Inclusion Of Internal Migrants In India

Photo Source:UNESCO

Free movement is a fundamental right of the citizens of India and internal movements are not restricted. The Constitution states: “All citizens shall have the right (...) to move freely throughout the territory of India; to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India

- Article 19(1) (d) and Article 19(1) (e), Part III, Fundamental Rights, The Constitution of India, 1950.

Approximately three out of every ten Indians are internal migrants! Despite this, internal migration has been accorded very low priority by the government, and existing policies of the Indian state have failed in providing legal or social protection to this vulnerable group.

National Sample Survey Office (2007–08) states that around 28.5 per cent of the 1.2 billion people in India are internal migrants (Census 2011). According to the UNDP Human Development Report (2009), the number of internal migrants (740 million) is nearly four times the number of international migrants (214 million).

 

As per NSSO (2007-08), around 80 per cent of total internal migrants are women. 91.3 per cent of women in rural areas and 60.8 per cent of women in urban areas cite marriage to be the most prominent reason for migration. However, researchers believe that the macro data reports do not capture the complete picture and miss the actual reasons for migration. About 30 per cent of internal migrants in India belong to the youth category (15-29 years age group).    
                

 Urbanization and Migration:

India’s urban population has increased from about 286 million in 2001 to 377 million in 2011, and is expected to increase to 600 million by 2030. This increase migration to urban areas is largely due to an increase in female migration (38.2 %in 199341.8 % in 1999-2000 45.6 % in 2007-08). The main reason driving this migration is expectations of “better employment opportunities.”

The report on Social Inclusion of Internal Migrants in India, UNESCO (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002237/223702e.pdf) highlights two developments in the evolution of urban centres that absorb the increasing migrant population.

Firstly, influx of people from varied regions poses a socio-economic and environmental challenge to cities. The outcomes are growth of second tier cities rapid urbanisation and the greater challenge to absorb the migrant population that eventually translates into increased poverty and inequality levels.

Secondly, focus of policy making changes from “welfarism to rights based approach” with the goal to ensure that basic services are accessible to all.

The loose definition of migration and the largely ignored concerns that it poses renders the design and delivery of their social inclusion undefined and hence, ineffective.

                                              Internal Migration: Myths and Realities

Despite its contribution, internal migration still suffers from several ill conceived notions. Highlighted below are some myths related to internal migrants that are countered with important realities:

• Myth: Burden on destination cities vs. Reality: Forms cheap labor and thereby contributes to GDP
• Myth Steal local jobs vs.Reality: Migrants typically provide essential services which the locals might not want to engage in

• Myth: Migration can be stopped vs. Reality: Migration and urbanisation are integral part of economic and social development.
• Myth: Inhospitable cities are best deterrents to internal migration vs. Reality: Harsh cities merely increase risks and costs of migration, reducing its development potential
• Myth: Women migrate only for marriage vs. Reality: Women's labour migration and economic contribution

10 Key Areas for Inclusion of Internal Migrants

1. REGISTRATION AND IDENTITY

Migrants lack documentary proof of identity and local residence due to which they are excluded from access to legal rights, public services and social protection programmes (subsidised food, housing and banking services). In response to this, the Unique Identification (Aadhar) programme was created to combat the issue of registration.

2. POLITICAL AND CIVIC INCLUSION
 

A report on  Political Inclusion of Seasonal Migrant Workers in India: Perceptions, Realities and Challenges reveals that many migrants are unable to exercise their franchise because they have to travel in search of work and some return to their villages to exercise their franchise, because of this, they exercise limited political agency.

The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 – could ensure a mechanism of accountability of public authorities. It would enable a citizen to file a complaint related to non-functioning of public authorities, violation of a law, policy or scheme or any grievance related to citizens charters, and offending officers could be penalized.
 

3. LABOUR MARKET INCLUSION
 

Migrants are mostly employed in the informal economy, devoid of social security and fair market, often working as construction workers, agricultural labourers,  vendors, etc. There are few Central Labour Laws for regulating conditions of work, but they remain undelivered.
 

4. LEGAL AID AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
 

As migrants are predominantly engaged in the informal sector, migrants have no protection under labour laws. Government’s safety measures remain unimplemented, and minimum wages are not delivered. 

Poor literacy levels and no awareness act as an impediment in claiming rights and entitlements.
 

 5. INCLUSION OF WOMEN MIGRANTS
 

The current discourse on migration has failed to adequately address gender-specific migration experiences. The design of the Census and NSSO data surveys should be amended to better capture the actual reasons of migration. Women migrants, especially those in lower-end informal sector occupations, remain invisible and discriminated against in the workforce.

 

6. INCLUSION THROUGH ACCESS TO FOOD
 

In order to access subsidised grain and other supplies under the PDS scheme, beneficiaries must present a ration card that is given to them at their usual place of residence and is not transferrable. Such clauses imply that migrants are unable to access the PDS system at destination.

The National Food Security Bill 2011 passed this year aims to guarantee food and nutritional security in India, recognized that:  “The migrants and their families shall be able to claim their entitlements under this Act, at the place where they currently reside.”
 

 7. INCLUSION THROUGH HOUSING
 

Migrants face difficulties in accessing housing and other basic amenities. They often live in urban slums, facing constant threats of displacement and eviction from government officials. Shelter solutions show little appreciation for the needs of seasonal migrants.

 Suggestions:

• Affordable rental housing to affordable private housing, with an eventual policy shift towards provision of de facto residential rights and housing
• In-situ upgradation of existing slum dwellings could be a first step towards ensuring basic services for migrants living in slums
• Employers and contractors also need to play a role in securing shelter for migrant workers, and experiments with dormitory accommodation provided by employers (as undertaken in China0

8. EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION
 

Seasonal migrants often take their children along when they migrate, which negatively impacts their regular schooling. This is one of the reasons for high dropout rates in schools in many states. This further breeds inter-generational transmission of poverty.

Despite the Child Labour (Prohibitions & Regulation) Act, 1986, children work for long hours as unregistered workers often in harmful industries on piece rate basis

 Suggestion:

• The multiplication of seasonal hostels to promote the retention of children in schools in source areas
• The establishment of worksite schools at the destination with systems to transfer enrolment, attendance at and credits to formal schools, and bridge courses and remedial education for return migrant children
• Establishing peripatetic educational volunteers who can move with the migrating families, initiating strategies for tracking children by issuing migratory cards, and making the school calendar flexible to accommodate migrant children, including in local government schools in both rural and urban areas,

9. PUBLIC HEALTH INCLUSION
 

Migrants are exposed to health risks including HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, and occupational health hazards such as respiratory problems, lung dseases, allergies, kidney and malnutrition.

 10. FINANCIAL INCLUSION

 

Migrants are unable to access banking facilities since they do not have the necessary documentation to fulfil the Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements of banks, including proof of identity and proof of address. Suggestions

• Linking migrants to branchless banking and business correspondents along with incorporating flexibility in bank procedures
• Target banking services in geographical areas with high out-migration

                                                Prepared by Ashwin Varghese and Mahima Malik

 

 

Right to Entrepreneurship and Aspirations

Photo Source: Linked in

This is in response to Professor Shamika Ravi’s article, “No monkey business” (Indian Express, May 3, 2014), wherein she says that the “general improvements in physical and financial infrastructure have contributed significantly more to the growth of entrepreneurship in India than specific targeted policies of the government”. The Congress Party promised in its 2014 Lok Sabha elections manifesto a “Right to Entrepreneurship that will protect and assist all those who seek to become entrepreneurs”. There seems to be some serious confusion in dealing with the idea of the right to entrepreneurship. The right to entrepreneurship essentially mean the broad term of institutional framework rather than taking one of its sub-sets like the “physical and financial infrastructure” which the writer seems to be taking by underestimating a whole lot of other factors in a “Business Environment” or business eco-system. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference which the writer seems to miss notoriously. The difference is the policy perspectives of distinction between fostering new entrepreneurship opportunities and supporting existing enterprises.

At present, the aspiring Indian entrepreneurs are facing acute challenges related to structural issues such as finance (credit), legal and taxation, operational/functional, infrastructure and technology diffusion. The institutional perspective of a “right” to claim a defined service from a public authority would essentially deal with its totality. In the case of promoting entrepreneurship through a rights based approach, the aspiring entrepreneurs are entitled to demand services dealing namely from starting a business to closing a business by a law which facilitates services within a specified timeframe. In other words, the aspiring entrepreneurs should be guaranteed with a legal right to claim a service from a public authority within a timeframe as immunity.

 According to the World Bank’s Easy of Doing Business Report (2014), in India, to start a business it takes 27 days vis-à-vis 16 days in South Asia and 11 days in OECD countries. In terms of number of procedures, India has 12 procedures as compared to 7 in South Asia and 5 in OECD countries. In case of India, the 12 procedures have to be approved by both Union and State governments. Significant amount of delay in processing of each of the 12 procedures would be possible and are indeed in common practices. There are also considerable costs involved in each of the procedures processing in the government. In India, the cost of per capita income for starting a business is also high at 47.3% as compared to 19.8% in South Asia and 3.6% in OECD countries.

 Further, the World Bank Report (2014) shows the exact number of procedures involved in each stage and how many days takes to complete official process: for starting a new business (12 procedures and takes 27 days), dealing with various construction permits (35 procedures and takes 168 days), getting electricity connection (7 procedures and takes 67 days), registering property (5 procedures and takes 44 days), getting institutional credit (8 procedures), paying taxes (33 times in a year), enforcing contracts (46 procedures and takes 1,420 days), resolving insolvency (minimum 4 years to close a business), etc. All of these are seriously hurting especially the poor aspiring entrepreneurs much more than others because the poor entrepreneurs lack either capital or skill or both. Particularly, getting institutional credit in right time to start a business is really a daunting task for poor entrepreneurs.

 All over the world, the micro, small and medium enterprises are promoted vibrantly by the government interventions by the approach of institutional framework. Therefore, by guaranteeing a legal right to aspiring entrepreneurs in a structured institutional framework would inevitably enable them to demand not only clearing of all the processes and procedures within a timeframe from both Union and State governments but also go beyond and facilitate legal framework to reduce huge costs involved in the starting of a business to closing a business.

 According to Dr.Pronab Sen (2014), “The Economic Censuses demonstrate the huge size and growth of entrepreneurial activity in India... the net increase in the number of non-agricultural establishments in the country is about 8 million every ten years. While admittedly many of these enterprises reflect basic survival strategies, many do not.  The past decade has shown the dynamism that is possible in this sector under the right circumstances and with the proper policies. Many of the leading corporate houses existing today belonged to the SME category at the turn of the century.” The specific targeted policies of the government had its role helping of the once tiny SMEs become big corporate houses now! The UPA’s initiatives like MSMEs Development Act, 2006 has also played a major role.

 In a recent research paper by Bandiera et.al (2012) found that the “very poor can be transformed from labourers into basic entrepreneurs and that this occupational transformation is associated with dramatic improvements in their economic lives, bringing them closer to the middle classes in their communities on measures such as wages and spending.”  Further, the study shows that the “entrepreneurship programme in Bangladesh – the Ultra Poor programme, operated by the Bangladeshi NGO BRAC. The Ultra Poor programme provides asset transfers and skills training to the poorest women in rural communities. The programme aims to move these typically asset-less and unskilled women from low-wage and seasonal jobs to the more secure, self-employment based occupations, which are the choice of middle class women in these communities.”

 The structural reforms in the informal sector are yet to be embarked in a major way to create an enabling environment for even the poorest of the poor in the country. Two-thirds of Indians, nearly 82 crore people are below 35 year of age. The time has come for the idea of right to entrepreneurship in India to really re-look its entire apparatus of the regulatory environment from the perspectives of the rights based approach to unleash the potentials of entrepreneurs of all sections of the society.

 

B.Chandrasekaran

Economic Recovery: Policy Imperative for Job Upturn in India

Photo Source: The Economic Times

The impending 16^th Lok Sabha election is going to be one of the most promising and extravagant events in Indian political history costing its exchequer about Rs 3,500 crores, excluding the expenses on security and individual political parties. The post-election scenario therefore legitimately awaits a new phase of  Indian political-economy. It beckons the hope of millions to find ways for economic recovery and job upturn, especially for the growing youth population in India, when present demographic profile is almost divided into two halves, the youth and the rest, a large part of which needs immediate attention for productive economic engagement.

 

According to National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), in 2011-12 unemployment rate (ratio of total unemployed to total laboure force) in usual status is nearly 2 percent at all-India level with about 2 percent in rural areas (for both male and female) and about 3 percent in urban area (3 percent for males and 5 percent for female). Thus with estimated 40 percent population belong to labour force as per the NSSO, India has a little high about 80 lakhs unemployed. The youth unemployment scenario is even worse, and according to Labour Bureaue estimates in 2013 about 4.7 percent is the youth unemployment rate in India with 4.4 percent in rural area and 5.7 percent in urban area. The all-India Youth Labour Force Participation is 50.9 percent with 52.8 percent in rural sector and 46.1 percent in urban sector. Amongst them, female LFPR is significantly lower (22.6 percent) as compared to male (76.6 percent) under the usual principal status approach. For 15-29 years age group, Labour Force Participation Rate and Unemployment Rate under the usual principal status approach is estimated to be 39.5 per cent and 13.3 per cent respectively. 

Such alarming situation is primarily for poor sectoral economic performance in India. For example, job creation in 2013 is worst affected with the manufacturing sector being the worst hit by the slowdown and projects being stuck due to lack of clearance and approval. Thus Indian companies have hit a three-year slump as slowing economy persists where a large number of development projects remain stalled despite the government trying its best to get them moving amidst efforts to accelerate investment and get growth back on track. The decline in hiring in 2013 was visible in sectors such as automobiles, capital goods, tyres, shipping, paper, construction, power generation and retail in line. Similar is the situation even in service sector, where job has declined by 31 percent by 2012, mostly from IT, telecom, financial services and hospitality services. A drop in GDP percentage from about 9 percent to about 4.5 percent from 2011 to 2013 had alarmingly taken away about 30 lakhs jobs from Indian market.

Despite persistent attempts by the UPA government to face such challenge through several centrally sponsored schemes like Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana  for urban  India, and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana, Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojona for rural India, joblessness, especially amongst the youths remains a glaring issue. There possibly needs a much robust approach and planning where job creation needs to feature as a prime element in any development policy in India. It is being argued that non-farm job creation and productivity growth are fundamentals with more labour-intensive manufacturing, construction and service units. There are four major areas, where India can depend in the next phase of change, viz., IT, telecom, healthcare, infrastructure and retail. High-value-added manufacturing sector and increasing non-farm sectors, reformed labour laws in informal sector and raising shares of organized enterprises, linking skill-development prograrrme to all centrally sponsored schemes are the needs of the hour. Along such line of reform measures, India needs to deploy public investment to create ‘job creation engines’ like industrial clusters, tourism circuits and food-processing parks to expand the options for poorest citizens of the country.     

Lastly a congenial relation between industry and government is extremely important. According to a report by McKinsey Global Institute (2014), ‘India’s leadership can hit the reset button and redefine this relationship for a new era. Rather than taking a prescriptive approach that tightly manages industry, policy makers can adopt a new mindset-one focused on competitive market environment that allows business to thrive. By sweeping away arcane regulation and antiquated procedures, India can build a more efficient engine of job creation. Combining a bold reform agenda with forward-thinking investment in job creation engines of the future could generate opportunities for millions of Indians to obtain better jobs, attain a better livelihood, and reach the next rung on the economic ladder’ 

Rakhee Bhattacharya  

References

Press Note, Key Indicators of Employment and Unemployment in India, 2011-12, Press Information Bureau, GOI at http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=96

Press Note, Third Annual Employment & Unemployment Survey Report, 2012-13, Labour Bureau, GOI at http://labourbureau.nic.in/reports.htm

Report, Indian Labour Journal, No. 12, Volume 54, December 2013

Report, The Economic Times, 04.10.2013

Report, ‘From Poverty to Empowerment: India Imperatives for Jobs, Growth and Effective Basic Services’, McKinsey Global Institute, 2014

 

Invisible Cogs – India’s informal workers

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

Half of India’s $1.85 million economy is informal. Informal workers constitute more than 90% of the country’s workforce and generate about 50% of the country’s national product. Yet, legal and policy tools have failed to create an environment which promotes secure and productive economic opportunities, labour rights and benefits and protection for these workers.

International Labour Organization (ILO) notes that the term 'informal economy' refers to all economic activities by workers and economic units that are – in law or in practice – not covered or insufficiently covered by formal arrangements. Informal workers are everywhere – as cab drivers, domestic workers, waste pickers, vendors, cobblers, forest workers, private security guards, construction workers etc. and despite their contribution to the economy, they have been battling against their invisibility as ‘workers’ and their concerns largely remain unaddressed. Their activities are not included in the law, which means that they are operating outside the formal reach of the law; or they are not covered in practice, which means that – although they are operating within the formal reach of the law, it is neither applied nor enforced.

A fundamental legal demand across all occupational groups within the informal sector is that of obtaining recognition as workers, social protection and regulation of working conditions as afforded by labour law to other (formal) workers. Policies must also be framed to address the varied concerns of different occupational groups based on the nature and realities of their work and livelihood. For e.g., demands raised by forest, fish workers and miners have largely revolved around protecting traditional access to natural resources in a manner that ensures sustainable use,  strengthening pricing policy for craftsmen, transforming municipal laws to carve out spaces for urban vendors etc.  

Recognition as ‘worker’

The contract of employment is the primary means through which a person is recognised as an employee and is granted benefits and protection. A major hurdle in identifying many informal workers is the absence of an exclusive legal ‘employer-employee’ relationship established through an enforceable written contract. In fact, most often, employment is mediated through jobbers/contractors and is based on oral contract. 

There is a need for a broader definition of ‘worker’ to recognise those who fall outside traditional employer-employee relationship. An expanded concept would include not just those engaged in final stages of production or value addition, or those who work in what the labour law terms as ‘industry’, but also those engaged in collection of resources which constitute vital inputs for these industries (forest workers, tailors etc.)

Internationally, there exist legal provisions for informal working arrangements. Those, who do not enjoy an employee status (sub-contractors or self-employed) have been accepted as “workers” in the 1996 ILO Home Workers Convention as well as in the 2002 International Labour Conference Resolution and Conclusions on Decent Work and the Informal Economy. Policymakers need to lobby for the idea that informal workers, though outside an employment relationship based on a commercial contract, are entitled to basic rights and enjoy what the ILO calls “decent work.”

Social protection and regulation of working conditions

Of all informal workers, domes­tic workers have been most successful in getting their status as workers recognised under specific laws enacted by some states in India and securing certain welfare measures.  The enactment of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Unorganised Workers Social Security Act, 2008, has the potential to cover all ‘workers’ in­cluding the self-employed (both dependent and independent) for the purpos­es of ensuring access to basic social security. However, the policies largely remain confined to paper.

Even when informal workers are covered by labour law de jure, this alone will not ensure that their position is immediately at par with formal workers. Erratic working hours, abysmal working conditions and poorly demarcated work spaces have meant that it is not possible to apply many of the minimum standards contained in the labour laws to the majority of these workers.

There is an urgent need to bring these workers within the purview of labour law or create alternative structures for social protection and regulation of working conditions as per the standards set by labour law. A related struggle is to ensure a decent and market price for their products (craftsmen, rag-pickers etc.) i.e. setting minimum support prices for many such occupational groups.

Political representatives and civil society groups must engage in dialogue and formulate innovative strategies centring on law and policy initiatives to address the core demands of this group – recognition as workers, social protection and regulation of working conditions.

There is huge incentive for political representatives to intervene in this area. Addressing the core demands of this group will have a direct positive bearing on earnings and  poverty levels leading to economic well–being and growth.

 

Deepti Somani