We started our day with a visit to an employment guarantee work in one of the villages. In the hot and humid summer afternoon a group of persons were desilting an irrigation canal running from the nearby Nagavali river to their village very sincerely. As we were climbing up the canal bund to greet the workers everyone heard loud shouts from our back. I was enthused at listening to the shouts because of late, the visits were becoming routine with no major irregularities being detected. There was this young man who was shaking uncontrollably making some allegations. After we stabilised him into speaking more clearly we were told that the pretty scene of 18 people working on the canal is false. Unable to understand how what we were seeing could be false we probed him further. The man told us that every day only 8-12 people arrive for work, while the remaining go on a private building contract and all of them agreed that every two days some 6 people will go to earn outside while their attendance is recorded. The additional wage earned during the day is a bonus. Looking at the expression on my face which tended to believe this mans version, all the workers in front of us suddenly started attacking this fellow. Their defence was that this fellow wanted the attendance to be recorded to his parents in absentia for the same work that day. They opposed, hence the ruckus. On verification of the muster roll its noticed that there were some corrections which revealed that there is some amount of truth in what both the parties said.
As this shouting young man was refusing to keep quiet while we were discussing, one elderly man who was all along standing with us watching the scene intervened, silenced him, and declared that it was all the fault of the field assistant who wouldnt attend to the work daily. He announced that the husband of the field assistant was in fact the de-facto field assistant in that village who is looking after the works, and that despite she being his brothers daughter he has no hesitation in demanding that she be terminated forthwith to make way for a competent person. Waiting for such an opportunity we readily agreed to his demand. It was decided in front of everyone that she will be replaced by the senior most mate.
After finishing the rest of the work, while we were about to leave the village this village elder reappeared with his neice all alone. He pulled me aside and said "This girl is a very nice and innocent girl, do not terminate her. I request that she may be continued".
The question: Did he do the right thing in requesting for her continuation?
A village elder is supposed to be just. He was right in identifying the cause of the problem as being the irregular attendance of his neice and the interference of her husband. He rightly demanded her termination in front of everyone. Public interest comes before personal bonds. If he demanded termination of his neice expecting that we wouldnot agree to it then we can say he did not act truthfully hence unjust. In case his demand was genuine then he is just.
But then his action is sure to hurt his neice and bring unpleasantness home. Who should his loyalty be towards? Once he enters the role of a father at home he is supposed to take care of the interests of the family members. Isnt he just in requesting us as a head of his family to take a lenient view towards his daughter? Answer appears yes.
The conclusion then will be that he is just in demanding her termination as head of the village and he is also just in requesting her continuation as a head of his family. In the first case its a demand , in the second case its a request. Demand versus request.
We will view this problem from the omission or commission from the field assistants stand point. In case the fault of the assistant deserves termination for her wrong she shall be terminated even in the face of a request made by a father. Justice tells us that overall interest of all families of the village is more important than the interest of one family. Hence justice demands that she be terminated.
good post, and do keep blogging on such ones from your field visits. we could then analyze them
ReplyDeletehere is my take on this. in a second-best world, this elder can be described as just (not in an ideal world, where his apparent hypocrisy would be a give-away), all the more so if he leaves his request as just that, a request.
but the bigger problem is for the official, and especially in our second-best world (or real world). what is the request comes from the elder (substitute minister or MLA or MP) who has been instrumental in getting the official there in the first place? Or what if the "request" was more than a request, more of a demand? either way, the official would be more inclined, nay positively predisposed, to keeping the field assistant (mostly, citing some administraative requirements/exigencies).
i would think that, atleast in some ways, this is a more pernicious form of corruption because people do not realize what goes on underneath. post-facto, they are made to rationalize away the actions of both politician/elder (whose immediate demand was widely appreciated) and the official (he has his administrative limitations in abruptly removing the assistant).
about the substantive issue, you could blog on the issues of the utility of NREGS itself. how rampant is the excess attendance reporting? is the practice of people reporting for work in the morning and then going to work elsewhere common? can technology be a solution to it (what, i am informed, they are doing in vizag and some districts)?