‘The murder was an act of intimidation. It has not succeeded’

The architect of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, development economist Jean Dreze has also spearheaded community-led social audits of the scheme, in which murdered activist Lalit Mehta had assisted him for years. In Chhatarpur, Jharkhand for the latest round of social audits, Dreze spoke to SHOBHITA NAITHANI about his associate’s murder, the deeply entrenched corruption, and why there’s still hope for the scheme.

Do you think Lalit was murdered for undertaking the social audit of NREGS?
Initially no, but now I have somewhat revised my view. I don’t know if there is a direct link, but I am quite persuaded that it’s something to do with the sort of work he has been doing in the area for a long time, and possibly the social audit itself.

This particular one or the ones that have been conducted over the years?
There have been a series of social audits in this area and it’s obviously antagonising people in high places and it’s possible that they thought there was going to be an enquiry, and a more extensive one than the earlier ones. It’s a possibility that they thought that may be the whole thing would collapse if they target him because he was the local coordinator. Even the police are saying that it is not an ordinary murder and it is somebody who was antagonised by this kind of work behind it.

Was this a more extensive audit?
Yes, from the earlier ones that have been done in this area. This is a case where we were actually able to go fairly wide over the entire block. And where we were also able to get action taken which under normal circumstances is very difficult.

Do you mean the suspension?
Suspension and two FIRs (Forest Ranger, Chhatarpur was suspended and FIRs were lodged against two forest officials).

Is the entire system involved in the corruption?
Well, that does seem to be the case in this area. One has to see a little bit of the context. The way these public works have been operating for a long time is that they are implemented by private contractors who exploit the labour as much as they can. They get the work done as cheaply as possible and they make money by fudging the muster rolls and then they share that money with the sarkari officials and the political bosses who are protecting them. This is the traditional system of corruption that has been in place for many years and it’s not a secret. It’s more or less across the country.

With NREGA, there was an attempt to put in safeguards that would prevent this and make the system as transparent as possible. For example, earlier the muster rolls were fudged because they were virtually a secret and there was no right to access them. Now there is a right to access them both under the Right to Information Act and NREGA. They also have to be put on the Internet. There is a whole battery of safeguards and guidelines which are meant to move away from the traditional system of corruption.

In different parts of the country, this transition is taking place at various speeds. In Rajasthan, the muster rolls are more or less clean now. Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have made substantial progress towards a transparent system. And then there are places like this where the old system still survives because it’s too powerful and the vested interests are able to defeat the transparency safeguards. For example, here you will never see a muster roll at the work site; job card maintenance is not being done. All the guidelines are being violated because the old system is trying to survive. The biggest protection is if the labourers are aware of their right, which, in this area, is completely missing. But I am not losing hope. The fact that corruption is a big issue is in itself a sign of progress because earlier there was no talk of it at all.

What is the good news?
The scheme is definitely reaching the poorest of the poor. Earlier there was no work for women apart from domestic work, which was unpaid. Suddenly they have a chance, there is work that can earn them Rs 86 at their doorstep. There is evidence that where there is NREGS work, it does help them to avoid hunger, migration. Some people also say that the work has been productive, which is interesting, because there is a myth that has been created that all of this is useless work. It’s true that the economic productivity of the work can be substantially improved, but it’s quite possibly more productive than many large-scale industrial projects. In terms of the procedural aspects, even though it’s pretty bad, we still see some change. Within the traditional system, contractors would use machines to get the work done because it’s cheaper and faster and they would fill the muster rolls and claim the money for the work that was done by machines. But that has more or less disappeared, not just in this area, but all over the country. The contractors are still there, even though they are supposed to be banned, but, even in that respect, I would say that exploitation of workers at work sites is substantially declining.

What was the agenda of the public meeting before Lalit’s murder?
The initial intention was not to focus on corruption. We wanted to understand in totality the implementation of the NREGA, and also interview workers and see what it means to them, which we have done. But on the other hand, after having come here and finding cases of corruption, we have been constrained to actually look at that. Now, because of the possible link to this murder; it has become a much bigger issue. It shouldn’t become the only issue because even in this area, which is one of the worst blocks in one of the worst districts in one of the worst states as far as the NREGA is concerned, there is a lot of good news. So, we want to keep the focus on that larger picture. But we also have to talk about corruption because it is derailing the programme and depriving people of their rights on a large scale. It’s true that a lot of the Centre’s money is being wasted, but the main point is that there could have been work on a large scale in this area. It hasn’t happened because so much money has gone down the drain. Even though we are not claiming that it was because of this particular activity that Lalit’s murder happened, the public meeting is a bit of a declaration that his work will continue. This was clearly an act of intimidation, but it has not succeeded. This is an opportunity to extend the kind of work that he was doing.