|
|
|
|
|
Playing with fire
Child labour |
|
|
Sexual harassment
Realising inclusive growth
The smile of a champion
‘One rank, one pension’ for civil servants too
|
Playing with fire
The fire at a cracker factory in the country’s oldest and largest fireworks hub at Sivakasi was avoidable. Here is a factory whose licence was already cancelled and yet it was in operation. About 90 per cent of the country’s fireworks and 80 per cent of the safety matches are produced in Tamil Nadu at Sivakasi. The area is conducive for the Rs 2,000-crore industry due to its largely dry climate. To meet the Diwali demand for fireworks more workers, many of them inexperienced, are deployed than factories can accommodate. Crackers are usually made in small rooms where workers jostle for space. Godowns store chemicals beyond capacity and the required distance between sheds is not maintained. All this has been going on for years despite the hazardous nature of the industry. The area is prone to fires. According to one estimate, 237 lives have been lost in accidents in fireworks units in the past 12 years. Most mishaps occur in small and medium units where the owners tend to disregard safety requirements. There is no medical help available nearby and the injured are taken to hospitals at Madurai and Virudhunagar, which are at quite a distance. Rescue work was delayed as earthmovers and fire engines could not reach the site in time. It is strange that despite frequent fires, basic precautions have not been taken. Though some arrests have been made in connection with Wednesday’s fire, the responsibility for large-scale violations of the safety norms should also be fixed and heads should roll. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa cannot wash her hands off the incident by dispatching her ministers to the site and announcing compensation for the victims. The frequent tragedies at Sivakasi are due to poor governance and the administration’s failure to ensure implementation of the safety norms. At the national level too there is a similar official mindset towards industrial mishaps and loss of human life. Few lessons have been learnt from the disaster at Bhopal. Maybe courts should get proactive in levying stiff penalties for violations of the safety rules and award exemplary damages to the victims. |
|
Child labour
In a country where millions of children are employed as labourers, any talk of their rights is meaningless until child labour itself is done away with. Thus, it is in the fitness of things that the Union Cabinet has cleared the amendments to the existing child labour law making child employment a cognisable offence, punishable with an imprisonment up to three years. The other provisions of the new law that clears anomalies of the existing one too are appreciable. Not only does it bar all employment below 14 years, but also prohibits 14 to 18 years old children from working in mines, explosives and other hazardous occupations. However, like all laws in India, the real test would lie in implementation. So far as a country we have shown little earnestness in responding to the serious issue of child labour. The problem of child labour in India remains as rampant as the country’s apathy towards its gravity. Laws to check employment of children exist only on paper. Last year, the Labour Minister admitted in Parliament that the number of violations reported were no more than 239. There were no convictions at all. Though India became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the country has been repeatedly failing a sizeable chunk of its most precious demographic resource. Let the rechristening of the Act from Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 to Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition) Act not be its only defining feature. The change must reflect in the spirit of implementation, which is lacking. Since child labour prevents underprivileged children from rising in life, there is a need to help them break out of the vicious cycle. In fact, the administrative machinery should go out of the way to ensure that laws like the Right to Education are not contravened. Securing precious childhood is as important a goal as any other development matrix. |
|
|
Sexual harassment
In India eve-teasing is the most common form of sexual harassment. Unfortunately, there is no specific law under which offenders can be punished for this crime. About 40 to 60 per cent women become victims of eve-teasing, yet the conviction rate is just 5 per cent in such cases. The passing of the Bill on sexual harassment at workplace in the Lok Sabha on Monday, which also included domestic workers for the first time, and a record 45 amendments to the existing law is a welcome step. The term sexual harassment was first used in 1973 in a report to the then President and Chancellor of MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), USA, about various forms of gender issues. The term remained largely unknown until Anita Hill testified against Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991. After her testimony, the number of reported sexual harassment cases in the US and Canada increased by 58 per cent. In India the Vishaka case, 1997, rendered a landmark judgement on sexual harassment at workplaces given by the Supreme Court of India. In this case, for the first time ever it was officially recognised that a need for laws and guidelines existed for working women, even at the highest levels of hierarchy. But, unlike the Anita Hill case, after this judgement became public, not many women came out to report cases of sexual harassment, braving the social stigma attached to the victim in such cases rather than the offender. Those who dared to report, like Bhanwri Devi, a Saathin volunteer from Rajasthan, who was allegedly gang-raped by high-caste men of her village, the saga of her humiliation did not end, despite a few of the accused being convicted in the case, and the law being on her side. Such cases become a deterrent to women who are made to suffer humiliation, because in most cases, the implementers of the laws are men. Most organisations fail to create women’s cell, and very often those who enforce the law are not sensitised in gender issues. |
|
|
There are lots of people who mistake their imagination for their memory. — Josh Billings |
Realising inclusive growth
In the last Five Year Plan inclusive growth was projected as a panacea for alleviating poverty, minimising unemployment and improving income levels and living conditions of the people in an equitable manner in terms of inter-regional and intra-regional parities, meaning thereby that development would not bypass any segment of society. Short of welfare and income transfer programmes of the state, incomes of people depend directly on the command over production resources and access to gainful employment opportunities. Take, for example, the two extreme cases of variation in natural resource endowment; on one end is the region of Punjab, Haryana and Western U.P. and on the other is the vast areas of Bundhelkhand situated in the central part of India. ‘Complex, diverse, rain-fed, risky and vulnerable’ is the way in which the farming scenario of Bundhelkhand can be described. In Punjab, Haryana and Western UP, land is fertile, deep and level, land holdings are consolidated and irrigation water is available. The overall climate permits two crops a year. Any investment will be much more effective in this region and will not have an equivalent effect in the Bundhelkhand region. This is the reason why the Green Revolution technology made full run in the Punjab-Haryana areas and had almost no go in areas like Bundhelkhand. Also, investment normally tends to gravitate to the areas that are better endowed with natural resources and have a higher investment-capital output ratio (ICOR). As a result, the outcome of policies and programmes aimed at inclusive growth remains uncertain for the poorly endowed areas. Within the regions or states or even within the districts and smaller areas, there is high degree variability in productive capacities. Further, the size and scale of business too affect the benefits derived out of development investment as well as from an escalation in prices of agricultural commodities. The producers with larger marketable surplus benefit the most. According to the agricultural census 2005-06, marginal and small farms having less than 2 hectares of operational land holdings constituted 83 per cent of the total operational farms in India. These farmers have very small or no marketable surplus and many often their marketed surplus is spurious in the sense that they have to buy the same commodities in the lean period and that too at higher prices. Thus, an inequitable distribution of production assets blurs out the impact of the so-called mantra of inclusive growth. In the industrial and service sectors the situation can be well imagined by the reported concentration of 16 per cent of the GDP of the country in the hands of top rich 100 persons only. On the other side, millions of persons in this country are reported to be living below the poverty line which ridiculously stands at Rs 21per head per day in rural areas and Rs27 per day in urban areas. There is no city or town, where industry exists that is without shanties, wherein people live no better than worms. Access to relevant education, health and sanitation is a far cry for these segments of the population. On education, a study of Punjabi University brought out that 69 per cent of the rural families and 90 per cent of the labour households in rural Punjab do not have a single matriculate in the family. Yet, in a welfare state, uniform quality school education which should be the sole responsibility of the government is a pre-requisite for inclusive growth. When the state abdicates this primary responsibility and school education gets commercialised, as it has happened in India, in Marxian terminology, the enabling inequitable infrastructure for the superstructure of inclusive growth investment gets vitiated. The benefits of investment gravitate to the better placed minority of the population and growth does not remain inclusive, rather it becomes exclusive in a recursive mode. The health sector also is in no better condition. During the last two decades, a number of specialty and super specialty hospitals have come up in the country. Yet the cost structure of these hospitals renders the treatment out of the reach of a majority of the population. Rural dispensaries and hospitals are not properly equipped to tackle even common diseases, not to speak of emergencies. Medicines available there are inadequate, if not totally unavailable. Doctors and paramedics do not stay in these health centres and urban hospitals have gone too costly for these people. Our political and bureaucratic elites do not show the required concern in improving these health services. They themselves prefer to get treatment in American and European hospitals at the government expense. The highly skewed distribution of education and health care facilities for different segments of society lays down the foundation for non-inclusive or exclusive growth and development in the country. Here the mantra of inclusive growth seems to have failed. According to the National Sample Survey, in 2006-07, 90.6 per cent of the families in rural areas of India spent less than Rs 1,155 a month per capita, which works out to less than Rs 39 per day and 80.3 per cent of the families spent less than Rs.30 per capita per day. Even in Punjab 61.6 per cent of the population in rural areas spent less than Rs 39 per capita per day and 41 per cent of the rural population spent less than Rs 30 per capita per day. In urban areas of India, 70 per cent population spent Rs 46 per capita per day and 57 per cent of the population spent Rs 37 per capita per day. The 2009-10 NSS data shows that in India, 90 per cent of the rural population spent less than Rs 49 per capita per day, of which Rs 27 was spent on food items and Rs 22 on non-food items. The 50 per cent sample rural population was spending less than the inhuman poverty line expenditure of Rs 27 per capita per day. Even the Purchasing Power Parity estimates indicate that based on US$1 per capita per day expenditure, 41.6 per cent of the population in India was below the poverty line. Poverty measured in PPP terms, declined by meager 0.76 per cent per annum during the last 25 years. In this scenario, one can well imagine the high degree inequitable benefits of development investment that flow to different segments of society. Inequities also have other dimensions in the social and cultural milieu of society. The socially disadvantaged segments of society lack capacities for availing of the benefits of investment policies and programmes in an equitable manner. It is only when access to production resources becomes equitable, gainful employment opportunities become universally available, quality education and health services are streamlined and made accessible for all the segments of society and the country moves towards social integration, capacities of the total population will develop to equitably benefit from the investment made for inclusive growth and development in the country. In the absence of these structural parameters, the inclusive growth mantra will remain an illusion and a pipe dream of the planners and policy-makers in
India. The writer is a well-known economist |
|||||
The smile of a champion
Everyone smiles. Some more than others. But all of us have an occasion to bare our teeth at times.
People smile for different reasons. The smile of a mother who’s just given birth is one of pure joy and even relief. An older mother, one who has seen her daughter climb the ladder of success, smiles in a different way. We fathers smile less. We’re reserved and guarded at most times. But when our little ones give us joy unbounded, we do let our inhibitions go. A student who tops his class smiles with glee, accompanied by squeals of delight. A teacher’s smile, at having her whole class qualify for the next level, differs. It is one of pride and a sense of accomplishment. TV presenters smile simply because they have to. They don’t have a choice. Even if they’ve fought with their spouses that evening, they have to grin and bear it. Their smiles often seem plastic and put on. But beneath that façade they’re obviously like any of us. The smile of a lover is one of unbridled delight, especially when the beloved finally returns after months of separation. The heart pounds and inner feelings come to the fore in no uncertain terms at such times. A restrained smile is that of a bride at her wedding, even in these modern times. She curbs her joy at having married the man of her choice (if she has) and tries to look bashful enough to please the elders around her. The smile of a champion is like no other though. A Gold Medallist, a triple centurion, an undisputed winner — their smiles are the result of achievement that has not come easy. The London Olympics brought to our television screens several such moments that linger in the mind. While the amazing Usain Bolt celebrated in extravagant fashion when he attained unparalleled pinnacles of success, some champions were more understated. Stephen Kiprotich of Uganda, for instance, was content with smiling shyly after clinching the gold medal in the men’s marathon. He was feted at the closing ceremony of the Games, watched by 80,000 people in the stadium and billions across the world on TV. Yet underneath the layers of his almost hesitant smile one could discern the sheer purity of his happiness. His smile reflected years of blood, sweat and toil. Years of slogging in his native land, perhaps barefooted to begin with, with the merciless African sun beating down upon him, had paid off at last. The long wait was over for Stephen Kiprotich. His smile arose, doubtlessly, from the innermost confines of his heart. It grew wider as the ceremony progressed, though only just. But the magnificent glow that was evident even on his dark face and the sheer ecstasy from which it surely emanated, inspired watchers no end. Make no mistake; the smile of a champion is one that is worth its weight in gold, and certainly well worth the
wait. |
|||||
‘One rank, one pension’ for civil servants too Senior officers are getting much less pension than officers three or four ranks junior. The pension of a pre-2006 retired major-General is about Rs15,000 less per month than that of a brigadier, colonel or lieut-colonel retiring now. Similarly, the pre-2006 retired chief engineers in Punjab and Haryana are getting about Rs15,000 less per month pension than the superintending engineers, executive engineers and even the SDOs retiring in 2012. The Prime Minister has constituted a committee under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary to look into the pay and pension issues of the armed forces. The logic behind appointing a committee only for defence personnel is not clear, as the problems faced by both defence and civil services officers are similar and have arisen from pay revisions done from time to time. Moreover, the Sixth Central Pay Commission was common for both the services. The pay scales as well as DA rates are identical and the Pension Rules are almost the same too. Hence, a common approach is called for. Each pay revision during the past 26 years has affected adversely the pay and pension of senior officers of both civil services and the armed forces. The system of bunching of two or three stages of the pre-revised pay scale at one stage in the revised scale in the 1986, 1996 and 2006 pay revisions, and one anti-stagnation increment for every two years' service had resulted in washing away of about half to two-thirds service of the senior officers, resulting in lower pay and consequently lower pension for the rest of their life. This has given rise to the various anomalies. The following steps, based on the Preamble and Article 39(d) of the Constitution, "next-below junior principle", recommendation of the Sixth CPC, and relevant Supreme Court judgments, will help resolve the pay and pension issues of serving employees as well as pensioners of both the services. Serving employees The principles of "equal pay for equal work", as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution, and "next-below junior" should be followed in revising the pay of the serving employees. The pay of the serving employees should be fixed in the revised pay scales by allowing one increment for each year of service and one increment for each promotion to remove the cumulative distortion caused by "bunching" and "anti-stagnation" in the 1986, 1996 and 2006 pay revisions. Moreover, the Sixth CPC has recommended running pay bands to avoid stagnation during 33 years of service. The pay of the employees should have been revised at least 3.1 times the pre-revised pay in the same ratio as the pay of the Apex scale/Chief Secretary has been revised. But the pay has been revised only 2.26 times the pre-revised pay (after merging DA, DP and 40 per cent fitment benefit). This is not justified in our socialist country as it violates the Constitution. The pay of the top level officers and judges has been revised to 3.0-3.4 times, giving a huge benefit of up to Rs 34,200 + DA as shown below: S-34 (Cabinet Secretary): From Rs 30,000 to Rs 90,000 (3.0 times, benefit Rs 34,200) S-33 (Chief Secretary): From Rs 26,000 to Rs 80,000 (3.1 times, benefit Rs 31,640) S-32: From Rs 24,050 to Rs75,500 (3.1 times, benefit Rs.30767) S-31: From Rs 22,400 to Rs 75,500 (3.4 times, benefit Rs.33836) The pay of the officers in the civil services and defence services should be fixed in the pay band PB-4 (Rs 37,400-67,000-plus grade pay) by allowing one increment for each year of service (beyond the eligibility of PB-4) and one increment for each promotion. For example, if an officer has served for 18 years and the eligibility for PB-4 is 12 years, then his pay should be fixed after allowing six increments in PB-4. Similarly, if an officer has put in 24 years service and has earned two promotions, his pay should be fixed by giving 14 increments in PB-4. This will remove all anomalies. The Sixth CPC has recommended at Para 1.2.9 to provide a common pay band for all functional posts in the pay scale of Rs18,400-22,400 and above. The CPC had accordingly recommended a common pay band PB-4 for four pre-revised pay scales, S-29 to S-32, but the government arbitrarily created a new pay scale, HAG+ (Rs75,500-80,000), for senior IAS officers of S-31 and S-32 scales only. Later, under pressure from the armed forces, another scale, HAG (Rs 67,000-79,000) was created for Lieut-Generals and equivalent (S-30), but the pre-revised S-29 scale of Major-General/Chief Engineer and equivalent (Rs18,400-22,400) was left in pay band PB-4, thus disturbing the Sixth CPC recommendation. The upgrade of five pre-revised scales (S-24 to S-28) to PB-4 has caused further distortions. To remove the humiliation faced by the senior officers, the government should implement in right spirit the recommendation of the 6th CPC at Para 1.2.9. Accordingly, the pay scale of the functional posts of S-29 and S-30 should also be revised to the pay scale HAG+ (Rs.75500-80000) as already done for S-31 and S-32 scales. Pensioners' case "One rank, one pension" (OROP) follows the principle of "equal pay for equal work", as provided at Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Pension is considered as deferred pay and is given to a pensioner in lieu of long satisfactory service rendered by him. The OROP for 33 years' regular service for each rank in an organised cadre (with pro rata reduction) should be given irrespective of the date of retirement. It is strange that the top level officers such as Cabinet Secretary, Apex Scale Secretaries and the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are already enjoying the benefit of OROP. For example, all Chief Secretaries are getting a pension of Rs 40,000, irrespective of the date of retirement. In a socialist country, the higher rank officers cannot be given some benefits while denying the same to the lower ranks. This violates the Preamble and Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Pay revision on notional basis of pre-1996 and pre-2006 pensioners should be done in the same way as was done for pre-1986 pensioners. The Central government in an order dated February 10, 1998, had laid down the procedure of revising the pay on notional basis for pre-1986 pensioners in the revised scale of pay for the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement - in the same manner as for serving employees - as many times as the pay was revised since the Fifties. The pension/family pension was then recalculated. This procedure was, however, not followed in 1996 and 2006 pay revisions, resulting in anomalies. The pension of pre-2006 pensioners should be revised to at least 3.1 times the pre-revised pension in the same ratio as the pay of the Apex scale/Chief Secretary has been revised. But the pension of pre-2006 pensioners has been revised to 2.26 times the pre-revised pension (after merging DA, DP and 40 per cent fitment benefit). The pre-2006 retired officers have been given pension at the minimum of the pay band PB-4 for 33 years' service, whereas they were drawing pay at the maximum of the pay scale at the time of retirement. After 33 years' service, an employee is at the peak of his career and draws pay at the maximum of the pay scale. Hence, his pension should be at the maximum of the pay band. The pre-2006 pensioners are a diminishing lot. They are feeling humiliated in the evening of their life. The above steps will not impose much financial burden, as the post-2006 pensioners are already entitled to the enhanced pension. The writer is a retired Chief Engineer of the Haryana Power Generation Corporation.
Supreme Court judgments Two rulings of the apex court, if implemented in right spirit, will help resolve most of the anomalies in pension: Pay revision on notional basis The Supreme Court directed on September 9, 2008, in the Maj-General SPS Vains case (CA 5566-2008) to revise the pay of pre-1996 retired majors-general on notional basis on a par with similar serving officers of the same rank from 1996, and then calculate the revised pension. This is what the government had done for all pre-1986 pensioners vide its order dated February 10, 1998. A similar order should have been issued for pre-1996 and pre-2006 pensioners too. Common rules for pre and post-2006 retirees The Constitution Bench on December 17, 1982, held in the DS Nakara case that the pensioners form a homogenous class and cannot be divided on the basis of the date of retirement. Accordingly, the Liberalised Pension Rules issued in 1979 were made applicable to all pensioners, irrespective of the date of retirement. On the same basis, common Pension Rules should have been made for pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. |
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Frustrated