'Exposing corruption tends to be dangerous'

How do you look back at these years of NREGA?
It was a learning phase, as expected. The learning process has been faster than anticipated in some states, such as Rajasthan, and slower elsewhere. There have been many disappointments, but also many positive experiences, which confirm the possibility of implementing this Act in letter and spirit. One of the main disappointments, I feel, has been the timidity of grassroots organisational work on this issue. But the last word has not been said on this.

Despite social audits, opening of accounts in banks and post offices, there have been instances where money is systematically being siphoned off. What do you think the government will have to do in order to check corruption?
The NREGA guidelines include a fairly clear roadmap for the prevention of corruption, including many transparency safeguards such as regular maintenance of job cards, open access to muster rolls, separation of payment agencies from implementing agencies, formation of vigilance committees, and much more. The main problem is that the transparency safeguards are poorly enforced. More precisely, they are undermined by those who benefit from the traditional system of corruption, including, quite often, government officials themselves. There is an intense battle here between the interests of NREGA workers and those of corrupt elements.

One way of weakening the nexus of corruption is to put in place stronger grievance redressal systems. For instance, Section 25 of NREGA, which provides for penalties against anyone who fails to do his or her duty under the Act, should be activated. This will strengthen the hand of whistle-blowers, including, first and foremost, millions of workers who stand to lose from the embezzlement of NREGA funds. Grievance Redressal Rules have been drafted for this purpose; unfortunately, they are languishing at the Union ministry of rural development in Delhi.

There have been accusations that the government doesn't have adequate funds to meet the requirements of the rural poor. What is your take in this regard?
I am not sure how to read this statement. It sounds like a factual statement, but it's actually a political statement. The Indian economy is booming and government revenue is increasing by leaps and bounds. If the abolition of poverty is a priority, there should be no great difficulty in making enough resources available to implement NREGA as well as many other development and social security programmes. To say that "the government doesn't have adequate funds" is to deny that this ought to be a priority. I don't know how one would justify that. A more relevant question, to my mind, is "how does one ensure that this becomes a priority, in the present context of highly elitist governance?"

The grotesque murder of Lalit Mehta and incidents of violence against NREGA activists have highlighted the dangers involved in exposing corruption in the scheme. What do you think should be done to avoid such confrontations in future?
Exposing corruption tends to be dangerous in any context, but perhaps, particularly so in the case of NREGA, given the sinister nexus of corruption and violence that has surrounded rural public works programmes for many years. One of the main purposes of NREGA was to break this nexus and make a transition to a transparent and accountable system. This transition is happening today at various speeds around the country - quite rapidly in states like Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, but very slowly in, say, Bihar or Jharkhand. It can and must be accelerated through various means: stronger political resolve, stricter enforcement of the transparency safeguards, better grievance redressal mechanisms, among others.