Skip to main content

Govt of India "not serious" about old age pension, maternity benefit: Economists

Counterview Desk
Sixty eminent economists have written to the Union finance minister an “urgent and modest proposal” seeking to increase the Central contribution to social security pensions from the current measly Rs 200 per month to Rs 500 per month, and providing for maternity entitlements of Rs 6,000 per child as prescribed by the National Food Security Act.
“This modest proposal was ignored by the Finance Minister last year. Is it going to be ignored again this year?”, wonders well known development economist Jean Dreze, adding, “If so, it is hard to believe that the government is serious about grander proposals.”
Text of the economists' letter, which was sent to Union finance minister Arun Jaitley on December 21, 2018, and made public by Dreze: This is a follow-up to our letter of December 20, 2017, where we tried to flag two priorities for the next Union Budget: an increase in social security pensions, and adequate provision for maternity benefits. Since both proposals were ignored, we are writing again, well in advance of the next Budget, with the same recommendations. Our argument, much as before, is as follows:
Social security pensions:
The central government’s contribution to old-age pensions under the National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS) scheme has stagnated at just Rs 200 per month since 2006. This is unfair. It is also a missed opportunity: NOAPS is a good scheme (with low leakages and administrative costs) that reaches some of the poorest members of society. The central government’s contribution should be immediately raised to Rs 500 (preferably more) at the very least.
This requires an additional allocation of Rs 8,640 crore or so, based on the current NOAPS coverage (2.4 crore pensioners). Similarly, widow pensions should be raised from Rs 300 per month to Rs 500 at the very least. This would cost just another Rs 1,680 crore.
Maternity entitlements:
Maternity benefits of Rs 6,000 per child are a legal entitlement of all Indian women (except those already covered in the formal sector) under the National Food Security Act 2013. For many years, the central government did not act on this. Last year, a scheme was finally launched for this purpose: the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMVVY).
However, the provision made for it in the Union Budget 2018-19 (Rs 2,400 crore) is less than one third of what is required based on NFSA norms. Further, in flagrant violation of the Act, PMMVY restricts the benefits to Rs 5,000 for just one child per woman.
The Union Budget 2019-20 should provide for full-fledged implementation of maternity entitlements as per NFSA norms. This requires at least Rs 8,000 crore, based on a 60:40 ratio for centre:state contributions (see Annexure).
Along with this, the illegal restriction of maternity benefits to one child per woman should be removed. It is also important to streamline payment systems so that pensions and maternity benefits reach the recipients on time every month, e.g. by the 7th day of the month as directed by the Supreme Court in its order of November 28, 2001. We urge you to accept these modest recommendations. 
***
Annexure Maternity Entitlements: Recap
1. In 2013, maternity benefits became a legal entitlement of all Indian women (except those already receiving similar benefits as regular government employees or under other laws) under the National Food Security Act, Section 4: “Subject to such schemes as may be framed by the Central Government, every pregnant and lactating mother shall be entitled to [nutritious food and] maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand, in such instalments as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.
2. At that time, a pilot scheme called Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY), with benefits of Rs 4,000 per child, was being implemented in 53 districts. Under IGMSY, maternity benefits are conditional and also restricted to two live births.
3. On 30 October 2015, the Ministry of Women and Child Development filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, claiming that it was planning to extend IGMSY from 53 to 200 districts in 2015-16 and all districts in 2016-17. Yet, the budget allocation for IGMSY in the 2016-17 Union Budget remained a measly Rs 400 crore (as in 2015-6 and 2014-5), making it impossible to go beyond the 53 pilot districts.
4. The importance of maternity entitlements was well articulated in the Economic Survey 2015-16, in a welcome chapter on “Mother and Child”. However, this was not reflected in the 2016-17 Budget.
5. In April 2016, the IGMSY Rules 2016 were notified. The Rules extend IGMSY (with benefits of Rs 6,000 in two instalments) to all pregnant women for the first two live births. But it seems that this was just a ritual – it had no impact on actual policy.
6. On 31 December 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that pregnant women nation-wide would soon be getting maternity benefits of Rs 6,000.
7. Further to the PM’s announcement, an allocation of Rs 2,700 crores was made for “maternity benefit programme” in the Union Budget 2017-18. However, this is a fraction of what is required: universal maternity entitlements of Rs 6,000 per child would require at least Rs 13,000 crore per year (assuming a birth rate of 19 per thousand and an effective coverage of 90%).
8. On 22 February 2017, at a consultation held at Vigyan Bhawan, state governments were told that under the “proposed Maternity Benefit Programme”, maternity benefits would be paid with retrospective effect from January 1, 2017. State governments would have to bear 40% of the costs.
9. On April 3, 2017, the Ministry of WCD stated in an affidavit to the Supreme Court: “…the Government of India has announced pan-India implementation of Maternity Benefit Programme with effect from January 1. 2017 in all the districts of the country. All the pregnant women and lactating mothers would be given Rs 6,000 in instalments [except those already receiving similar benefits as regular government employees or under other laws]”.
10. In a circular dated May 19, 2017, the Ministry of WCD informed the states that the Maternity Benefit Programme had been “approved” and that the guidelines would be “sent shortly”. The circular also mentions that benefits would be restricted to the first live birth – a flagrant violation of the Act.
11. In August 2017, the MoWCD released the guidelines and draft Rules for Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY). Under PMMVY, maternity benefits (Rs 5,000 only) are restricted to the first live birth - a flagrant violation of the Act. Conditionalities also apply.
12. One year later, only 37 lakh women had received any maternity benefits under PMMVY ("India Today", September 17, 2018). This corresponds to just 15% or so of all births in one year.
---
For list of signatories click HERE

Comments

TRENDING

Girl child education: 20 major states 'score' better than Gujarat, says GoI report

By Rajiv Shah
A Government of India report, released last month, has suggested that “model” Gujarat has failed to make any progress vis-à-vis other states in ensuring that girls continue to remain enrolled after they leave primary schools. The report finds that, in the age group 14-17, Gujarat’s 71% girls are enrolled at the secondary and higher secondary level, which is worse than 20 out of 22 major states for which data have been made available.

Savarkar in Ahmedabad "declared support" to two-nation theory in 1937, followed by Jinnah three years later

By Our Representative
One of the top freedom fighters whom BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi revere the most, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, was also a great supporter of the two nation theory for India, one for Hindus another for Muslims, claims a new expose on the man who is also known to be the original proponent of the concept of Hindutva.

Congress 'promises' cancellation of Adani power project: Jharkhand elections

Counterview Desk
Pointing out that people's issues take a backseat in Jharkhand's 2019 assembly elections, the state's civil rights organization, the Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, a coalition of activists and people’s organisations, has said that political parties have largely ignored in their electoral manifestos the need to implement the fifth schedule of the Constitution in a predominantly tribal district.

Hindutva founders 'borrowed' Nazi, fascist idea of one flag, one leader, one ideology

By Shamsul Islam*
With the unleashing of the reign of terror by the RSS/BJP rulers against working-class, peasant organizations, women organizations, student movements, intellectuals, writers, poets and progressive social/political activists, India also witnessed a series of resistance programmes organized by the pro-people cultural organizations in different parts of the country. My address in some of these programmes is reproduced here... 
***  Before sharing my views on the tasks of artists-writers-intellectuals in the times of fascism, let me briefly define fascism and how it is different from totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is political concept, a dictatorship of an individual, family or group which prohibits opposition in any form, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is also described as authoritarianism.
Whereas fascism, while retaining all these repressive characteristics, also believes in god-ordained superiority of race, cultur…

Ex-World Bank chief economist doubts spurt in India's ease of doing business rank

By Rajiv Shah
This is in continuation of my previous blog where I had quoted from a commentary which top economist Prof Kaushik Basu had written in the New York Times (NYT) a little less than a month ago, on November 6, to be exact. He recalled this article through a tweet on November 29, soon after it was made known that India's growth rate had slumped (officially!) to 4.5%.

With RSS around, does India need foreign enemy to undo its democratic-secular fabric?

By Shamsul Islam*
Many well-meaning liberal and secular political analysts are highly perturbed by sectarian policy decisions of RSS/BJP rulers led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, especially after starting his second inning. They are vocal in red-flagging lynching incidents, policies of the Modi government on Kashmir, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the demand for 'Bharat Ratna' to Savarkar who submitted 6-7 mercy petitions to the British masters (getting remission of 40 years out of 50 years' sentence), and the murder of constitutional norms in Goa, Karnataka and now in Maharashtra.

Post-Balakot, danger that events might spiral out of control is 'greater, not less'

By Tapan Bose*
The fear of war in South Asia is increasing. Tensions are escalating between India and Pakistan after the Indian defence minister's announcement in August this year that India may revoke its current commitment to only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack, known as ‘no first use’. According to some experts who are watching the situation the risk of a conflict between the two countries has never been greater since they both tested nuclear weapons in 1998.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Worrying signs in BJP: Modi, Shah begin 'cold-shouldering' Gujarat CM, party chief

By RK Misra*
The political developments in neighbouring Maharashtra where a Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress government assumed office has had a trickle down effect in Gujarat with both the ruling BJP and the Congress opposition going into revamp mode.

'Favouring' tribals and ignoring Adivasis? Behind coercion of India's aborigines

By Mohan Guruswamy*
Tribal people account for 8.2% of India’s population. They are spread over all of India’s States and Union Territories. Even so they can be broadly classified into three groupings. The first grouping consists of populations who predate the Indo-Aryan migrations. These are termed by many anthropologists as the Austro-Asiatic-speaking Australoid people.