Image Courtesy: Hindustan Times

In a statement released today, the Morcha said:
On the central issue of inadequate funds which several MPs raised and NREGA workers and citizens groups have been consistently demanding for years, the minister responded by first simply citing a cumulative budget amount between 2014 and 2019 comparing it to the period between 2008 and 2013. These figures are meaningless because they do not give people a sense of the real decline in MGNREGA allocation in the budget.

The Minister then went to on to say that this government has regularly increased the budget allocation for MGNREGA. This, says the Morcha’s statement, “ is an outright lie” made on the floor of the house. In fact the minister himself presented the figures of Rs. 55,000 crores in 2017-18, followed by Rs. 61,084 crores in 2018-19 and Rs. 60,000 crores in 2019-20. By his own figures, the budget allocation for MGNREGA in this financial year (Rs. 60,000 cores) is less than that of the previous year (Rs. 61,084 cores).

Moreover, with pending liabilities mounting at the end of the every financial cycle (20-35% of budget allocation) and inflation increasing every year, both incontrovertible facts, even a seemingly small decrease in the allocation for the program brings implementation to a grinding halt on the ground. The dismissal of the demand for higher allocation for the program without any acknowledgement of this reality and presenting inaccurate figures demonstrates the intent of this government to continue to choke funds to MGNREGA while misleading the public and elected representatives alike.

Second, the minister announced that 99% of MGNREGA payments are going into workers accounts. While this is true, the payment to bank accounts has nothing to do with the work of this government. The shift from cash to bank accounts dates back to 2010. What the minister refused to address is the issue of delayed payments linked to the non-availability of timely funds which has strangled the program and adversely affected the lives of millions of workers. Also, the minister seems to be ignorant about the fact that the payments are still routinely delayed and the Adhaar based payments through the fragile rural banking systems have further added to the plights of the  workers.

Rightfully acknowledging the role of MGNREGA in providing alternative employment across rural India, the Minister cited official figures of 268 crore person days provided in 2018-19 of which a little over half the share of employment went to women (55%). However, activists and researchers have been pointing out for years that MGNREGA is functioning far below its potential. The Minister however seems unaware of this reality because according to him 52% of households that have worked under the program have been employed for a 100 days. This figure is nothing but fiction. Never in the history of MGNREGA, have more than 10% of households received the full 100 days of guaranteed employment and average days of employment has not gone beyond 51. 
 
After the presentation of these grossly misleading figures, followed a bizarre statement where the Minister said that he is not in favour of the continuation of NREGA because it is a program designed for the poor and this government is committed to eliminating poverty.
 
The Morcha has condemned this statement on two counts.
 
First, MGNREGA is an act of Parliament with constitutional backing and is not subject to the whims and beliefs of individual ministers that come and go.
 
Secondly, the statement reveals an anti-poor bias of this government which seems to be more interested in “eliminating” the poor rather that addressing the complex issues of poverty and inequality that rural India continue to face in 2019. This statement also reveals a complete lack of understanding of the role MGNREGA has played in addressing rural poverty. There is now ample evidence to show that MGNREGA has served as a lifeline for the rural poor with one out of every three households having worked under the program since its inception. Just as one example, according to the NCAER report, at least 25% of the decline in poverty since 2004-05 for participating households can be attributed to MGNREGA.
 
Last year, the average increase in MGNREGA wages across the country were at a measly 2.6%. At a time when large parts of the country are experiencing yet another drought, unemployment is at a historical high and the poor are still recovering from 2016’s demonetisation which crippled the informal economy and led to job-losses for millions across the country, rural wages remain stagnant.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld minimum wages as a fundamental right and equated payment of anything less as “forced labour”. Un-remunerative NREGA wages, coupled with long delays in wage payments – even non-payment of wages in many cases – has turned many rural workers away from the employment guarantee programme.

For 33 states and Union Territories the NREGA wage rate is less than the corresponding minimum wage for agriculture, condemning its employment guarantee act workers to another year of bonded labour.

The NREGA Sangharsh Morcha has strongly condemned this anti-workers decision and demands an increase in the NREGA wage rate to Rs. 600 a day. This follows the Seventh Pay Commission recommendation of Rs. 18,000 as the minimum monthly salary.
 
Related Articles:
1. When Rural Jobs Disappear, Women Are The First To Lose Out
2. 19 Lakh Jobless in Gujarat, not Six Lakh: Gujarati Economist

The post 9-Hr House Debate on Rural Dev, MGNREGA reveals GOI Contempt for Worker, Underprivileged: Forum appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This is most evident in the document required for proving one’s Indian citizenship. The NRC authority has categorised them into two lists, A and B. According to the NRC website:

1. The first requirement is collection of ANY ONE of the following documents of List A issued before midnight of 24th March, 1971 where name of self or ancestor* appears (to prove residence in Assam up to midnight of 24th March, 1971).
 

• (1) 1951 NRC OR
• (2) Electoral Roll(s) up to 24th March 1971 (midnight) OR
• (3) Land & Tenancy Records OR
• (4) Citizenship Certificate OR
• (5) Permanent Residential Certificate OR
• (6) Refugee Registration Certificate OR
• (7) Passport OR
• (8) LIC OR
• (9) Any Govt. issued License/Certificate OR
• (10) Govt. Service/ Employment Certificate OR
• (11) Bank/Post Office Accounts OR
• (12) Birth Certificate OR
• (13) Board/University Educational Certificate OR
• (14) Court Records/Processes.

Here the NRC authority makes a special mention of two documents, viz (1) Circle Officer/GP Secretary Certificate in respect of married women migrating after marriage (can be of any year before or after 24th March (midnight) 1971), and (2) Ration Card issued up to the midnight of 24th March, 1971. According to the NRC authority, these can be adduced as supporting documents. However, these two documents shall be accepted only if accompanied by any one of the documents listed above.

2. The Second requirement arises if name in any of the documents of List A is not of the applicant himself/herself but that of an ancestor, namely, father or mother or grandfather or grandmother or great grandfather or great grandmother (and so on) of the applicant. In such cases, the applicant shall have to submit documents as in List B below to establish relationship with such ancestor, i.e., father or mother or grandfather or grandmother or great grandfather or great grandmother etc. whose name appears in List A. Such documents shall have to be legally acceptable document which clearly proves such relationship.
 

• (1) Birth Certificate OR
• (2) Land document OR
• (3) Board/University Certificate OR
• (4) Bank/LIC/Post Office records OR
• (5) Circle Officer/GP Secretary Certificate in case of married women OR
• (6) Electoral Roll OR
• (7) Ration Card OR
• (8) Any other legally acceptable document

Now, let us look at some of these documents individually.

Electoral Rolls: The NRC of 1951 was converted from the electoral rolls of that year. Subsequent electoral rolls up to the midnight of March 24, 1971 are also acceptable. However, it is important to understand that electoral rolls only reflect people who are adults. Also, while voting is a right, it’s not a duty and no one can be compelled to enrol their names in the voters list. Therefore, it is possible that many people’s names are missing in these electoral rolls. Additionally, there have been several instances of minor discrepancies in the spelling of names like in the case of Saken Ali whose name was spelled with an extra ‘h’ led him to spend 5 years in a detention camp! Similarly, errors made by Election Commission officials while recording names like in the case of Saman Malik who was also sent to a detention camp because EC officials recorded his name as a rather improbable Syamlal Ali!

Land records: Only people who have enough financial resources to own land or those who have inherited it, have any land records. Even tenancy records can only belong to people who can afford to pay rent. This excludes homeless people and those who live in makeshift shanties, or people who constantly move from one place to another in search of work. These nomadic populations and ever moving workers often do not have any documents of residence. Additionally, the Brahma Committee, that was set up in February 2017 on instructions from Assam Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal to for protection of land rights of indigenous people found that 90 percent of the natives do not have proper land documents. Hari Shankar Brahma under whom the committee was formed told Economic Times, “Ninety per cent of the native people do not have myadi patta (permanent land settlement), they have either eksonia patta (annual land settlement) or are occupying government land.” The committee also discovered that many natives of Tinsukia, Dhibrugarh and Majuli, whose forefathers had lost land during the 1950 earth quake also do not possess any land documents.

Passport: At one point of time having a passport was a status symbol. It meant one was wealthy and fortunate enough to have the opportunity to travel abroad. Which is why people from low income backgrounds rarely applied for it. Even today, out of India’s total population of 1.3 billion people, only about 65 million passport holders.

LIC document: Even today India is grossly underinsured and frankly, insurance is a privilege as many people are excluded from it due to various disqualifying factors including but not limited to health and wealth. Also, not many people find it important or necessary to have insurance and people can’t be forced to buy insurance. In fact, 988 million people do not have life insurance even today! According to this piece in Bloomberg Quint, “India had about 328 million life insurance policies in 2017, according to data from the Handbook on Indian Insurance Statistics, 2016-17, of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). Assuming each policy corresponds to a unique citizen, this accounts for 25 percent of the population having life insurance cover, leaving 75 percent–or 988 million Indians–without cover.”  

Bank Accounts: Even today, more that 190 million Indians do not have a bank account. And despite PM Narendra Modi’s aggressive Jan Dhan scheme, more than 50 percent of those accounts are also lying dormant. Ground realities in India are far cry from what is showcased in glossy campaign advertisements and financial inclusion is a challenge for those employed in the informal sector, the daily wage earners who live from hand to mouth. There is an over dependence on cash transactions as they are seen as tangible, swift and more reliable by those not exposed to digital technology and necessary education required to appreciate electronic payments.

Birth Certificates: Now, it is important to note that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act was enacted in 1969. This act made it compulsory to register all births. According to UNICEF, “The current registration level of births and deaths in the country is about 58% for births and 54% for deaths. Each year about 42% of births go unregistered, which is about 10 million births.” Now if this is the case today, imagine what it was like before 1971!  

Board/University/Education certificate: Now, bear in mind that all legacy documents have to be prior to the March 24, 1971 deadline. So if someone wants to use their father or grandfather’s school leaving certificate, it first means that they should have been enrolled in school, an opportunity that was a privilege for low income families back in the day. Gauhati High Court advocate Mrinmoy Dutta gives an example, “According to the 1961 census, there were 1, 41,948 matriculates in Assam.” This shows that only a fraction of the state’s population was fortunate enough to have access to formal education. It doesn’t matter if education is made free. The bigger challenges are the absence of adequate teachers, the drop-out rate due to poverty. Especially in case of girls the lack of toilets is a huge deterrent. This often leads to many girls being forced to drop out when they hit puberty.

Women have it worst: It is also noteworthy that girls from low income and socially backward communities are often married off at an early age. They rarely have birth certificates as most are born at home rather that in hospitals or healthcare centers. Many are not sent to school and have no education documents. In fact very often they have absolutely no documents, which is why the Panchayat Secretary or Gaon Burah’s certificate was seen as a lifeline. Though a long court battle ensured that the certificate was considered valid, it was deemed a weak document and needed to be backed up with other documents, leaving married women in the lurch! Read about this 70 year old woman who is rotting away in a detention camp for this very reason.

So while the readers of this piece might have many or most of the above documents and might consider the process flawless, it is the underprivileged who pay a price… with their citizenship. It makes one wonder if this is all a part of a larger plan to exclude the poor and further marginalise them.
 

The post Are citizenship determining processes in Assam biased against the underprivileged? appeared first on SabrangIndia.