Women in Rural Development Constrains and Opportunity

Dear Friends ,

The following article can be linked to Rural Development and Development Dynamics in the syllabus. I have highlighted important points please make a note of the same.

Regards

GMStudyCenter

(Source:http://articlescollections.com/women-in-rural-development-constrains-and-opportunity/)

Throughout our country rural areas are characterized by high levels of poverty limited economic and employment opportunities undeveloped infrastructure and limited services with marginalized communities economically dependent on urban areas. For decades our rural communities were denied adequate education and our youth forced to abandon their homes and seek jobs in the cities. Our people were forced out of the countryside to become cheap migrant laborers in the factories, in the cities and on the farms. Our women in rural areas have had to bear the brunt of suffering by having to walk long distances to fetch water and collect firewood, by having to eke out their living and that of their families often on barren land to which they had been removed. They have remained pillars of strength in the community and we must pay tribute to their fortitude and resilience. Further our rural communities have to contend with lack of access to government services and unintended policy implementation consequences, as the implementation of policy tended to be biased towards the urban and semi urban areas.

We have to recognize women as the driving force for rural development. Women farmers are main food producers in developing countries and yet they are one of the most vulnerable groups. Their economic empowerment to produce more and to participate in policy formulation is critical to addressing poverty and food insecurity.

Before rural development can be successful, the important role of women has to be acknowledged. Moreover, they have to be fully integrated and given the possibility of acquiring knowledge and skills, and of utilizing them as well.

The government should also abolish the legally based discrimination of women fixed in inheritance rights; give them equal access to land, livestock, and means of production; make it possible for them to participate in business activities; and guarantee them a right to membership and voting in labor organizations, credit associations, and similar organizations.

The number of women in training and extension programmes should be increased, especially in posts from which they have been excluded until now. The contents and subjects of training and extension programmes should be expanded so that the role of women in production, processing, and marketing can also be taken into account.

To achieve participation equal to that of men in public institutions, the women's cooperative activities should be promoted. To achieve this goal, it will be necessary to create a system for ascertaining the obstacles hindering the participation of women in schools, health services, employment, and general development. Statistical data showing women's contribution in production should be compiled and published. Measures facilitating household work and care of the children increase the chance for women to participate in economic, training, and political activities. Men should also be obligated to do their share of household work.

Training facilities of equal quality for girls and women, with the same subject matter as for men, should be established and made attractive by offering scholarships. These institutions should be followed up by possibilities of earning an income with the guarantee of an equal salary for equal work. Training possibilities for women are especially important not only in the fields of agriculture and in non- agricultural gainful employment, but also in the sectors health, nutrition, children's education, and family planning. It is necessary to make sure that, during the transition from a traditional economy to the modern technologies; the negative implications for women are minimized.

The face of the farmer and natural resource manager is primarily female in most of the developing world. Knowledge, technology, policies, institutions and programmes must therefore be developed by putting women at the centre to orient structures and processes to address their needs as food producers and environmental managers through gender mainstreaming and investing in women and girls to bridge the existing gender gaps. The prevailing misunderstanding and neglect of this fact has contributed to a significant loss of opportunities and investments in women farmers and thus has had major consequences for food security and poverty alleviation. Rather than being regarded as a vulnerable group, women’s knowledge, experience and substantial roles make them experts in agriculture and natural resource management; they are key agents in the way forward for sustainable development.

As women bear the brunt of poverty, it is just and fair that the bulk of our programmes be targeted towards them. We have to ensure that they also enjoy the fruits of freedom. We need to formulate tangible programmes that will take women issues to the centre of our agenda. The consolidation of democracy in our country requires the eradication of social and economic inequities, especially those that are systematic in nature, which were generated in our history.

Though agriculture has a central role to play in the rural community, it is not an end in itself but a means to an end which is rural development. It remains one of the important ingredients which include access to healthcare, education and other government services such enabling documents. Therefore the project planning for rural development needs to take these factors into account. Although significant progress has been made in restructuring and transforming our society and institutions, systematic inequalities and unfair discrimination remain deeply embedded in social structures, practices and attitudes, undermining the aspirations of our constitutional federal democratic republic.

Public Administration Perspective.- NREGA

There was an interesting article in the hindu today about NREGA. Here I would like to give an outline When you are looking at any government's plan or yojanas we need to learn to look it from the following perspectives -

• Feasibility of the plan whether the plan can be implemented at all
• Whether the plan will help in sustaining growth of the citizens addressed.
• How transparency is ensured in the plan
• How Accountability can be ensured.
• Whether it involves all the citizens - inclusive growth
• Who is responsible for the implementation
• How citizens are involed in the implementation of the plan.
• Once it is implemented - do we have any lessons learned from this ..like difficulties encountered , what was best about the plan,etc

I am sure if you are keeping these things in mind and refer the highlighted part of the article below you will get some idea.

Dalits, the poor and the NREGA

As the Union Ministry of Rural Development attempts to craft the architecture of what is being referred to as “NREGA 2,” the principles that constitute the basic foundation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act must be kept in mind. The NREGA evolved out of a political response to a people’s movement and the articulated needs of rural workers. It put the people’s right to seek work in a legal framework, and approached development through the economic and social empowerment of the poor and the marginalised. The focus was clear: work must be provided on demand. The assets created should benefit the poorest and most marginalised communities first. The work itself should create and sustain favourable conditions for providing minimum wage employment in a transparent and accountable manner. Plans, and even new programmes, should be suggested and endorsed by the people. With a large increase in fund flow, the gram sabha and the panchayat is finally in a position to actually build participatory democracy, and people’s planning can be developed, as Kerala did along with fund devolution.

Despite all the criticism with respect to corruption and leakages, the NREGA has actually drawn attention to the weaknesses of the delivery mechanism. And it has made a host of different sets of people apply their collective skills to repair them. It is true, however, that the achievements of the NREGA have been uneven: in many States even the job cards are yet to be properly issued. Its foundations still being weak, any immediate change must not burden the fragile success, and must strengthen its basic structure. Most important, no change should be introduced without rigorous debate, centrally involving its primary constituents.

Unfortunately, the first change was slipped through on July 22, 2009, when Schedule I of the NREGA was amended to allow the “provision of irrigation facility, horticulture plantation, and land development facilities to land owned by households belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or below poverty line families or to beneficiaries of land reforms or to the beneficiaries of the Indira Awaas Yojana of the Government of India, or that of the small or marginal farmers as defined in the agriculture debt waiver and debt relief Scheme 2008.” (the amendments made are marked in italics). The definition of small and marginal farmer used here implies that anyone who owns up to five acres of arable land (over 80 per cent of farmers come in this category) will be eligible for assets on their land.

By removing the focus of such subsidies from Dalits and the poor, this deceptively benevolent looking amendment could fundamentally change the course of the NREGA. Yet it came about with no public consultation or debate: in fact without even placing the matter before the Central Employment Guarantee Council (CEGC). What is its potential impact?

With all its shortcomings and failings, the limited benefit provided by the NREGA has been an important support structure for the poorest and most marginalised rural communities. Wage work has been open to all those who offer to do casual manual work on eight categories of work — most of which are designed to strengthen the natural resource base of those who are most dependent on such community assets for their livelihoods.

At a meeting with a group of farmers including small and marginal farmers who work on NREGA worksites, there was unanimous agreement that the amendment would place the controls of the NREGA in the hands of the landed peasantry. Another apprehension that was strongly articulated was the potential disintegration of the strong transparency and accountability provisions that have been woven into the NREGA, as collective work on community land is replaced by work on individual landholdings. Dalits and the below poverty line group, however, had a sharper and personalised reaction. One of them said: “We have just begun to get something out of this Act, and it seems everyone wants to find ways of taking it away from us. Dalits and the poorest farmers will be pushed out, and the landless will be left developing assets for others.”

So far, only a fraction of poor and Dalit farmers have been sanctioned works. There is no justification to include others, and move to the second generation when the priority group is still to be covered.

At a meeting at Vigyan Bhavan in Delhi on August 20, Union Minister of Rural Development C.P. Joshi said the Ministry welcomed “discussion, debate and dissent.” Having received objections, he made the welcome announcement that the amendment would be kept in abeyance and re-examined, keeping in mind its potential impact on Dalits and the poor. However, the amendment itself needs to be withdrawn or suspended immediately, at the least, till lands of the first category are saturated.

One of the arguments used against the NREGA is that it has made farming difficult because farm labour have to be paid higher wages. This complaint is in fact one of the strongest endorsements the NREGA could receive. It is a law designed to support the poorest, and this criticism indicates that the NREGA has increased the bargaining power of rural labourers.

What about the farmer’s problem? The severe crisis in the agricultural sector must be addressed, and the viability of farming in India ensured. There are a slew of measures that are needed to ameliorate distress and increase the vibrancy of farming. These should include better support prices, more rational policies in international trade, special programmes and direct subsidies for agricultural revival including the building of farm ponds on every farm, better credit policies and effective crop insurance. Questions of credit, trade, and technology must be re-examined keeping the farmer’s long-term interests in mind. However, subsidising farmers through lower wages for agricultural labour, or transferring a share of resources meant for those who are worst-off in rural India, is the most unjust way to help the Indian farmer. The legitimate concerns of the farmers need to be separately addressed. The fragile success of an employment programme cannot bear the burden of lifting the entire rural economy out of the morass.

At a time when the spectre of drought looms large, the primary focus must be on providing work and wages on time. The NREGA is the first law in the country that put economic and social rights in a legal framework. Establishing such an alliance between the poorest citizen and the state on these most basic components, is the real blueprint of the NREGA.

We need to make sure this foundation is strong, and then carefully begin to construct NREGA II. There are strong legal provisions within the law that a citizen can initiate to demand work on 15 days, payment of wages in 15 days, and redress of grievances within seven days. In case of failure, workers can demand unemployment allowance, compensation and imposition of penalties.

Instead of trying to tinker with second-generation reforms, the government needs to first demonstrate that it can ensure an effective response to these demands across the country. An alliance between the ordinary citizen and the state is the roadmap of not just the NREGA, but of democratic governance.