Does NREGP make sense in Kerala?

Does NREGP make sense in Kerala?

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP) has been one of the remarkable initiatives of the UPA government introduced with an aim of eradicating poverty in the rural areas. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act envisages to provide for the enhancement of livelihood security of the households in the rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work .As per the requirement of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), all states including Kerala had implemented this programme. In this note, I would like to argue that NREGP in its present form is not relevant in Kerala to a great extent given the peculiar socio-economic structure of Kerala economy.

There are mainly two reasons for this argument. First, NREGA calls for guaranteeing job on demand within a stipulated time period. It is in this context, the relevance of this programme has to be analyzed in Kerala. For, Kerala has been facing acute unskilled labor shortage especially in the agricultural sector. It is an established fact that the reported decline in the agricultural production like paddy is on account of the shortage of laborers and subsequent increase in the cost of production. Moreover, the recent trend in Kerala’s labor market also sheds light on this fact. A recent rough estimate shows that there are almost thirty five lakhs of immigrant workers, both skilled and unskilled, employed in Kerala from states like West Bengal, Orissa, Assam etc who work in areas like masonry, carpentry, constructions etc. This is not surprising given the peculiar nature of Kerala economy wherein most of the people are educated and a major portion of the work force of the state has migrated in search of job to other parts of the country or world. Thus, the inflow of labour from other states to Kerala reinforces the argument that Kerala is running short of labour. In such a context, a programme which calls for providing job to natives on demand appears to be irrational.

Secondly, NREGA envisages legal protection for workers to receive a minimum wage. Here, it is quite well known that existing wage rate in Kerala had been always higher than the stipulated minimum wage. On an average, the present wage rate in the unorganized sector in Kerala is about Rs. 350/- Per day for male workers and Rs 250/- for female workers. In such a scenario, the relevance of NREGP as a scheme to ensure minimum wage is questionable.

The foregoing description outlines a broad picture of the importance of the NREGP in the specific context of Kerala economy. Of course, there can be grey areas within Kerala like Adivasi belts in Wayanad and Palakkad districts where this programme could be relevant from the point of view of its stated objectives. Apart from that, this programme does not appear to be useful and there by effective in most other parts of Kerala.

The crux of the analysis is that since the general socio – economic profile of Kerala has been completely different in terms of educational attainment; standard of living etc from the socio-economic profile of rest of the country, a programme envisaged at the national level need not be always important in the specific context of a state like Kerala.

The conflict between haves and have nots

The conflict between ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-nots’

Terms ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-nots’ mentioned in the title above are not used here in the conventional sense along the line of ‘wealth’ as it is the common practice, instead, they are used to imply the ‘Haves’ of common sense (human being) and ‘Have-nots’ of common sense (animals). The topic discussed here is related to the escalation of menace of wild animals both in the form of human causality and agricultural destruction reported from various parts of the country in general and Kerala, in particular. According to the latest estimate, about seventy five people have lost their lives in the wild animals attack and losses of human property to the tune of crores of rupees in the state of Kerala. Interestingly, farmers from the hilly areas of the Kasargod district even organised a formal agitation in front of the office of the district administration to protest against the inaction of the district administrative authorities to protect their life and property from the attack of wild animals. Given this scenario, it is pertinent to ask the question that who is actually responsible for this kind of an unfortunate situation?

To answer this question we have to first identify possible stake holders in this conflict. Obviously, there are only two players involved. On the one hand, there are innocent wild animals and on the other hand, there are the so called ‘civilised’ human beings. Then, can we find fault with animals that indulge in the destruction spree and thereby seek action against them? Undoubtedly we can say that no. Before embarking upon deliberating why wild animals should never be held responsible for this issue, we have to concede in advance that the very human is invariably responsible for the development of this situation. Now let us look at the plausible reasons or factors which force animals to resort this type of extreme steps. Essentially two possible factors can be cited in defence of animals. One is in the form of what is called “pull factor” in the form of environmental degradation which drove wild animals out of their natural habitat in search of substance for their survival in the form of food and water. The second one is the “push factor” in the form of invasion of forest land by the human being to quench their pecuniary greed or to ward off the pressure form uncontrolled population growth.

To dwell upon the “pull factor”, it is quite evident that if wild animals are ensured of decent living condition or put otherwise, if their already existing decent living condition is not trampled upon by an external force, they are no longer expected to even to come close to the human habitat, let alone claiming human life and destruction of their property. Hence, we have to deduce that the habitat of wild lives might have got disturbed to the extent that animals find it difficult to survive there. It is in order to pose another question here that what actually might have resulted in the shaking up of the traditional ecological habitat of wild animals. Undoubtedly one can argue that it is the brutal consequences of the so called development agenda initiated by human being in a variety of forms including rapid industrialisation. We, the human being, embarked upon a development strategy to serve our wicked market oriented capitalist whims and fancies disregarding its possible fall out on the environment and ecological system. Recent developments at the global level in the form of global warming and subsequent climate change hold testimony to this argument. Specifically, Kerala like many other states in India has witnessed hither-to unfamiliar climate conditions such as unseasonal heavy rain destroying vast swaths of agriculture and allied activities. Given this, how can we repudiate the possibility of a crisis caused by this kind of an erratic climate over wild life in the form of the destruction of sources of their livelihood and other means of life? Thus, the larger issue of threat of wild animals to human life as well as human property has to be taken up in this specific context. For, it is a known truth that many herbal plants extensively spotted in the paddy fields of Kerala at a time when paddy and other agricultural varieties like vegetables were routinely cultivated and eco-friendly fertilizers were used have been surprisingly disappeared from the paddy fields when the same land had been used for the cultivation of commercial crops using toxic chemical fertilizers. Besides, this practice had badly affected the ecological system of such areas which was overwhelmingly manifested in the form of wounds among fishes and gradual disappearance of species like earth-worms. Therefore, this incursion of wild animals to the human habitat ought to be seen as a means of their subsistence in the face of danger caused by the same human being rather than being looked at thought the conventional prism of animal threat.

Secondly, the “push factor” deemed to be responsible for this episode emanates out of the unbridled growth of population and subsequent pressure on limited land. The ever increasing population in our country seemingly results in a situation in which people are forced to trespass into the forest areas both for agricultural as well as dwelling purposes. This trend ostensibly exerts pressure and strain upon the smooth flow of the wild life forcing them to retaliate in their own way. However, these jungle folks bear the brunt of mistakes committed by human being.

Thus, the issue of threat of wild animals can be compared with the historical labour migration. Labour migration takes place at the instance of either push factors or pull factors. Animals are facing threats to their life, for instance, in the form of shortage of food on account of the senseless intervention of the human beings in the proper functioning of ecology. Besides, they are getting sidelined by human being due to want of land to ease the pressure of growing population. Therefore, this problem of wild animal threat to human beings clearly presents a situation where in the lop-sided market driven development agenda of the human beings has boomeranged on themselves. But, this is not say that people like poor farmers, whose agricultural products get destroyed under wild animal attack, deserve this kind of treatment from animals. Instead, this is an attempt to analyse this issue with a critical perspective on our development path. Because it is not fitting to common sense to expect hungry wild elephant remain calm as plenty of plantine cultivation exists.