If the UPA government fails to universalise pensions for every senior citizen in the country, then it cannot claim to be a champion of inclusive growth, says National Advisory Council member Aruna Roy.
In a letter to NAC chairperson Sonia Gandhi, which was handed over at Monday’s meeting, Ms. Roy has pointed out that the government’s Rs. 200 a month pension is restricted to BPL families.
“For the elderly, the BPL category makes no sense. Even if they had the capacity to earn when they were younger, their physical condition in old age makes it impossible for them to support themselves.” Moreover, there is no justification for not ensuring that the entire unorganised sector (94% of our workforce) is assured of some form of income in their old age. “This is not a dole but recognition of their lifelong contribution to the Indian economy,” said Ms. Roy.
In November, Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh proposed expansion of the pension net to include younger widows, single and divorced women, Dalit and tribal senior citizens and all disabled people.
However, a Ministry panel still shied away from a recommendation to universalise pension to include all non-BPL senior citizens, noting that “affordability is a major issue.” Even without universalisation, the Ministry estimated that its proposal involved an additional cost of over Rs. 18,000 crore per year.
While the Finance Ministry has not yet responded to the Rural Development Ministry’s proposal, the Congress’ recent Jaipur declaration did include a promise that destitute, deserted and widowed women above the age of 18, as well as all “vulnerable” women above 60, would be provided with a “decent pension.”
Ms. Roy’s letter dismissed the concerns about adequate funding. “If we are to reject this [universalisation of pensions] with an argument of insufficient resources, then every claim we make of ‘inclusive growth’, or ‘growth with a human face’, will ring hollow,” her letter warned.
When the economic growth is produced by predatory methods such as SEZs or 'Special Investment Regions', where the constitution is considered as an obstacle to economic growth, the term "inclusive growth" is a mockery. It sounds like an invitation to ignore the large scale disposession of access to basic livelihood resources in the name of development.
Whenever Madam Sonia ji wants to introduce some vote-catching welfare schemes, they are routed through the National Advisory Council which has been set by her. NAC is her vehicle to carry out schemes whose main purpose is to hand out freebies in the name of social justice, which ultimately would help stay in power.
Aruna Roy has been handpicked precisely for this job and I think Ms Roy is now only floating a trial balloon.
With nationalized banks of the stature of SBI fading out Family Pension to a negligible amount on the completion of 5 years of death of the ex-employee after 4 decades of service, one is bound to wonder if the government deems the employee's family/dependents as not rightful receivers of the amount. In such a case, it becomes impossible to maintain decent living standards for the family if the ex-employee is deceased. It is an unfair rule that needs to be done away with right now.
This makes no sense. The amount belongs to the family till there are any direct dependents/spouse/minors in the family.
Providing pension to senior citizen in the unorganised sector should not
be problem for the nation, considering the sops we give to corporate
houses. excluding senior citizen from IT-net is meaningless for those
poor majority who does not have the income to pay IT gets nothing from
the govt.
I have worked for over 28 years in a Bank. For personal reasons I
applied for retirement (VRS) hoping for pension facilty. I was asked
to submit resignation if I wanted to leave because VRS SCHEME is not
there for my service period. Resigned and left. Though Pension scheme
was introduced through bipartite settlement later, AS THEY SAY THE
RESIGNED EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION , I am deprived of
pension facilty!!!!!!!!!
applied for retirement...i was asked to resign...now claim that
resigned employees are not eligible for pension!!!!!
This is about so called organised sector...Can't the system be changed
to the benefit of a very small group of such employees with a whole
hearted will.
Government is into a Catch-22 situation. It would be nice to see how it responds to Ms. Roy's mail to convince us of an inclusive growth.
I agree with the author that all senior citizens deserve a
universal pension for their life long service to society. At
present the Government gives concessions only to those senior
citizens who pay income tax in the form of tax rebate and tax
exempted income. This tax concession is a form of pension for tax
paying senior citizens. Those who do not pay income tax do deserve
a pension as proposed. The pension payment can be implemented once
cash payments through Aadhar is made possible.
Ms Roy is under an unfortunate impression that money is growing on trees. These hairbrained policies demanding the state to provide sops will lead us to fiscal ruin.
While I support the introduction of a universal age pension and pensions for other categories of eligible Indian citizens, we must bear in mind that pension fraud exists in the richest of countries, mainly at the individual level. In India, given recent history, if you listen closely you will hear politicians and babus licking their chops thinking about the scams they will perpetrate on the ordinary Indian. Better to delay the pension scheme until there is some hope of the money being paid to eligible beneficiaries and not to the scammers lurking in the shadows.
Please Email the Editor