The strategy document prepared by the Rural Development Ministry has planned to use the Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) as the basis; it will be expanded, restructured and made into an umbrella programme to ensure convergence of other employment-generating and asset-building programmes that the Central Government is operating in rural India in cooperation with the State Governments. The SGSY was launched in 1999 as “a holistic programme covering all aspects of self-employment”, according to the Ministry's document.

What are the total number of BPL rural households that the proposed “National Rural Livelihoods Mission”, is required to cover? According to the Planning Commission's poverty estimates, their total number is 30.17 crore, constituting 27.50 per cent of the total population in 2004. Of these, 22.09 crore were rural (28.30 per cent) and 8.08 crore (25.70 per cent) were urban. This means that the National Rural Livelihood (NRLM) is to cover, in all, 22.09 crore rural BPL population.

At the same time, there are three other estimates of commissions or expert committees, set up by the UPA Government, which have disagreed with the Planning Commission's BPL estimates. One recent Commission has put the BPL population at 38 per cent. An expert committee set up by the Rural Development Ministry, and headed by N.C. Khanna, has said that 50 per cent Indians are Below the Poverty Line if one takes into account the calorie intake criterion. This amounts to double the numbers compared to that of the Planning Commission's 28.50 per cent. The Commission for Enterprises in Unorganised Sector (CEUS), headed by Dr Arjun Sengupta, has estimated that 77 per cent people lived on Rs 20 and below income per day which puts the BPL numbers at almost three times that estimated by the Planning Commission.

This is what makes the NRLM somewhat enigmatic. Even then, if 22.09 crore rural BPL population is assured of livelihoods and the programme is not allowed to drag on ad nauseam, the Mission would achieve the desirable objective. That 'big if' would remain if the performance of Government's various welfare schemes including NREGA and SGSY, are taken into account.

The Rural Development Ministry's overall strategy, in the context of NRLM, would be four-fold: one, strengthening and improving existing livelihoods; two, “increasing access to wage employment and income security schemes (for example, NREGS, Pensions, etc), leveraging the institutional platforms of the poor”; three, providing placement-linked skill development “to tap employment opportunities in the burgeoning private sector”; and, four, setting up micro enterprises.

The NRLM programme strategy lays special emphasis on its “convergence with other programmes” already in operation in the country's rural sector. Formation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) at NREGS work sites is given special importance. This, it is stated, will help mobilise savings, thrift and revolving fund. One of the objectives would be to develop and create productive assets “on land belonging to BPL families through NREGS”.

The SGSY-based NRLM strategy assumes that the formation of SHGs at NREGS work sites will promote development and revival of natural resources, creation of community assets and their access to rural poor for livelihood opportunities. The convergence with NREGA, says the strategy document, would help tap livelihood opportunities not only in the “different processes of NREGS” but also in those emerging from Indira Awas Yojana (IAY), Prime Minister's Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and so on.

The convergence with “other programmes” could include “Productivity Enhancement Schemes of Agriculture and Allied Activities”. This happens to be too general a statement and could be exploited by richer segments of peasantry. The other programmes may also include ensuring improved access to entitlements like NREGS, Pensions, Insurance, PDS, Food Security, Health and other local opportunities for livelihood. It is suggested that SHG federations, yet to be born, could eventually become “one stop shop for last mile service delivery” particularly for community nutrition centres, PDS shops, mid-day meals scheme and other goods & services.

On paper, the Livelihood Mission, its aims and objectives seem quite attractive. Many observers, already active in the field, see a lurking danger to the ongoing NREGA programme in the process of restructuring NREGS. However, the Planning Commission's own study of SGSY has shown that it has suffered from uneven spread, very high attrition rate, inadequate access to credit, lack of capacity building and training, inadequate risk mitigation, lack of manpower and dedicated implementation structure, lack of awareness about the programme among the target poor groups and above all lack of transparency and accountability.

The Livelihood Mission proposes to take remedial measures to cure all the above-mentioned ailments. How? Through universal mobilisation of BPL Households via SHGs; formation of SHG federations all over the country, training of SHGs and their federations by optimum use of existing infrastructure, setting up of dedicated training institutions for rural poor, Public Private Partnerships with NGOs, Voluntary Organisations, etc., creating pro-poor financial services, “promotion of professionally competent but dedicated sensitive support umbrella organisations at national and state levels” besides the units for managing and supporting all the activities of the restructured SGSY. This is certainly a very tall order for the Livelihoods Mission.

There is however no credible explanation as to how these ailments had crept in and what is the guarantee that these will not creep in again. Has any lesson been learnt from the past experience? The suggested compositions of the Governing Body and Executive Body at the Central and State levels amply show that nothing has been learnt from past failures. These are studded with Central and State Ministers, Departmental Secretaries along with a few experts and NGOs. The key figure will remain the Rural Development Ministry's Joint Secretary who is always bogged down in routines. This structure has only served corporate-centric orientations and not otherwise. The trained rural poor may be used as feedstock for the “burgeoning private sector” in the Special Economic Zones. (IPA service)