Shortly after India announced a nationwide lockdown designed to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus, distressing images of hapless and disoriented migrant workers from all over the country started pouring in. A courtesy notice period of four hours, of course, did not improve matters much. Some trudged thousands of kilometres to return to their homes; many others hitched rides by trucks and cargo vehicles that incidentally crossed their paths. Those audacious enough resorted to unorthodox means- including hiding in a concrete mixer, setting sail on the Bay of Bengal without the aid of reliable navigational instruments, and cycling down seemingly endless roads under the scorching heat of May. Several among them succumbed to a tragic demise out of the resulting panoply of inanition, anguish and neglect. What was originally intended as a precautionary move for a national health concern, had now quickly snowballed into a humanitarian predicament of unthinkable proportions.
And yet two months into the lockdown, not much has changed for the better. The plight of the migrant workers- who constitute the foundation for India’s gargantuan informal economy- cannot be ignored downright. The lockdown was only a natural harbinger of massive job losses, which was amply reflected in pan-India unemployment figures. As of 27 May, the total unemployment rate had skyrocketed to 24%, with the urban unemployment rate at 26.5% and rural unemployment around 23% (thirty-day moving average, CMIE). The loss of livelihood will have a significant impact on the revival of demand figures, just as industries are on the cusp of reopening. Reverse migratory trends will also add to the average amount of debt (AOD) and have a bullish effect on the corresponding Incidence of Indebtedness (IOI, measures the percentage of households having some form of debt) in the short term. An AIDIS survey, conducted earlier by the Ministry of Statistics, had put the rural AOD per indebted household at ₹103,457, while the IOI was 31.44%.
Understanding the Problem
The 2016-17 Economic Survey noted that India’s inter-state migration had doubled between 2001 and 2011 when compared to the previous decade- growing 4.5% a year. The unprecedented growth could be attributed to a couple of reasons. First, the Indian economy grew at a dreamy pace between 2003-08, before the GFC set in. This was the fruit of the economic liberalisation of ’91, the effects of which were being felt a decade later. As the economy grew, so did the workforce requirement. Those in rural belts had now an opportunity to improve their lifestyles and give a fillip to their paltry agrarian incomes; most chose to migrate to the hustle of the cities in quest of a better life. Internal migrants as a percentage of the population also increased from 30% in 2001 to 37% in 2011 (Census 2011). Presently, annual inter-state migration is estimated to be around nine million migrants a year. A cohort-based migration metric reveals that less affluent states like Bihar and UP witness more of out-migration, while the richer ones- which include the likes of Maharashtra, NCT, and Goa- see an influx of these workers.
The Interstate Migrant Workmen Act of 1979, enacted to protect the interests of these workers, fall woefully short of modern-day realities. The Act singularly focuses on those employed in the contractor system and pays no heed to those who have migrated out of their own choice in search of a better-paying job. The policy delusion becomes evident when it comes to fixing accountability. Migrants are the only set of people to have been included in India’s Concurrency List- meaning that both the Centre, as well as the States, have an equal right to frame regulations concerning the community. This ambiguous power-distribution framework has resulted in chaos and utter confusion when it came to dealing with returning migrants: destination states even refused to take them in on some counts. The Supreme Court’s delayed intervention (28 May 2020), after an unnerving wait, ultimately fixated the responsibility on the sending and receiving states, with the Centre as a watchdog and a facilitator. It is truly a shame to watch the treatment meted out to the men and women who form the base of the societal fabric we dwell in. The administrative paranoia was exposed when the migrants were compelled to a chemical bath of sodium hypochlorite- a traditional disinfectant and a known skin irritant- before they entered the UP Border. Ironically, it was the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v/s Bombay Municipal Corporation which ruled that the Right to Life included the right to livelihood. With their livelihoods snatched and a planned suspension of labour rights in major states, how obliviated has the judgment become in today’s context!
Wage inequality is also another aspect of the debate. While inequality of wages amongst regular workers has increased, the same has decreased for casual workers in India- who make up the bulk of the migrants. Prima facie, this appears as a positive development. To fully comprehend it, however, we need to ask a few more questions. Why is it that regular workers face higher wage inequality? It is because those who are skilled have a higher premium on them, while others will lesser skillsets earn less. This is, however, not at all applicable to migrant workers- whom the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes as casual, unskilled labour- and who are semi-skilled at best. Their nominal wages have remained almost constant, with little adjustment for inflationary constraints and rising productivity. Productivity grew at a pace much quicker than the growth in wage rate since 1998, an empirical analysis suggests. The Gini coefficient, which is a useful measure of inequality, can be used to understand the trend. A Gini coefficient of zero indicates perfect equality, whilst that of one means absolute variation.
What Has Been Done
The Aatmanirbhar India fiscal package by FM Sitharaman tried to aid the migrant workers with a slew of reforms. These were:
- Five kilograms of grains and one kilogram of chana to each stranded migrant left out of the ambit of either the National Food Security Act or state card beneficiaries in the state of residence;
- Announcement for a ‘One Nation, One Ration Card’ policy that targets an approximate 670 million beneficiaries (~83% of those eligible under PDS) by August 2020. Target is to cover 100% of eligible candidates by March 2021.
- Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) that envisages a public-private (PPP) mode to facilitate urban residential housing at affordable rates for migrant workers.
Additionally, a sum total of ₹1000 crores has also been ear-marked from the PM-CARES fund for the benefit of the migrants. The exact quantum of money to be transferred to the states will depend on factors as the state’s population and the active number of COVID cases. However, several experts believe that unless the states pitch in with a contribution much greater than that received from the Centre, the relief provided to the migrants may not be very effective. Before the FM’s announcement, however, states as Kerala, Delhi, and Telangana were quick to announce temporary ration cards to migrants and direct cash disbursement measures. Jharkhand, Bihar, and Odisha too toed their line and announced DBTs, save for a few caveats here and there.
A Way Forward
Most migrant workers who have returned show little intent to travel back to the cities. The insult is manifold, and the apathy of the administration is too much to counteract. The massive reverse migration noticed can now be capitalised upon and be used to incentivise, and thereby accelerate, rural development. This will not only help bridge the rural-urban gap but also bring about a reduction in general inequality trends. It shall also go a long way to decongest arterial cities of the burden of overpopulation.
States should immediately engage in inking Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) with their counterparts to ensure the welfare of migrant labour in and out of that state, by introducing appropriate legislation to compel employers into providing health insurance and other welfare schemes. All concerns of accountability can be immediately addressed by establishing a competent office, or authority, to deal with problems pertaining to internal migration in India. Once set up, it can act as the nodal point of contact for domestic migrants all over India, and ensure better coordination. Over the long run, the framework can be extended, and the concerned offices can be brought under the aegis of a separate Central ministry.
A separate skill database should also regularly maintained by each state for migrant workers in that state. It will help targeted identifying of skills to guarantee higher wages and can be used to advertise ease of labour access in the state, thereby engaging in healthy, but competitive federalism. The Bihar government has already embarked upon the plan and is actively building a database for the same. To tide over the immediate crisis of loss of livelihoods, small enterprises should be incentivised to employ the local population of the migrant labour temporarily. A planned investment in the rural economy is also essential to narrow down on the digital divide and integrate more of the workforce into the formal economy. Lastly, the need of the hour is a central DBT law to infuse cash into the hands of those who require it the most. This will iron out any irregularities, and by utilising the proven construct of JAM (Jan Dhan-Aadhar-Mobile), any leakages can be minimised.
The above list is not exhaustive, of course. The present crisis has only opened the floodgates to how we perceive migrant workers and their impact upon the Indian economy. The workers, normally castigated to the smut of the slums, have taken centre stage today. It is no doubt, therefore, and in perfect compliance with the true spirit of Kennedy’s words, that we must be ready to take the plunge into long-run reforms for migrant workers by refashioning the imminent challenge as an opportunity only waiting to be seized:
“The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word ‘crisis.’ One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger–but recognize the opportunity.”
John F. Kennedy
Greetings, dear reader. As you may have noticed, there are no advertisements on this blog. This is because I understand that knowledge must not be held captive to commercial interests. Yet, the costs of sustaining the website are huge. Your little contribution can go a long way to keep my independent, unopinionated fact-finding ventures and policy takes alive. There is no compulsion to contribute, but I would be over the moon if you could. Hit the ‘Donate Now’ button to support! Thank you for your time 🙂