This is the foremost conclusion that can be drawn from a five-day awareness-building and fact-finding campaign organised under the aegis of the PACS Programme in 11 most backward districts of the state.

The campaign, organised in June 18-22, 2008, was part of NREGS Campaign 2008, initiated by the Management Consultants of the PACS Programme in consultation with DFID-India (to read about NREGS Campaign 2008 click here).

In Maharashtra, the campaign is being run in 11 districts of the state that were covered under the first phase of the PACS Programme: Aurangabad, Latur, Jalna, Beed, Hingoli, Parbhani, Nanded and Osmanabad (all in Marathwada), and Buldhana, Yavatmal and Gadchiroli (all in Vidarbha).

Of these, Beed, Latur, Parbhani and Jalna were brought under the NREGS only recently, under Phase III of the scheme, effective from April 1, 2008.

Activities

NREGS Campaign 2008 involves several activities at different stages. The first is an intensive village-level campaign, preceded by identification of villages and detailed planning of activities during the campaign.

In Maharashtra, planning was done at a state-level workshop held on June 10, 2008, followed by district-level meetings. Participating civil society organisations (CSOs) were PACS Programme partners as well as CSOs that are part of the Dushkal Hatavu Manus Jagavu (DHMJ) drought forum network initiated by the programme.

Subsequently, the village-level campaign was held in a total of 100 villages by 100 CSOs, most of them small, grassroots organisations.

The main activities carried out were holding village meetings, awareness rallies, interactions with NREGS workers and displaying information about the MREGS at prominent places.

In some places, meetings were also held with the concerned local-, block- and district-level government officials. In Pusara, Talegaon and Bhopa villages of Beed district, local officials like the talathi, tehsildar and gram sevak participated in the closing day function of the village-level campaign. In Jalna and Parbhani, morchas were taken out to the office of the tehsildar and deputy collector, demanding the start of MREGS work in the district.

In Latur, Osmanabad and Gadchiroli, local singers and dance and drama troupes were used to spread the message about MREGS in some villages. In Yavatmal, CSOs distributed copies of a book on the MREGS written by DHMJ committee member Pramod Jhinjade.

Along with these activities, CSOs gathered first-hand information about the state of the MREGS in the selected villages.

The picture that emerged is disheartening.

Official apathy

It is well known that the MREGS is a non-starter in many parts of the state because of open resistance from village development officers, or gram sevaks, and talathis, local revenue department officials, who do not want to take on the additional work.

The virtual strike by these officials appears to have received tacit support from block- and taluka-level authorities like tehsildars and block development officers. Even the preliminary step of registering households and issuing job cards has not been taken in many villages.

During the PACS Programme village campaign, the apathy was pronounced in districts that have recently come under the NREGS. In these districts, the government is duty-bound to popularise the scheme as much as it can, and register households. But hardly anything seems to have been done.

For example, in Beed where the campaign was conducted in nine villages of six talukas, CSOs found that:

• No information about the MREGS had been made available to the people by the government. In none of the villages was there any publicity material on the scheme.
• In all villages except one (Bhopa in Dharur taluka), gram panchayats and local government officials had little knowledge about MREGS processes like registering households, preparing village plans, forming vigilance committees, and obtaining work on demand.
• In Bhopa, forms for getting job cards had been filled but the cards had not been issued.

Likewise in Latur, where the campaign was conducted in nine villages of five talukas, CSOs reported that no signs of government publicity efforts were visible. Around 1,800 households from these villages had applied for job cards and demanded work, but only half the applicants had received job cards. Many people reported that they could not apply for job cards as they were not in the village when the officials came to receive applications and take photographs.

In Jalna, over 3,000 households in nine villages had applied for job cards but less than 300 had received them. Similar figures were reported in Parbhani district where the total number of applicants in nine villages was over 3,000, but the number of cards issued was less than 400.

No MREGS work had started in any of these four districts though demand for work was high due to a delayed monsoon.

The apathetic attitude of officials was also observed in districts earlier covered under the NREGS, in Phase I or II. These districts officially rank among Indias most backward districts.

Denial of job cards

More than two years after the NREGS was launched in the country, the process of registering households and issuing job cards is far from satisfactory in districts where the scheme was introduced in Phase I and II.

During the village-level campaign it was found that:

• In Pimpaldari village of Aundha taluka, Hingoli, 575 households had applied for job cards and none had received them.
• In Gojwada village, Washi taluka, Osmanabad, 495 households had applied for job cards and none had received them. Similar figures were reported from several other villages in the district covered by the campaign. In all, 4,260 households had applied for job cards in the nine villages covered, but less than 700 cards had been issued.

The situation was slightly better in Vidarbha district, and ideal only in Nanded where the number of applicants and number of job cards tallied exactly in nine villages.

Demand for work

Issuing job cards is only the first step in getting work started under the NREGS. On the one hand, works have to be planned at the village, block and district levels, and, on the other hand, people with job cards have to file demands for work.

Typically, it is seen that awareness about the latter procedure is low. This was clearly evident in the nine villages of Aurangabad district covered by the campaign. Across the villages, almost no one had applied for work and till the campaign was conducted few people knew that this was a necessary formality.

Apart from ignorance, other reasons for not applying for work came up during discussions with labourers. In one village people said they had not received wages for work done a year ago (presumably under some other government scheme). In other places people said there were no rest or drinking water facilities at the work sites.

There were also complaints about low wages. In Daregaondari village, Phulambri taluka, MREGS work had been sanctioned and there were over 100 job card holders, but no one was willing to take up the work offered due to low wages.

The low demand for work is reflected at the district level, in figures posted on the government NREGS website ( www.nrega.nic.in).

According to figures for the financial year 2008-09, up to June 2008, over 5.70 lakh people registered under the NREGS (from 2.26 lakh households) in Aurangabad district but less than 6,500 had demanded work in April-June 2008 -- a time when demand for work is highest in this and other regions based on dryland agriculture.

A peculiar situation was reported from some villages in Nanded district bordering Andhra Pradesh. People said it was more worth their while crossing the border and seeking work in the other state, as wages offered there were higher.

Calculation of wages

Apart from corruption, problems related to wages arise from the method of calculating work done. Typically, MREGS work involves manual excavation and carrying soil/boulders; wages are paid on the quantum of work done. Wage rates have to take into account the nature of the soil, but, as this is not estimated properly, wages received by workers are often much less than the applicable minimum wage.

This was clearly seen in Nibha, in Digras taluka of Yavatmal, where workers stopped the excavation of farm ponds. After digging to a depth of one metre they encountered rock and demanded higher wages. The authorities did not accept their demand.

In Nanded district, people complained that wage delays were caused by delays in the measurement of work by the authorities concerned. In Ancholi village, Naigoan block, 18 workers had not received their wages for 10 months because of this reason.

People in Nanded district complained that:

• Improper measurement methods led to low wages and corruption.
• Workers were not properly informed about wage rates for different kinds of work in different types of terrain.
• Estimates made by officials were not verified by competent technical people.

Involvement of gram sabhas

Across the campaign villages, the involvement of gram sabhas in preparing micro plans and identifying priority works was barely visible.

Among the exceptions was Chinchghat, in Zari taluka of Yavatmal, where a micro plan has been approved in the gram sabha. The plan includes an office for the panchayat, a building for the anganwadi, earthen check-dams, farm ponds, water conservation structures, strengthening of stream courses, tree plantation, and village internal roads.

The plan and budget have been approved by the zilla parishad. Some water conservation work and internal roads have been completed and people are awaiting the creation of other long-term assets. (Interestingly, even in this village there is a gap between the number of job card applicants and job cards issued. While 115 households applied, 85 received cards. No reasons have reportedly been given for refusing the 30 other applicants.)

Other issues

Where work has started under the MREGS, the workers reported a number of problems. For example:

• In Nanded district people complained that there were no facilities such as a shelter for small children, drinking water, first aid, etc, at the work sites.
• In Kundi, Zari taluka, Yavatmal, people complained that work had stopped due to lack of coordination between officials at the village and block levels.
• In Wadki, Chamorsi taluka, Gadchiroli, one woman suffered an accident at the work site and did not receive compensation.

Basic issue

A more basic problem reported from several villages was that workers as well as gram panchayat members did not know whether a particular work had been undertaken under the MREGS or some other scheme -- there were no boards at the job site.

It is feared that in many instances work sanctioned under other schemes is officially being recorded as work done under the MREGS, without the workers themselves being aware of this. This has a serious implication: Workers are denied due benefits under the MREGS, and works are carried out bypassing statutory NREGA processes like gram sabha meetings for the selection of works.

This is also probably the reason why the number of MREGS work sites does not tally with ground-level assessments made by CSOs. For instance, in Aurangabad, CSOs report that virtually no MREGS work was done in April-June 2008. However, the government website reports 688 ongoing works in the district for this period.

These and other problems emerged as key issues for investigation and advocacy during the next stages of the PACS Programmes NREGS Campaign 2008 in Maharashtra.

This story is based on information provided by CSOs participating in the campaign and Constructive Catalysts, the PACS Programme's resource organisation for Maharashtra.