Promises to keep

Social and Economic Security in India edited by S. Mahendra Dev, Piush Antony, V.Gayathri and R.P.Mamgain; Institute for Human Development, New Delhi, 2001; pages 523, Rs.750.

ONE of the consequences of the economic reforms initiated a decade ago is a renewed interest and public discussion about social security. Strictly speaking, social security measures go beyond the ambit of the state, but of course in most countries the main responsibility for social and economic security rests with the state. Hence there are those who feel that as the economic reforms are meant to move away from the old socialistic pattern of society to a market oriented and market dominated economic order, the role of the state and consequently social security provisions financed by the state must be scaled down. Those who oppose this view point out that even in advanced capitalist countries, social security provisions are a democratic polity's insurance for citizens against the caprices of the market.

Against this background, a publication dealing with social and economic security is timely. And the volume edited by Mahendra Dev et al. is a very comprehensive one. The topics covered include an overview of social security in India, food, nutrition, health and housing, education and employment, and special treatment of vulnerable groups - women, the aged, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and those engaged in the unorganised sector. Social security provisions at the all-India level and in selected States have been included. Indeed, the volume is an excellent reference book on conditions of life of the people of India, and the authors, editors and publishers deserve to be congratulated and thanked for bringing it out.

The rationale of social security measures is the awareness of democratic societies that some of its members need to be given support beyond what they can provide for themselves. In any society, infants and the infirm are such members who deserve special consideration. The practical arrangements for support of that kind vary a great deal over time and across societies, including many spontaneous and informal ones to more structured and formal ones. As the democratic consciousness grows, social security measures tend to be increasingly formal and part of the recognised responsibility of the state as the most representative organ of society as a whole. Even in essentially individualistic capitalist societies this societal sentiment is not totally absent. In capitalist societies which also adhere to democratic polities, there is a contradiction, or at least tension, between the inclusive principles of democracy and the exclusive proclivities of capitalist economic order.

The capitalist economic order is exclusive, in the sense that it is meant only for those who command enough resource power to become participants of market operations. Consequently, those who do not have such resource power - those who have not yet entered the labour force, those who have retired from the labour force and those who are thrown out of the labour force by the very operations of the economic order, for example - turn out to be excluded from the 'normal' operations of the economy and become the responsibility of the state.

The Directive Principles of State Policy in India's Constitution identify the responsibilities of the state in this regard. For instance, the state has been directed to see that all citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused; that effective measures are taken for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement; that provision be made for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years; and so on.

Social security measures can be divided into two broad categories, "promotional" and "protective". Promotional social security includes the provision of education, health, nutrition on the one hand and assets including housing and employment on the other. Protective social security comprises mainly provision of social insurance and social assistance. Together they are expected to give those brought under the many schemes in the two categories a sense of security and contribute towards human development.

The book provides a carefully documented account of the variety of social security schemes in the country and makes a critical appraisal as well. For workers in the organised sector (who, however, constitute only around 8 per cent of the total labour force) there are many social security provisions. Pension and insurance schemes, provident funds and provision for gratuity, compensation in case of accidents, especially for those who are engaged in hazardous work such as in mines, and maternity benefits are the major ones among them. But for the vast majority of the labour force who constitute the unorganised sector, either as self-employed or as wage workers, social security provisions are very limited. In fact, for them there is hardly any kind of legal or administrative protection. Self-employment schemes, with rare exceptions like the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) of Maharashtra, are but tokens in nature. Minimum wage regulations in the unorganised sector are more noted for their violations than for implementation. Except in States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu there are hardly any pension schemes.

BECAUSE it is not possible to go through each one of the social security measures, what I shall do is to rely on the experience of the most deprived and vulnerable section of society - the Scheduled Castes (S.Cs) in the unorganised sector - to evaluate the potentials and limitations of social security measures in our country. The Scheduled Castes constitute about a fifth of the total population unevenly distributed among the States. A major promotional social security measure in the country has been the distribution of ceiling surplus land to the landless. In spite of this, the percentage of landless households among the S.Cs increased from 12.6 in 1982 to 13.34 in 1992 while the corresponding rate remained constant at around 10 per cent for others over the same period. Another promotional measure has been the various schemes especially under the IRDP (Integrated Rural Development Programme, started in the early 1980s), to enable people to be self-employed. These schemes also did not make much difference to the S.Cs. Perhaps this is not surprising because most S.Cs are wage-earners, in agriculture primarily. Over 55 per cent of S.C. households are agricultural labourers, compared to 25 per cent among non-S.C. households. Indeed, S.C. agricultural labour accounts for 35 per cent of total agricultural labour, far above the share of S.Cs in the total population. In the urban areas, 27 per cent of S.Cs worked as casual labour, two and a half times more than that for other households. Not surprisingly, a much higher proportion of S.Cs are below the poverty line as well. Despite the operation of many self-employment schemes, wage employment programmes targeted at the poor and vulnerable sections, legislation relating to minimum wages and some other social security measures, it cannot be claimed that the bulk of the S.C. household is anywhere near a tolerable minimum standard of living. It is doubtful also whether their lives have become more secure and less vulnerable.

The record of social security measures in India, therefore, is one of noble intentions, constitutional mandates, legislative provisions, a large number of schemes and programmes. But judged from their impact on the conditions of life of the people, they cannot be claimed to be particularly successful in achieving their objective. Promises to keep, and miles to go.