📰 Open defecation-free India: National Statistical Office survey debunks Swachh Bharat claims
Only 71% of rural households had access to toilets at a time the Centre was claiming 95%
•The latest National Statistical Office (NSO) survey on sanitation debunked the claims of an open defecation-free or ODF India made by the Centre’s flagship Swachh Bharat scheme, although it did record great progress in toilet access and use in rural areas.
•The survey, released on Saturday, showed that about 71% of rural households had access to toilets at a time the Centre was claiming 95%. On October 2, 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that the whole country was ODF with complete access to toilets.
•The NSO survey was carried out between July and December 2018, with a reference date of October 1. Large States which had been declared ODF – that is, 100% access to toilets and 100% usage – even before the survey began included Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Others which were declared ODF during the survey period included Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.
•According to the NSO, almost 42% of rural households in Jharkhand had no access to a toilet at that time. In Tamil Nadu, the gap was 37%, followed by 34% in Rajasthan. In Gujarat, which was one of the earliest States declared ODF, back in October 2017, almost a quarter of all rural households had no toilet access, the NSO data showed. The other major States listed also had significant gaps: Karnataka (30%), MP (29%), Andhra Pradesh (22%) and Maharashtra (22%).
•In the first week of October 2018, the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Grameen) said 25 States and Union Territories had been declared ODF, while toilet access across the country touched 95%. In reality, the NSO said 28.7% of rural households had no toilet access at the time. With regard to this data, the NSO noted, “There may be respondent bias in the reporting of access to latrine as question on benefits received by the households from government schemes was asked prior to the question on access of households to latrine.”
•The 71% access to toilets was still a significant improvement over the situation during the last survey period in 2012, when only 40% of rural households had access to toilets.
•The NSO’s statistics on toilet usage are also encouraging. It said 95% of people with access to toilets in rural India used them regularly, indicating that the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’s efforts to change behaviour have borne fruit. Only 3.5% of those with toilet access in rural India said that they never used them. This was aided by the fact that water was available around the toilet in more than 95% of cases.
•NSO data indicates that the next big challenge may lie in the disposal of waste. More than 50% of rural Indian households with toilets had septic tanks, while another 21% used single pits, both of which need to be cleaned and produce faecal sludge that must be disposed of safely. Only 10% of toilets were built with the twin leach pit system pushed by the Swachh Bharat scheme, which safely composts waste on its own without any need for cleaning or disposal.
Fadnavis should be asked to seek a confidence vote immediately
•The surreptitious manner in which Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar were sworn in as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, respectively, of Maharashtra on Saturday morning was admission by the troupe itself that this drama was beyond the pale. If the coming together of the Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Congress in an attempt to form a majority in the hung State Assembly was disrespectful of the mandate, the skullduggery by the dead of night was an outright mockery of democratic norms and established procedure. Pursuit of power often involves amoral ingredients, but the surreal birthing of the new government was nothing short of sheer depravity. The BJP has not set any inspiring ethical bar when it achieved power without winning a popular mandate in several States, but this new low leaves the nation’s political ‘conscience’ with a sinking feeling. In one stroke, the President, the Prime Minister, and the Governor, all appear to be not as guardians of the constitutional order but collaborators in a clandestine, nocturnal scheme. Politically indefensible as the Sena-Congress-NCP alliance might be, its claim to form a government is technically unimpeachable, and cannot be denied.
•Political realignments in an existing legislature are often triggered by splits in alliances or parties. In Maharashtra it appears that the NCP legislature party leader is himself the leading defector — a unique situation. A more consequential betrayal is that of democracy itself. A series of unprecedented actions by the Centre and the Governor, and several unresolved questions that are associated with their actions, throw up multiple legal and constitutional issues. The top court might in due course adjudicate them, but the legitimacy of the Fadnavis government needs to be tested at once. That has been the precedent set by the court in comparable situations in which governments with dubious claims of numbers sought to delay the floor test and horse trading was suspected. The Governor administered the oath of office to the same person who had declined his invitation to form a government earlier. And this just as an alliance with sufficient numbers had taken shape. The Supreme Court has acted with alacrity that this seeming infraction of constitutionalism calls for. In a rare event, the SC heard a petition by the Sena and the NCP on a Sunday, which it said was its duty. It has called for records regarding material facts and circumstances that led the Centre and the Governor to act as they did on the intervening night of Friday-Saturday to be submitted to it on Monday morning. The BJP sought to stonewall or slow down the case during arguments, but if it is so confident of the numbers, as it claims, it should submit itself to a floor test immediately.
📰 An ill-advised proposal
Merging Assam Rifles with ITBP will impinge on national security and affect the morale of the force
•Reports suggest that an attempt is under way to shift the operational control of Assam Rifles from the Army to the Home Ministry. This is not the first time that such an attempt is being made to ride roughshod over Assam Rifles in the sensitive Northeast region to serve vested interests. In 2009, the draft Cabinet note for the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) was moved to amalgamate the Assam Rifles, a paramilitary force, with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), a Central Armed Police Force, and provide leadership from the police, replacing military leadership. This proposal was turned down by the CCS, understandably recognising the importance of the history and traditions of Assam Rifles, and the crucial role it continues to play in the security of the Northeast region. Since then, at least seven attempts have been made to target Assam Rifles in order to enlarge options for cadre management of police. Having failed to convince the discerning political leaders, the current effort is to hijack Assam Rifles by transferring its full control to the Home Ministry, and replace Army officers with police officers.
•Downgrading Assam Rifles from its present status of paramilitary force by merging a part or whole of it with a Central Armed Police Force will not only impinge on national security but also affect the strength and morale of the force.
Operating in a sensitive region
•A peep into the history of Assam Rifles shows that the force, created in 1835 to protect British interests in the Northeast, continues to operate in that region with the advantage of understanding the terrain and the people. Having participated in all the major wars and insurgency situations in the country, Assam Rifles has been awarded over 1,700 gallantry and distinguished service awards for its service to the nation. All this was possible due to the military training, ethos and leadership provided by Army officers since 1884.
•The Northeast is the most volatile and insurgency-affected region of India after Kashmir. Besides operating from within the region, militants surreptitiously operate from neighbouring countries by exploiting the free movement regime along the India-Myanmar border and inaccessible terrain. These borders, though settled, require specialised skills, not just mere policing functions.
•Recently China has brought its frontier troops, including those guarding its border with India, directly under the military command, removing civilian control over them. The India-Myanmar border, though manned by Myanmar’s Border Guard Police, is also controlled by Myanmar’s Army for conducting seamless operations against insurgent groups operating against the state. India is busy in divesting the Army of operational control of a force which has imbibed military ethos and special skills, and handing it over to police officers to command. Additionally, at present ITBP is guarding the 3,388 km India-Tibet border; assigning them another 1,643 km of the India-Myanmar border will be a command and control nightmare for the Director General of ITBP.
The elephant in the room
•The proposed merger of ITBP with Assam Rifles is premised on the profile management of an already expanded IPS cadre. However, both these systems follow very different sets of rules, hierarchies and operating philosophies. A more viable alternative for the Home Ministry would be to look inwards and merge ITBP with the Sashastra Seema Bal to space out the almost continuous high altitude tenures of ITBP personnel. Since both are being led by police officers, internal management would be easier. However, the need is to address the elephant in the room. It is more prudent to have a specialised counterinsurgency force, which doubles as a reserve for conventional war. This is due to its continued functioning, manning and training under the Army with a similar ethos and structure. Shifting Assam Rifles under a cadre which is looking to just create career opportunities places personal interests over national security.
📰 The broken promise of decent and fair wages
The draft rules to the Wages Act, a law expected to provide economic and social justice, will only exploit workers further
•Amidst the upheaval of debates concerning hate-violence, Article 370 of the Constitution, the temple at Ayodhya, and others, the Central government has finally woken up to examine the backbone of the Indian economy (working people), by proposing the rules to the labour Code on Wages Act 2019. Earlier in the year during the monsoon session of Parliament, the government celebrated the passage of this law, vociferously stating that the 70 years of waiting in granting the constitutional right of a guaranteed minimum wage hadcome to an end.
‘Starvation wages’ continue
•Accordingly, it was expected that the draft rules to the Act would be a ‘game-changer’ to the status quo as far as the lives of workers in the informal sector are concerned. It was believed that informal workers — they account for 93% of the total working population and contribute to over 60% of India’s GDP — had finally been acknowledged for their contributions to the nation-building process. But it was alleged that this would revive the crisis of the current economic slowdown, as the law proposes to increase income capacity and the purchasing power of the informal workers.
•The proposed framework to determine wage will continue pushing ‘starvation wages’ in India. In view of this, the draft rules proposed were received with much hope by solidarity groups and worker collectives in India. It was expected that the rules would have considered the Supreme Court of India’s landmark jurisprudence in the ‘Raptakos’ case (1991) which advocated the concept and the right of a living wage.
•However, and saddeningly, an in-depth reading of the draft rules does not match this glorious picture and has in effect, by creating a façade of false promises, struck a blow against the aspirations of millions of workers in the informal sector. This has been done by proposing the concept of a “floor wage: in the draft rules. In effect, this would mean that “starvation wages” which currently guarantees just ₹178 per day, will continue to exist and this government, like the ones preceding it will not go beyond “offering” “roti, kapda aur makaan (food, clothing and housing”).
•One can imagine the plight of workers by just looking at the recently reported “Consumer Expenditure Survey” result; it shows the average family expenditure in rural areas to be ₹83 per day, and in urban areas as ₹134. These figures show how workers will continue to live in exploitative and marginalised conditions, where their constitutional right to a fair wage will be infringed upon by employers and the state. This despite ‘Need-Based Minimum Wage’ being a Supreme Court jurisprudence (covering nutrition, health care, education, housing and provisions for old age as well). Therefore, in the draft rules, it should have been treated as a fundamental constitutional right for every citizen of India. On these lines, it is worth mentioning that the governments of Delhi and Kerala have not only managed to achieve a living wage jurisprudence in recent years but have also set the highest living wage in India (₹14,842 a month in Delhi and ₹600 a day in Kerala).
Archaic framework as reform
•The concept and intention of floor wage in the draft rules only reiterate archaic principles which were echoed by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in U. Unichoyi And Others vs. The State Of Kerala. Here the court remarked, “In an underdeveloped country which faces the problem of unemployment on a very large scale, it is not unlikely that labour may offer to work even on starvation wages”. Unfortunately, this situation still prevails in India where the labour market preys on the excess availability of workers for whom living a precarious life is their permanent mode of existence. In such a situation, they continue to be lured to work at their will on less than minimum wages, and in exploitative conditions. A floor level wage would only encourage and exacerbate this archaic practice and promote forced labour. Another huge concern with the law is in its provision of an arbitrary deduction of wages (up to 50% of monthly wages) based on performance, damage or loss, advances, etc.
•In a country such as India, where employers, due to their higher social status, continue to exploit labour with impunity, this provision will only continue to push workers further into exploitative conditions, stamping on their bargaining power and rights of association. This will make the lives of workers worse as the draft rules do not clarify the governance and institutional structure for the “labour inspection system” in the law.
•The International Labour Organisation’s Labour Inspection Convention of 1947 (Convention C081) — it has been ratified by India — provides for a well-resourced and independent inspectorate with provisions to allow thorough inspections and free access to workplaces. Ignoring these provisions, the draft rules propose another ad-hoc and unclear mechanism called the “inspection scheme”. All of this implies that in the absence of clarity in the draft rules, workers will not be able to demand even basic work rights in the fear of wage deductions, and will continue to be oppressed and marginalised.
•All these provisions are not surprising when we consider the haste with which the law was passed by Parliament in the last monsoon session. There was not much discussion in view of the everyday survival and livelihood issues faced by millions of workers in India, due to their underprivileged social status and caste in comparison to that of employers and the state.
•Therefore, it is disheartening that a law which was expected to provide economic and social justice to most of the population, now has provisions which will exploit workers further. There is no accountability from elected representatives on the broken promises of decent and fair wages. The Labour Code on Wages Act 2019 and the draft rules have failed the lives and the aspirations of over 50 crore informal workers in India. Working people are a national asset; undermining their well-being should be considered the biggest anti-national act.
