Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Goofs and Oops in MNREGS Implementation
Suspension of MGNREGS grants to six districts was wrong, but State Government’s planning and implementation is far worse.
By: Bimal Prasad Pandia
Putting an end to a week-long bickering, the Central Government did release 170 crore rupees of NREGS central share grant for six districts on 24th June. Earlier on 10th June, it had released 530 Crore rupees for the other 24 districts of Orissa. While releasing the central share for 24 districts the Central Government had said “no funds should be released to 6 districts viz. Bolangir, Nuapada, Kalahandi, Koraput, Nabarangpur, and Rayagada which are presently under CBI investigation”. Condemnations poured in, quite rightly, from different quarters in protest against the decision to deny central share to the six districts. The Orissa Government, too, seized the opportunity to portray another instance of ‘step-motherly treatment’. The argument was that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) is not like any other scheme where you can suspend further grants where an investigation of criminal wrongdoings is on. The MGNREGS is different as it gives a household the right to seek and get wage employment of 100 days in a year. In other words, the Government is bound by the Constitution to provide wage employment for at least 100 days to a job seeking household. This obligation probably allowed the State Government to lodge a strong protest which even threatened, in a letter sent on 20th June, that “if funds are not received from the Central Government for 6 districts, the State Government should not be made liable for payment of unemployment allowance”. With the release of first instalment of grants to all 30 districts, the hullabaloo might have subsided but it has revealed many a gaps in the manner MGNREGS is being implemented in Orissa.
Bottom to top approach goes for a toss
Labour budget projection clearly defies the bottom to top approach and end up exposing glaring gaps in projection and actual demand.
Under Section 14(6) of the Act, the District Programme Coordinator or the District Collector is required to prepare a ‘labour budget’ by the end of December for the next financial year. The operational guideline clearly instructs that the ‘Gramsabha’ will estimate labour demand, which will subsequently be cumulated at Panchayat, Block and District levels. Thus it makes it mandatory to have village to district to State approach while making labour demand projection for a year. Orissa Government seems to have trampled that precise and clearly laid approach. A look at the labour projection reveals the mockery of the exercise. For all districts month-wise increase, in percent term, of household and man-days labour demand is absolutely the same. For example, all 30 districts of the State have projected that labour demand by May 2011 will be 128.57 percent more than April. This is same not just for month of May alone; it is same throughout all 12 months of the year. The Government’s projection shows that labour demand in June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February and March will increase by an uniform rate of 56.25, 36, 26.47, 18.6, 5.88, 11.11, 8.33, 18.46, 10.39 and 17.65 percent than their respective preceding months across all the districts. A projection when based on assessments made at Gramsabha level and then compiled and cumulated at higher levels, will never return a similar trend throughout the State as labour demand in the districts deeply vary in need and character. Thus it clearly shows that the labour budget projection made by the State Government is arbitrary and mere hogwash.
The State Government’s labour budget is ridiculous on a different count also. It hardly takes any measure of the real employment requirement of the wage seekers. April and May months are peak seasons for the scheme. This is the time when the rural households have least employment opportunities from other sources. Besides it is the ideal time for renovation of ponds, water harvesting structures, land levelling, and pit digging for plantations kind of activities. But the Government’s labour budget makes a projection as if the hungry and poor rural folks do not have that kind of consideration at all and as if they plan their requirement Government’s financial year. The Government’s projection will make us believe that poor rural friends considerately decides that as the financial year ends with March they should be moderate in seeking employment in the months of April or May, the beginning months of the new financial year. While the State Government had projected 265 lakh man-days demand for March 2011, which is the last month of the previous financial year, its projection for May 2011 was a mere 73 lakh man-days. In other words, people’s demand for wage employment in April 2011 was nearly one-fourth of March 2011 projection. Ironically, this trend is not limited to this year alone. Last year too, the State Government had projected the least number of man-days requirements in the month of April. This clearly proves that the projections being whimsically prepared.
Apart from helping in planning projects, labour budget projection also forms the basis of fund release. The MGNREGS guidelines clearly lay down that labour budget projection for the next year should be necessarily submitted by the end of December. The ‘efficient’ Government in Orissa submitted that projection only on 16.04.2011, a full three and half months after the schedule due date. And it had its affect. While 22 States got their first instalment of Central share on the very first day of the current financial year, Orissa got that only on 10th June – nearly two and half months into the financial year
Joy of clinging on to money?
Partial release of Central share and late release of State share has become the norm
When the Central Government decided to withhold the first instalment for six districts, the State Government cried foul as if the whole world has gone upside down. But if the situation was so bad, why only a part of the Central share was was disbursed to the districts. While the Central Government had released Rs 529.9 Crore on 21.6.11 for 24 districts, the State Government disbursed only Rs 256 Crore to the districts. Similarly, out of the Rs 170 Crore Central share grant to the remaining six districts, the State disbursed Rs 95 Crore.
While the State Government’s tendency to sit over the funds for as long as possible may still be passed off as an outcome of low employment demand against the projection, release of State share for year 2010-11 in the year 2011-12 cannot be justified in any manner. The State Government – which had reminded the Central Government about the NREGS being different from other schemes, and that being so, fund release cannot be denied in any circumstances - conveniently ignored the fact that the same stipulation also applies to it. The State Government failed to release the required matching grant of Rs 38 Crore for year 2010-11. It could release only Rs 15 Crore in year 2010-11. The remaining matching grant of Rs 23.5 Crore for financial year 2010-11 was released only on 18th May 2011. ‘Insufficient budget provision’ was cited as the reason. Huh... what a mediocrity? The Government does not even have the foresight to earmark required budget for a scheme which supposedly goes through strategic rigours of thorough planning and projections, and a scheme which compels the Government to provide wage employment to its citizens.
The hollowness within the mechanism needs to be plugged early. Else, a great scheme with great potential will continue to be wasted.
By: Bimal Prasad Pandia
Putting an end to a week-long bickering, the Central Government did release 170 crore rupees of NREGS central share grant for six districts on 24th June. Earlier on 10th June, it had released 530 Crore rupees for the other 24 districts of Orissa. While releasing the central share for 24 districts the Central Government had said “no funds should be released to 6 districts viz. Bolangir, Nuapada, Kalahandi, Koraput, Nabarangpur, and Rayagada which are presently under CBI investigation”. Condemnations poured in, quite rightly, from different quarters in protest against the decision to deny central share to the six districts. The Orissa Government, too, seized the opportunity to portray another instance of ‘step-motherly treatment’. The argument was that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) is not like any other scheme where you can suspend further grants where an investigation of criminal wrongdoings is on. The MGNREGS is different as it gives a household the right to seek and get wage employment of 100 days in a year. In other words, the Government is bound by the Constitution to provide wage employment for at least 100 days to a job seeking household. This obligation probably allowed the State Government to lodge a strong protest which even threatened, in a letter sent on 20th June, that “if funds are not received from the Central Government for 6 districts, the State Government should not be made liable for payment of unemployment allowance”. With the release of first instalment of grants to all 30 districts, the hullabaloo might have subsided but it has revealed many a gaps in the manner MGNREGS is being implemented in Orissa.
Bottom to top approach goes for a toss
Labour budget projection clearly defies the bottom to top approach and end up exposing glaring gaps in projection and actual demand.
Under Section 14(6) of the Act, the District Programme Coordinator or the District Collector is required to prepare a ‘labour budget’ by the end of December for the next financial year. The operational guideline clearly instructs that the ‘Gramsabha’ will estimate labour demand, which will subsequently be cumulated at Panchayat, Block and District levels. Thus it makes it mandatory to have village to district to State approach while making labour demand projection for a year. Orissa Government seems to have trampled that precise and clearly laid approach. A look at the labour projection reveals the mockery of the exercise. For all districts month-wise increase, in percent term, of household and man-days labour demand is absolutely the same. For example, all 30 districts of the State have projected that labour demand by May 2011 will be 128.57 percent more than April. This is same not just for month of May alone; it is same throughout all 12 months of the year. The Government’s projection shows that labour demand in June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February and March will increase by an uniform rate of 56.25, 36, 26.47, 18.6, 5.88, 11.11, 8.33, 18.46, 10.39 and 17.65 percent than their respective preceding months across all the districts. A projection when based on assessments made at Gramsabha level and then compiled and cumulated at higher levels, will never return a similar trend throughout the State as labour demand in the districts deeply vary in need and character. Thus it clearly shows that the labour budget projection made by the State Government is arbitrary and mere hogwash.
The State Government’s labour budget is ridiculous on a different count also. It hardly takes any measure of the real employment requirement of the wage seekers. April and May months are peak seasons for the scheme. This is the time when the rural households have least employment opportunities from other sources. Besides it is the ideal time for renovation of ponds, water harvesting structures, land levelling, and pit digging for plantations kind of activities. But the Government’s labour budget makes a projection as if the hungry and poor rural folks do not have that kind of consideration at all and as if they plan their requirement Government’s financial year. The Government’s projection will make us believe that poor rural friends considerately decides that as the financial year ends with March they should be moderate in seeking employment in the months of April or May, the beginning months of the new financial year. While the State Government had projected 265 lakh man-days demand for March 2011, which is the last month of the previous financial year, its projection for May 2011 was a mere 73 lakh man-days. In other words, people’s demand for wage employment in April 2011 was nearly one-fourth of March 2011 projection. Ironically, this trend is not limited to this year alone. Last year too, the State Government had projected the least number of man-days requirements in the month of April. This clearly proves that the projections being whimsically prepared.
Apart from helping in planning projects, labour budget projection also forms the basis of fund release. The MGNREGS guidelines clearly lay down that labour budget projection for the next year should be necessarily submitted by the end of December. The ‘efficient’ Government in Orissa submitted that projection only on 16.04.2011, a full three and half months after the schedule due date. And it had its affect. While 22 States got their first instalment of Central share on the very first day of the current financial year, Orissa got that only on 10th June – nearly two and half months into the financial year
Joy of clinging on to money?
Partial release of Central share and late release of State share has become the norm
When the Central Government decided to withhold the first instalment for six districts, the State Government cried foul as if the whole world has gone upside down. But if the situation was so bad, why only a part of the Central share was was disbursed to the districts. While the Central Government had released Rs 529.9 Crore on 21.6.11 for 24 districts, the State Government disbursed only Rs 256 Crore to the districts. Similarly, out of the Rs 170 Crore Central share grant to the remaining six districts, the State disbursed Rs 95 Crore.
While the State Government’s tendency to sit over the funds for as long as possible may still be passed off as an outcome of low employment demand against the projection, release of State share for year 2010-11 in the year 2011-12 cannot be justified in any manner. The State Government – which had reminded the Central Government about the NREGS being different from other schemes, and that being so, fund release cannot be denied in any circumstances - conveniently ignored the fact that the same stipulation also applies to it. The State Government failed to release the required matching grant of Rs 38 Crore for year 2010-11. It could release only Rs 15 Crore in year 2010-11. The remaining matching grant of Rs 23.5 Crore for financial year 2010-11 was released only on 18th May 2011. ‘Insufficient budget provision’ was cited as the reason. Huh... what a mediocrity? The Government does not even have the foresight to earmark required budget for a scheme which supposedly goes through strategic rigours of thorough planning and projections, and a scheme which compels the Government to provide wage employment to its citizens.
The hollowness within the mechanism needs to be plugged early. Else, a great scheme with great potential will continue to be wasted.
Orissa's ground water resources deplete by over 16 percent in 6 years
While releasing the latest ground water resource assessment for Orissa, the Directorate of Groundwater Survey and Investigation (DGSI), informed that Orissa has 16,68,914 hectare metre (HM) or 16.69 BCM of net dynamic groundwater resources available for development. Out of this, about 4.4 BCM is presently being used for various uses. This assessment had prompted Chief Minister Naveen Pattanaik to say, “the average level of groundwater utilisation in our State is only 26 per cent, and there is a lot of scope for further utilisation”.
But neither the report said nor the Chief Minister mentioned about a frightening trend revealed by the latest estimation. It reveals that ground water resource has dropped by a whopping 16 percent in just six years. The earlier estimation, made in year 2004, had assessed Orissa ground water resource at 21 BCM. This belies the theory that we are underutilising ground water resources. There is no meaning in saying that we are using only 26 percent of ground water resources and thus a lot of scope still left, when our ground water resources is depleting so fast. Further, the latest assessment also reveals that use of ground water resources has increased by 42 percent than 2004 level.
Rapid fall in ground water resources and massive increase in ground water use make a deadly and devastating combination. The drop in ground water resources is cause of serious alarm. We must introspect and find out causes of such depletion, especially when the government and concerned departments continue to say that we are underutilizing our replenish-able ground water resources.
But neither the report said nor the Chief Minister mentioned about a frightening trend revealed by the latest estimation. It reveals that ground water resource has dropped by a whopping 16 percent in just six years. The earlier estimation, made in year 2004, had assessed Orissa ground water resource at 21 BCM. This belies the theory that we are underutilising ground water resources. There is no meaning in saying that we are using only 26 percent of ground water resources and thus a lot of scope still left, when our ground water resources is depleting so fast. Further, the latest assessment also reveals that use of ground water resources has increased by 42 percent than 2004 level.
Rapid fall in ground water resources and massive increase in ground water use make a deadly and devastating combination. The drop in ground water resources is cause of serious alarm. We must introspect and find out causes of such depletion, especially when the government and concerned departments continue to say that we are underutilizing our replenish-able ground water resources.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Some Messages Received on Suparno Satpathy's Plagiarism
Since I have made Suparno Satpathy's plagiarism public I have received many phone calls and emails. Posting few of those below which also includes one which castigated me.
Tathagat Satpathy: I am not lucky enough to have an unified family, shall deem it a mighty favor if you will not involve the name of late ms nandini satpathy or tathagata (mine) with any undesirable and highly objectionable acts such as the one you have pointed out.
Ranjan Panda: I strongly CONDEMN this kind of act by anyone. If this Mr. Suparno Satpathy is so poor in knowledge, he should have begged you for a story and I know Bimal you have been very generous to share valuable writings and information with others.
Achyut Das: I am one with you in expressing concern over the issue of plagiarism. I am sure many in various networks are going through your posting and must be wondering why Mr. Suporno Satpathy is not coming forward with a clarification. If he thinks that he has made a mistake inadvertently, there is no harm in apologising. Absolutely no harm!
Arjun Purohit: I am with you,Bimal. Plagiarism is worst kind of theft, and it must be condemned unequivocally. I am glad that you publicly unmasked the culprit.
Varsha Mehta: The Chairman of an organisation (SNSMT), no less, resorting to such plagiarism indicates the poor standards by which they operate, I suppose! Through this comment, I'd like to request Shri Suparno Satpathy to withdraw his article from Orissabarta, and offer an unconditional apology to the original author of this article, failing which he should be prepared to face the dire consequences that are reserved for such intellectual crimes.
Bikas Pati: Its really horrible to know about the real performance of such so called intellectuals. Hope your letter will certainly teach him the lesson. He might have got the education of doing such activities from abroad.
Bikas Rath: You can approach the Press Council of India.
Jagannath Chatterjee: You have done the right thing by writing this open letter. I can understand how you feel. It is very difficult to tolerate plagiarism and rightly so.
Sanjeev Karmee: This is a very sad incident.
Saket Sahu: This is a sad and bad tradition. If someone is copying something...simply he/she should take the permission from the original author...but our Copyright Act is not so strict and very mild...anyway Mr Satpathy should be punished...if he has violated the Act...and he should be debarred from writing for a period...
Adikanda Biswal: Congratulate you for your bold action. Hope this will teach big bosses like him a good lesson.
Ghanashyam Panda: I am strongly in support of you. This is very bad and I condemn this. You can post a comparison of both articles for others to see and compare.
Mukta Rath: I see no reason is ruling out infringement on the part of Mr. Pandia . The Chairman of a highly decorated social cause organization, Mr. Suparno Satpathy is an awarded author him self specializing on socio-political issues of Odisha, I am sure many on this e-forum will agree with me on this. I strongly feel that a plot to defame him has been put to play...... I am well aware of stunts to create baseless sensational news so that an unknown person gets free publicity. It is very easy to spit muck on a decorated personality and succeed in the said stunt, higher the grade of the decorated person- maximum is the publicity. Out here I see no point in explaining the levels of decoration between Mr. Suparno Satpathy and Mr. Bimal Pandia.
Mukta Rath: I see no reason is ruling out infringement on the part of Mr. Pandia . The Chairman of a highly decorated social cause organization, Mr. Suparno Satpathy is an awarded author him self specializing on socio-political issues of Odisha, I am sure many on this e-forum will agree with me on this. I strongly feel that a plot to defame him has been put to play...... I am well aware of stunts to create baseless sensational news so that an unknown person gets free publicity. It is very easy to spit muck on a decorated personality and succeed in the said stunt, higher the grade of the decorated person- maximum is the publicity. Out here I see no point in explaining the levels of decoration between Mr. Suparno Satpathy and Mr. Bimal Pandia.
Suparno babu - Your Plagiarism is Unacceptable to Me
My Open letter to Suparno Satpathy, Chairman SNSMT
To
Sri Suparno Satpathy,
Chairman of Srimati Nandini Satpathy Memorial Trust
Sub: You have resorted to obscene plagiarism
Dear Suparno babu,
Kindly go through the followings:1. That on 28.12.2010 I found an article titled 'A special package of lies from the govt. of Odisha' published in webportal www.orissabarta.com (http://orissabarta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view= article&id=4043:a-special- package-of-lies-from-the-govt- of-odisha&catid=41:articles& Itemid=27). 2. That Suparno Satpathy, Chairman SNSMT, has been shown as author of that article.2. That this is nothing but a complete cut and paste of my article 'A Package of lies' which I had posted in various e-groups and my own blog www.bimalpandia.blogspot.com on 23.12.2010. In other words, this is lewd plagiarism to the core.3. That the only changes in the article that the website shows as yours are as follows: (a) Substitution of two names, 'Annada Mishra of Bankia village in Sonepur district' with 'Girdhar Pradhan of Chendipada at Angul district', and 'Anata Bariha, a small farmer of Dhatuk village in Balangir district' with 'Dinu , a small farmer of Balangir district'; (b) Deletion of names (whom I had quoted) Ashok Pradhan, Murari Prasad Purohit, Saroj Mohanty, Bijay Dishari, M. Govindu and Daktar Bhoi; and (c) Deletion of inverted commas for quoted portions whose names have been deleted.4. That though you have not made much changes to my article, at one place where you have tried to do something different, you have only become more funny. For example you have substituted '“I am being told that I will get only 1,200 rupees compensation for the lost crop in my one and half acre holding,” informs Ananta and adds “I had spent 20,000 rupees on the crop.” with “I have been offered a 1,200 rupees compensation for my lost crop on my one and half acre holding,” said Dinu and he added “I had spent 20,000 rupees on this crop which is completely ruined.”5. That this kind of theft of my creation and blatant plagiarism is unseen and unaccepted in a civil world.6. That from the way you have made the posting and the way you have funnily tried to change names and a preposition, clear indications emanate that the said act has been done deliberately with a clear malafide intention to claim my article as yours.6. That on the very day when I found out that my article has been posted as your article, on www.orissabarta.com (on 28.12.2010), I did send you a personal mail.8. That it was personal because I had no intention to stretch the matter to ugly proportions. And there was another reason too. As I tried to find out who you are I found from www.orissabarta.com and www.snsmt.org websites and from google search engine that you claim to be heir of late Smt Nandini Satpathyji. Since my father and Nandi Satpathyji were close friends at political level and I personally have great respect for that leader and his son Tathagat babu, I prefer to not make that public and give you enough chance.
9. That since at that point of time I did not have your own email ID, I sent you my first mail at addresses editororissabarta@gmail.com, and info@snsmt.org. I collected those emails info/contact us links of www.orissabarta.com and www.snsmt.org websites. 10. That in that mail I had requested you to kindly say sorry and remove the post from www.orissabarta.com. I had also told you that I will wait for few days for your reply and if you do not reply quickly I shall make the issue public and may take other recourse claim compensation for infringement into my creation.11. That the text of that mail was later posted in my blog www.bimalpandia.blogspot.com under heading 'blatant plagiarism'.12. That you did not fit it necessary to say sorry or remove the article from www.orissabarta.com and I have not received any communication from you regarding that yet.
13. That though you preferred not to respond to my mails, funnily you sent me a new year wish at my mobile. From this I assume that you have my contact. And since you have stolen my article from either my blog or from some e-groups, I assume that also had the opportunity to get my email ID as all my postings always and invariably go with my contact below the posts.
14. That from this I can safely make out that you had enough opportunity to say me sorry or respond to my mail but you preferred not to do either.
15. Hence, I made the issue public by posting the matter in few Odisha centric e-groups on 31.12.2010.16. That since I have made that post, I have received a lot of calls and mails from many readers who have expressed their agony, distraught, displeasure and rejection of your act.17. That many well wishers have advised me to post both articles - my original article and my article which you have posted as yours in www.orissabarta.com. I will soon publish comparison of both in blog www.bimalpandia.blogspot.com. (For your information I have also posted the entire www.orissabarta.com webpage in my blog).18. That since no communication still came at any level from you and the said posting is still on at www.orissabarta.com, I again made posting on 5.1.11 that your plagiarism is absolutely unacceptable to me.
19. That after reading that post many wishers have sent me your personal email ID. Hence I am again sending you this mail to your mail with copies to various e-groups.
20. That your act is absolutely unacceptable to me and I demand an unconditional apology in public. Besides you must immediately remove the article from www.orissabarta.com and tell in the website that the said article belongs to Bimal Prasad Pandia and publishing that article as Suparno Satpathy's was a big mistake and you regret doing that. I firmly believe that an apology will not cause dent to your social stature and bury the issue there itself.
21. That I again reiterate that I do not know you and do now wish to cause you any loss. But if you continue to ignore my request to say sorry and express regret, I shall be constrained to take necessary steps to save my intellectual creations which may, in that process, cause you intellectual harm and unnecessarily consume my time.22. That from sources I have come to learn that you are a grandson of Smt Nandini Satpathy. You are stated to be educated abroad. You also have political inclination. And you also are the Chairman of a trust formed in Nandini Satpathy's name and by virtue of that claim to be a civil society worker.18. That I respect your background and urge you to take necessary steps so that your esteem and social standing is not damaged by nefarious deeds such as this one.
Suparno babu, I hope you have the ability and will to understand the hurt that you have caused me and in doing that, I hope you also know, the potentials of damaging your own interests. Thus I hope you will tender an unconditional and clear apology and declare that you will not resort to such practices in future. In return I shall wish you good luck.
Regards
Bimal Prasad Pandia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)