By Onkar Singh

ARGUABLY a path breaking legislation, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act has attracted both praise and criticism in equal measures. It has been praised generously because it guarantees 100 days job in a year to all those men and women in rural India who are willing to work, augments income and thereby improves livelihood of families living at the margin, reduces unemployment, increases consumption level and helps build durable assets in rural areas by the locals themselves.
However, criticism of the scheme has been equally scathing. The scheme has been criticized inter alia on account of inordinate delay in the issuance of job cards, assigning much less days of work than guaranteed under the Act, non-payment or delay in payment of wages, bungling in public spendings and substandard nature of work completed under the scheme.
How far has MGNREGA faired in Jammu and Kashmir where the scheme was launched in the year 2006? A survey to that effect was conducted recently in Nowshera village of Basohli tehsil that forms a part of the hilly terrain of Kathua district. The scheme in this village became operative in the year 2009-10 whereby focus of the work was water conservation, drought proofing, irrigation canal works, and renovation of traditional water bodies, land development, flood control and rural connectivity.
A stratified random sample of 31 job card holding households was selected across caste groups and mohallas of the village that houses a total of 247 families for a fair representation of population. Significantly, findings of the study were revealing. Job guarantee is the hallmark of the scheme. However, between 2009-10 and 2010-11, the scheme generated only 892 job days for 31 job card holders as against an estimated 5400 job days had all these workers been provided with 100 days of work each year. It therefore amounted to generation of just 14.4 job days per household per annum as against the promised 100 days! In other words, the much publicized job guarantee scheme could generate in Nowshera only 1/7th of the total jobs against what its policy statement proclaims.
Equally revealing was discrimination in the allotment of job days across income groups. The sample households had an average income of Rs. 2733 per month. There were as many as 26 households (84%) however whose monthly income (Rs.2954) was more than the average figure. The remaining 5 households had a monthly income much below the average; it was Rs. 1581 only. Significantly, while each job card holder in the former group got work for 16 days a year, the corresponding figure for the latter group was 10.5 days only; indicating thereby that implementation of the scheme in Nowshera was not favourable to, if not biased against, the economically more backward population.
Significantly, this discrimination against the poor gets magnified if one relates it with data on land ownership. In the village, as many as 60% job card holders among the lower income group are landless. The corresponding figure for the greater than average income group is 11.5% only. This implies that the economic group which has little job guarantee has also little food security in the form of agricultural land to bank upon for survival; a state of double deprivation to cope with.
Our queries however revealed that more than 87% MGNREGA job card holders in the village were satisfied with the scheme. Why? Two main reasons were given by the respondents; one was nearness of work place. On an average, the site of work was half a kilometer away, which implied that workers could easily reach there on foot. The other reason was payment on regular basis. All payments to the workers were made either within a fortnight or a month. These were also the reasons as to why an overwhelming majority (90%) stated that MGNREGA jobs were better than other jobs. This implies that unskilled rural poor prefer work that is nearer their home and is paid on regular basis.
Popularity of the scheme notwithstanding, the fact remains however that the scheme failed in providing the promised 100 days of work to a household in a year. And since job creation is associated with work, one can safely assume that no worthwhile development projects were completed in the village during 2009-11. That amounted to a betrayal of both the place and its people by the much hyped job scheme; an example of a good policy gone bad. Apparently, the scheme badly needs a revamp in its planning as well as execution at the grass roots both in letter and spirit.
Infusion of substance is what MGNREGA requires in the region. Hype has created only false hope among the hapless country folk.
The writer teaches Geography at the GDC, Kathua

By Dr Mohinder Kumar

Distribution of goods is as important as their production. It has always met with bottlenecks. During Bengal famine under the British feudalism, godowns were stocked with food grains but not reachable by the needy, starving poor as they had no ‘purchasing power’. Any system of storage and distribution goes hand-in-hand with specific kind of production system. Both should be compatible. For instance, small retail shop system suited small producer system as both enjoy independence.
In finance, modern large-scale centralized banking system is yet to strike compatibility with small producers for disbursement of institutional credit. As a result microfinance is making headways as it suits them just as village moneylenders suited small farmers during the British feudal era. It’s a different issue that both big microfinance institutions and moneylenders act as exploitative distribution systems despite being compatible with small producers. Commission Agents as dual point for interlocked credit and trading services in regulated markets are also becoming problematic system. It’s the same story everywhere for all distribution mechanisms.
In agriculture, there are constraints in awareness creation, technology up-gradation, extension networks, input delivery and distribution systems for farmers. Compare it with communist China. Whether our systems of dispensation of services are sustainable though they may be ‘suitable’?
In food, the public distribution system (PDS) centered on Food Corporation of India (FCI), Food & Civil Supplies Agencies, FCI godowns and a network of ration shops has so far suited our poverty stricken socio-economic structure well until recently as some problems propped up. But can it be sustained for the future?
We are at the cross roads, in need of new alternative distribution systems which are adequate and “sustainable”. In the age of globalization, development is defined in terms of sustainability, not subsistence. Whether or not a farmer’s family-subsistence/nutrition is ensured, he must supply maximum for global market! A bit of farce has been imported by history repeating itself, with the invitation of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in retail and other businesses. Farmer has to feed far distant foreign markets while food security act promises food for his family-subsistence! There is something amiss which defies logic. As far as practice is concerned it is market-driven, minus planning and human concern.
Producers and consumers lead compartmentalized existence. Our governments have had tough time in maintaining balance between the antithetical small farmers’ interests and consumers’ interests. The systems of minimum support price (MSP), administered price, harvest price, food subsidies have taken a heavy toll on governance. This is the state of affairs in each country, including India. FDI is coming in all businesses under these critical circumstances.
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)’s study findings influenced the expansion of FDI in our retail market. But there seems to have been no study on what alternative distribution mechanisms these developing countries should adopt against FDI. Anyway, the future distribution systems depend upon the outcome of historically continued struggle for existence between FDI and small producers. What should the small consumers do? They should join with small producers.
New social actors to take on the might of FDI and corporates should be the ‘citizens’. ‘Producers’ and ‘consumers’ should not have a separated, atomistic, compartmentalized existence. As small producers and farmers are getting organized in ‘Producers’ Companies (PC), small consumers too can form Consumers’ Cooperatives. Every small producer is a consumer and every consumer is likewise a producer also. This dichotomized existence of citizens is to be neutralized. This is possible through the cooperatives. Citizens, especially the marginalized and vulnerables need to come together, revitalize the local institutions and suffuse them with a renewed cooperative spirit. Upcoming PCs are producers’ cooperatives only. As there are producers’ and consumers’ cooperatives, they will have a level playing field for competition against corporate FDI and multi-national companies (MNC). Individualized farmers, artisans, handicraftsmen, producers and consumers cannot withstand the onslaught of colossal MNCs which are eying everything in the market to be brought under their control -technology, inputs, natural resources, human resources (labor), knowledge, extension, production, procurement, storage, processing, manufacturing, supply, retail, delivery and distribution. And finance too.
It is essential to see that PCs of farmers/producers should not fall under the control and management of big corporates, some of which are operating in collusion with ‘for-profit’ NGOs. Today, distinction between a Corporate and NGO is becoming obscure. To organize and exercise one’s legitimate right of survival is real politics. But we wonder why it is not so for the small scattered consumers and producers? Getting united merely for ‘higher price’ of produce is a small thing. Why they are reluctant in attaining political consciousness of cooperation and unity? Is this a design of the western neo-colonial forces represented by the capitalist corporates and MNCs? They do not want that small producers or consumers of the developing countries should get organized. In the USA, Canada and Europe, small producers are facing the same problem of existence as our producers and farmers. But there, governments keep them aloft by injecting huge amount of subsidy per producer as their numbers is negligible as compared to ours. So, our governments rightly expect our producers to get organized into PCs. Now the greed of FDI driven capitalist MNCs does not allow sparing the PCs from grip, as these are required to sell their produce to them at lucrative price. Initial higher price offered is a trap. When contract farming and forward market arrangement with ‘individual’ farmers for tomato in Punjab failed miserably after initial hype, they (MNCs and corporate agri-business firms) are now vying for sourcing agri-produce from ‘collectivized’ PCs! Now they chase PCs! Let us hope if history of FDI repeats itself ‘third’ time in our production and distribution system, it appears as joy, not tragedy or farce. Joy for each of us to celebrate. Is this possible? New, attractive, efficient, sustainable Consumers’ Cooperative Stores and local ‘bazaars’ is the immediate response. It’s our own, citizens’ social responsibility. Let us promote the idea of lavish consumers’ cooperative stores and producers’ cooperatives.
(The author is AGM (Economic Service) NABARD Regional office Jammu.

By Dr J S Dev

Indian higher education system is the second largest in the world. It caters to the needs of about 13 million students through 559 universities and 31324 colleges. After globalisation many countries of standing established their own national councils/bodies for assessment and accreditation of their institutions of higher education for ensuring the quality education in order to compete the world market. Following this global trend the Govt of India also established National Assessment and Accreditation Council with its headquarters at Bangalore in the year 1994. It was established with a mandate to assess and accredit higher education institutions and also with an objective of maintenance and improvement of quality of higher education.
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) besides its primary functions of assessing and accrediting the institutions of higher education also performs complementary functions which include preparation of pre and post accrediting strategies, organization of seminars/workshops/conferences to share and discuss education quality related issues, to provide guidance to institutions for preparing their self study report and to promote the establishment of quality assurance units etc. Though in a NAAC has put forth its best efforts to propagate the quality assurance mechanism yet it has faced several challenges and resistance from academia for the assessment process. Many institutions had apprehesions and some of their were indifferent or reluctant to undergo the process of accreditation. As the accreditation process is voluntary in nature. Therefore, NAAC cannot enforce the institutions for the same. And the result is that NAAC has so far accredited about 5000 institutions including 167 universities and 4500 colleges of which 67 universities and 732 colleges were re-accredited because accreditation is valid for five years only.
During the first phase (1999-2002) NAAC adopted 5 grades (ranging from a single star to five stars) methodology for assessment and accreditation. Assessment is performance evaluation of an institution and is accomplished through a process based on self study and poor review using a defined criteria. Accreditation refers to the certification given by the NAAC which is valid for five years. The process of assessment followed by NAAC is in accordance with internationally accepted practice but with certain modifications to suit the Indian system. During the first phase 258 institutions were accredited including 47 universities and 81 colleges.
From initial period of resistance it then moved to acceptance and during the second cycle (2002-2007) NAAC put in practice 9 point scale. Under this system institutions were assessed on pre-determined criteria but were graded on 9 point scale with nine grades viz A++, A+, A, B++, B+, B,C++, C+ and C. About 3500 institutions were assessed under this system. Even though these was normal distribution of grades under this method, yet it was found to have certain inherent limitations. Based on the field experience and to overcome limitations NAAC switched over to a new method effective from Ist of April, 2007.
According to new methodology the institutions have been classified into two groups. Group I includes affiliated and constituent colleges. Group II includes universities, autonomous colleges and colleges with potential for excellence. For institutions falling under Group I a two step process has been introduced where as for Group II a single step approach is in vogue. An intending institution from both groups is first required to submit its letter of intent on the prescribed proforma and Group I institution has also to apply for obtaining Institutional Eligibility for Quality Assessment Status (IQAS). Group I institution successful in earning IQAS moves to next step and those who fail to obtain IQAS can again apply after one year.
Under second step a self study report is submitted as per NAAC manual. Then Peer team is deputed for on site visit to validate the information reflected in the self study report by the particular institution.
As per new methodology the institutions are graded under four categories viz A,B,C and D. The category A denotes very good, B-good, C-satisfactory and D-unsatisfactory. As compared to previous methods it is more rigorous and ensures better reliability. NAAC has also established a committee to look into the grievances of institutions about Peer team visit and accreditation status earned.
The HRD Ministry introduced in Parliament, ”the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010” to make provisions for assessment of institutions of higher education through mandatory accreditation by independent agencies and to establish a statutory Authority for the said purpose. The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority when in place shall register independent accreditation agencies and shall regulate the process of accreditation. It shall also specify the norms and standards to be followed by these agencies for accreditation.
Though the NAAC has been striving hard to inculcate the culture of quality improvement in higher education yet there are many areas to cover. NAAC concentrates mainly on academic programmes only and leaves administrative affairs which are otherwise equally important and without that the process and product of NAAC would certainly be farce.
Conclusively the Philosophy of NAAC is ameliorative and enabling rather than punitive or judgemental. It provides guidance to the institutions of higher education so that their different constituencies are empowered to maximise their resources, opportunities and capabilities.
(The author is former Registrar Jammu University)