Opinion - Interviews   

“The approach to planning should change”

— FILE PHOTO: Kamal Narang

Arjun Sengupta: “Most underprivileged are aggrieved because the system has done nothing for them. They are conscious of this fact but for them to say what can be done is difficult.”

What are the lessons you have learnt during the drafting of the just-released report on the ‘conditions of work and promotion of livelihoods in the unorganised sector?’

We, at the Commission, believe that the whole approach to planning in India should change. Only maximising economic growth should not be the aim. Planning has to occupy itself entirely with the improvement of the poor and vulnerable sections of society through social engineering.

Social engineering is always a difficult exercise as it requires planning, coordination, re-designing of programmes to make them more efficient and plug leakages. The normal market mechanism benefits only the middle and the higher income groups, for the rest it is the government’s job to ensure economic development. The Government will have to see that reforms are not reversed, and at the same time, the socially and economically backward are also taken on board.

This is the job of the Finance Minister and the Planning Commission. We have given some suggestions in our report and if some of these are accepted, the government would be doing something for these marginalised people in real terms. Appropriate financial planning is required to see where to get the money for the development of this vulnerable section without upsetting the macro-economic balance. The Finance Minister can certainly do this.

On its part, the Planning Commission must ensure monitoring of the funds and schemes implemented for the disadvantaged groups that constitute an unbelievable 836 million people or 77 per cent of the population. For the remaining over 235 million, they are in a position to take care of themselves.

These were not targeted and hence bypassed this section of the society. The focus remained primarily agriculture or irrigation. And, with no centralised monitoring, the rich always benefited from these schemes. I can give some examples, like the credit in the agriculture sector has doubled but very little money has gone to the small and marginal farmers. As you know, most self-employed are in the unorganised sector, they have not benefited from the industrial progress like skill upgradation and improved technology. The Commission in its report has given an agenda on how to reach out to these people.

But the most important thing is to give them livelihood as many of them have no social security or legal protection. There is no doubt that the economy is growing and a lot of money has been spent on social development but it is also clear that these schemes have to be specifically targeted at them. This then also means that the programmes have benefited only the rich who are prospering.

We now have the Panchayati Raj system in place through which the people can at least find out where the money is going and who are being benefited, or the programmes should be self-targeting. The Government can encourage artisan cluster units at the rural level to promote the rural economy. If the Special Economic Zones can be justified for the rich, such units are more justified for the poor.

During our research we found that most underprivileged are aggrieved because the system has done nothing for them. They are conscious of this fact but for them to say what can be done is difficult. That is our job.

So far they did not have a voice but certainly a strong individual identity based primarily on their religion or caste. This identity is easier to comprehend. But if the Government gets down to actual work by giving them opportunity to improve their livelihood, they would realise that economic development is more important than their caste or religion. This kind of programme would also take care of the problems associated with the castes and communities.

The Commission was set up mainly to look into the condition of the unorganised workers. Everyone knew of the unorganised worker but not much work was done for this section of society. There was no definition and they did not have an identity. We have not only identified the unorganised worker but also analysed their identity. It is for the first time that a detailed report has been brought out that highlights the conditions of the unorganised labour in the country.

The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector has also gone into schemes to promote their livelihood. They are suggestive and can be improved upon and elaborated but the basic job was on their identification.

And, when we analysed the unorganised worker, it struck us that there is a strong co-relation between the unorganised worker who had no social recognition or legislative security with the poor and the discriminated section.

In doing so, we found there were four distinct groups — extremely poor, poor, marginal, and vulnerable with a per capita consumption of Rs.9, Rs.12, Rs.15 and Rs.20 per day respectively. These together account for 836 million people, a phenomenal 82 per cent of which are Dalits, the Scheduled Tribes, the Other Backward Classes and the poor Muslims. Interestingly, 79 per cent of the poor and vulnerable are in the unorganised sector and we describe them as the ‘aam aadmi.’

Poverty, no doubt, has come down but the proportion of marginal and vulnerable sections has increased when it should have decreased considering that economy was booming between 1993-94 and 2004-05. There is a huge division between the ‘shining India’ and the ‘down-trodden India.’

We are all political economists. We have worked out certain programmes but whether these are accepted or not is for the Government to decide. There are groups who support our recommendations and others who oppose it. I am not surprised that it would take a lot of struggle to see it through but I am also optimistic on certain counts. It is for the first time that we have a government that is commited for the development of the poor. This is a political commitment and we have to fight for this voiceless group. This is the strength of democracy.

After all, there was initial opposition to the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act also. But then the Government eventually adopted the scheme and now it is one of the most successful programmes for poverty alleviation that ensures livelihood for the poor.

The programme has gone through some initial periods of organisational problems but now we have recommended its universalisation and removal of the 100-day cap.

We must realise that the voiceless groups have now started to assert themselves by seeking their rights. This is one way of doing it. The other way would be through naxalism. This is the dynamics of the situation that is pushing us towards a more inclusive economic development.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Undermining democracy
Politicising garbage
The nuclear deal: the larger picture
Protecting women from cervical cancer
Corrections and clarifications
Indo-U.S. nuclear deal
Speedy justice
Dismal performance
“The approach to planning should change”

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu