The programme was conceived in the UPA's National Common Minimum Programme(NCMP) in 2004, which was supported by the Left parties. Parliament endorsed it in the shape of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act(NREGA)in 2005. The UPA Government decided to operationalise it on October 2, 2006 in 200 districts. But because of the pressure of the Left, it was extended to all the 600 districts in 2008 itself.

The Manmohan Singh Government seemed to have realised in 2004 itself the enormity of problems of the urban and rural unorganised economic sector as envisaged by the NCMP. This made the Government appoint the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector(NCEUS) in September 2004 under chairman Arjun Sengupta. The NCEUS submitted its report to the Prime Minister in September 2009. The Report entitled “The Challenges of Employment in India - An Informal Economic Perspective”, has a special chapter devoted to “Public Employment Programme for the Unorganised Workers: The Case of NREGA”.

In view of the ongoing controversy over NREGA implementation and the changing stance of the UPA Government regarding this universally noted employment programme, it should be useful to know the findings of the Arjun Sengupta Commission on the NREGA.

For one thing, the Commission viewed NREGA as an “important component of an employment-based growth strategy”. For another, the main aim of NREGA “is to empower Labour by making employment a right by which the rural workers can demand employment”. Moreover, says the Commission, from a development policy perspective , the NREGA can also be viewed as a “distributive employment strategy”, heralding a “new deal” for the country's poor and a “foundation for inclusive development”.

Unfortunately, the Manmohan Singh Government's views on economy seems different. It offers stimulus packages for the corporates to meet the crisis and slowdown . As for the impoverished millions, it offers only whatever can 'trickle down' through half-heartedly implemented welfare measures.

On the other hand, the NCEUS, in tune with its employment-based growth approach, sought to get greater insight into the working of the NREGA . The Commission Report says it made field trips to a number of states to study the NREGA; it also commissioned a few studies on this programme. G B Pant Social Science Institute, for instance, undertook studies in Himachal Pradesh and Orissa, under the coordination of Jean Dreze in 2008 at the instance of the Commission; the team also conducted studies in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Another study was conducted by the Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS) at Hyderabad, covering two Andhra districts. NCEUS also supported a conference on NREGA, All these studies were intended to bring out critical implementation issues for the policy-makers.

The Report says the study of six North Indian States showed that 98 per cent of the “sample workers” claimed they desired to fully avail of the 100 days of work but very few workers had received that in practice: the proportion of sample workers who reported 100 days of work in the past 12 months was invariably very low - Chhattisgarh(1 %), Bihar(2 %), UP(4 %), Jharkhand(9%), Madhya Pradesh(19 %) and Rajasthan (36%). This gap points to the massive potential of the scheme and reflects the pressing need to increase employment-days to meet the increasing demand, says the Commission Report.

The field studies also showed that there was higher participation in NREG programmes from SC and ST families. In the prevailing conditions of impoverishment in rural areas and the landless workers facing multiple deprivations, “NREGA work becomes an important source for sustaining them at the subsistence level.” One of the successes of NREGA is that , on an average, the participation of women in the programme is higher than the stipulated minimum requirement of 30 per cent. But there are striking variations in states: in Kerala and Rajasthan, women's participation is more than 50 per cent but in six North Indian States, this statutory requirement is not met: UP(5%), Bihar(13%), Jharkhand(18%) and Chhattisgarh(25%).

The various studies instituted by the Commission found that in the matter of “participation, transparency and accountability” the picture is “fairly dismal”. The reasons are many. It was observed, for instance, that at the Central Government level, the senior administrative officers were bogged down in day-to-day crisis management and :virtually have no time and energy for putting in place durable systems and support structures for NREGA.” Moreover, the Central Employment Guarantee Council, whose expertise and services could have been used effectively for enhancing the programme's effectiveness “is virtually non-functional”.

It is shocking that though NREGA is over four years old, the Government has framed no Rules and got them endorsed by Parliament. It is being implemented on the basis of “operational guidelines” framed by bureaucrats. Many leading functionaries at the Centre and the States find themselves at sea when faced with implementation problems.

That is why the Sengupta Commission has recommended that “the main operational guidelines should be converted into binding Rules.” The Commission has also recommended improvement in Administrative Wherewithal: shortage of Gram Rozgar Sewaks, technical assistants, trained mates, data entry operators, social auditors, child-care givers was hampering the NREGA performance.

The Commission found that gender sensitivity should be improved in NREGA operation, For instance, widows, separate women and other single women should be entitled to separate job cards irrespective of their living arrangement - a fact which was being ignored in NREGA implementation. The NCEUS was also of the view that payment of women's wages through man's bank accounts should be prohibited.

Two other recommendations underline the poverty of NREGA implementation in letter and spirit. One, Rules should be framed for payment of unemployment allowance in case the officials fail to provide employment. More, officials who refuse to accept written applications from job-seekers should be liable for punishment under Section 25 of NREGA. And, two, lack of overarching and mandatory framework and rules for transparency and accountability are also impinging on the programme, as are delays and discrepancies in payment of wages.

In this backdrop, it should have been no surprise for NREGA performance watchers when recently the National Employment Guarantee Council member Prof. Jean Dreze cried aloud: Is it Employment Guarantee or slave labour? for the policy-makers to take note of. He has said: “On closer examination, various hurdles appear to contribute to the delays in wage payments. These include delays in work measurement(themselves linked to tyrannical behaviour of engineering staff), bottlenecks in flows of funds(sometimes bringing NREGA to a halt in entire blocks), irresponsible record keeping(such as non-maintenance of muster rolls and job cards) and, yes, hurdles related to bank payments.”(The Hindu - 19-9-09). Dreze adds: But, I venture to suggest that behind these specific hurdles(in wage payments) was a deeper “backlash” against NREGA in many areas.

Dreze seems to have been compelled to raise his voice forcefully against NREGA sabotage because “reports of prolonged delays in NREGA wage payments have been pouring in from all over the country in recent months.” (IPA Service)