Opinion

After many u-turns, has Modi finally recognised the importance of social security measures?

The announcement of maternity entitlements is belated and vague but its implementation needs to be ensured.

The National Food Security Act, 2013 legislated maternity entitlements as a universal right. The law required a new scheme be put in place to operationalise this right. “We need action not Acts,” Narendra Modi, then Gujarat chief minister, had said. He also blamed Manmohan Singh, then prime minister, who led the United Progressive Alliance government, for bringing in a weak food security law.

Three years later, there was neither action nor any Act.

Though the 2013 Act provided too little – Rs 6000 per child – the recognition of maternity entitlements as a legal right was important. Women in formal employment have had a right to paid leave for 4-6 months, but only a small fraction of women benefit from it as 90% of the workforce is employed in the informal sector. Maternity entitlements under the 2013 Act can be viewed as the informal sector equivalent – at a much lower scale – of the rights that women in formal employment have had. Implementing universal maternity entitlements at Rs 6000 will cost approximately Rs 16,000 crore, which is 0.2% of India’s Gross Domestic Product.

Some argue that this will slow down the decline of fertility levels. Intriguingly (yet thankfully) such an argument was never made when maternity entitlements were legislated for women in the formal sector. There is careful documentation of the importance of maternity entitlements for maternal and child nutrition, both of which can lower child mortality, and thereby lower fertility as well.

Neo-natal mortality rates – infants who die in the first month – are very high in India, at 29 per thousand in 2013, compared with 7.7 in China, as shown in research by Diane Coffey, a demographer who studies social influences on health in India. Low birth-weight is a major cause of high neo-natal mortality rates. Indian women are underweight to start with, and maternity entitlements, in the form of cash transfers, can help ensure that they are better fed, and hopefully gain adequate weight during pregnancy.

Of course, many other issues need to be addressed, including proper healthcare facilities, nutritious supplements (for example, in the form of eggs through anganwadis), adequate rest for pregnant women, and so on. Studying the Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana, scholars found that women did a disproportionate load of unpaid work. When benefits were not paid (or, were not timely), women reported no change in the burden of work during pregnancy. The scheme, implemented as a pilot in 53 districts, provided Rs 4000 per child since 2010 – it was raised to Rs 6000 in 2013. However, coverage remained very poor – only 28% (until 2013), rising to about 50% in early 2013-14 of targeted women received the cash transfer. Delays in payments and exclusion of the most vulnerable women were among the other findings.

Lessons from states

Meanwhile, two state governments – Tamil Nadu and Odisha – have implemented schemes for universal maternity entitlements. In Tamil Nadu, the Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy Maternity Benefit Scheme, initiated in 1987, now provides Rs 12,000 per child (likely to be raised to Rs 18,000 per child). Odisha’s Mamata scheme provides Rs 5,000 per child since 2011. Both schemes involve minor conditionalities, such as registration of pregnancy at the anganwadi, ante-natal checkups, etc.

The Tamil Nadu scheme was able to cover one-fourth of all births in 2008-2009, though there was some evidence of disadvantaged communities being excluded. This year’s budget aims to cover about half of all births.

According to a survey conducted in the third year of its implementation, Odisha was able to reach two-thirds of eligible women through its Mamata scheme and 70% of respondents had received all instalments. Delays and corruption were the main problems – one-fifth of the respondents complained of delays and on average, women reported getting Rs 4,722 out of Rs 5000.

The prime minister’s announcement on December 31, promising implementation of maternity entitlements – belated and vague as it is – is a welcome reminder of the task ahead. Details of the scheme will prove to be all important and determine whether or not it will translate into action. What is required is a universal, unconditional and inflation-indexed cash transfer. The principle for fixation of the cash transfer should be six months’ wages (as Tamil Nadu has attempted to do) as partial compensation for wage loss due to child-bearing. Viewed in this manner, the proposed level of Rs 6000 as per the 2013 Act and the prime minister’s announcement is too low. The government should consider implementing it for all births since 2013, when the Act came into being.

In the past two and a half years of this government, we have witnessed so many u-turns on social policy that it is hard to keep track. After criticising the UPA draft of the 2013 Act for not going far enough, the Shanta Kumar committee under the present government proposed reduction in its coverage in 2015. The prime minister, who had said in 2015 that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was “a living monument” to the Congress’s failures, changed his tune in 2016, this time saying it “is not a monument of our success…it is our responsibility to improve upon the gradual development of this scheme”.

It would be interesting to see if the needs of electoral politics force the Bharatiya Janata Party to recognise the importance of social security measures (such as MNREGA, maternity entitlements and others) and contribute to the emergence of a broader consensus on the need for a robust welfare state in India.

Prof Reetika Khera is an economist and social scientist.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

People who fall through the gaps in road safety campaigns

Helmet and road safety campaigns might have been neglecting a sizeable chunk of the public at risk.

City police, across the country, have been running a long-drawn campaign on helmet safety. In a recent initiative by the Bengaluru Police, a cop dressed-up as ‘Lord Ganesha’ offered helmets and roses to two-wheeler riders. Earlier this year, a 12ft high and 9ft wide helmet was installed in Kota as a memorial to the victims of road accidents. As for the social media leg of the campaign, the Mumbai Police made a pop-culture reference to drive the message of road safety through their Twitter handle.

But, just for the sake of conversation, how much safety do helmets provide anyway?

Lack of physical protections put two-wheeler riders at high risk on the road. According to a recent report by the World Health Organisation (WHO), more than 1.25 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes. Nearly half of those dying on the world’s roads are ‘vulnerable road users’ – pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. According to the Indian transport ministry, about 28 two-wheeler riders died daily on Indian roads in 2016 for not wearing helmets.

The WHO states that wearing a motorcycle helmet correctly can reduce the risk of death by almost 40% and the risk of severe injury by over 70%. The components of a helmet are designed to reduce impact of a force collision to the head. A rigid outer shell distributes the impact over a large surface area, while the soft lining absorbs the impact.

However, getting two-wheeler riders to wear protective headgear has always been an uphill battle, one that has intensified through the years owing to the lives lost due on the road. Communication tactics are generating awareness about the consequences of riding without a helmet and changing behaviour that the law couldn’t on its own. But amidst all the tag-lines, slogans and get-ups that reach out to the rider, the safety of the one on the passenger seat is being ignored.

Pillion rider safety has always been second in priority. While several state governments are making helmets for pillion riders mandatory, the lack of awareness about its importance runs deep. In Mumbai itself, only 1% of the 20 lakh pillion riders wear helmets. There seems to be this perception that while two-wheeler riders are safer wearing a helmet, their passengers don’t necessarily need one. Statistics prove otherwise. For instance, in Hyderabad, the Cyberabad traffic police reported that 1 of every 3 two-wheeler deaths was that of a pillion rider. DGP Chander, Goa, stressed that 71% of fatalities in road accidents in 2017 were of two-wheeler rider and pillion riders of which 66% deaths were due to head injury.

Despite the alarming statistics, pillion riders, who are as vulnerable as front riders to head-injuries, have never been the focus of helmet awareness and safety drives. To fill-up that communication gap, Reliance General Insurance has engineered a campaign, titled #FaceThePace, that focusses solely on pillion rider safety. The campaign film tells a relatable story of a father taking his son for cricket practice on a motorbike. It then uses cricket to bring our attention to a simple flaw in the way we think about pillion rider safety – using a helmet to play a sport makes sense, but somehow, protecting your head while riding on a two-wheeler isn’t considered.

This road safety initiative by Reliance General Insurance has taken the lead in addressing the helmet issue as a whole — pillion or front, helmets are crucial for two-wheeler riders. The film ensures that we realise how selective our worry about head injury is by comparing the statistics of children deaths due to road accidents to fatal accidents on a cricket ground. Message delivered. Watch the video to see how the story pans out.

Play

To know more about Reliance general insurance policies, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Reliance General Insurance and not by the Scroll editorial team.