|
By Rashme Sehgal The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector recently declared that 836 million Indians remain marginalised. The Commission's Chairman Arjun Sengupta says in this interview that the maximisation of profits should not be the sole aim of economic growth. Planning must occupy itself entirely with the improvement of vulnerable sections of society through social engineering
An overwhelming 79% of workers in the unorganised sector live on an income of less than Rs 20 a day, according to the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), chaired by Arjun Sengupta. The Commission’s recent report, entitled ‘Report on the Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector’ says that over 394.9 million workers (86% of the working population) belong to the unorganised sector and work under “utterly deplorable” conditions with “extremely few livelihood options”. In this interview, Sengupta discusses his seminal report on how economic progress has bypassed the poor. How did you arrive at the figure that over 836 million people remain marginalised in our country?
Our data was based on National Sample Survey (NSS) studies. The NSS researches its data meticulously at the regional, district and provincial levels. Going by its statistics, we find that while 235 million people are in a position to take care of themselves, an unbelievable 836 million people, or 77% of the population, require assistance. The Planning Commission must ensure proper monitoring of funds and schemes to help these disadvantaged groups. The NSS data divides the poor into six groups. Those who are extremely poor, whose average per capita consumption income is Rs 9 per day; those who are above the poverty line, earning Rs 12 per day; the marginally poor, earning Rs 15; the vulnerable, earning above Rs 15 but less than Rs 20; the middle income, earning Rs 37; and the high income, earning above Rs 93 per day. The government has been telling us that poverty has been declining…
Yes. The numbers in the group earning between Rs 15-20 per day are expanding, but they still remain abysmally poor. Have all the schemes introduced to help the poorest of the poor made no difference at all?
The finance minister has given a lot of money for social development programmes but these have bypassed the poorest of the poor. Our report (‘Report on the Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector’) has stressed all along that special programmes need to be designed for these people. To give an example, look at the whole issue of agricultural credit. The government keeps emphasising how agricultural credit has expanded, but it has not gone towards helping the marginal farmer. Why shouldn’t the government waive the debts of this distressed section? It’s not such a huge amount. We are not against reforms, but we believe that these need to be realigned and redesigned in such a way that 50% of the agricultural credit first reaches the poorest sector. Therefore, the report stresses that the whole approach to planning should change. We, at the Commission, maintain that maximisation of profits should not be the sole aim of economic growth. Planning has to occupy itself entirely with the improvement of vulnerable sections of society through social engineering. Social engineering is always a difficult exercise as it requires planning, coordination, and redesigning of programmes to make them more efficient and plug leakages. The normal market mechanism benefits only the middle and higher income groups; for the rest it is the government’s job to ensure economic development. The government will have to see that reforms are not reversed, and at the same time, the socially and economically backward must also be taken on board. How does one achieve this?
This is the job of the finance minister and the Planning Commission. We have given some suggestions in our report and, if these are accepted, the government will be taking a major step forward to help marginalised people, in concrete terms. Of course, appropriate financial planning will have to be done in order to raise the money for these vulnerable sections. This will require some amount of tightrope-walking, because we do not want the macro-economic balance to get upset. But I am confident the finance minister is in a position to introduce these long-term measures. Let us not forget that the whole thrust of the economy presently caters to the middle and higher income groups that comprise 24% of the population and whose numbers work out to around 225 million. They possess substantial purchasing power and therefore do not require state assistance. Why do you think these social development programmes went awry?
The poor have no voice and even less representation. So they were not targeted or looked at. When an entire section of society is bypassed, how are they going to lift themselves out of this morass? For example, if we take the thrust in agriculture or irrigation, we will find that because there was no centralised monitoring the rich always benefited from these schemes. Again, the majority of self-employed are in the unorganised sector, but they have not benefited from industrial progress like skills-upgradation and improved technology. The Commission, in its report, has given an agenda on how to reach out to these people. But the most important thing is to provide them with a livelihood, as many of them have no social security or legal protection. Statistics show that among these workers, 87% are dalits and members of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (SC/STs), 80% belong to other backward classes (OBCs), and 84% are Muslims. Just half per cent of GDP can cover 300 million in the unorganised sector. The money needs only to be targeted appropriately. This is not to say they do not have any advantaged sections in this group. Twelve per cent of dalits, 20% of OBCs and 15% of Muslims are rich. What can be done now to reverse this social exclusion?
There is a crying need to involve local panchayats in development. The public must be able to monitor where the money is going, and who is benefiting from it. I also believe the government must encourage artisan cluster units at the rural level to promote the rural economy. If Special Economic Zones (SEZs) can be justified for the rich, such units are more justified for the poor. Everyone keeps harping on development, but the poor have little voice…
Our job is to ensure that the situation gets reversed. In the past, they may not have had a voice but they did have a strong individual identity based primarily on their religion or caste. This identity is easier to comprehend. If the government gets down to the nitty-gritty details of improving their livelihoods, these people will realise that economic development is more important than caste or religion. There is an impression that the government has ignored both your first and second reports. Is that correct?
That is not correct. Our Commission has not only identified the unorganised worker but also analysed his identity. This is the first time that such a detailed report has been brought out that highlights the conditions of unorganised labour in the country. The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector has also gone into schemes to promote livelihoods. These are suggestions and can be improved upon and elaborated, but the basic job was to identify the people. Is the government going to accept these recommendations?
That is for the government to decide. Some groups support our recommendations, others oppose them. Economics is a political subject. There are groups and lobbies that are busy fighting one another, so we do see a lot of struggle ahead. But I will say that, for the first time, we have a government that is committed to the development of the poor. This is the strength of a democracy. I cannot also say what the Bill (the Unorganised Sector Workers Social Security Bill, 2007) will do. At present, it is being considered by the Cabinet. We believe that if the Bill is implemented with some amount of conviction, it can transform the lives of millions of people. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act also received a great deal of opposition. But when the government went ahead and adopted the scheme, it turned out to be quite successful. Voiceless groups will either assert themselves through fighting for their rights, or else they will pick up the gun and become Naxalites. The struggle is towards a more inclusive form of economic development. InfoChange News & Features, September 2007
|
