17 December 2020, NIICE Commentary 6604
Ridhi Suri & Pranjal Tomar
The global outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic has wreaked long term political and economic implications alongside its health cataclysm worldwide. While the prevalent economic and social disparities in the Indian society are no revelation, the pandemic has highlighted the Achilles’ heel of a system that has grossly misconceived the impediments faced by a vulnerable and marginalised section of the society. The Government of India imposed a nationwide lockdown to contain the spread of the virus, however, such an action induced a humanitarian crisis, resulting in the mass exodus of migrant workers, whose quandary can be equated to the exodus elicited by the 1947 Indian partition.
An estimated 450 million account for India’s internal migrant population. As per the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), 85 percent of all workers in the nation are employed in the informal sector primarily comprising of menial and low paying work. The ill-conceived nature of the state-imposed lockdown was negligent to the harsh realities of the migrant workers. The consequent financial hardships compelled these workers to walk hundreds of kilometers to their native villages, while the basic measures of social distancing and physical hygiene appeared to be an unaffordable luxury.
The magnitude of the crisis makes it imperative to acknowledge the elemental deficiencies that instigated this unprecedented exodus dwarfing the ensuing pandemic. The lack of comprehensive data vis-à-vis migrants crippled any possibility of an efficient administrative intervention. The latest data available to the authorities is from the 2011 census. Moreover, owing to the exclusionary nature of India’s diverse social security policies, they floundered to extend relief to the migrant workers employed in the unorganised sector. Therefore, when the employment opportunities vaporised with little warning and no alternatives, the bereft migrant workers were unable to seek protection and were pushed into the obscure path of legal, financial and health insecurity. While the Government’s intention behind the sudden lockdown was to restrict movement, it would have been prudent to establish a phased and planned mechanism to transport these workers back to their homes. Such empathy from the government would have been in keeping with the times and realities faced by this section. The Government eventually deployed ‘Shramik Special’ trains and occasionally buses, however, this response came only after numerous migrant tragedies and harsh public opinion. Forthwith, the Government extended relief measures under the “Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna” amounting to ₹1700 billion, whereby several monetary benefits including free ration were provided. However, these measures only partially acknowledged the adverse impacts on the migrant workers, as many did not have access to Public Distribution Systems (PDS) and bank facilities. Thereafter, the Government introduced the Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) relief package worth ₹ 20 trillion, this too failed to address the elemental short term problems as its policies centralised towards monetary interventions seeking to provide liquidity with the vantage point to boost the economy.
This reality undermines the sanctity of fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution of India. It breaches the elemental “Golden Triangle” of the Constitution, that is Article 21, Article 14 and Article 19(1)(d) & (e), which accord the right to dignified life, the right to equality and equal protection of laws and the right to freedom of movement throughout the territory of India respectively. These deficiencies make the rectification of these shortcomings indispensable. The redress measures must comply with Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which confer the right to social security to every member of the society, as well as the fundamental principles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) which seek to establish basic work dignity. Moreover, they must acknowledge Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which obligate India to extend the Right to health for all citizens including the migrant workers. These legal standpoints must be perceived in lines with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined under the Constitution. These principles, expounding upon welfare and dignity, would be critical in addressing the rues of the feeble policy intervention.
The overwhelming repercussions have accentuated the need for a pragmatic shift in methodology to acknowledge the abysmal levels of disparity and deprivation. The Constitution of India under Item 81 of the Seventh Schedule places inter-state migration as a subject to be administered by the Centre. In this regard, the Government has lately undertaken several legislative developments. First, subsuming various Central laws, the recently constituted Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSHWC) under Section 21 mandates the government to maintain a data base for the migrant workers. However, owing to the high rate illiteracy among this group, collection of such data would bring along multiple impediments. This would require extensive survey drives and close cooperation between the Centre, States and data collection agencies. Several complementing measures such as allocation of personal labour account numbers, utilisation of the services of Government agencies and establishment of State labour bureaus could help strengthen the data collection mechanisms. These developments also extend recognition to ‘inter-state migrant workers’ by including them in the definition of ‘Contract labour’ under OSHWC. Furthermore, acknowledging a critical fault line, the recent Code on Social Security, 2020 enhances Social Security coverage for the unorganised sector, however, the modus operandi for the same remains ambiguous. Banerjee and Duflo advocate making direct benefit transfers and maintenance of migrant data through the judicious implementation of JAM (Jan Dhan, Aadhar, Mobile) infrastructure. Adding to this, the Government has addressed the limitations of domicile by enhancing accessibility to PDS in host states under Section 62 of OSHWC. The host states must be made responsible for the welfare of these migrant workers. It is speculated that the migrants’ inability to cast votes, leaves little incentives for politicians to address their grievances. Moreover, the consequences of the exodus have inspired the formulation of Section 61 of OSHWC, this directs the employers to fund a round journey for these workers to their native homes once every year.
These measures, subject to implementation and adherence, are a step in the right direction, nevertheless, the Government must persistently envisage change. They must seek to establish programmes for skill development and healthcare, possible avenues could be through convergence with the Skill India Movement and Ayushman Bharat Scheme respectively. In hindsight, the immediate deficiencies of the State intervention could have been augmented through direct benefit transfers to the Jan Dhan accounts. However, the Government must now chaperon enhanced financial support under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. Lastly, in light of the mass reverse migration, it is critical to address the bereft rural employment opportunities alongside invigorating rural infrastructure and human development mechanisms.
Underlining the Government’s inefficacy during the crisis, the Supreme Court of India praised the persistent efforts of the NGOs undertaken to ameliorate the adverse situation. Meanwhile, the Government manifested the stated impotence in the Parliament by claiming absence of data pertaining to deaths and unemployment of the migrant workforce. The Government must address the shortcomings to avoid any identical future crises and strive to extend due recognition and dignity to the artisans of the envisioned “Atmanirbhar Bharat”.
