ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMMES IN INDIA.

The sixth five year plan launched a direct attack on poverty and unemployment.
NREP (National Rural Employment Programme).
In 1977 the FWP (Food for Work Programme) was launched to provide work opportunities for the rural poor. This was particularly required during the slack employment season. At the same time the purpose was to create durable productive assets in the form of roads, canals, minor irrigation projects, etc. The basic aim was to generate additional employment in rural areas and in the process of doing so, durable community assets were created which would strengthen the rural infrastructures.
The workers on this project were paid partially in cash and partially in food grains by utilising the surplus stock of foodgrains. In 1980 the food for work programme was re-shaped into National Rural Employment Programme. A large number of people in rural areas were without assets and those who have, had very few. This segment of rural poor depends primarily on wage employment. Such rural poor do not have any source of income especially during the lean agricultural period or during severe drought conditions. The NREP aims both at providing employment opportunities to rural workers particularly at the time when they are not able to find gainful employment as well as creation of durable community assets for strengthening the rural infrastructure, thereby leading to rapid growth of rural economy and rise in the level of rural poor. 
Features:   

1. A district/block level employment plan which should be formulated taking into account the skilled and unskilled works, the number of people seeking work and the work opportunities available.
2. Projects are prepared for each district/block.
3. NREP gives priority to work relating to social, forestry and pasteur development, soil and water conservation, irrigation, drainage, sanitation and works relating to the improvement of village ecology and environment.
4. 10% of the resources are ear marked for works, which are of direct and exclusive benefits to the SC and ST categories.
5. 10% of the resources are ear marked for utilisation on social forestry.
6. The execution of work under NREP has to be done through Panchayati Raj Institution while the implementation was entrusted to the District Rural Development agencies. The implementation of NREP was on 50-50 basis between the Centre and the State.
7. Voluntary organisations of repute and standing could also be entrusted with execution of permissible work under NREP.

Drawbacks:

1. The programme has apparently lacked in direct focus on the target group population.
2. Some of the asset building works were also subject to criticism on the ground of lack of expertise and higher material cost.
3. In some states 10%  of the outlay ear-marked for the works of direct benefit to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) was not fully utilised.

RLEGP (Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme):

The RLEGP launched in August, 1983 with a view to eradicate poverty, unemployment and under-employment among the rural landless workers. The programme aims mainly at:

1. Improving and expanding employment opportunities for the rural landless and providing guarantee of employment to atleast one member of every landless labourer household upto 80 to 100 days a year.
2. Creating durable assets for strengthening of the rural and economic infrastructure thereby boosting production.
3. The highest priority was accorded to labour-intensive projects in backward areas drawn by the State Government and approved by the Central Government.
4. Wages to be paid in the terms of foodgrains.

Difference between NREP and RLEGP:

While the NREP is for generation of additional employment for the unemployed and for employed persons, the RLEGP provides guaranteed employment to atleast one person of every landless labour household upto 100 days a year. It is entirely financed by the Central Government.

There have been various suggestions to merge RLEGP with NREP.
Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP):
Of all the anti-poverty programmes IRDP has attracted the maximum media, scientific and beneficiary attention. Majority believes that it has a great potential but at the same time it suffers from great limitations. The concept of IRDP includes various inter-related approaches, which are required for proper development. Till now different approaches have been piecemeal and pragmatic rather than being comprehensive.
Schemes like Community Development Programme, Small Farmer Development Agency, etc. have all been functioning without proper integration, with the view to removing these drawbacks and improving socio-economic life of the poorest living in the rural areas, IRDP was introduced. It was convened in 1975 stating that IRDP covers a wide range, that is, all subjects of rural economy and rural people in their entirety, for example: cultivators, landless labourers, etc. IRDP is a multi-sector, multi-section, and multi-level concept.

1. As a multi-sector concept it encompasses rural development at various levels in special hierarchy such as clusters of village, block and district.
2. As a multi-sector concept it promotes development in different sectors and sub-sectors of rural economy such as education, health, transportation.
3. As a multi-section concept it attempts at socio-economic development of weaker sections of rural population like small and marginal farmers, landless labourers, SCs and STs. 

The concept of IRDP was outlived in 1976-77 and the programme was launched in 1978-79. Most of the earliest schemes such as SFDA, SDF are now merged into IRDP. In October, 1980, the Union Government took a major policy decision of expanding IRDP to entire country. It became part of a 20-point programme. The major object of IRDP is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the poorest section of the rural society. It aims at raising poorest family of the rural areas above the poverty line on long lasting basis by proviing them income generating assets, credit facilities and other inputs. The authority to sanction schemes was delegated to State Government while District Rural Development Agencies did the implementation. The IRDP beneficiaries were also assisted through the viable banking projects in order to enhance the viability of the project and different rates of subsidies were admissible on the total cost of the project. Further banks have been instructed to dispose off loan applications within a reasonable time and they are required to give a report to the Block Development Officers.

Drawbacks:

1. The first flaw is the wrong identification of the beneficiaries (poorest of the poor). It has been found that wrong identification has occurred to the extent of "15 to 20% at All-India level" and "47 to 77% at regional level".
2. The second deficiency apparent in the programme was the vagueness in determining the poverty line. Despite inflation and flowing depreciation IRDP made no change in its poverty line.
3. The criteria of income in defining poverty line were quiet gross.
4. IRDP incentivity to the differences in infrastructural support, backward and forward linkages, ability of beneficiaries and the compatibility of the scheme for the ecology of the region was ignored.
5. The corruption, malpractice, bribery and other leakage were prevalent in the implementation of the programme. This was moreso because of the role of middlemen and the lack of awareness among beneficiaries. 
6. The bank financing of IRDP, which was the heart of the programme, was found to be violative of the IRDP guidelines e.g., according to RBI guidelines all IRDP loans, that is., repayment schedule should be atleast three years but in practice this directive was openly violated. Moreover, inadequate banking service led to delay in disposing of loan applications.
7. Economists have paid very little attention to federal aspects of poverty elimination programme.
8. Partisan political consideration (NDA government) also made themselves feel specially when an opposition regime shows efficacy. All political parties in India utilised the benefits of power to strengthen their respective position. Bakshi argued that poverty elimination programmes could only succeed under one party democracy.
9. IRDP had been biased towards animal husbandry scheme, without giving any due consideration to the availability of good quality animal fodder, marketing facilities.
10. Administrative weaknesses both in terms of required qualified staff at the Block and District levels and in respect of vertical and horizontal coordination and integration between different departments.
11. The individual was adopted as unit of assistance rather than family as a whole.

Role of Judiciary:    

Bakshi says by introducing legal land judicial intervention one can avoid the drawback by:

1. Direct or directing the Gram Sabhas wherever they have proved effective in identifying the needy. They should be given the authority to finalise the benefits.
2. Legal land judicial intervention can also help in ensuring patterns of accountability and actual flow of benefits to those who suffer because of diversion of relatively better off beneficiaries.

Bakshi opines that Article. 14 challenges to the unchanging poverty line which would surely have resulted in direction given by Supreme Court whereby the poverty line could have been accordingly adjusted. This would have certainly oriented the State to a realistic assessment of the range of beneficiaries .

Judiciary could have directed the executive to consider adequate differentiation among the impoverished class. This is a must because the poor are not one category but many in terms of their initial endowments of strength in terms of education, skill, enterprise in terms of gender, age and health.

Bakshi opines that judicial collaboration in implementation of banking guidelines of RBI would be worthwhile ensuring a more efficient and equal administration of IRDP.

Bakshi feels that the shortcoming of the IRDP and other related anti-poverty programmes could be remedied if a more adequate legal framework of entitlements and accountability to the impoverished beneficiaries are provided.

The impoverished are not just subjects but also citizens. As citizens, the impoverished also have rights to reasoned planning and implementation of such programmes with legal and judicial interventon elements of accountability and visibility which would be transcended.

Law of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and Poverty Eradication in India.    

The Government of India enacted the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 to provide for the enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country for providing atleast one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. This Act came into force on 1st April, 2007 in specified districts of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur and Meghalaya and will come into force in the rest of India from 1st April, 2008.

Major Elements of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005:  

• Panchayats are key players.
• Productive Assets are not negotiable.
• Local planning is key factor in implementations.
• Contractors are not allowed.
• Gram Sabha is to monitor all works and applications.

Significance of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005:  

• People who are poor and are in need cum demand work.
• The Government is legally bound to provide them work.
• In case of failure to provide the job on part of Government then it is bound to pay unemployment allowance.
• The Act is a criterion of productive assets in villages.

The preferred areas of work under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005:

• Water conservation and water harvesting.
• Drought proofing (afforestation and tree plantation).
• Irrigation canals.
• Irrigation facilities to land owned by SCs and STs or beneficiaries of land reforms.
• Renovation of traditional water bodies.
• Land development.
• Flood control and protection works.
• Rural connectivity to provide all-weather access.
• Any other work which can be notified by Central Government in consultation with State Governments from time to time.
• Each State is required to formulate a Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (with six months of enactment).
• Village and intermediary Panchayats are to manage the implementation activity while co-ordination activities are done at District Panchayat level.
• Panchayats are mandated to prepare village level plans based on local resources and local needs.
• Free from political pressure.

Distribution of work under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005:

Village Panchayat: Prepares village plan, identity, design and implement 50% works, set up local institutions to facilitate implementation, evaluate and monitor implementation.

Block Panchayat: Co-ordinates block level plans, identity possible works based on village plan, design and implement works and monitoring.

District Panchayat: Prepare district annual plan, prepare five-year prospective plan based on village plans, implement works and district level co-ordination activities.

State Government: Evolve regulations, set up employment guarantee council and facilitate resource flow.

Central Government: Rural development miistry, modal ministry, ensure fund flow, set up employment guarantee council for advisory and indepentent monitoring and evaluation.

Highlights of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005:

• Minimum 100 days of employment to every household poor.
• Adult members of every household are eligible.
• Wages shall be paid on weekly basis or within 15 days from date of work.
• Adult members of households should volunteer to do unskilled manual work.
• Conditions for guaranteed employment can be fixed by respective State Governments.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.S. Chakrvarthy
H. No. 12-13-301, St. No. 9,
Lane. No. 1, Flat. No. 203,
Satya Classic, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad-500 017
Andhra Pradesh, India.
Cell. No. 09985732397.
Land Line. No. 040-27000719.
E-mail ids: chakku1968@gmail.com
                   cc99995@gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------