As member of the National Advisory Council, NC Saxena has been instrumental in giving inputs to key legislation on national rural development, land acquisition and food security. In an interview with MK Venu for Rajya Sabha Television, Saxena says NREGA has not performed according to expectations, and points to the need for adequate monitoring of welfare programmes. He also feels that the government must help industry which creates jobs and wealth, but is unable to acquire land on its own. Excerpts:
What is the impact of legislation on rural development, land acquisition and food security? How are you implementing them?
There is a need for programmes backed by legislation as a right to people so that implementation can be properly enforced. Food, job creation and agriculture are state subjects, but in the first 40 years of independence, states couldn’t do much for elementary education. In 1990, the central government intervened by providing more funds, but implementation continues to be with the states. In order to be achieve the proclaimed objectives of these programmes, we need to create certain rights.
What is your view on National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) which is assumed to be a mixed bag?
I am, to a certain extent, disappointed with NREGA. Its main objective was to take up work which leads to agricultural production and asset creation so that small and marginal holdings yield much more and give a fillip to agricultural production. But this has not been achieved as state governments are working only on job creation, not asset creation. That way, NREGA has had limited success.
Is there a need to decentralise the designing of these schemes?
Some of these schemes are already highly decentralised. District authorities are competent to decide which projects must be implemented. However, there is a variation in districts in Kerala, the north-east and Himachal Pradesh, where labour is scarce. Therefore, those districts need not be included in NREGA. It is the poor districts with high levels of poverty which need ponds as there is no availability of water there, and because it improves production. But evidence shows the impact of NREGA is that it actually may have hurt agricultural production because of the rise in wages.
Is it true that states with higher per capita income and human development index (HDI) can implement these schemes better?
NREGA is at its best in Rajasthan where asset creation in terms of maintenance is better. Andhra Pradesh is second and Chhattisgarh has done well in food security. So, one can’t generalise. Kerala is a state where per capita income is high but implementation of health and education programmes is by the private sector. This is because of historical reasons as states away from Delhi have more autonomy.
Is it because of the political will of strong regional
parties?
The experience varies. Himachal Pradesh and Mizoram have done well but HDI differs across states. For instance, Orissa’s development and a rising per capita income is not because of pro-poor development, but industrialisation.
What are the problems with the socio-economic caste survey?
Programmes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, NRHM and ICDS are universal and 70-80% people depend on government support. On the other hand, targeted programmes like in PDS show that a large number of errors of inclusion and exclusion can creep in. I have great doubts about this new methodology as it has two problems. The first is the high weightage being given to the landless. Also, if you are belong to the SC/ST category, you get one point. This means a state like Uttarakhand that has less SC/ST population will show less poverty under the survey. The second problem is with the census itself as the answers will determine if I would get a BPL card or not and hence, the attached incentive (to provide wrong information).
How can it be solved then?
One can do a state-wise tab on the number of poor people in the state as decided by the deputy chairman of Planning Commission and the rural development minister. Therefore, figures from the survey data and inter-state data maybe different. Hence, the poverty limit in Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh will come down but in Punjab and Kerala would go up. The socio-economic caste survey will throw more people into dissatisfaction. I’m not confident about the survey data. The government had said that the results of the survey would be out by end of 2011 but I don’t think they’ll come by this year either, as states like Bihar have not started the survey as yet.
Then how will the government decide on budget allocation?
The government can accept the existing poverty figures from states and raise it by 10%.
2011 saw a face-off between the industry and mining projects. Where are we today? Has the government found a compromise?
We require industrial growth and mining is a primary, basic industry to which we give high priority. Unfortunately, in India, the after-affects of mining include displacement or deforestation, which have not been addressed very well. R15,000 crore have been given in the CAMPA fund for compensatory afforestation but that is not being utilised. It is easy to reconcile the interest of miners and people, but government hasn?t been able to come up with a good law on land acquisition.
What are the issues on the land acquisition bill? What is its status?
Most land acquisition for public purpose is to be fulfilled by the private industry for setting up thermal or hydro power projects and people want compensation for it. The new Bill says that 80% of project-affected people must say yes and this would happen when they are sure of getting good compensation. So, compensation has been increased four times, and R3,000 per month would be given for 20 years.
If land prices go up, then it is shared with the original owners. The Bill is in the standing committee at present.A large number of private companies create jobs and wealth and contribute to the economy, but they can’t buy land. The government needs to step in and not leave it to market forces. Instead, it must ensure that industry gets land soon and owners are compensated well.
Can we afford to pump in so much money into these schemes without proper implementation design?
Schemes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan and NRHM are well-designed and the states are doing well. Infant mortality rate is going down and there is positive news on the health front but ICDS and Forest Rights Act are badly designed and not evaluated from time to time; so, the government doesn?t know which states are doing well. R60,000 crore was given as food subsidy but not even R60 lakh was spent on evaluation. So, the government should put pressure on states through evaluation and monitoring and involving the press and civil society.
