cxvii
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 Works in progress


completed

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

Difficulties being faced in MNREGA implementation :

1.
2.
3.

cxviii
Profile of the beneficiaries :

S.No. % of % of % of SC % of ST
beneficiaries women partici partici
from the total participation pation pation
hhds

Utilization of funds:

Fund Utilized

YEAR Fund Allotted

Types of MNREGA works that are done so far?

YEAR TYPE OF WORKS

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?

cxix
cxx
cxxi
cxxii
cxxiii

You might also like