As mentioned in these columns a few weeks ago, the Right to Work (under NREGA ) and proposed Right to Food will change the way those hitherto excluded from these ‘basic necessities’ will look at institutions of governance. The traditional concept of a ‘welfare state’ giving out ‘doles’ or ‘ex gratia endowments’ will be replaced by an entitlements approach , in which the state is duty bound to provide ‘work’ and ‘food’ . In terms of political theory, it means that what was hitherto enshrined in the Directive principles of state Policy will now become enforceable rights, and the writ jurisdiction of the judiciary can also be invoked in case of violation of these rights.
While there is a general consensus that these two rights are indeed a positive development, and will help in making the growth in society more inclusive and more equitable, the questions are : how are these ‘rights’ going to be funded ? How will the demand for enhanced food grains be met? But even before these questions are answered, there is a far more fundamental question … how does the state ensure that those on whom these rights are conferred are not excluded on account of ‘procedural’, ‘methodological ‘ and administrative inefficiency , or deliberate intent on the part of those responsible for preparing the registers at the field level. The challenge before government is to evolve a system in which the errors of exclusion are eliminated to ensure that the rights based regime makes a positive difference to the lives of those it was intended. These issues are being taken up for discussion at a national seminar on ‘Social Attributes of Exclusion & Poverty in Rural India : issues for Identification and Inclusive Policy ‘ at the UGC Centre for study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the University of Rajasthan on 12-13 Jan at Jaipur.
Defining and identifying Poverty
As the concept paper prepared by Prof Ramesh Dadhich puts it: defining poverty, and thereby the ‘poor’ entitled to receive the special entitlements to the state forms the basis of the government policy. While the macro assessments of poverty, including its demographic profile are in the domain of the Planning commission, the micro level identification of the poor is left to field level functionaries of the state government, and they are usually from the revenue, development or agriculture departments. With the introduction of the three tier Panchayat raj system, in several states, these institutions have also been associated with the task of identification. This is usually called the BPL census, and as the advantages of being listed as a BPL are clearly visible, many non BPL families try their level best to get themselves included, thereby creating a local level ‘premium’ ohm inclusion. The counter factual is that many of those who ought to have been included remain out of the loop, because the ‘field level functionaries ‘have no incentive to include them in the list.
Having said this, it must be mentioned that there has been an improvement in the processes employed for ground level identification. Thus the income criterion of IRDP (1980) and the first BPL census of 1992 failed to prepare a fair register, especially as quantifying and verifying incomes is quite difficult. The BPL survey of 1997 made an important shift: from income to consumption, but this too had its share of criticism, especially as it led to large number of exclusions. The 2002 BPL survey became even more objective, using as it were, a Score based ranking on thirteen parameters.
Then came the Dr NC Saxena Report which suggested a three tier approach – Automatic Exclusion, Automatic Inclusion and Score based inclusion. Thus a household is automatically excluded from the BPL if it has double the average landholding size in the block(the block average is to be calculated by dividing the gross cultivated land with the total number of land holding families) , has any one member on the regular payroll of the government, bank, PSU , an IT assessee, households where any member owns a four wheeler/tractor/mechanized fishing boat, licensed fire arm. Households which have more than ten milch cattle, pucca houses with an electricity connection and paying more than a certain amount as electricity bill per month) or engaged in quarrying business , and those carrying out construction work as Class I/II contractors are also automatically excluded from any BPL list.
The list for those to be automatically included is also comprehensive. Households headed by women, disabled, persons over the age of sixty, those suffering from TB, AIDS, leprosy, landless agricultural workers. Artisans, households of SC/ST and minorities and those living in forest fringe areas, sweepers, rag pickers, and where no member has studied beyond class X are automatically classified as BPL. This will also include the family’s households of military, police and Para military personnel killed in the discharge of their duties. This list can be suitably modified by the state government from time to time.
In addition to these automatic exclusion and inclusion lists, there could be score based ranking when a person who does not fall in either of the two categories wishes to avail the benefits of a BPL. Here the onus is on the person to make a clear representation to the field level functionary to include his name based on the score system of the 2002 BPL census.
While your columnist may not be able to attend the conference on account of prior commitments, the issues raised are indeed germane. The correct identification will also give a realistic assessment of the ‘requirements of fund and food’ for the successful implementation of the RTW and RTF.