NATIONAL ISSUES | open letter to pm
Thoughts on NREGA, Naxals and KashmirSeptember 28, 2010
Respected Prime Minister,
In a landmark ruling from the viewpoint of the poor, the Supreme Court has directed that surplus food grains without proper storage facility should be distributed among the poor rather than be allowed to rot. The Government of India is reportedly unwilling to abide by the ruling, maybe because the Bill of Right to Food includes provision only for heap grain, not free grain. There is a provision in the Natural Calamities Code for distribution of gratuitous relief, including free cooked food or grain. The fear is, what is conceded now will be demanded in future. The question is whether distress is limited to times of natural calamities or also exists due to acute poverty, prolonged unemployment or disease in normal times which cannot be taken care of by NREGA in the best of times, though the best of times seldom occur and the scheme is defeated and wages stolen by the implementing bureaucratic machine. Also, the scheme has a life of only six months. The answer, from a great many of us, is no, and we have the Supreme Court on our side. The Government of India should not be unnerved by numbers. The Supreme Court ruling does not cover the entire population of the poor. There is a natural calamity in some part of the country or the other, which hits the poor the most. Free distribution for the poor can be tied to these areas.
Some of us will even contest this limited view which delinks free grain from poverty and links it with natural calamity alone. If free grain is not a desirable option, we have to give the poor the means to buy grain cheaply. The government should open a postal account for every BPL family and deposit Rs 500 a month. This will cover the most vulnerable, the old, women and children. NREGA leaves out this section because they cannot undergo the rigours of work dealing with earth. The Rs 100 a day wage is meagre and a sure way to keep the poor poor in terms of calories consumed. A Rs 500 allowance will still be meager but it will be some proof that we care for the poor beyond paying them wages for hard work. Poor members of the community are also public servants since they contribute to the country’s productive wealth but we reserve our regard for only a section of public servants formally appointed by the government. The distinction is purely artificial and arbitrary. The sooner we expand the boundary of public servants for affording basic amenities the better.
The top-most lawmakers have drawn a road map for law enforcement with a heart. Laws and policies should mirror and codify our inclusive and generous impulses. I have often grieved over the absence of a mechanism to transmit to the poor a share of the nation’s growing prosperity but for expansion of the service sector at fairly inelastic wages and a small rise in employment, nowhere comparable to the rise in profits and executive I salaries or even the salaries that the people’s representatives accord to themselves.
The right to food of the vulnerable sections of the poor would be one such mechanism, part of Bharat Nirman in human resources. Without it we may win the economic battle but lose the political. Another effective mechanism would be to make it mandatory for business undertakings to allow a share of equity to panchayat members in the area where the industry is located besides payment of compensation at market rates to the victims of land acquisition, jobs, as far as possible, and apprentice training so that the rural areas perceive a change in both their physical and mental landscape and are more welcoming of industry. I am conscious that there is a growing awareness among our rural folk of industrialization being the only ticket out of the trap of poverty for some, if not all, of them. That is why they vote for parties that support and promote industrialization. Even land reforms, though desirable to create an ambience of equity, cannot end poverty and can at best create full employment with poverty. So growth must go on but with as many concessions to equity in distribution as we can think of. Our most serious human and political problem is poverty, more than growing rich or strong. The latter will be welcomed to the extent the former is eased.
NREGA should be additive to survival money of a bare allowance of Rs 500 for the vulnerable sections. It should include not just earth work but training in the semi-skilled work of electricians, plumbers and computer maintenance engineers which will have a growing market. Besides, it should, to honour the Father of the Nation, include khadi, weaving and selected cottage industries to guarantee minimum wages to skilled workers hit by industrialization. Let me touch on Naxalism which has grown out of poverty and endeared itself to a section of the poor. We should try to negotiate a deal on rural problems and involve them in a sort of land army, a Lohia vision, or a vigilance committee. Killings, selective or indiscriminate, will not kill the movement. Nor will the government’s misuse of authority to snuff out proactive support for tribal and environmental policies that impede development by dubbing them pro- Naxalite. It will only get worse.
Finally, we have to learn to live with difficult and troublesome neighbours, driven by oversized ambitions. But we can only be patient and not overreact till we have earned their respect by our own growth and put a cost tag on unfriendliness difficult to bear.
Kashmiris are not our neighbours, they are our own people. We should heed them as we heed others. We may be tough for a while but not indefinitely. We should appoint an impartial commission of inquiry under someone like Rajendra Sachar or Kuldip Nayyar to look into specific allegations. We should not panic and courageously reduce the security forces’ presence. We should invoke help from one of the dissident leaders like Yasin Malik or Shabir Shah by offers of power-sharing besides using informed negotiators to carry on behind-the-scenes talks with both Kashmiris and Pakistan. If Pakistan does not respond, we should put on the table Nehru’s own solution to the problem before he died, as recorded by Sheikh Abdullah in Chinar in Flames, which he personally took to Ayub Khan.
I write this long letter out of respect for your humanitarian qualities.
Best regards,
Shankar Sharan
IAS (Retd), 1955, Bihar cadre
Convener, Lok Paksh, Patna/ New Delhi
