Quiet Verdict of Ordinary Citizens

At one point in time, onion prices reached their peak, and the BJP government in the Delhi Union Territory was defeated in the subsequent election. An order was passed by the AIADMK government under the leadership of J. Jayalalithaa that animals should not be killed in temples in the rural areas of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, the AIADMK party under her leadership was defeated and removed from power. No one dreamt of Manmohan Singh coming back to power for a second term, but he won the election even though he was not a political party leader, largely because of the pro-poor schemes he had launched.

In Bangladesh, an elected government was removed by the people after it dealt ruthlessly with the youth during their agitation. Similarly, in Nepal and Sri Lanka, elected governments were violently removed from power by the public. In India, however, changes happened in a democratic way—that is, through elections. The events that occurred in neighbouring countries were not through peaceful means but through direct and violent participation by the people. When Indira Gandhi declared an Emergency and kept the country under strict government control for two years, people remained silent.

But in the 1977 election, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, people spoke in one voice and removed her from power. When Indira Gandhi was later assassinated, it came as a surprise that her son, the accidental politician Rajiv Gandhi, was given a massive electoral victory to run the country with sufficient strength. More than the educated elite, ordinary citizens respond and react with a sense of responsibility to save the nation. In India, people often watch silently and tolerate the atrocities of the ruling establishments—namely the political and bureaucratic class—and deliver their verdict when the opportunity comes, mostly during elections.

The reason for recounting all these stories is to remind the ruling class, whether at the Centre or in the states, that power is never permanent. At any moment, it can slip away, provided new leadership emerges that gives hope to the people—leadership that has the moral courage and determination to face political challenges and to show a clear path forward.

No government or administration is without blemishes and weaknesses, as it is handled by humans and not machines. This was stated by Woodrow Wilson, the father of Public Administration. Every government has its own achievements as well as its misdeeds. The best government is one that provides maximum benefits to the maximum number of people. At present, however, people do not expect maximum benefits from the government; rather, they expect basic minimum facilities to lead a decent and dignified human life, especially for the poor and the marginalised.

From this perspective, if one looks at the UPA government under the leadership of Manmohan Singh, it has done some excellent work for the poor and the marginalised. His government responded to the call of the people and acted responsibly. Despite the Directive Principles of State Policy, the basic needs of the poor and marginalised had not been adequately met by earlier governmental initiatives. Against this background, a new system of local government was created at the grassroots level, enabling the poor to participate in governance and development. Along with this, a series of rights were granted to the poor through Acts passed in the Indian Parliament. The government not only conferred rights but also made huge financial outlays in the form of schemes.

Among these, the Right to Work is the most significant and important from the perspective of empowering the poor. It is one of the most acclaimed global pro-poor schemes in terms of its scale and implications. It began with an allocation of ₹45 crore and reached its zenith by crossing ₹1 lakh crore during the pandemic period. No other scheme has received such significance and recognition from the global community.

A study conducted across seventeen states in India on the unintended consequences of the Right to Work scheme (MGNREGA) by two institutions—the Gandhigram Rural Institute and the Institute of Rural Management—found that wage parity between men and women was achieved only through this scheme, a first in India’s history. Minimum wages were enhanced in many states only after the scheme’s launch and implementation. Poor women in rural areas gained bargaining power to increase their agricultural wages. Through this scheme, poor women were able to save money in bank accounts and felt they were in a safe and protective economic environment.

Poor women gained independence in household decision-making, particularly regarding household expenditure. While making independent decisions at home, they spent money earned through this work primarily on the educational needs of their daughters, as well as on essential household goods. Women prioritised items to be purchased using their savings. When they visited banks, they began accessing other benefits available through the banking system.

Similarly, they were encouraged to attend Gram Sabha meetings to obtain more information about the scheme, and they actively participated. Through this participation, they learned about other government schemes for the poor and marginalised and began accessing them. Their silence was transformed into a voice through Gram Sabha participation, and resolutions were passed based on their involvement. Through regular participation, they developed the practice of questioning authority and fostered a culture of discourse and deliberation in Gram Sabha meetings.

A poor elderly woman who previously received no recognition from her family members gained dignity after the introduction of the scheme. Earlier, she was considered to have no value, but after earning wages through the scheme and receiving money in her bank account, she gained recognition by contributing to household expenditure. She no longer depended on others for her basic needs.

A poor girl among the respondents shared that she had a dream of purchasing a plastic chair for her family, which was realised only through the scheme made available to her mother. “For the first time, I sat on a chair in my house. We never had a chair before,” she said. Another school-going girl stated that she bought body spray for the first time in her life using the savings of her mother, who works under MGNREGA. The consequences of the scheme cannot be measured merely by the number of workdays generated, the amount spent, or the assets created.

When studied in depth, the scheme produced unintended consequences at an unfathomable level, many of which relate to the empowerment of the poor and marginalised. Despite these positive outcomes, one key point cannot be ignored: the level of corruption involved in the scheme is also unfathomable. Nevertheless, despite its weaknesses, the benefits of reaching the unreached are significant, and the scheme can be reformed.

The scheme has not failed the people; rather, it has been made to fail by individuals involved in its implementation—namely elected representatives and the bureaucracy. What is needed today is not vituperative politics but a consensus to reform the scheme in order to help the poor and farmers. The present Act and scheme give the impression that some states may lose heavily, but every state has poor and marginalised populations. The poor in every village who have benefited from the scheme should not be deprived of its advantages in the name of reform.

Views expressed are personal. The writer is a former Professor and Rajiv Gandhi Chair for Panchayati Raj Studies, Gandhigram Rural Institute