MGNREGA Reform: Fix the Holes in the Safety Net
That MGNREGA needs to be reformed is evident; however, what needs to change are not the basic tenets of the programme but implementation and supply-side issues that interfere with the smooth running of the programme and block benefits that provide a safety-net to the rural poor in the lean agricultural season and also to tide them through the sudden loss in livelihood opportunities.
G ufu, a village in Torpa block, Khunti district, Jharkhand, stands out as an example of how SHG women have successfully implemented the Special Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) project, built livelihood-enhancing assets and diversified their livelihoods portfolio. Gufu is now a self-sustaining hamlet, where families have increased and stabilized their income through improved and diversified agro-horticulture practices.
On a recent visit to Gufu, two interesting facts came up. First, some of the villagers (part of the SHG families) still seek employment under MGNREGA, mostly during the lean agricultural season. And second, supply-side issues such as delays in wage payment deter many families from seeking employment under MGNREGA.
This situation clearly answers the questions on MGNREGA that have been raised recently, primarily on the ‘utility’ of the programme and its need and importance for the rural poor. Even in a village such as Gufu, the rural poor need the protection of a safety net during the lean agricultural season; at the same time, many of them have apprehensions about accessing the resources available through MGNREGA because of the innumerable supply-side issues.
Recent reports in the print and electronic media point to the plan of the central government to change some basic tenets of the programme. The government records on the proposed changes in MGNREGA, accessed through RTI by a group of activists, show that the government is planning to limit the programme to 200 districts, and also to change the wage-material ratio from the existing 60:40 to 51:49. The programme has also come under criticism—some of it constructive and some seeming rant.