Media Trial in Trying Times


*Saumitra Mohan



There has been a lot of debate and discussion in recent times over the phenomenon of so-called ‘Media Trial’. There have been arguments for and against it. There is definitely a need to discuss the various nuances and implications relating thereto before we can pronounce any judgement over it. First and foremost, the question arises as to why has such a thing called ‘Media Trial’ has emerged. Is trial by media a completely new phenomenon or has existed since the inception of the Fourth Estate? One would argue that anything in this world comes into being following a demand for the same. So if trial by media has started, then the reason lies in the perceived failure or dysfunctionality of various institutions of the system, the institutions whose working has not been to the satisfaction of the civil society at large, the clientele media caters to.

As in the human body’s homeostatic system where in case of the failure of an organ, another organ comes to take over the function to carry on the function to maintain a stable equilibrium through sustainable physiological processes to ensure human survival as far as possible. Similarly, at a time when there is a perceived failure of other institutions, media, like judiciary, starts over asserting itself and chips in, in its own way to fill in the vacuum left by the non/under-performance of other institutions. And that is how emerges the phenomenon of ‘judicial activism’ or ‘Media Trial’. And the latter is definitely not a new phenomenon, but has existed for quite some time now. Remember all the famous movements across the world including our own freedom movement when media, even in its early days and when it was tied in multiple fetters, has championed myriad causes. Who can forget the proactive role played by the press during the heydays of emergency in this country? So, today’s media trial is not something surprising.

But media trial or championing is not something which exists in exclusion of other systems rather it exists together with the classical justice mechanism and such other champions of public causes as the civil society, NGOs, various pressure and interest groups. Media often works in association or alliance with some or many such institutions. Media trial is a way to give expression to the largely-felt aspirations or predominant public opinion. Media often comes forward to support or oppose the dominant predilection in a particular judicial trial or to support/oppose a particular decision by the executive in sync with the popular mood. Media just throws its entire weight in support or in opposition of a popular stance in light of available evidence or perceived public interest.

Many of the recent celebrated judicial cases or instances of corruption were brought to public notice after the media took up the cause to nudge the system out of slumber to bring about a particular decision or judgement has thereby also highlighted cases of major irregularities (read corruption). The Jessica Lal Murder Case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo Murder Case, the Rizwanur Rehman Murder Case, Shivani Bhatnagar Murder Case, Ruchira Girhotra Molestation Case, Sukna Land Scam, Adarsh Society scam, IPL corruption case, the historic Nanawati case, the innumerable sting operations and so on. The list of cases, where media has played a proactive role to sway the popular opinion to bear upon a particular executive or judicial decision to successfully overturn it, is endless.

Though most of the time media seems to be on the right side of the justice, in many instances it has also been accused of being partisan, actually championing the cause or the interests of the House it belongs to. It has also been alleged that quite often media’s taking a particular side arises out of its bid to survive the competitive commercialism that that mark journalism these days. So, next time you see some Houses indulging in yellow journalism, you should look for reasons in its political background or its commercial interests. Often, some stories are deliberately planted in keeping with the interests of the House. Quite often, many stories are reflections of a journalist’s individual predilection, his/her own vested interest in cahoots with other vested interests. It is here that it becomes difficult for the unsuspecting and naïve hoi polloi to sift through the truth, to separate the chaff from the grain.

What is shocking is the fact that quite often media goes with the tide and misses the wood for the trees. In stead of judging an incident on merit, its many analyses are imbued with emotionalism or rank irrationalism. Sometimes same incident has evoked different reactions from different media houses. In this country, the media panned a particular state government when one of the legislators belonging to the ruling dispensation was humiliated and man-handled by the local people. The media justified anomic popular reaction on ground of the government’s failure to do anything for the cyclone-affected people. Again, when another legislator belonging to opposition was attacked and man-handled by the local people, then again media criticized the government for failing to ensuring security to the Hon’ble MLA. Like in previous case, here also the media could have justified the anomic popular reaction as an expression of popular anger against the particular legislator. But media came out with two different reactions in the two cases.

However, the truth is that in both the cases the people who took law into their hand by attacking, humiliating and man-handling Hon’ble legislators were wrong, committed a crime by doing so and ought to have accordingly been booked for the act. But media justified one reaction by the public and did not in another case and government was criticized in both the cases. One does expect that in true spirit of professional journalism, the media reaction shall be dispassionate and above board which was not noticed in the two instant cases. It is here that media neutrality or freedom of speech granted to press becomes questionable.

Lord Acton rightly said, ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. If one has a got a license to shoot, it is expected that one would know as to whom to shoot, when to shoot and how to shoot. When one shoots indiscriminately, then it borders on derangement and needs to be regulated. Similarly, media needs to conduct itself with more responsibility while exercising its power to report and opine. An unfettered power without accountability needs to be checked and used with caution.

For someone who has spent considerable time in media, one does know that more often than not, you are directed to carry a particular story or not to carry it or to give a particular tilt/angle to a particular story with a motivation to help a particular faction or some vested interests with whom the House ownership or management identifies. Quite often a media House also desists from carrying a particular story because the subject concerned has been their one of the biggest advertisers. A nexus between media and various vested interests is said to have emerged to endanger the classical neutrality of the media. The l’affaire Barkha Dutt is a case in point.

One basic problem with media trial is the fact that media espouses mostly the celebrated or high-profile cases, but millions of not-so-famous cases just fade away as they have no champions anywhere. But all said and done, media trial still remains a positive development to have happened, something which can be utilized in the better interest of the larger society. Today, in the times of ‘Sting Operations’ and ‘Right to Information’, all the decision makers and government officials are definitely on their toes, knowing very well that they can’t keep on doing things as they have always done. They are definitely more careful today and think twice before doing anything wrong, fearing a proactive and snoopy media. The political class, the bureaucracy, the police and everyone else are definitely more responsible today than ever before.

Earlier, none could think of a Minister being jailed, an IAS/IPS being arrested or a powerful politician being convicted, something which have happened quire regularly in recent times in this country. The conviction of Manu Sharma, Santosh Singh, ex-IGP of Haryana RK Sharma, ex-DGP of Haryana HKS Rathore, arrest and imprisonment of many influential politicians or resignations of high profile office bearers do prove the efficacy and effectiveness of media trial in bringing quicker justice than possible through the conventional justice system. One just hopes that media shall exercise its power with more discretion and responsibility to continue facilitating the conventional justice and decision making system rather than trying to replace the same. Similarly, the watchdog like the Press Council of India should be more than careful to ensure that media never overshoots or breaches its power or freedom.

*The views expressed are of the author and do not reflect those of the Government.

Right to Information: Some Reflections and Ruminations
Dr. Saumitra Mohan

As they say, information is necessary to 'form, perform, conform and reform'. It is so basic to any aspect of human existence, be it learning or acquisition of knowledge, performance of one's duties or any activity, compliance to any rules or laws and reform in any system subsequent to revelations of deficiencies discovered and changes required. It is subsequent to this realization that Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was enacted way back in 2005 in our country. Since its enactment in 2005, RTI has become a potent tool in the hands of hoi polloi and it has used this Act to further the cause of democracy and democratic rights in this country. Principles of natural justice also subsumes the right to fair hearing which presumes a right to information.
The various powers and rights accruing to common people under the Act have been widely used, with positive implications for effective governance in this country. The government and its sundry administrative wings have literally been on toes in the past few years providing various kinds of information to different classes of people. The war against various systemic evils unleashed in the wake of RTI has been termed as the 'Third War of Independence'. The conservative bureaucracy can no longer hide behind the fig-leaf of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to deny information to the citizens unless the same could be justified in strict public interest.
Even though RTI came into existence only in 2005 in this country, it is argued that it has always been there an inalienable part of our democratic ethos. The right to information is said to be implied across many disparate rules and provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Indian Factories Act, 1948, The Constitution of India (e.g. Articles 19, 21 and 22), Indian Evidence Act, 1941, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, The Public Records Act and many judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It has also been part of global discourse due to its inclusion in various international Instruments and Conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Right, 1948 and in the Acts/laws of many developed countries.
In fact, for any law or Act to be effective in a democracy, it is very important that the common public is duly informed about the various aspects and provisions. Not only that, these people should also be conscious and conscientized about the need to use their various rights and powers available under the Act. And RTI is no different. The common people of this country have not only been greatly empowered by the Act, but they are also gradually learning to use the same effectively resulting in more democratization of the system.
With the increased popular participation made possible by the Act, the overall accountability in the system has also increased remarkably. As almost any and every information is now in public domain, the wily government servant thinks twice before doing anything wrong as he/she is aware that tomorrow he/she might have to account for or explain the action/decision taken by him/her. The RTI Act has definitely made the administration more transparent and accountable than it ever was.
The basic features of good governance include transparency, accountability and predictability. After the enactment of RTI, these parametres could clearly be seen to be writ large across the governance system in this country. Still, there is a lot which needs to be done to make this Act further effective.
First of all, voluntary disclosure of information and appointment of public information officers (PIOs) as warranted under respective sections 4 and 5 of the Act by various agencies have still not been done suitably and properly. Section 4, sub-section 2 of RTI Act says, "It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information." RTI actually implies the 'Theory of Full Belly' i.e. if someone's stomach is full, he/she would never ask for food. Similarly, if information is provided suo moto, people shall never resort to RTI.
Again, Section 5, sub-section 1 of RTI Act says, "Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act [i.e. 21st June, 2005], designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act." So, it is important that to realise the objective of this Act, the spirit behind these sections are realised and actualised as early as possible.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are approximately 50,00,000 public authorities in the country, still, these SPIOS and ASPIOS (State Public Information Officers and Assistant State Public Information Officers) have not been notified by many of them. And where they have been so notified, they have not been suitably publicised, resulting in confusion and inefficiency in the disposal of the RTI petitions. At many places, there is a single SPIO for the entire Organisation, something which makes the system very cumbersome because of dependence on a lone person. So, the onus could be suitably and conveniently apportioned among many SPIOs for better performance and speedier disposal.
While in the beginning, the public authorities would complain against the paucity of funds to take various measures as required by the Act including voluntary disclosure of information. However, now there is enough contingent funds under different schemes which could be suitably utilised to realise this basic prerequisite to make RTI more effective. As there is always shortage of manpower for such work, it won't be out of place to suggest outsourcing of such works. The massive amount of work required towards voluntary disclosure of information could be better executed by professional agencies skilled in such tasks. The care, however, should be taken to ensure that the information is easy to understand and is provided through suitable linguistic media.
Even though we have come a long way in implementation of RTI in this country, there is still considerable lack of awareness among public and public servants regarding various aspects and provisions of the Act. The ignorance is reflected in the kinds of petitions filed and the responses of various public authorities.
Many of the petitions filed have been found to be motivated. The political parties, as one could say with experience, often use it to literally annoy the local administration e.g. loads of RTI petitions if you don't listen to them or accede to one or the other of their demands. While the brief of the Act is to supply the information available in public domain, people have actually been seeking action and justice under the Act which is not the brief of the Act. Many of the petitions are filed without any purpose or locus standi. More often than not, the way RTI petitions are filed or the way information is sought also creates confusion among the public authorities who themselves are often not clear as to how to deal with such petitions.
Though anyone and everyone could seek any and every information in the public domain, the information not readily available and which involve disproportionate diversion of public resources need not be provided as per section 7, sub-section 9 of the Act. However, such petitioners could seek the benefit of record inspection subject to the payment of requisite charges. Again, many of the public authorities provide information free of cost even to non-BPL people, something which is not advisable as it encourages the non-serious types to file frivolous and motivated petitions. The SPIOs and ASPIOs should invariably desire the RTI petitions to be made along with the payment of the requisite fees as required for the purpose. Not only this, the petitioners should also be asked to fork out the bill for provisioning of information including the inspection charges, Xeroxing charges or charges for providing a CD as applicable.
Sometimes, sending the estimated cost of provisioning information including Xeroxing charges should be sufficient to discourage the non-serious seekers of information to approach public authorities and waste their quality time and energy. In fact, the public authorities could save a lot of their time and energy dealing with such petitions if only they could comply with the directions enshrined in section 4 relating to voluntary disclosure. A good website or kiosk shall do the needful in this regard. The petitioner could just be informed about the website, if one is computer savvy, to access the information required. And for the non-computer savvy ones, the hard copies of such information should be made available in the local libraries.
Many SPIOs and ASPIOs still wait for the approval of their superiors or appellate authorities to finally pass on the information to petitioners, something which delays sharing of information and is completely avoidable. The SPIOs and ASPIOs could right away share information without referring the same to their superiors as should be decided well in advance unless there is confusion with regards to a serious issue or a policy matter. Also, some queries involving lots of manual work could be dealt by requesting or inviting petitioners to come and inspect the records at the payment of requisite charges. The really need shall come forward but the non-serious ones shall never venture forth. But as the burden of providing information within the stipulated timeframe is on SPIO/ASPIO, they definitely should take care to evince enough desire to share the information sought.
There are still many grey areas with regards to implementation of this Act e.g. 'which information is in public domain and which is not' is still not clear to many. The stipulation of provisioning information within 30 days is still very vague as the same is interpreted differently by public and public authorities. As people living below the poverty line (BPL) are exempted from paying charges for information sought, many petitioners have been filing proxy petitions through BPL people to avoid paying charges of accessing information.
Many vague or abstract petitions are often left undisposed for quite some time, even at the expense of inviting pecuniary penalties from the last appellate authority. It would be more advisable to dispose these petitions early by scheduling a quick hearing or by inviting a written clarification from the petitioner. In fact, one needs to be doubly sure before providing information involving some costs. It is, therefore, advisable to hear the petitioner in person in such cases before supplying the same.
The information relating to judiciary and its activities is still out of bounds for the public, something which is still mired in controversy. When we are talking of democracy, people's rights, none being above law, there is no reason why judiciary should be out of RTI ambit. One hopes this tangle is resolved early for making RTI more effective.
Again, there has been a confusion as to whether foreigners or non-citizens could be provided information under the Act. The answer is in the affirmative for the rights admissible to them and for the information available in public domain. While many of the information (as per section 8 of the Act) could not be shared including the information relating to purely personal matters and the information held in fiduciary capacity, but property returns or IT returns of public servants are supposed to be in public domain and could be demanded under RTI. Such petitions should be transferred to the requisite SPIO in time.
The awareness about the various aspects of the Act among public and public authorities need to increase with strengthening of the RTI set up at various levels including provisioning of adequate resources and man power. Given the massive expansion in the welfare state activities, RTI set up is in urgent need of having dedicated officers and staff members to attend to various queries and requests for information from members of the public.
This would definitely make our service delivery more efficient and effective. Those found deliberately skirting or avoiding sharing of information should be duly penalised. But, there should also be action or penalties prescribed against the motivated petitioners. However, the provision for penalties should be applied with lots of care and discretion than arbitrarily as seen in many cases. While there is also a need to clarify and define the role of the competent authorities, some observers feel the need to give more discretionary powers to PIOs and appellate authorities to deal with such situations and cases.

Development Schemes: Need for a Remodelling
Dr. Saumitra Mohan

The social welfare state to realise an objective of an egalitarian society endeavours to ensure maximum good of maximum number of its people. And in its bid to do so, it tries various measures including launching multiple schemes for the hoi polloi. India also has its share of welfare and development schemes and programmes targeted at different sections of the society. Such schemes are executed and implemented by the huge bureaucratic machine in close coordination with the governments at various levels including the local self governments. The contours of a liberal democratic state could very well be delineated by an overview of the detailed planning and execution of such schemes.
Today, there are numerous such welfare schemes and development programmes being run in our country. Some of them include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF), Backward Villages Development Programme, Community Development schemes, Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), Indira Awas Yojana (IAY), Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), various region-specific funds e.g. Uttar Banga Unnayan Prakalp (UUP) or Pachimanchal Unnayan Prakalp (PUP) in West Bengal, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), Swaranjayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY), Special Component Assistance for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes-dominated area development (as in SCA to SCP/TSP), Swajaldhara, Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MSDP), Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Integrated Watershed Development Programme (IWDP) and various other schemes relating to sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry, horticulture and agriculture.
The number of such schemes being directly supervised or implemented through the office of the District Magistrate (DM) or the panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) wherein DM has significant role in ensuring proper implementation of these schemes is endless. The multiplicity of schemes by creating various layers of execution often complicates the execution by making the system cumbersome. The same invariably creates problems during the execution of schemes. It is here that one would like to moot a proposal for the integration and consolidation of all such schemes. This proposal, if minutely planned after factoring in all relevant aspects and practical problems envisaged, shall go a long way in not only improving the planning and execution of these schemes but in also reaching their benefits to the targeted beneficiaries in a more efficient and effective way.
To begin with, such integration and consolidation of schemes/programmes relating to construction and creation of permanent assets or infrastructures should all be pooled together to be one overarching programme. However, the entire programme could be suitably sub-divided into different components with earmarked percentage of the total allotment to be spent on particular sectors e.g. for connectivity improvement, for rural housing, for watershed development, for minority-inhabited areas, for agriculture and so on, depending upon the need or weightage as perceived by the government.
These sectors could still be named variously like now, but they should all be an inalienable part of a single programme with uniform guidelines including those relating to fund management and account keeping. Such uniformity shall facilitate better fund management and efficient account keeping, thereby obviating the need for maintaining multiple ledgers and cash books for multiple schemes. Even if the records or ledgers are maintained sector-wise, there shall still be uniformity. The need for opening and maintaining multiple bank accounts shall no longer be there, thereby making accounting relatively simpler than now. This would ensure better account keeping and better financial management. The complexities created by the need for maintaining scores of records and files shall be eliminated.
The NREGA model is a good example to fall back on. The new programme after integration and consolidation of the multifarious welfare and development schemes should function in the same way as NREGA. Even though NREGS visualises an important roles for BDOs, SDOs and DMs, the role and responsibility of the local self-governments shall still be very important and critical as it is the latter that would do the micro-level planning and execution of the programme as done now. As the scheme has enough allowance for employment of surplus/additional manpower and other administrative desiderata, the various NREGA schemes are never constrained at the executional level in the way as many other schemes are marked as they are by delay and sundry executional snags.
Similarly, the new programme should be modelled on NREGS to be able to benefit from the experience gained through its implementation. NREGS, in its short life-span, has proved to be a leader among all the previous and extant government schemes. It has not only ensured more efficient fund utilisation and better creation of community assets, the various measures visualised to ensure executional transparency have also minimised the scope for corruption and leakage. Hence, NREGS model should be the ideal template for modelling this new avatar on.
However, one still feels that the new scheme should be based on NREGS only after making some rectification and modifications in some of NREGS parametres. These include stipulations relating to employment for minimum number of man-days for every household, wage-material ratio, kind of schemes to be executed and permissibility of scheme execution through contractors. One feels that that after all these schemes are merged together, the pool of financial resources available with the government shall be significant enough to allow for demand-based employment throughout the year. Therefore, the NREGA cap of a minimum of 100 days work in an year for a rural household should be removed completely.
Also, the wage-material ratio should be made 50:50 instead of present 60:40, thereby maintaining the material-intensive work at the level where they are at the moment. But pooling other schemes' wage components with the new scheme shall create enough leverage and leeway to provide work throughout the year to a rural household. Also, deviating from the present NREGA norm of not executing any scheme through contractor, there ought to be a little scope for 15 per cent of the total schemes to be executed through contractors. The scheme permissible to be executed through the contractors shall be material-intensive (say those which shall require 80 per cent material) and which shall require to be executed emergently. The decision for selection of such schemes must be left to the discretion of the local self-government.
Similarity and uniformity stemming from the integration and consolidation of many of these ongoing schemes and programmes shall markedly improve monitoring and supervision at the field level. The consolidation of these schemes shall also mean availability of more contingent funds, allowing for engagement of additional manpower and additional supervisory infrastructures as permissible under NREGP now. The transparency norms imported from NREGP shall ensure that the common public remain duly informed and participate at the various levels of planning and execution of the schemes. Also, the manpower now engaged in implementation of different other schemes shall become available and could be pooled together for better supervision and monitoring.
Many of the present schemes require identification of beneficiaries which often become cause of partisan politics and friction. The same not only often results in violent clashes or deadlock in the working of the panchayats or decision-making bodies, but also results in delaying the execution of the entire scheme e.g. IAY. After the new programme comes into being, there shall be no need for beneficiary identification as the new scheme shall not be confined to BPL families only as is the case with NREGS whose benefits are available to all sections of society.
There could, however, be a priority list to be decided by the local self-government e.g. Gram Sabha in accordance with which various individual benefit schemes (IBSs) including low-cost housing or sanitary toilets shall be built. The number and kind of schemes to be taken up under individual benefit schemes could be further diversified to include rural housing, sanitation, kitchen gardens et al to cater to many other perceived needs of the people in the countryside. And the truth remains that present focus of NREGA cannot be sustained beyond a point e.g. we cannot continue constructing water harvesting, minor irrigation or flood proofing structures beyond a point as land is limited.
So, we need to get ready in advance to prepare for future by modifying the way we reach various benefits to the underprivileged sections of the society. As almost any and every scheme could be executed depending on the availability of skilled and non-skilled manpower, there shall not be any need for wasting time in discussing the advisability of a scheme. The local self-government shall have a shelf of schemes which shall be executed in order of priority. This would save a lot of time and cost over-runs would be avoided, thereby improving creation of capital assets in the countryside and thereby also bridging the rural-urban divide.
Whether such a programme shall be extended to urban areas or not shall depend on the decision to merge the schemes executed by the municipal bodies with the proposed programme. But if we do it, it shall not be such a bad idea as it shall give a better fillip to development process in the municipal areas though there could be different programme officer e.g. the municipal commissioners or executive officers could do the needful in this regard.
The above is just a proposal and this author feels that the same needs to be considered, discussed and debated thoroughly before actually going on the anvil. One does feel that such a programme shall definitely revolutionise the way different welfare and development programmes are planned and executed in this country.

National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme: An Overview
Dr. Saumitra Mohan

National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGA) has been in operation for over four years and is being implemented in all the districts of this country. NREGA has turned out to be one of the most fascinating schemes launched by the State, generating lots of expectations because of the success story it has turned out to be.

Many executional problems and criticisms of certain aspects of the scheme notwithstanding, NREGA is the flagship scheme which has become the principal vehicle for extension of government benefits to the unemployed masses of this country. The changes in the quality of people’s life could be easily noticed in the countryside as also the massive infrastructures created under the scheme. The purchasing power generated has also created positive spin offs and multiplier effects for the economy as a whole.

However, the programme does require some structural and conceptual modifications to be better able to realise its objectives in the light of experience gained during its operation over the years. It is very well known that almost the districts across the country have not been able to harness the scheme uniformally as the performance varies from state to state. Not only this, none of the districts could realise the target of providing 100 days of employment to all the job card holders even though financial allocations for the programme have never been a constraint.

It is argued that NREGA being a demand-driven scheme, the emphasis should be on provisioning of employment to those demanding work rather than on expenditure of fund allotted. But the fact remains that there are still hundreds of thousands of people in need of work in this country. It is felt that the implementing agencies i.e. district administration and various line departments could be and need to be more proactive in reaching out to the people needing work through better ‘information-education-awareness’ (IEC) programme. Many people still do not know that they can rightfully demand work under NREGA and shall be paid an ‘Unemployment Allowance’ in case of failure to provide the same within 15 days of demanding work.

A regional variation in terms of utilisation of allotted amount has been observed as some states have availed of larger amounts compared to many others. Many states including Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala have done exceedingly well in terms of fund utilisation and number of schemes executed. The same has resulted in creation of massive purchasing power of the local people in those states, while many other states have also started catching up, West Bengal being one of them.

If still many people do not come forward to do work under NREGA, the reason for the same is said to be the availability of work at higher wages in the private sectors than the one provided under NREGA, resulting in less utilisation of the allotted funds. This explanation may be tenable for the relatively developed states or for the urban areas even in the backward states, but definitely not for the rural and underdeveloped areas in states like Bihar, Jharkhand or Uttar Pradesh. These states definitely should have been able to utilise more money providing more number of employment than they have been able to do so far.

One feels that as the Indian economy grows at the sizzling rate of over seven per cent, there shall be more people attracted to work at the more attractive market wage rates than the minimum wage ranging from 75 to 140 as provided under NREGA. Since no state has been able to provide hundred days of employment to all its citizens, there is definitely a need to take the required corrective measures to reach the said target.

In fact, at this stage of the scheme, it is advisable that we should get more daring and remove the ceiling of 100 days and make it a completely demand driven employment guarantee scheme to be available throughout the year for as many person-days as might be demanded. At least, the individual cap of 100 days per household should be removed. This would allow the individual district to go on providing work to individual household beyond 100 days’ ceiling. It would also enable them to utilise their own projected quota of man-days calculated against the number of existing household for that particular district.

With states unable to realise even 100 days of employment, the drain on government resources is not going to be something beyond its reach. This is more so when more work at higher wages are likely to be available in the private sector in times to come, given the way our economy seems to be performing. With India being one of the demographically young countries, more people are likely to be in the productive age groups meaning thereby they shall all be need to be provided with work. Hence, the need to modify the minimum number of mandays’ stipulations as envisaged in the Act at the moment.

Knowing that employment would be available for asking in the villages itself, the wage labourers will be less motivated to head towards the urban areas for seeking wage employment thereby reducing migration from village to cities. The same shall also reduce pressure on urban amenities and infrastructures. As a result, there is likely to be enough work left for the urban workers. As there shall be less number of persons competing for work in the urban areas, it is likely that the urban wage labourers would get higher and more rewarding wages. It is felt that the same reduces the need for the government to formulate any such wage employment guarantee programme for the urban workers.

The objective of the scheme includes not only provisioning of guaranteed employment in the rural areas to discourage rural-urban migration, but also to create gainful assets in the countryside. It is, therefore, advisable for the government to keep revising the minimum wages from time to time to reflect the market wages as also to diminish attraction of higher wage employment s as might be available in the urban areas. If this does not happen, people would not feel encouraged to stay back in the villages to work for NREGA schemes thereby reducing the opportunities to create basic amenities and civic infrastructures in the rural areas.

It is felt by many that NREGA being a demand driven programme, people should be willing to do the work at the government approved rates, which is the minimum wage sufficient to sustain a household per day. If the people are getting work at higher wages elsewhere, they should go ahead and do it. This would result in saving of government money which can be better utilised for implementation of other ongoing welfare programmes run by the government including NREGA as well as for undertaking more material-intensive schemes.

During rainy season and other such busy seasons which may vary from state to state, people get higher wages in the rural areas itself thereby leaving very few volunteers for wage employment works in the countryside thereby resulting in less utilisation of the NREGA money. But one would say that less or more utilisation of NREGA allotment should not be a criterion to judge the success of the programme. Less utilisation may also mean that there is less demand for such work in that particular area. This should actually be seen as a development indicator as that means people are getting work at higher wages elsewhere, thereby reducing dependence on government to provide such wage employment.

However, one does find it surprising when one sees that work demanded is significantly less even in those areas where people living below the poverty line are more than the usual and are still not demanding work under NREGA. It feels more surprising when such people keep sitting idle without doing any work, while plenty opportunities could be created under NREGA for not only providing them with work, but also for creating productive assets in the countryside resulting in enhancement of basic quality of life for the inhabitants.

So, it does feel that there has not been done enough ground work for creating awareness about the programme. It has been observed that people are still not aware of the fact that they can demand work under NREGA as a matter of their right. Most of them are still not aware of their right to demand unemployment allowance as a result of implementing agency’s failure to provide the work within the statutory fifteen days of the receipt of petition demanding such a wage employment. The necessary allocations for such IEC exercises also remain unutilised in a good number of cases.

Surprisingly, unemployment allowance paid so far anywhere in the country is a very negligible amount of the total expenditure. The reason proffered for the same is provisioning of job within the statutory 15 days which is not the case. Actually, many implementing agencies have mastered the art of refusing unemployment allowance by not issuing the signed receipt for the applications demanding job. The payment of unemployment allowance is not only a charge on the local government, but also means the failure of the implementing agency to provide job within 15 days.

In case of such a failure, the officers and staff members concerned are supposed to be penalised if responsibility is fixed. Hence, the penchant for avoiding payment of unemployment allowances. There have reportedly been regular failures on the part of the many executing agencies to provide the demanded work within fifteen days, thereby defeating the very objective of NREGA. Not only this, no government official has yet been penalised for having failed to realise this programme objective notwithstanding there being the provision for the same.

Under NREGA, there is an in-built mechanism to check corruption and leakage of government money by means of better supervisory and monitoring arrangements. The same is supposed to be ensured by way of regular monitoring, field visits, muster roll checking by public, wide publicity of the details of the work being done or already done through an information board and other social auditing measures by the beneficiaries and other members of the society. The muster rolls are supposed to be publicly read to ward off corruption. However, the same is not being done regularly, thereby giving rise to suspicion of foul play. The provision of keeping an account of job demanded and provided through the specially designed individual job cards carrying photographs of the household members is also supposed to be a major anti-corruption tool.

However, it was believed that these very arrangements were reasons for a general apathy initially among the programme implementing agencies to implement the scheme effectively as there was almost negligible scope for siphoning of government money as was available earlier during the previous wage employment schemes including Swarnjayanti Gram Rojgar Yojna (SGRY) days.

But as they say, human ingenuity knows no bounds. The vested interests immediately discovered newer ways to sabotage the programme and got onto the gravy train. If some newspaper reports are to be believed, not only many fake job cards have come to notice of the monitors, but also there have been many reports where it has been found that implementing agencies or locally dominant factions have got a good number of job cards deposited in their custody and are using the same for nefarious purpose of minting money illegally.

Reports of preparation of cooked-up muster rolls without execution of any work have also come to notice, not to speak of many other known ways of making money. Not only this, employment to job card holders is still being given more as an obligation than as a matter of right. It is complained that the site selection for the schemes is often politically motivated. Usually, those areas are alleged to be preferred for NREGA works which are under control of the locally dominant factions, and not those as are populated by the supporters other than the locally dominant factions. It has also been alleged that the locally dominant party often uses the scheme to oblige its supporters, thereby giving a miss to the workers who are opposition followers.

It has been alleged that by means of fake cards, the vested interests have ensured siphoning of government money by making false entries into the muster roll and the daily attendance sheet. It has also been complained that job cards have not been issued to all those who wanted it and applied for it, but only to those who are loyal to the locally dominant party/faction or could grease some palms. The practice of getting a cut out of the labour wages of workers has also come to the notice and has been reported in the press. With regular monitoring, supervision and participatory social audit, scope for such shenanigans have been reduced considerably.

Also, the wage is supposed to be paid as per the quantum of work done by the individual labourers. However, the same has been noticed to be paid at a flat rate irrespective of the efficiency or work quantum standards in some of the cases, thereby rewarding a hare and a tortoise equally, something which goes against the purported objective of the scheme. The initial idea was that those working harder with higher productivity should be able to earn higher wages under the scheme. At many of the places, officials have pointed to the practical constraint of continuing with the ‘flat rate wage payment’ as differentiated payment creates discontentment among the workers.

Again, the workers have often unfairly refused to work beyond a few hours or at the pre-determined wage on various pretexts. This is simply because NREGA being a government scheme, they would not like to work harder and would like to just have their wages without putting in the requisite labour for a requisite output. At least, that is what has come to be heard by the implementing agencies at some places. But thankfully such instances are only few and far between.

Also, the basic work site amenities as are supposed to be there as per the programme guideline are often not found to be available. The provisioning of a crèche for children of working women, provisioning of the first aid boxes or potable water at the work sites are still not seen at most of the places. The stock argument proffered is that people feel that employment created through such works are less strenuous and villagers object to the fact that some people can earn their wages without putting in any hard labour.

If at all such amenities are provided, they are only to comply with the guideline rather than to fulfil the real spirit behind the provision. What they fail to realise is that such works can accommodate not only the physically handicapped people, but the same works can be rotated among the beneficiaries, if the handicapped or such other people are not readily available.

The signboard giving details of the ongoing or completed NREGA works is also found missing at many of the sites and is often put up without much details. However, the absence of the information board giving scheme details says something about the intentions of the implementing agencies, the motives being pre-empting people to question the quality and quantity of the works done. But such an argument does not stand in this age of Right to Information when any and every information can be accessed by way of the rights created under the said Act.

Several suggestions are being made to modify and improve NREGA further. It is felt by many that the material-wage ratio of 40-60 should be hiked to be 50-50 and this ceiling should be flexible enough to be applicable only at the state level so as to make allowance for taking up bigger and better schemes. The use of machineries should be made more flexible than it is admissible now though the same should be explicitly linked to facilitating the works and without compromising the generation of more mandays under NREGA.

Again, individual benefit schemes (IBS) have been allowed for weaker sections/marginal/small farmers for the permissible schemes under NREGA. Such schemes include conversion of wasteland/uncultivable/undulating land into cultivable land, roof-top water harvesting structures, construction of dug-wells, soil conservation, excavation of pond/water harvesting structures, social forestry schemes, watershed development schemes, construction of irrigation channels and some other schemes.

Many states have done exceedingly well while many other states have a long way to go on this count. One feels that there is a need to move methodically with regards to the implementation of IBS under NREGA as the same shall not only result in creation of more mandays in the under/undeveloped areas, but shall also create productive assets in the countryside. The same is likely to have immense multiplier effects. Timely identification of beneficiaries and creation of model scheme banks shall go a long way.

Again, there is a lot of scope for convergence or dove-tailing of NREGA with other schemes/programmes implemented by the line departments. If converged with other cognate schemes, the same shall help in more employment generation. It shall also result in improvement in the quality of schemes executed as the pool of resources available shall increase manifold through such convergence.

Convergence with Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) shall be another area requiring attention of the policy makers. As is known, TSC is one of the flagship schemes of the Government. However, the same has not been in a very good shape in many parts of the country. Even at the places where sanitary toilets have been constructed, they are not being used by the beneficiaries for different reasons including the one relating to the quality of the toilet constructed if feedback from the beneficiaries are to be relied upon. The main problem against the extant model is need of lot of water for flushing the night-soil which becomes more acute in the water-deficient areas. As the new model envisages use of ceramic pan in stead of a concrete one, water requirement could be greatly reduced.

Now that we are undertaking several individual benefit schemes (IBS) under schemes like NREGA, one feels that the convergence between the two (i.e. NREGA and TSC) can do wonders for both the development programmes, particularly TSC. Since now we allow expenditure upto a maximum of Rs. 150,000 for an IBS under NREGA for the small/marginal farmers, the dove-tailing of the schemes can do wonders to TSC, a scheme critical to the basic health and hygiene in the countryside.

Under the proposed convergence programme, people could be encouraged to contribute their share (Rs. 300/BPL household Rs. 2200 scheme subsidy and Rs. 2500/APL household) and then the rest could be contributed out of NREGA, thereby greatly encouraging people to opt for construction of sanitary toilets in their premises. Such models are not only more durable, they shall also need less water for flushing the night-soil. The total cost of a sanitary toilet under the proposed convergence may be around Rs. 6500. It is hoped that with proper IEC (Information, Education and Communication) campaign, the said convergence can do a world of good to our sanitation programme.

We are hopeful that this model of sanitary toilets when integrated with the IBS under NREGA has the possibility of becoming quite popular and could realize the objectives of the total sanitation campaign. This small piece of change to be effected through NREGA funds (if allowed) could go a long way in ensuring better health and hygiene in our countryside, not to speak of the possibility of unleashing immense opportunities for employment generation.

The administration of NREGA can improve further with a dedicated Programme Management Unit (envisaged, but still not done at many places) at all the levels including districts, blocks and Gram Panchayats. There is also a need for proper utilisation of the six per cent contingency provided for provisioning of the requisite infrastructures and manpower required for better programme implementation. Fund flow to various programme implementing agencies (PIAs) has to improve with proper coordination among the District Programme Management Unit, banks, post offices and all other concerned.

Newer NREGA schemes should be taken up. Such schemes may include solid waste management, more IBSs, drainage system, construction of model houses (of specific value a la IAY), sanitary toilets, kitchen gardens, rural hats, repair and maintenance of government building including construction of boundary walls. Self help groups (SHGs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) need to be involved in a huge way in various ways in implementations of the schemes including monitoring, work measurement and social auditing of the scheme.

Approved and vetted shelf of schemes should be ready for better and faster implementation of the NREGA schemes. Also, there is a need for the proper planning for all the seasons of the year. Still, the focus seems to be on expenditure of maximum money under NREGA but as it is a demand-driven scheme, the focus should be to generate employment for the unemployed to prevent them from emigrating to the urban areas while also creating valuable assets in the countryside.

If NREGA has to be successful in realising its programme objectives, then these concerns and problems, as mentioned above, need to be addressed sooner rather than later. One just hopes that with regular monitoring, social auditing and proper accounting coupled with some positive changes required in the light of experience gained during its operation over the years, NREGA can really become an effective answer to many of the problems for India’s poor masses.