.jpeg)
Several “impressive” claims, made by the Union government seeking to project strong commitment to people’s welfare have met with strong criticism – and not without reason. One such leading example, among many others, relates to maternity benefits and nutrition support is called Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY).
The Government says it has been spending on average about Rs 2,000 crore per year during the last seven years to give support to mothers directly for nutrition and other needs. When this information appears alongside the beaming face of a mother from a poor family, the first impression is to feel good about it and to thank the government for such a good scheme.
But if you listen to critical voices to get a more complete picture, you will be informed that the scheme is the result of a provision in the National Food Security Act (passed during the last days of the UPA government) which commits the government to provide at least Rs 6,000 to all pregnant and lactating women for all child births, a commitment that costs Rs 14,000 crore per year according to expert calculations.
The NDA government arbitrarily made changes in this legal provision to cover only the first born child under this scheme (ignoring the earlier legal commitment to cover all child-births) and to reduce the payment made to a mother to Rs 5,000. At the same time the system of obtaining the benefit has been made very cumbersome with the increased possibility that many qualifying mothers may not be able to access it.
Hence, in fact, critics say, Rs 12,000 crore per year has been held back on average from deserving mothers during the last seven years as only Rs 2,000 crore per year have been spent instead of the Rs 14,000 crore per year needed to fulfill the obligation. What is more, the payment of Rs 5,000 has not been increased despite all the inflation.
So here we are. The government’s claims look impressive enough initially, but if you hear the full story from critics then government claims start appearing much less convincing! It is important that people should get to hear both versions, and then are free to make up their mind.
A very important fund for ensuring the safety and security of women set up by the union government is the Nirbhaya fund. The government claims to have allocated Rs 6,213 crore for this scheme during the 8 years preceding 2021-22, and this looks like an impressive budget to many people, signifying the commitment of the government to the safety of women.
Now let us look at what critics say. They say that the scheme was started with an understanding of committing Rs 1,000 crore every year. Moreover with the passage of time and inflationary pressures, there was a clear need to increase the budgetary commitment. Hence there should have been an allocation of around Rs 10,000 crore during these 8 years and allocation of only Rs 6,213 crore is clearly not adequate.
What is more, a review in 2022 revealed that out of the allocation of Rs 6,213 crore during the last 8 years, in fact only Rs 4,138 crore were disbursed and only Rs 2,922 crore were utilized. Hence they say that actually this is a case of very substantial under-utilization of funds and not of any great achievement. If the fund had been properly utilized, much more could have done and several neglected and incomplete tasks still crying out for attention could have been accomplished.
If a question is asked regarding who have been the poorest of the poor in Indian society, then probably a large number of people will agree that those households who were or have been engaged in manual scavenging constitute the poorest of the poor.
Hence, clearly, they deserve the most generous support from the government for improving their condition. Keeping this in view a self-employment scheme for providing alternative livelihoods to them was started by the Government of India and there were high hopes from this scheme.
.jpeg)
However, if we take care to check with critics they will tell us that in fact out of the total allocation of around Rs 1,255 crore for this scheme only Rs 236 crore was actually spent or utilized.
In other words, for this high-priority scheme meant for the welfare of the poorest of the poor, only 19% of the funds allocated were actually utilized. This happened when social activists working on this issue were repeatedly drawing attention to the several pressing needs of these households.
Under various pension schemes, pensions for those elderly persons from poor households who do not have access to regular pensions are given. In addition pensions for widows are given and also pensions for disability affected persons are given. These are often held out as a commitment of the government to social security of vulnerable groups.
However, if you ask the critics then they will tell you that the amount is too small for the real needs of such pensions and that despite the inflationary pressures there has been terrible stagnancy in the meager funds offered under this program by the union government (it is only after adding their own substantial and higher share that a few states can give a somewhat better pension).
Clearly, there is more than one side to the claims regarding the generosity of the welfare programs and schemes of the government. What critics have been saying is that in order to be truly beneficial, much more funds to meet adequately the real needs of people should reach them. Also, the allocations should be carefully monitored to ensure that these are used properly and honestly.
A more general feeling people have is that while all governments have some showpieces and some real achievements at a few places, overall the performance of most welfare schemes leaves much to be desired. Instead of glossing over such realities, it will be much more useful for governments to set up much better monitoring mechanisms and create more transparent conditions of working.
Under various pension schemes, pensions for those elderly persons from poor households who do not have access to regular pensions are given. In addition pensions for widows are given and also pensions for disability affected persons are given. These are often held out as a commitment of the government to social security of vulnerable groups.
However, if you ask the critics then they will tell you that the amount is too small for the real needs of such pensions and that despite the inflationary pressures there has been terrible stagnancy in the meager funds offered under this program by the union government (it is only after adding their own substantial and higher share that a few states can give a somewhat better pension).
Clearly, there is more than one side to the claims regarding the generosity of the welfare programs and schemes of the government. What critics have been saying is that in order to be truly beneficial, much more funds to meet adequately the real needs of people should reach them. Also, the allocations should be carefully monitored to ensure that these are used properly and honestly.
A more general feeling people have is that while all governments have some showpieces and some real achievements at a few places, overall the performance of most welfare schemes leaves much to be desired. Instead of glossing over such realities, it will be much more useful for governments to set up much better monitoring mechanisms and create more transparent conditions of working.
If only 19% of the funds allocated for a top priority scheme are being spent and if statistics reveal serious shortcomings, then isn’t it proper to take timely action at an early stage instead of allowing the problems and retarding factors to persist for a long time?
---
*Honorary convener, Campaign to Protect Earth Now; recent books: ‘A Day in 2071’, ‘Planet in Peril' and ‘Man over Machine'
---
*Honorary convener, Campaign to Protect Earth Now; recent books: ‘A Day in 2071’, ‘Planet in Peril' and ‘Man over Machine'
Comments