OneWorld.net (U.S.)

The participation of women in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) programmes is an important intervention towards women’s empowerment as it provides them, often for the first time, an independent source of income and livelihood.

In many instances, NREGA is also the only source of livelihood available to women close to the vicinity of their villages.

It is not surprising therefore, that women have come out in large numbers to take part in this programme. While official statistics estimate around 50% participation by women on average across the country, in some States, like Tamil Nadu, it is as high as 80%.

Even in Uttar Pradesh, which showed very poor response in the first year, the numbers are gradually going up.

From the simple pleasure of being able to buy a gift for a grand child to investing in a chit fund to acquiring the confidence of operating a bank account, there can be no doubt that NREGA has opened up a whole vista of possibilities for women hitherto unavailable to them.

Disturbing

However, these statistics hide some disturbing aspects of the participation of single women as was brought out by a recent survey of NREGA in Jhalawar district, Rajasthan.

The category of single women constitutes a separate social unit in its own right. But in the NREGA, these women are being systematically excluded by not being issued separate job cards.

Without a separate job card they are forced to be dependent on other family members and subject themselves to various forms of exploitative arrangements.

According to the NREGA, “all members of a family related to each other by blood, marriage, or adoption and normally residing together and sharing meals or holding a common ration card” are included in the definition of a household [Section 2(f) of the Act].

On the one hand, this definition extends beyond the standard definition of family by including adoption but on the other hand it leaves out some important configurations, especially related to single women.

The Operational Guidelines have tried to streamline this definition by using the concept of nuclear family interpreted as father, mother and their children and “any person wholly or substantially dependent on the head of the household”.

Further, the guidelines have added “single member families” as also eligible to be treated as a household.

Damaging

However, there is a tension not only between the Act and the Guidelines but also within the Guidelines.

In particular, the inclusion of “dependents” in the basic definition of the nuclear family inhibits the realisation of the category of single member households, with women as head of the household.

Single women in rural areas are almost invariably dependent on others — typically male members of their family, because they are unable to secure an independent means of livelihood for themselves.

Hence, by explicitly including “dependents” within the definition of a nuclear family, women are being de facto forced into that category. In practice therefore, the current definition perpetuates the patriarchal norm of male-headed households.

Single women include not just single, un-married women, but divorced, separated, abandoned and widowed women as well.

In many instances, being separated or divorced or even abandoned, married women do not get recognition as a separate household and become reliant on their father or brother.

For instance, Janibai of Gharbholia Panchayat was simply thrown out when she gave birth to a girl child. Denied a separate job card, she has been forced to work on the card of her brother without the full benefit of a hundred days of work.

The story of Kalyanibai of Chandipur Panchayat is similar. Living in her father’s house for the last 15 years with her daughter, she can work only on her father’s job card.

There are important implications here for empowerment of women, especially in difficult family relationships as access to a separate income would provide them with a viable source of livelihoods, giving women the opportunity to live with dignity and independence.

Don’t deny the lifeline

A potential problem is the difficulty in making a distinction between women who are single, un-married and those who are married but not living in their marital home.

For women who move back to their parental home the case is often made that they might return to their marital home and thus to their husband’s job card.

In other words, a temporary return does not qualify for a separate job card. But does it matter? In any case the women would not be able to work on two job cards in two separate places at the same time.

The issue of intra-household exploitation applies to another category of single women, i.e., widows living with married sons.

After the death of their spouse, one of the sons usually becomes the head of the household and the widowed mother becomes dependent on him.

More often than not, old people, especially women, are being treated as a liability and in many instances become victims of neglect, abuse and even abandonment.

Evidence from Jhalawar confirms that many women in these circumstances would benefit greatly from having a separate card and not be at the mercy of their kin.

Coherent definition

The imminent extension of NREGA to the whole of rural India (on April 1, 2008) makes it imperative to formulate a coherent and appropriate definition of the household, and to incorporate it in the Act as well as in the Guidelines.

The current definition in the Act leaves a lot of scope for interpretation resulting in certain categories of adults being left out.

Hence, it might be useful to make an explicit provision for single women. In a scenario where their identities are linked to male relatives, the possession of a job card goes a long way in giving them a sense of themselves as individuals and not tied to a male dominated social unit.

This became evident in the repeated pleas from single women across Jhalawar, who said simply: just get us a separate job card.

Source: The Hindu