Far from labouring the point

Media coverage of the devastating earthquake that caused widespread death and destruction across Kashmir as well as parts of Pakistan on 8 October primarily focussed — while it lasted — on the humanitarian crisis in the wake of the quake, especially the immediate needs and problems of the large numbers of bereaved, injured and homeless survivors left to the vagaries of nature and the mercies of fellow human beings.

One aspect of the disaster that has received little media attention so far is its effect on livelihoods. Yet, according to Juan Somavia, director-general of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), “Reports of widespread destruction show that the livelihoods of millions of people are threatened or have been destroyed.” As humanitarian and reconstruction efforts proceed, he said, urgent action is also required to create decent and productive employment and thereby rebuild people’s livelihoods. “By losing their employment, even for a short period of time, workers in the affected districts have likely already fallen into extreme poverty,” he warned. According to the ILO, “Reviving the rural economy where most people in the affected areas live and work is both urgent and challenging.”

Employment and livelihoods are, unfortunately, not the stuff of which headlines are made – unless, of course, it is in the context of the corporate world in general and, lately, the Information Technology and IT-Enabled Services (IT/ITES) industries in particular. And labour rarely makes it into the media unless it cannot be ignored – as on 30 September, the day after the nation-wide one-day general strike called by a number of trade unions backed by the Left parties.

On such occasions coverage is hardly objective. The front page headlines in sections of Bangalore’s English press that day reflected varying degrees of disapproval: “Left strike hits all” (The Times of India), “Strike cripples industry, banking (Deccan Herald), “Strike hits industry, trade” (Vijay Times). The New Indian Express was a little more even-handed: “A day lost in shutdown” was placed below the banner headline, “Bandh makes a point but bleeds the nation.” The Hindu was matter-of-fact: “General strike hits normal life.” The Asian Age chose to ignore the strike, except for a page 2 report on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s criticism of the Left parties’ support for it and, in the Bangalore supplement, a round-up of the “mixed response” to the bandh in the city.

If the striking workers of the Honda Motorcycles And Scooters company in Gurgaon received sympathetic coverage in July, it was almost entirely thanks to the brutal violence unleashed on them and members of their families by the police.

To unionise or not to unionise

More recently, a flurry of coverage has been prompted by the question of whether or not employees of the IT/ITES sectors should be able to form or join unions, on which there is apparently some difference of opinion even within the ranks of the Left.

“South Asia’s labour market is characterised by pervasive unemployment and underemployment, especially among the youth and the educated.”

— Human Development in South Asia

• Enterprising labour of the small

• Lawmakers push for entitlements

The lead editorial in The Times of India (TOI) on 28 October, headlined “Labour Aristocrats,” included some telling facts and interesting observations about the 500 million strong Indian workforce: “…a miniscule 5%, or 27 million, work in the organised sector. About 70% of this number, about 19 million, work for the central and state governments… Add a couple more million to that and you get a figure of between 20 and 22 million people who belong to the labour aristocracy. This 4% of workers militate against the interests of the other 96%.” The editorial also contained some advice for the communist parties: “The Left should stop fretting about 4% of the workforce” and should, instead, “look after the interests of non-organised, non-unionised people, who are the vast majority…”

Would that the TOI – and, indeed, the rest of the media — followed that counsel. Instead, the vast majority of the country’s workers and would-be workers are virtually invisible in the media. For instance, the fact that a draft legislation seeking to ensure social security and welfare for workers in the vast unorganised sector of labour is currently awaiting comments and suggestions does not seem to have crossed the media’s radar.

(See: The Unorganised Sector Workers Social Security Bill, 2005, draft with the Ministry of Labour, received from the National Advisory Council in July 2005.)

According to the 2003 edition of Human Development in South Asia, brought out by the Pakistan-based Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre, which focussed on “The Employment Challenge,” “South Asia’s labour market is characterised by pervasive unemployment and underemployment, especially among the youth and the educated; working poor who do not get adequate wages to get out of poverty; working children; and women who face discrimination across the labour market.”

Estimates of the total number of unemployed or underemployed people in India vary between 50 and 100 million, with some experts pegging it even higher, at 250-300 million. The Economic Survey of India has reported that the unemployment rate increased from 5.99 per cent in 1993-4 to 7.32 per cent in 1999-2000. To make matters worse, young people accounted for 53 per cent of the total unemployed in the country. But such official data are deceptive. Typically based partly on information from employment exchanges across the country, which are used by a fraction of those seeking work, and partly on the Census conducted every ten years and National Sample Surveys in between, they tend to tell only part of the story. In any case, as the Human Development in South Asia report puts it, “…underemployment and non-productive use of labour (are) the real employment issues” in the region, and the country.

To do or die

In the absence of social or economic security of any kind, the majority of Indians – male and female – have no option but to slave under appalling conditions for less than decent wages, often from childhood to old age. In 18 out of the 32 states and union territories where legislation on minimum wages applies, the minimum permissible daily wage is less than Rs 50; the range of minimum wages rises above Rs.100 only in four states*. It goes without saying that even such low minimum wages are not always paid. To make matters worse, there are seasonal variations in availability of work and calamities of various kinds – from drought to social conflict – adversely affect employment and livelihoods on a regular basis.

It is to address the desperate need of millions of people struggling for basic livelihood that a National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) was passed by Parliament on 23 August. The Act, which became law in September, aims to provide large-scale employment to the rural poor through public works. It is expected to have the additional benefit of developing the infrastructure base in the countryside. The landmark legislation guarantees 100 days of wage employment in a year to adult members of a rural household who demand employment and volunteer to do unskilled manual work. Under the Act, any adult who is willing to undertake such labour is entitled to apply for employment and be assigned work within 15 days, subject to the current limit of 100 days per household per year. Further, and importantly, an unemployment allowance has to be paid if work is not provided for any reason. The law will initially be implemented in 200 of the nation’s most backward districts, spread across 27 states, but it is to be extended to the rest of the country within five years.

In 18 out of 32 states and union territories, the minimum permissible daily wage is less than Rs 50. The NREGA is a historic piece of legislation in many respects. For one, it makes India the only country in the world liable to a rural jobseeker for the local administration’s failure to provide work within a fortnight. It is significant that the law emerged through a bottom-up process, with a sustained popular campaign helping to coordinate the demand from below for the right to work. A draft Bill was prepared as part of this campaign. The fact that key people involved in the movement served on the National Advisory Council set up by the present union government provided an added thrust to the effort, with the NAC coming up with a slightly different Bill. The NREGA was finally passed after many twists and turns, some dilution and at least one resignation, as well as a Rozgar Adhikar Yatra, a major effort at mobilising mass awareness of and support for the employment guarantee law awaiting Parliamentary approval.

Some of this was reflected in the media, especially in the areas where the campaign was most active. The Yatra, particularly, drew a fair amount of media attention, not least when the yatris were attacked by CRPF police personnel in Chattisgarh on 4 June. But, considering that unemployment and rural distress is such a chronic national problem, with additional implications for urban areas in the form of migration by economic refugees from the countryside, neither the process leading up to the Bill nor the passage of the law have received more than cursory coverage nationally.

Activating the right to work

Some critics have questioned the feasibility of such an extensive employment guarantee on the ground that the funds required are too high. The Act is expected to benefit 1.7 crore families in 200 districts in the first phase and 5 crore households when it is extended to other districts. Most official estimates place the annual expenditure after expansion at Rs 40,000 crores to Rs 50,000 crores. Arguing that the commonly cited ‘cost to the tax-payer’ argument doesn’t fly, commentator E C Thomas pointed out in a government press note, “In a democracy, the poor majority can justifiably demand a one per cent share of the GDP of a country which has a six to seven per cent growth rate. With one of the lowest tax to GDP ratios in the world, the question of whether we can afford it is almost farcical.” What is more, the funds involved can also be seen as an investment in essential infrastructure since the works undertaken under the Act are supposed to develop public assets in rural areas.

Others have raised doubts about how it will work on the ground. One of the unique features of the Act is that Panchayat institutions at various levels are to play a major role in both planning and implementation, and that, through the Gram/Ward Sabhas, citizens are to be involved in determining the works that will be undertaken in their villages. These provisions augur well for public participation and accountability. In addition, as proponents of the NREGA point out, the Right to Information Act, which came into effect on 12 October after a similar and related popular movement, can be used to minimise, if not eliminate, the customary barriers to effective implementation, such as bureaucratic lethargy and corruption.

And, of course, the media, too, can play a useful – perhaps essential — role by first disseminating information about the provisions of the NREGA so that all eligible persons can take advantage of it and, then, performing the traditional watchdog role to ensure that the law is implemented as it is meant to be. By doing so they could help “look after the interests of non-organised, non-unionised people, who are the vast majority,” as the TOI puts it. In the process they could perhaps revive media coverage of labour as a whole, which has been dormant, if not extinct, in recent years.

In any case, the necessity and significance of the new law can hardly be disputed. As Aruna Bagchee wrote in the Economic and Political Weekly recently, arguing in favour of employment guarantee schemes, “If anyone has travelled across a parched countryside, and come upon a project site where 20,000 labour, men and women, are engaged in moving earth by head-loads (or breaking stone manually), under a relentless sun, in the hope of earning Rs 25-50 for seven hours of toil – the money to be received not daily, but at the end of the fortnight or even four-eight weeks – the question of the opportunity cost of this investment gets easily resolved. The EGS is an essential safety net for the poorest.”