COVID-19 Positive to Negative: How We Managed!
I am 63 and my wife 56. Only two of us are in our house in Noida, UP; our two children, though not married, stay separately in Delhi in their respective houses. I stopped going to my office regularly and my wife’s office had declared a ‘work from home’ policy since the first national lockdown in March 2020. We were extremely careful in our exposures. We went out of house only on emergencies as most of the purchase of provisions and vegetables were done online. We had created a space to keep home deliveries without we touching them and used to take them only after one day. Vegetables and perishables were washed with soap, if taken on the same day. Cook sanitised her hand as she enters and we sanitise the kitchen after she leaves. We started sharing the job of mopping floor and cleaning the utensils. In spite of this, both of us were diagnosed COVID-19 positive in RT-PCR test on 16 November 2020. We never have been able to locate from where we got the virus.
Why did we do the COVID-19 test?
I felt that I cannot go for my regular evening walks. Felt very tired. Had body pain. Slowly, the body pain increased. Experienced neck pain and back pain. Couldn’t sleep without a Dolo. Simultaneously, I experienced stomach upset. Frequency of visiting toilet increased. I had a feverish feeling, though the temperature never reached 100˚C. For me this condition remained for about 7 days. Meanwhile, my wife also was having an upset stomach. She also had feverish feeling and her temperature remained below 100˚C. A sense uneasiness prompted us to purchase an oximeter and an additional thermometer.
We decided to visit our Ayurvedic Doctor, where again our temperature was measured. Returned home with medicines. There was no respite even after taking medicine for three days. Our children compelled us to take an RT-PCR test, which we did in Delhi on 14 November 2020. The result was expected to come only on the 16 November as 14 November was Diwali. We planned to move to a house in Delhi, if the test came out positive.
On 14 November evening while preparing coffee, we realised that coffee did not have any smell. We tried to smell various substances including perfume. We lost our sense of smell; a clear indication that we were COVID-19 positive. It was Diwali day and there was celebration all around. We decided to move out of Noida quietly.
Why we decided to move out of Noida?
There were two main reasons. One, in the flat system in the Housing colony that we resides, four flats have entrances close to each other and there are all chances of close interactions with the neighbours. All the flats had senior citizens and we did not want to be a reason for accidentally infecting anyone. Second, we had our Aadhaar registered in Delhi address and did not want to get into embroiled in any confusion when we were sick.
Where we got quarantined in Delhi?
After discussing among four of us, we shifted to the house in Delhi where our younger son lived with his friends. The testing was done there. An important point was that the housing complex, where 8 families including the landlord lived, did not discriminate against COVID19 patients and the community did not display any kind of intolerance. Another point was that the bachelors with whom our son shared the flat, did not have any problem in we living there. Of course, they, including our son, shifted to the opposite flat where another set of friends lived.
We reached Delhi house on 15 November. Our RT-PCR test results came on 16 November confirming that we were COVID19 positive.
During our stay in Delhi house, we managed our breakfast. Lunch and dinner were given to us by our son with the help of their maid.
What medicine we took and the regime that we followed?
We just followed a schedule a Doctor mother prescribed to her COVI19 infected daughter, who happened to be a colleague of our son. These were also the prescription a Doctor friend of ours suggested when we consulted her over telephone. Those included:
- Paracetamol 650 mg (1 tablet twice a day)
- Ivermectin 12 mg (1 capsule once a day for 5 days)
- Doxycycline 100 mg (1 tablet twice a day for 7 days)
- Vitamin C 500 mg (1 tablet twice a day for 28 days)
- Zinc acetate 50 mg 1 tablet once a day for 28 days)
- Vitamin D3 60000 IU 1 capsule once a week for 4 weeks)
We followed this regimen strictly. The attached photograph shows that.
Additionally, we monitored our temperature and oxygen saturation every six hours. A few times the Oximeter showed less than 95. We did not panic. We walked in the available space and meter reading showed 97 or 98. Our temperature never crossed 99.4˚C. We also inhaled steam regularly. Once in a while did saline gargle.
However, I felt very tired, what everyone calls fatigue. Almost every night, we took Dolo, if not we were having very disturbed sleep. This situation was particularly true for me.
Both of us were attending to official work through video calls, though I had to skip a few important events because of tiredness and difficulty to concentrate for a considerable period of time.
To our great relief, we regained our sense of smell on 19 November. We started smelling different things to reassure ourselves that we were not in a mood of anticipatory illusion. We felt that we were on the road to recovery.
On 28 November, on 14th day after the first test, we again gave samples for RT-PCR test. When the results came the next day, only one person tested negative. My wife was not.
It could have been that I got infected first and the virus load came down after 20 to 21 days. My wife could have got it from me and it was taking time for her to test negative though she was quite active, energetic and had positive attitude during our stay in Delhi.
It could also be that I have tested negative because I followed certain things differently. I ate small pieces of raw ginger and raw garlic everyday. I was also taking a pinch of turmeric powder in boiled water. Additionally, I was taking Balasarvangam, an Ayurvedic (Shantigiri) prescription for immunity building, 18 to 20 drops in small portion of honey. (Sheeba refuses to take Balasarvangam because of its highly intolerable taste.)
I never stopped doing mild physical exercises even at the time of perceptive COVID19 physical impact on the body. It included breathing exercises, immunity boosting exercises involving lymphatic node areas on the upper part of the chest, ears, diaphragm and calf muscles. The exercise with diaphragm also helped me to bring out mucous from lungs/throat.
My wife started taking raw ginger, garlic and turmeric. The flat was big enough, we had the whole space and we regularly walked inside the house for 10 to 15 minutes. The Delhi atmosphere was clearing up and we enjoyed sun light every day for 10 to 15 minutes in the balcony.
We gave our samples again for RT-PCR test on 2 December; the results, when it came on the next day, both of us were negative for COVID19 (SARS-COV-2).
We returned to our residence in NOIDA on 4 December after informing the Society Management and the neighbours that we have been tested negative. Even after 14 days of returning home, a sense of fear and apprehension remains in the air.
General comments
Our children closely followed our health status. Besides preparing the chart and regular food, they were on video calls with us almost every day.
We had a group of empathetic friends and community who provided strength. Without being prescriptive and sympathetic, they constantly were in communication with us.
If both of us were confined to a room, do not know whether we would have recovered fast. There was an air of freedom and space.
Delhi Government representatives regularly called and monitored the situation.
I suffer from gluten allergy and hack constantly to get small bits of phlegm out from my throat. I was almost certain that, if infected, CORONA virus would remain in my throat and eventually affect my lungs to kill me. But, nothing of that sort has happened. We managed so far. Hope the case will be same post-COVID.
Thank you.
J John
Agrarian Acts 2020 – Liberalisation and Privatisation of Marketing Systems with Primacy for Agri-corporates
J John
I will be looking at the three agrarian Acts based on insights from an involvement I have had with small tea farmers. Tea is usually not considered an agricultural commodity because it comes within the purview of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. However, there are more than 300,000 small farmers with less than 2 acres of land on an average, who contribute 50 per cent of the tea being produced in India, (the second largest producer of tea in the world).
The tea farmers must give their product for processing within four hours of plucking of the leaves. There are several questions that this raises, which I will not be discussing in this analysis. How do farmers negotiate the price and what happens to the product transformation along the value chain? Where are the prices determined? What role do the farmers have in determining its price? Being a commercial product, what are the implications of the tea being controlled by the central government? Is there a bench mark price or a minimum price for tea? Who determines the benchmark price? What are the mechanisms within which these are being monitored? It is, unsurprisingly, difficult to examine all these topics comprehensively within one article.
Instead, I will be looking at the current acts in the context of the issues that the tea farmers face with specific reference to proposals regarding organisation and operation of the market, accountabilities of parties, jurisdiction within India’s federal structure and the issue of remunerative price for farmers.
Even subsistence farmers have to sell something in the market in order to sustain themselves, to get other agricultural products or to purchase other materials for their daily living. These exchanges usually take place in the local market. However, as the structure of agriculture and the market has been changing since 1991, today the small farmers do not actually know where to go and how to negotiate the prices. They do not know where their primary product, or their locally processed product will go. There exists a marketing problematic since the local market is being destroyed, farmers do not know where and how to negotiate prices. Buyers also do not know how to reach farmers. This is a reality.
There have been attempts to address this problem of agricultural market in Indian situation. In 2003, the NDA government came up with a model APMC Act, in which the states (not the Central Government) were given responsibility and to regulate market. In 2016, after e-National Market (e-NAM) had been introduced by the NDA government and, in 2017, the same government came up with another bill called “The ——— State/ Union Territory Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion & Facilitation) Act, 2017”. Here, the States’ domain in managing agriculture and the APMC while giving propositions for opening up the market beyond APMC. A little earlier, the UPA governemnt had in the XII Five Year Plan 2012-17 has constituted a Working Group on “Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure, Secondary Agriculture and Policy required for Internal and External Trade.” It too was trying to address issues related to the agricultural market — too many intermediaries are there, inadequate infrastructure for storage and sorting, private sector not willing to set up logistics, lack of transparency of price-setting mechanisms etc were flagged. In the document produced, the emphasis was on small producers, particularly how the capacities of the small producers could be strengthened and how small producers could take part in the agrarian value chain and their inclusion in the wider economy. Even in 2017 the NDA government talked about the role of states and union territories in the management of agrarian markets.
The situation changed with the adoption of the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020. The two key policy instruments that govern agricultural marketing in India through which pricing, procuring, stocking, and trading of agricultural commodities are regulated are the Essential Commodities Act (ECA), 1955, and the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Acts by the states. ECA further facilitated procurement of food crops by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and its distribution through fair price shops across the country. The three Acts substantially alter the existing institutional arrangements for food procurement and distribution.
The important change has been to take away agriculture from the exclusive jurisdiction of the state governments. This is an issue of violation of constitutional provisions because agriculture is a not either in the central list or in the concurrent list. It is in the state list. In the state list, eight entries contain terms relating to agriculture: entry 14: agricultural education and research, pests, plant diseases; entry 18: rights in or over land, land tenures, rents, transfer agricultural land, agricultural loans, etc.; entry 28: markets and fairs; entry 30: agricultural indebtedness; entry 45: land revenue, land records, etc.; entry 46: taxes on agricultural income; entry 47: succession of agricultural land and entry 48: estate duty in respect of agricultural land. The Acts are changing the scenario, fundamentally.
The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020
The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 is intended to undo the legally constituted state level APMCs. This dismantling of APMCs is achieved by a provision in Section 6 of the Act, which prevents APMCs from imposing any market fee or cess or levy on any farmer or trader. It not only strikes at the financial viability of the operation of APMCs but also eliminates a source of revenue of state governments – the APMC market fee. Further, the Act permits the sale of agricultural produce outside the mandis regulated by the APMCs wherever they might get a good price. Theoretically, it sounds great. Practically, however, for more than 85 per cent of the farmers, who cultivate in small plots of lands, selling their products in mandis somewhere else in India to realise a better price is neither practical or feasible. It sets the ground for the private sector to engage in unregulated procurement from farmers through their agents because big corporates may not open their shops in remote areas. The earlier bills of the NDA and what the UPA proposed, allowed the private sector to operate in the agrarian market. However, they had not suggested the undoing of the APMCs.
The Acts also recognise the possibility that disputes may arise in the contractural relationships between the farmers and the buyers; however, it restricts the disputes settlement process within a bureaucratic framework and restraints civil courts from entertaining such disputes. The disputes must be raised before a Conciliation Board to be set up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. If not resolved, the dispute can be raised at an Appellate Authority constituted by the Collector. If the issue still does not get resolved, it will go to the Joint Secretary …that is it. One will have to accept whatever resolutions the bureaucratic system proposes.
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, is meant to facilitate acceleration of contract farming. It must be kept in mind that contract farming is not new in India; it is on the strength of contract farming that big food retailers and agri-corporates such as Pepsi, ITC and Reliance grew in India. Contract farming is an agreement between a farmer and a buyer or a marketing firm that a specific quantity of a product of a specific quality will be bought by the firm on a pre-determined price, in most cases a forward buying offering, at times, with technical and input support. What distinguishes the current Act is that it offers contract farming as a panacea for agrarian distress and legalises farmers’ integration with agri-corporates without providing safeguards for issues such as the unequal power relationship and the farmer losing her/his right to approach other buyers in the market.
The farming agreement involves an agreement reached between a farmer and a sponsor or a third party prior to the beginning of the production of agricultural goods. Sponsors will have to offer farm services and the farmers will have to accept farm services. Anyone who has a PAN card can be a sponsor. There is no requirement for the sponsor to be registered anywhere. More seriously, in the farming agreement, a written agreement is not necessary. Section 3.1 says, “A farmer may enter into a written farming agreement.” A verbal agreement has been approved of in the Act and in such instances, therefore, how can one raise a dispute? Who will have the control in the agreement process?
Another issue is on price determination although price assurance is part of the title of the Act. The Act does not give a definitive direction on price determination; the procedural suggestions are optional because the term used is‘may’. Section 5(b) says, “Price reference may be linked to the prevailing prices in specified APMC yard or electronic trading and transaction platform or any other suitable benchmark prices.” It does not talk about the methods by which the prices will be determined. It says that it is the responsibility of the Sponsor to ensure that all preparations for the timely acceptance of such delivery; but it does not talk about what steps can be taken if the sponsor does not take delivery of the product for any stated or unstated reasons. If that is the ground for raising a dispute, imagine how negatively it will affect small farmers!
At the same time, there are exemptions and these pertain to the power vested in the state in the Act. Section 7(1) gives power to the state to exclude any agricultural product from the purview of the Act. It says, “Such produce shall be exempt from the application of any State Act, by whatever name called, established for the purpose of regulation of sale and purchase of such farming produce.” Section 7(2) clearly states that no law, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or any control order or any other law for the time being in force, which stipulates any obligation related to stock limit, shall be applicable. The words, ‘may’ and ‘shall’ have been used very selectively and purposely and, of course, the word ‘shall’ has not been used for issues that require empowerment of farmers when preparing and executing the contract.
In the case of the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, too, the dispute settlement process is executed within a bureaucratic framework. If the Conciliation Board, which is part of the farming agreement, fails to resolve an issue, the dispute will be referred to the sub-divisional magistrate. From there, it will go to the Appellate Authority constituted by the District Collector. From there, it goes to the Joint Secretary, Government of India. All the positions are within the bureaucratic system and the dispute resolution bodies are nominated by the government bureaucracy.
The Act exempts from review the performance of the officers in charge when executing the implementation of the provisions of the Act or those involved in the dispute settlement processes. They are exempted from prosecution. These exemptions raise questions on the democratic right of the citizens to challenge bureaucratic decisions and the accountability of the bureaucrats to society at large. Section 18 says, “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government, the State Government, the Registration Authority, the Sub-Divisional Authority, the Appellate Authority or any other person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder.”
The Act unambiguously states that the civil court does not have any jurisdiction over the disputes arising from the agreement between farmer and the sponsor. Section 19 says, “No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any dispute which a Sub-Divisional Authority or the Appellate Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or any rules made thereunder.”
The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020
The Essential Commodities Act was discussed in 1948 immediately after India gained independence. The context was the turmoil that partition had created when people faced severe shortages people faced in essential commodities whereas unscrupulous traders engaged in hoarding. As the Constitution was being written, Article 369 had the provision that law applicable to states can be enacted by the central government but would be valid only for 5 years. To overcome this, a constitutional amendment was made. The Essential Commodities Act 1955 was brought in under Article 369 of the Constitution by bringing in an amendment to the entry 33 in List 1 in the Seventh Schedule to List 3 (concurrent list). And that pertained not to agriculture as such, which remained as a state subject, but to “trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of ‘essential’ commodities such as drugs, oils, kerosene, coal, iron, steel and pulses. In the 1955 Act the powers have been delegated and the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations have been empowered to implement the law, monitored by the central government. The interests of the citizens were further protected by distributing such commodities through hundreds of thousands of fair price shops spread across India. This means that Essential Commodities Act, 1955, must also be read with the national policy on the food security of its citizens. During the current amendment of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, there has not been any informed debate in the Parliament.
Pointing out that certain provisions in the 1955 Act inhibit large-scale private investments in the creation of warehouses, supply chain and agricultural markets, the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020, provides that there cannot be any stock limit for food items. It further says that the stock limit of any agricultural produce may be regulated only if there is a full increase in retail price of horticultural produce, or a 50 per cent increase in the retail price of non-perishable agricultural food items over the price prevailing in the immediately preceding a year or the average retail price in the past five years, whichever is lower. It also provides for exemption to exporters, traders and value chain participants. The amendment, in practical terms, is an unencumbered license for not only corporate food chains but also traders to stockpile essential commodities. Further, one must also wait and see the disastrous impact it might have on the government’s capacity and responsibility in ensuring the supply of essential commodities to the people because it will impinge on food procurement and its distribution through fair price shops.
Minimum Support Price
A term that is missing from all the three Acts is ‘Minimum Support Price’, or MSP. It must be kept in mind that, in India, the MSP does not have a legal backing. MSP is not a statutory right of the farmers. It is an administrative decision or declaration. The centre, through the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), currently fixes MSPs for 23 farm commodities — seven cereals (paddy, wheat, maize, bajra, jowar, ragi and barley), five pulses (chana, arhar/tur, urad, moong and masur), seven oilseeds (rapeseed-mustard, groundnut, soyabean, sunflower, sesamum, safflower and nigerseed) and four commercial crops (cotton, sugarcane, copra and raw jute) — based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs & Prices (CACP’s). Although the MSP is benefiting only 6 per cent of Indian farmers, it must be recalled that the MSP system was started with an MSP for wheat in 1966-67 with a dual purpose in mind: one, to ensure that the government had reserves of essential food crops that could be sold to consumers at subsidised rates under the PDS system; and two, to address farmer distress arising out of volatility of prices.
CACP bases the MSP on the assessment of three categories of costs, namely, A2: the actual expenses paid by farmers in cash and kind for seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, paid labour, irrigation, etc.; A2+FL: the A2 cost along with an adjustment for the costs of unpaid family labour (given traditional Indian farming practices involve families) and C2: A2+FL along with all other production costs, including loans, rentals, cost of land and other fixed capital assets, that is, a comprehensive cost of production. Nevertheless, the decisions are usually based on A2-FL costs, which usually are much below a remunerative price for farmers. Consequently, farmers have to constantly struggle and demand a fair assessment of the costs of production when determining MSP for their products.
The most important and widespread demand is that the MSP should be fixed as per the recommendations of National Commission of Farmers Report, 2004 (M. S. Swaminathan Commission) that the MSP should be based on C2+50 per cent of C2 costs.
The three Acts do not touch upon this basic demand of the farmers.
Conclusion
Prime Minister Modi, in his 69th edition of ‘Mann ki Baat’ delivered on 27 September 2020, defended the passage of the farm bills saying they had empowered farmers and given them the freedom to sell their produce anywhere and to anyone. He further said that the reforms in the farm sector would benefit both farmers and consumers in the “absence of the middlemen”. From neither the Prime Minister nor the concerned ministers has there been an effort to discuss the current farm sector reforms within the overall agricultural policy of the government addressing other key issues such as food and nutrition security of the people of India, remunerative prices for farmers, national self-sufficiency in food production, food being made available at affordable prices to the consumers, performance of agricultural institutions and essential public expenditure in the agrarian sector. Marketing reforms and changes in the marketing regulatory framework have been presented as a panacea for the problems being faced by the farm sector. Farmer organisations have not bought to the idea that these agrarian laws protect their interests.
Coming specifically to the three agrarian Acts, there are reasons to challenge the Constitutional validity of the Acts and whether these have overstepped the Federal character provided for in the Constitution of India. We may have to revisit the Planning Commission’s and previous government’s documents which provide for agrarian reforms without usurping the domain of the states in managing affairs of agriculture.
The relationship between farmers and buyers cannot remain ambiguous; the relationship must be based on written agreements between parties. Simultaneously, the buyers must be registered.
There should not be any exemption for central and state governments as well as associated bureaucrats from prosecution, establishing accountability at all levels.
Civil courts must be allowed to review disputes arising out of farmer-buyer relationships and the dispute resolution must not remain an exclusive bureaucratic domain.
A law must be enacted that establishes minimum support price (MSP) as a legal right of farmers.
The critical role being played by the local markets must not be overlooked, considering geographical diversities, small farm sizes and food security of local communities.
Note: Revised version of a presentation made at the Study Session on the Farm Acts 2020 – a Webinar organised by INAG, fimarc and INFACT on 30 September 2020. The article appeared @http://www.labourfile.com/news-detail.php?aid=22#
Covid-19 Lockdown and Migrant Workers — Progressive Attenuation of Rights
J John
The 21-day lockdown announced by PM Narendra Modi on March 24th meant that all activities that required social association or physical closeness of individuals would cease in order to break the chain of Coronavirus epidemic by forced social distancing. This resulted in closure of educational institutions and religious congregations and importantly, all economic activities. All local, long distance and inter-state mobility was curtailed to ensure total shutdown. The government invoked the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 allowing only essential services such as food, utilities, healthcare, and law and order. Police and paramilitary forces were asked to enforce the compliance of the lockdown.
Most striking spectacle of the Covid-19 lockdown has been the ‘caravan of migrants’ crisscrossing the country, travelling from their respective places of work to their home villages. Hundreds of thousands of workers walking hundreds of kilometres for want of any kind of transport. Some walked alone but others in family; with women and children; luggage on their heads, little children on their shoulders or holding the hands of older children and adults. On March 29th and 30th, many thousands reached Anand Vihar Bus Terminal of the capital city of Delhi, bordering Uttar Pradesh and stayed put, as they were not allowed to cross the border. This created humungous logistical problem for the governments of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh (UP) leading to a simmering humanitarian crisis. Besides Anand Vihar border, migrant workers had also assembled in many other places in UP including Noida, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahar and Aligarh. This prompted the UP government to arrange 1000 buses to transport migrant workers to their villages in Kanpur, Ballia, Varanasi, Gorakhpur, Azamgarh, Faizabad, Basti, Pratapgarh, Sultanpur, Amethi, Rae Bareli, Gonda, Etawah, Bahraich and Shravasti. (PTI, 2020b) Workers were dropped at the Bihar border (Siwan, Kaimur and Buxar districts) increasing the uncertainties for those who wanted to travel further to their villages in the state of Bihar. Increasing human rights violations prompted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his radio broadcast ‘Mann Ki Baat’ on March 29th to seek the Nation’s forgiveness for the hardships caused by the stringent nationwide lockdown, while affirming that it was necessary. On April 14, Mumbai’s Bandra West railway station was flooded with migrant labourers who were hoping to get back home after Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that the lockdown has been extended till May 3.
Responses by migrants on ‘why did people move out en-masse?’ can be broadly categorized into three reasons — One, they were left with no source of income; Two, they would die of hunger before they died of the virus; Three, they wanted to go home.
Progressive Diminution of Rights — The Three Identities
What is the identity of the people who flowed onto the national highways of India? There seem to be three basic identities of worker, unorganized worker and migrant worker, in a linear mode, each successive identity undermining the essential characteristics of the previous one.
The identity of worker
The primary identity of ‘workers’ encompasses all who are employed as casual, contract and daily-wage workers in construction, manufacturing, wholesale or retail markets, shops, hotels, restaurants, vehicle service centres, repair shops, domestic work or delivery agencies. They could also be in manufacturing on a piece-rate basis, a part of home-based garment or craft-based supply chains; self-employed as tailors, street vendors, home-based workers, rickshaw pullers, car/auto rickshaw drivers, mechanics, etc. While they all contribute to the national income, their identity as ‘worker’ is seldom affirmed; instead their imputed identity is that of the ‘unorganized worker’.
The identity of unorganized worker
The ‘unorganized worker’ identity undermines and suppresses certain essential privileges of being a ‘worker’, such as regularity of job, regular payment of wages, the right to be a member of a trade union, the ability to represent and negotiate with employer and the government and above all certain social security benefits that protect one against unexpected eventualities in life. It entails that the workers are singularly denied the basic labour rights in terms of employment relations and social security. It must be observed that the identity of ‘unorganized worker’ is not incidental, but structurally determined and has been accepted as given since India’s independence. Over 92 per cent of India’s 500 million workers (extrapolated from the Census 2011 figure of 402.23 million, by the Economic Survey 2016–17) are in the ‘unorganized worker’ category.
The exclusion manifests in the very definition itself. The Unorganized Workers Social Security Act, 2008, defines an unorganized worker as ‘a home-based worker, a self-employed worker or a wage worker in the unorganized sector and also includes a worker in the organized sector who is not covered by any of the acts mentioned, i.e., The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.’ The specified laws are those pertaining to social security and the right to represent and bargain collectively. The unorganized workers are not denied their right to be a member of a trade union of their choice, but this right is seldom practised because discharge of this right might imperil their job itself. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948; the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; the Contract Labour (Abolition and Prohibition) Act, 1970; Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1996; and the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare (Cess) Act, 1996, etc., are directly or indirectly applicable to the unorganized workers. However, except with respect to construction workers, implementation of the provisions of the other acts is not enforced because workers lack bargaining capacity. The unorganized workers’ social security rules were framed in 2009, and the National Social Security Board constituted on August 18th of the same year. However, there has not been any fund allocation for the same. The Labour Code on Social Security, 2019 does not offer any substantive change in the situation. The futility is in defining a sector as ‘unorganized’ in the name of economic underdevelopment, instead of extending same rights to all workers.
The migrant worker
As workers assume the third identity, the most acknowledged and talked about now, that of the ‘migrant worker’, they experience further diminution of their rights. The term ‘migrant worker’ in the context of India is a strange one. The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of movement for all citizens. The fundamental principles of free mobility are enshrined in clauses (d), (e) and (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. It guarantees all citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business. Article 15 prohibits discrimination and Article 16 further affirms the equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matters of public employment. In light of these constitutional guarantees, therefore, attributing ‘migrant’ as qualifying identity to a worker goes against the very values enshrined in the Constitution, more so when the qualifying identity involves diminution of rights.
Who is a Migrant?
Who a migrant is within the geographical boundaries of India? The Census of India defines a migrant as follows: ‘when a person is enumerated in the census at a different place than his/her place of birth, she/he is considered a migrant.’ Information on migratory movement of people, along with the rates of birth and death, is crucial in understanding the spatial redistribution of the population and of changes in the demographic structure of the different geographic segments (urban–rural, states, etc.) of India. While this is largely the task of the demographers, others including sociologists, economists and behavioural scientists explore further into the determinants and consequences of migration. Migration has a spatial and temporal dimension. The spatial or geographic dimension refers to the migration involving crossing a border or boundary, usually decided administratively like inter-district or inter-state, which means that mobility could be of short or long distance. It has a place of ‘origin’ and a place of ‘destination’. The temporal dimension of the migration refers to the duration of stay in a place other than the place of birth, which determines whether migration is short-term, seasonal or long-term. Migrants on crossing borders of their home state enter a different administrative and linguistic domain, which has a number of implications to the enjoyment of their rights.
According to the census of 2011, there were 454 million migrants in India. The figure was 315 million in 2001 and 220 million in 1991. Of the 14.6 million migrants (Census 2001) who moved from rural to urban areas for work and business, 43% were inter-state migrants. Similarly, of the 7.1 million urban to urban migrants who moved for the reason of work and business, 41% were inter-state migrants. It was mainly the inter-state migrants who constituted the caravan in the wake of the Covid-19 lockdown. (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, 2017) The report of the working group on migration points out that majority of women who migrate citing marriage as reason eventually join the workforce, and comprise 57.4% of the total female workforce in India.
Meanwhile, the Economic Survey 2016–17, cautioning that the census migration data has its limitations in capturing circular migration and female migration for work, using alternative estimates proposes that (i) if the share of migrants in the workforce (500 million in 2016, arrived at by extrapolating the Census 2011 figure of 482 million people) is estimated to be even 20%, the size of the migrant workforce can be estimated to be over 100 million in 2016 in absolute terms; (ii) based on a new Cohort-based Migration Metric (CMM), annually inter-state labour mobility averaged 5–6 million people between 2001 and 2011, yielding an inter-state migrant population of about 60 million and an inter-district migration as high as 80 million; (iii) the estimates of internal work-related migration using railways data for the period 2011–2016 indicate an annual average flow of close to 9 million people between the states. (Economic Survey 2016–17)
Interestingly, based on the NSSO report, the report of the working group on migration argues that there is not much distinction in the occupational structure between migrants and non-migrants, in particular in the urban areas. ‘First, in both urban and rural areas, the occupational structure of migrant and non-migrant female workers is not very different, except that migrants are a little more represented in primary sectors and a little less in manufacturing. For males, while there is an expected large difference in rural areas with non-migrants being much more engaged in primary activities, the difference in urban areas is not very extreme. Migrants are more represented in manufacturing and modern services, and a little less represented in traditional services.’ (Report of the Working Group on Migration, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty, 2017)
The Government of India recognizes that migrant workers are spread along various sectors and occupations. The same is clear from a communication issued by the Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India to Deputy Labour commissioners, Regional Labour commissioners, Assistant Labour commissioners and district administration all over the country to collect data on migrant workers dated April 8th, 2020. (Chief Labour Commissioner, 2020) To place it in context, the survey was to be conducted at relief camps/shelters, employers whose labour is in-situ at places of work and local where migrant workers are generally clustered. The communication mentions 12 occupations and 11 sectors. The enumerators were given the freedom to add more occupations and sectors. The list includes primary, construction, manufacturing, public service, traditional and modern sectors as well as the self-employed as discussed earlier.
Since migrants are represented in all segments of occupations and economic activities, logically, the migrant workers must enjoy labour rights and social security rights the workers in these occupations and sectors enjoy. The irony of the fact is that, as we have already seen, almost all of the workers engaged in these occupations and sectors are in the ‘unorganized worker’ category and they experience institutional denial of statutorily defined and justiciable labour rights and social security.
ISMW, 1979 and its Ineffectiveness
In this context, one tends to agree with the observation made in the report of the working group on migrant workers that ‘in principle there should be no reason for a specific protection legislation for migrant workers, inter-state or otherwise. They should be integrated with all workers as part of a legal approach with basic guarantees on wage and work conditions for all workers, as part of an overarching framework that covers regular and contractual work.’
The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, modelled on an earlier piece of state-level legislation, the Orissa Dadan Labour (Control and Regulation) Act, 1975, is notoriously the least implemented among labour laws. If the Act is to be applicable, then five or more workers must move from one state to another through a contractor, who is licensed at the source state. The law does not apply to those migrants who migrate on their own and those who move within state boundaries, and thereby excludes a significant proportion of migrants from the purview of the Act. Contractors circumvent the law quite easily by splitting the number of workers into groups smaller than five. Moreover, the contractors split their establishments to show that they employ more than five migrant workers and register migrant labour with the local employment exchange to evade the provisions of the Act. Interestingly, the ISMW Act had come into force after arguing that only amendments to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, a non-discriminatory legislation, will not be sufficient to address the specific problems faced by the migrant labourers.
Another important labour legislation applicable to migrant workers is the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Three major constraints relevant to the current discussion are: (i) the act has a sectoral approach and is not beneficial to all workers, (ii) while the cess is collected, little is actually spent, (iii) even if the benefits are to be given, workers have already left their places of work in the wake of Covid-19 lockdown.
The ‘Migrant Worker’ and Diminution of Citizenship Rights
The mass exodus of workers from Delhi, Mumbai and other major cities of India indicates in addition to the denial of labour rights and social security rights as ‘worker’ and ‘unorganized worker’, ‘migrant workers’, at destination, experience diminution of basic civil rights and privileges that they enjoyed at their respective places of origin.
Absence of, or extremely poor, housing
The mission statement of ‘smart cities’ project launched by the Government of India in 2015 says that in 2011 nearly 31% of India’s current population lived in urban areas and contributed 63% of India’s GDP. It further says that with increasing urbanization, urban areas are expected to house 40% of India’s population and contribute 75% of India’s GDP by 2030. (Ministry of Urban Development, 2015) A significant percentage of urban population lives in slums; of a total urban population of 65.49 million, 22.4% lived in slums as of 2011. Despite ‘affordable housing, especially for the poor’, as a core infrastructure component of the smart city programme, or the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) Mission, intending to provide housing for all in urban areas by year 2022, the absence of housing remains an acute issue in the urban centres. The workers who marched out of urban and industrial centres might not have even had the privilege to live in slums. Many engaged by manufacturing enterprises live inside their workplaces or crammed spaces close to the workplaces, where they access shared kitchens and toilets. Many live, as families, in open spaces, on pavements, under flyovers, near railway tracks and on open grounds. Some stay in groups or as families in crammed spaces paying exorbitant rent and again sharing kitchens and toilets. Affordable housing with basic amenities like water, sanitation, adequate ventilation and access to the internet remains a far cry for millions of people who throng the cities for employment and livelihood.
Restricted access to food
Food expenses constitute a major portion of expenses for the poor in India. According to the Food and Nutrition Security Analysis, India, 2019 (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation & WFP, 2019) in rural and urban areas, the poorest, roughly about 30 per cent of the poor, spend as much as 60 per cent and 55 per cent respectively, on food. Despite the enactment of National Food Security Act in 2013, the right to food is not universal in India, but manifests as rather restricted food availability to the below poverty-level households by converting the Public Distribution System (PDS) into the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). The eligible households are entitled to 5 kg of foodgrains per person, per month at the subsidised prices of ₹3 per kg of rice, ₹2 per kg for wheat and ₹1 per kg for coarse grains through designated Fair Price Shops (FPS). The Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) households, which constitute the poorest of the poor, receive 35 kg of food grain per household per month. However, the Food and Nutrition Security Analysis, India, 2019 report admits that it has been seen that poorest 30 percent of households had lower capacity to access food, and as a result, despite the PDS support, they were not able to reach the Recommended Dietary Energy (RDA) levels of energy and protein intakes. Moreover, the Parliamentary Standing Committee has observed that 46.7% of the off-taken grain did not reach the intended beneficiaries in 2011–12 and that they received large number of complaints such as under weighing, errors in inclusion and irregularities in AAY under the TPDS from big states like UP, Maharashtra, Bihar and also from the national capital, Delhi. (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, 2015)
Under the TPDS, the centre allocates and transports the food grain from Food Corporation of India godowns to the ration shops. However, the states and union territories have the responsibility to identify eligible households, issue ration cards and licences to dealers and also tackle complaints. There are two major constraints due to which the migrant population gets effectively cut off from the food security entitlement extended through the TPDS. One, food security entitlement is limited to the identified and then targeted below poverty-line population, thereby excluding those who have not been identified for various reasons, usually termed as exclusion errors. In 2016, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found that states had not completed the process of identifying beneficiaries, and 49 % of the beneficiaries were yet to be identified in all the states. It also noted that inclusion and exclusion errors had been reported in the beneficiary lists. Two, those who are so identified, receive food through the TPDS upon furnishing a ration card at a specified FPS tied to their place of residence. Once people cross the district or state border, they cannot access their subsidized food entitlement at any outlet of the FPS. This framework implies that the PDS potentially excludes the 100 million migrants, as per the migrant data provided by the Economic Survey 2016–17, from accessing subsidized food grain. This crass denial of the right to food has prompted the migrants leaving big cities en masse saying ‘hunger will kill us before the coronavirus does’. (Mudassir Kuloo, 2020) Despite the talk of ‘one nation one ration card’ scheme to be implemented all over the country, no concrete steps for removing bottlenecks had been put in place to facilitate portability of food security rights before the lockdown announcement.
Income insecurity
The ominous portend of hunger deaths has been accentuated by the non-availability of cash with the people who are stuck in brick kilns, work places, rented spaces and temporary shelters all over India. Take the case of 40 PMKVY trainees in a big company who are stuck in Mindhalli village, Kolar district, Karnataka. They are without their original papers as they had surrendered them to the company for technical reasons. After the lockout, the company has not made any payment to the trainees and they are without any cash to purchase food items. The landlord in whose premises they are staying demands rent, and has asked them to leave the premises if they cannot pay. In another case, Pushpen Singh Yadav from Datia district, Madhya Pradesh, along with five of his colleagues is stuck in Kadi in the Mehsana district of Gujarat. The group had been doing colouring work in the cotton mills of Kadi for the last three months. The group has exhausted all money and have been surviving on food if offered by well-wishers in the village. On some days, they go with one meal a day while on others they have to go without food when their luck dies down with no one offering food. The provision store refuses to give ration without immediate cash payment. Similar or worse are the cases with short-term or/and long-term migrant workers all over India. It has been reported that around 71 per cent of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are unable to pay either partial or full wages for the month of March, according to the All India Manufacturers Organisation (AIMO) leaving millions of workers without cash for their survival. If this is the case with salaried employees, what would be the situation of the self-employed? The government, some Trade Unions, NGOs and philanthropic organizations (The Wire Staff, 2020), risking their lives are standing up to the challenge and are offering them food. Hundreds of thousands of workers are now standing in queue for cooked food or ration, or are going out, despite the lockdown, seeking food. It is extreme helplessness that compels them to do so and not a sense of right and privilege. On the other side, think of the ignominy and loss of dignity and self-respect that millions of workers are facing. It is in this context that there has been demand for target cash transfer (Appu Esthose Suresh, 2020) by some and universal cash transfer (Shemin Joy, 2020) by Social Security Now (SSN).
Inadequacy of Government’s Response
In response to the social and economic impact the sudden lockdown has created, Ms Sitaraman, Minister of Finance, Government of India announced a ₹1.70 Lakh Crore relief package under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana ‘intended at reaching out to the poorest of the poor, with food and money in hands, so that they do not face difficulties in buying essential supplies and meeting essential needs.’ (PIB, 2020) How far is the package addressing the progressive diminution of rights the workers experience as they assume the status of the ‘unorganized worker’ and the ‘migrant worker’? Probably, it was not intended to address that. Crisis gives opportunities for visionary leaders to make systemic and structural changes. Except for the suggestion to extend insurance scheme for 22 lakh health workers fighting Covid-19 in government hospitals and healthcare centres with an amount of ₹50 lakhs each, most of the announcements were within the existing schemes and frameworks. Even in the Covid-19 insurance scheme, it has been clarified subsequently that it covers only loss of life; not treatment for healthcare workers. (K R Srivats, 2020) PM Garib Kalyan Ann (अन्न) Yojana operates within the constrained TPDS that has been already discussed and cannot address the right to food of the ‘migrant worker’. The proposed transfer of ₹2000 to farmers effectively amounts to ₹500 per month as in the case of transfer to women account holders of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana. This amount is in no way adequate to mitigate the cash liquidity crisis faced by mostly the poor in the wake of lockdown. For senior citizens and differently-abled too, the amount of ₹1000 for three months is not adequate. Allowing deductions from the Provident Fund or withdrawals from Welfare Fund for Building and Other Constructions Workers is merely letting people use their own savings, and is not contribution towards relief on the part of state’s exchequer.
Conclusion
In addition to housing, food and income insecurity, there are also certain other factors like language, caste, religion, gender, etc, that play a major role in accentuating insecurities of migrant workers, which have not been explicated in this note. There has been a brief discussion on the historical and structural violence that blatantly disrespect the constitutional and legal guarantees on the rights of workers. Coupled with all these, the mass exodus of migrant workers demonstrates that the relief package announced by the government was neither financially adequate nor emotionally convincing for urban workers to stay back confidently that their normal and basic needs will be provided for and life would proceed uninterrupted. It could be characterised as a form of passive resistance by the masses in response to a government directive that did not adequately consider their material conditions, dignity and livelihood. It is important to note that the administration did not come down heavily on those who were on the street en-masse.
This note is not intended to be prescriptive. Nevertheless, it might be considered irresponsible if certain indicative administrative medium- and long-term actions are not suggested. The government must extend the insurance scheme for health workers fighting Covid-19 to all Corona warriors including all safai karmacharis, delivery boys, transport workers, volunteers who supply food/ration to the ‘migrant worker’ and the police force. The tests for Covid-19 as well as the medical expenses for the Corona patients must be free of cost. The government must immediately stop the move to extend the working hours from the current 8 hours to 12 hours a day, a right earned by workers over 200 years of struggle.
The most urgent thing to do is to ensure that people have money in their hands and are empowered to take their own decision with dignity. The welfare package announced by the government, as seen earlier, is extremely nominal and prohibitively targeted. A proposal made by Appu Esthose Suresh appeared in The Hindu, which has been quoted in this note earlier, proposes that ₹2.5-lakh crore cash transfer will put money directly in the pockets and purses of the population up to the 87th percentile of the Indian population; ₹1.34-lakh crore will be for the poorest 500 million Indians, whereas ₹1.2-lakh crore will replenish the reduced cash reserves of the rest of the population uptil the 87th percentile. Though again targeted, this is a valid and certainly a better alternative. What Social Security Now (SSN) proposes is a universal transfer of ₹15,000 into the hands to everyone in India till the lockdown remains, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Targeting could be a reverse process by looking at who could be excluded rather than who should be considered eligible.
In the long run, the government must take steps to ensure that safe and adequate housing is provided to all workers, especially for those who migrate for work individually and as family. The government must ensure food security to everyone making PDS cards portable and universal. The universal right to health is another area that requires urgent policy attention.
J John is an independent researcher, writer and activist based in New Delhi. Former executive director of the Centre for Education and Communication (CEC) and among the founders of the English bimonthly Labour File, his areas of specialization are unorganized labour and small producers. J John is an Ashoka Fellow and leads the Grassroots Tea Corporation, a tea farmers’ enterprise.
Bibliography
- Appu Esthose Suresh (2020). Cash less Indians, the new normal, and survival April 07, 2020. The Hindu. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/cash-less-indians-the-new-normal-and-survival/article31274464.ece/amp/ (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- DHNS, Ahmedabad (2020). Coronavirus Lockdown: Rajasthan migrant workers walk home from Gujarat: March 25, 2020. Deccan Herald. Retrieved from https://www.deccanherald.com/national/west/coronavirus-lockdown-rajasthan-migrant-workers-walk-home-from-gujarat-817621.html (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- Economic Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance. (2017). 12: India on the Move and Churning: New Evidence. In Economic Survey 2016-17 (pp. pp.264-277). New Delhi: Government of India.
- HT Correspondent (2020). One-third of migrant workers could be infected with Covid-19: Centre tells SC April 01, 2020. Hindustan Times. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/one-third-of-migrant-workers-could-be-infected-with-covid-19-centres-tells-sc/story-bwKnI2oBI5tFoXlpvP0n7M.html (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- India Today Web Desk (2020). Coronavirus in India: Centre asks states to shut borders as Covid-19 cases cross 1,100 mark: March 30,2020. India Today. Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/covid-19-centre-asks-states-to-shut-border-as-india-reports-200-cases-in-one-day-total-tally-at-1-110-1661126-2020-03-30 (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- K.R.Srivats (2020). Covid-19 insurance scheme covers only loss of life, not treatment, for healthcare workers: April 08, 2020. The Hindu.
- Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution). (2015). Third Report: Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (2014-15) (Sixteenth Lok Sabha Demands for Grants (2015-16)). Lok Sabha Secretariat.
- Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. (2017). Report of the Working Group on Migration. New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved from http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/1566.pdf (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. (2017). Report of the Working Group on Migration. New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved from http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/1566.pdf pp.9 (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation & The World Food Programme. (2019). Food and Nutrition Security Analysis, India, 2019. New Delhi: Government of India.
- Ministry of Urban Development. (2015). Smart Cities Mission Statement & Guidelines. New Delhi: Government of India.
- Mudassir Kuloo (2020). ‘Hunger will kill us before coronavirus does’: Migrant labourers in Kashmir say incomes have dried up and relief shelters are inadequate: Apr 08, 2020. First Post. Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/india/hunger-will-kill-us-before-coronavirus-does-migrant-labourers-in-kashmir-say-incomes-have-dried-up-and-relief-shelters-are-inadequate-8240361.html (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- Press Information Bureau (PIB). (2020). Finance Minister announces Rs 1.70 Lakh Crore relief package under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana for the poor to help them fight the battle against Corona Virus (26 March). New Delhi: Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
- Primary includes agriculture, hunting. forestry, fishing, mining and quarrying; Traditional services include wholesale and retail trade, hotels and restaurants, transport, storage and communications; and Modern services includes Financial Intermediation, Real estate, renting and business, education, health, social work, other community, social and personal services.
- PTI (2020a). 21-day Lock-down Needed From Scientific Perspective: Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw: March 25, 2020. Retrieved March 28, 2020 from https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/21-day-lock-down-needed-from-scientific-perspective-kiran-mazumdar-shaw.html (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- PTI (2020b). UP govt arranges 1,000 buses for stranded migrant workers: March 30, 2020. Economic Times. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/up-govt-arranges-1000-buses-for-stranded-migrant-workers/printarticle/74860699.cms (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- PTI (2020c). Maharashtra government sets up relief camps for migrant workers: March 31, 2020. Pune Mirror. Retrieved from https://punemirror.indiatimes.com/pune/others/maharashtra-government-sets-up-relief-camps-for-migrant-workers-amid-lockdown/articleshow/74889854.cms (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- Rajan Verma, Chief Labour Commissioner. (2020). D.O. No. CLC(C)/Covid-1 9/lnstructions/LS-l (April 08, 2020). New Delhi: Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India.
- Ramya Kannan (2020). Why 21-day lockdown period? March 25, 2020. The Hindu. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/coronavirus-why-21-day-lockdown-period/article31167442.ece (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- Shemin Joy (2020). Transfer Rs 15,000 to all citizens for three months, make COVID-19 tests free for all: Petition to PM: March 28, 2020. Deccan Herald. Retrieved from https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/transfer-rs-15000-to-all-citizens-for-three-months-make-covid-19-tests-free-for-all-petition-to-pm-818582.html (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
- The Wire Staff (2020). Behind the Workers’ Dhaba in Delhi, an Expression of Solidarity Among Workers; April 16, 2020. The Wire.in. Retrieved from https://thewire.in/rights/delhi-workers-dhaba-migrant-workers-covid-19-lockdown (last accessed on April 18th, 2020)
‘Kumbalangi Nights’: A Film that Disrupts Your Masculine Identity
Read it at: https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/indian-cinema/kumbalangi-nights-questions-masculine-identity-malayalam-cinema
Kumbalangi Nights (2019), the Malayalam film directed by debutant Madhu C Narayanan, remains with you for a long time, seeps into your body and mind, disturbing your consciousness, especially the way you build your male identity; and how your male identity manifests in relationships with females, in relationships with males; and above all in the development of the male ‘being’ itself. It celebrates feminism by breaking the role models determined by patriarchy and women decision makers at all critical junctures. It celebrates womanhood, not by pitching men against women and women emerging victorious, but by the women bringing in direction, depth and meaning in male-female relationships and forging gender equality at home and elsewhere.
But, this is not all; as the script-writer of the film, Syam Pushkaran, says repeatedly in his interviews, Kumbalangi Nights has multiple layers of meaning. The film is not set in an upper class, urban backdrop. Neither is it set in a lost brahminical or feudal social order unlike the general tendency of hero centric Malayalam films. Kumbalangi Nights is woven around life of people in a seaside village, Kumbalangi, which incidentally is also a tourist attraction. The film reminds one of the settings of KG George’s films. The crew of the film locates sophistication not in manufactured urban, upmarket or high-caste setting, but the finesse is in the everyday life of ordinary people. It gives honesty, beauty and originality to the film.
A poster of Kumbalangi Nights.
A poster of Kumbalangi Nights.
Another similarity to KG George’s films is that Kumbalangi Nights explores the politics of the inner self, how the structuring of your inner being defines the nature of relationships – individual and social. This, the director and the script writer achieve, not through dramatic long-winding and masculine dialogues such as the ones made out for superstars such as Mammootty, Mohanlal and Suresh Gopi in the Malayalam film industry but through short, relevant closer to life and punchy conversations. Incidentally, a dialogue delivered by Mammootty in Ee Shabdom Innathe Shabdom, is about 4 minutes long. Such dialogues also contributed to the anointing of a few actors as superstars; and incidentally, only males were made to deliver such dialogues leaving out the possibility for women to be such “superstars”.
Kumbalangi Nights does not have a star, for that matter, not even a hero. Fahadh Faasil, the leading actor in Malayalam film industry, plays the role of an anti-hero (Shammi). There is no slow motion visuals here to depict a larger than life arrival of a star, which has become a common practice in the industry. Every actor has a role to play and everyone has been given their due in such a way that if the character is taken out, it affects the central message of the film. Everyone performs their role effortlessly while inviting co-actors to do justice to their roles and thereby making no actor to stand out as a star. Shared opportunities becomes a theme and practice in Kumbalangi Nights.
The film turns upside down the concept of ‘virtue’ and relieves ‘virtue’ from the shackles of moralisation. In the narrative, what’s seemingly moral is brutal and what’s seemingly anarchic is empathetic; the hero is anti-hero and the delinquents are saviours. This view is highly political and rationally irreligious. It is political because it redefines power dynamics between male and female as well as dominant and the dominated. It is rationally irreligious because moralising virtue is intensely religious. More importantly, moralised virtue is overwhelmingly generated by social, political and economic system controlled by men; and women are seen as the carriers of morality. In the film,Shammi, handsome, always smiling, well-shaven with a manicured moustache, ironed shirt and riding a Bullet motorbike, is a ‘Complete Man’, as he describes himself looking at his image in the mirror. He calls his wife, Simi (Grace Antony), “Mole” in Malayalam, sounding very intimate and romantic, talks to his mother-in-law (Ambika Rao) respectfully and considers his wife’s sister, Babymol (Anna Ben ) as his own. Yet, he maintains his masculine authority, which transmits a demand for fearful respect from the women in the household. He enjoys being a male breadwinner. Shammi symbolises the “ideal” man – good-looking, patriarch, loving, caring and in control of the average household where men and women share these values of peace and tranquility.
The contrarian situation is one of anarchy. Here are four brothers living in a house without doors. No one cares for anyone, there is no single authority, no rules, no discipline, no one to cook food, no time to eat, no time to sleep, no one has a regular income either. They spend time idling with friends at the seaside or in the local bar. All of them seem purposeless in life. Their mother left them and took refuge in a community centre for the destitute run by missionaries. Their father died. When the elder brother’s mother died, their father married another woman, who had a child from her first marriage, which gives a feeling that the siblings have many mothers and many fathers, giving a despicable perception of the family in the eyes of the society.
The elder brother Saji (Soubin Shahir) shows no remorse in living off the income of a Tamiliian, Murugan (Ramesh Thilak) whom he supported when Murugan eloped with a girl Sathy (Sheela Rajkumar). Murugan earns a living by ironing clothes. Saji’s younger brother, Boney (Sreenath Bhasi), who cannot speak, is an instrumentalist in a local music group. Bobby (Shane Nigam), the third brother, just idles around with his friend and considers, fishing, an activity that he knows, not decent enough to be pursed as a profession. The youngest one, Frankie (Mathew Thomas), studies in a residential school since he happened to get a scholarship and refuses to bring his school friends to his house, which he considers the worst in the locality. None of them have any qualms in eating food that Frankie cooks, while he is in the house on his holidays. The siblings get into verbal and physical brawls for no rhyme or reason.
Kumbalangi Nights builds on these contradictions and depicts how the virtuous ‘normal’ could reveal itself to be extremely poisonous and destructive while apparent immoral ‘abnormal’ could be an adobe of love and empathy. It also shows that when confronted decisively by the supposedly underdog, the ‘complete man’ can transform himself into a narcissist and demonstrate the violent streaks in a supremacist male.
A poster of Kumbalangi Nights.
A poster of Kumbalangi Nights.
The uniqueness and the ingenuity of Kumbalangi Nights is that the crew manages this metamorphosis through the agency of the women characters who deploy their empathy, will and power to change the stimulants and reveal the real meanings of the situations. The film creatively depicts the inherent malevolence of patriarchy and subtle but powerful assertion of women to be heard and accepted as equals in inter-personal relationships. Women characters are of their own and most of the time, taking decisive steps in directing the destiny, of themselves and of their male associates too. Women characters in the film are not passive spectators; neither are they victims of destinies nor adjuncts to the male characters.
Sumeesha (Riya Saira) is clear and determined in proposing to Bobby’s friend despite comments by Bobby on her fiancé’s appearance. Sumeesha and Babymol are employed in a local resort and they are comfortable with the work which gives them confidence unlike the anarchist brothers who despise work. Babymol takes the lead, at all critical moments, in the blossoming of her relationships with Bobby. She is in full control of herself in all situations. Babymol is extremely empathetic to the plight of Bobby, not sympathetic or possessive, which helps him overcome his emotional crisis and to identify his expertise in fishing as a vocation. Pregnant Sathy shows exemplary presence of mind in deciding not to name Saji in her husband’s death. Sathy’s empathy transforms Saji to realise his true self and he finds meaning in taking care of Sathy and his friend’s child in her. The mother of the three siblings, who had left behind her children and chose to go on God’s mission, is a strong willed woman who knows that she should not return to the house in spite of repeated pleas by her children.
While Bobby evolves through his relationship with Babymol, Saji goes through a personal crisis when his closest friend Murugan challenges him by stating that Saji is living off the labour of Murugan. Saji attempts suicide, and though he survives, Murugan dies when he attempts to rescue Saji. In a series of intense and dramatic events, Saji purges his emotional burdens before a psychiatrist (Ajith Moorkooth ), where he’s taken to by his youngest brother Frankie. The doorless house suddenly becomes liveable when Nylah (Jasmine Metivier), an African-American tourist establishes a relationship with Bobby and when Sathy joins in with her newly born baby. All the four brothers, based on a suggestion by the youngest one, decide to visit their mother. There is nothing normal in this situation from the perspective of a ‘complete man’. Nevertheless, it is guided by empathy, humanness and equality of gender.
Meanwhile, it is the assertive dialogue by Simi that breaks the shell of a malevolent Shammi, when he starts using despicable term of ‘edi’ and ‘podi’ instead of ‘mole’ to address her sister. Babymol, takes courage to question Shammi about mocking Bobby over his multiple parentage and rejecting her decision to marry him. When Shammi justifies his language, reminding Babymol that he is like his elder brother, Simi sheds of her timidity and states, ‘Ethu type chettanayalum maryadakku samsarikanam’ (“Which every type of elder brother you are, make sure you speak with respect”), which is beyond the capacity of the ‘complete man’ to tolerate. Shammi then metamorphosizes into his violent self, and assaults his wife, mother-in-law and Babymol. He then confronts Bobby who comes in search of Babymol and subdues him. Only the combined effort of all the four brothers can finally overpower the ‘complete man’.
Kumbalangi Nights makes men and women equal; but probably women more equal than men. It raises serious questions on male superiority and patriarchy, which need not be of that variety where a ‘karanavar’ sits majestically on a throne or when a powerful male utters despicable dialogues about women. It comments on patriarchy that is here, there, everywhere, in all walks of life and in all our decision making processes. The beauty and originality of this film is that the male characters realise, genuinely, the change making capacity of women. Transformation takes place in the ordinary life. It needs to be societal.
I this context, I doubt whether it would be the right question to ask whether Kumbalangi Nights passes the globally used tests on feminism – the Bedchel Test and Mako Mori Test. The Bechdel test emphasises female relationships as ‘true’ feminist representations in film while the Mako Mori test emphasises on female independence and self-reliance. The Bedchel Test asks three questions whether the film has “(i) two women (ii) having a conversation (iii) which is not about a man”. The Mako Mori test asks whether the film has “(i) one female character (ii) who gets her own narrative arc (iii) that is not about supporting a man’s story.” Kumbalangi Nights creates its own narrative on feminism. All female characters have their own narratives and the arc is to disrupt male dominance in relationships and they successfully asserts principles of equality and empathy in those relationships.
The film has other layers too. For instance, it transcends religion and communities. When Simi tells Babymol that Bobby is a Christian, she responds, ‘Eee Jesusine namukku ariyathathano’ (“Is this Jesus so unfamiliar to us?”). This statement is not anti-religious, it does not ridicule another religion, but asserts familiarity of all religions. Sameesha finds beauty in dark skin and so does Boney, who befriends an African-American tourist.
Fahadh Faasil as Shammi in Kumbalangi Nights.
Fahadh Faasil as Shammi in Kumbalangi Nights.
The film is shot mostly during nights. Cameraman Shyju Khalid does not isolate the visual feel of the narrative from the essence of the film. It merges. So is the case of the music by Sushin Shyam, which gels with the mood. Editor Saiju Sreedharan does a tight editing, giving no opportunity to the viewer to suggest that this portion could have been left out.
At the end of the day, film production is business too and so, a salute to the banners of Fahadh Faasil and Friends as well as Working Class Hero for venturing into investing in such a film. Kumbalangi Nights raises the bar for not filmmakers but for the audience too. Indications that people have decided to view the film a second time, bodes well for a society that saw massive mobilisation against a Supreme Court verdict that allowed women of all ages the right of entry in Sabarimala Temple, challenging patriarchal notions of faith, priesthood and gender based discriminations in religious practices.
Revolt of the Judges: How Important is 12 January 2018 for Indian Democracy?
Was 12 January 2018 a bad day for Indian democracy? I am not referring to Indian judiciary, but Indian democracy. On that day Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph held a press conference on the lawns of Chelameswar’s bungalow on Tughlaq Road, New Delhi in an open revolt against the Chief Justice of India? We are taking this revolt at its face value.
Judges alleged serious infirmities and irregularities in administration and assigning of cases for hearing to benches in the SC. “No wise man should say after 20 years that Justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur and Joseph had sold their souls and did not do anything about rectifying the problems. That is why this press conference,” Justice Chelameswar said during the press conference.
I believe 12 January 2018 will be remembered as a great day for Indian democracy. It is because the Supreme Court judges, when the internal systems couldn’t address infirmities and irregularities in the judicial administration, actually placed the issue before the ‘people’ of India.
The three main institutions of the nation state of India are the legislature, the government or the Executive and the Judiciary. The legislature makes laws, the executive implements the laws so made and the judiciary interprets the laws as the watchdog of the fundamental rights of the people and safeguards the Constitution of India. The judiciary also sees as to ‘whether the Parliament has legislative competence and whether due procedure as laid down by the Constitution has been followed while making the law’.
India’s parliamentary democracy survived so far because these institutions were not working at tandem for a goal set by an individual or a political party or by infringing on the institutional space of the other.
There exists creative tension among these institutions, and the institutions are meant to act as checks and balances to keep India as a functional constitutional and parliamentary democracy. None can arrogate to itself the power and role of the other; and none can abrogate its power and role, which is a recipe for fascism or authoritarianism. During the period of emergency in India (1975-77) concerted efforts made by the government to undermine the independence of judiciary, as in the case of appointment of Chief Justice of India overriding seniority and the 39th amendment (to place the election of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of Indian courts) to the Constitution of India, were successfully resisted by the judiciary. Currently, more insidious ways of bringing the legislature and the judiciary subservient to the government is under way by propagating a majoritarian organismic perspective of democracy, which advocates primacy of certain parts over the other parts of the system.
The important point is that none of these institutions derive their legitimacy from the other. The legislature, government and the judiciary derive their legitimacies from the will and consent of the people of India.
As the Preamble of Indian constitution states, we, the people of India resolved to constitute India and gave to themselves the Constitution of India.
Interestingly, when judges perceived serious infirmities and irregularities in administration and assigning of cases for hearing to benches in the SC and its potential to derail Indian democracy, they turned not to the executive and the legislature, but to the ‘people’ of India. This must set in motion processes within Judiciary to correct itself without any intervention from either the legislature or the executive.
To reach out to the people of India, the Judges used the fourth important institution of Indian democracy, the press and the visual media. Nevertheless, it is time for the media to introspect whether they are increasingly capitulating to the interests of the government, dangerously eroding their independence, a core necessity to keep Indian democracy alive.
I am remembered of Bhanu Pratap Mehta’s article, in which he quotes someone saying about Indian democracy paraphrasing Groucho Marx, “It looks a like a democracy. It talks like a democracy. But don’t be fooled by that. It really is a democracy.”
J John (jjohnedoor@mac.com)
“Newton”, a Satire on Indian Electoral System – within an Architecture of Idiocy
J John
The Hindi film “Newton”, India’s official entry at the OSCAR, is a satire on the Indian election system, the Maoist movement, the military forces on the ground, bureaucracy and the media. It is a film of idiots, contradicting the ‘genius’ in the name.
Newton Kumar, a fresh and idealist government clerk, is sent on election duty in the jungles of Chhattisgarh, which is in a state of war between Maoists and the Indian State’s paramilitary forces. Despite heavy odds against him, Newton tries his best to conduct a fair voting process in the region with the support of the paramilitary forces posted in the region.
The irony of this satirical film is that it makes viewers too, fools, literally. In the theatre people laughed, even when Newton was beaten up by the paramilitary forces. Satire is used not only to make readers/listers/viewers laugh, but also to make them think and to look at the systems critically. The deficiency of the film is that it fails to make the viewers to look at the system critically – not in an ephemeral way, but in a lasting way. We are made to feel that all are fools, our systems are inherently stupid. Nothing is going to change ….and why should it change, after all? Viewers end up feeling relieved vicariously. At the end, laughter generated by the satire becomes too dissimulating and transient.
There are a few reasons for the film not elevating itself into a serious criticism through laughter. First and foremost, it is in how the film caricatures the adivasi community. They are far away from civilisation. They are shown as people not capable of deciding for themselves. They are blank in their faces, they do not know anything. Film depict adivasis, as a group of people without an agency of their own. Second, is in the attempt of the the film maker to sanitise or humanise individuals who are part of the paramilitary forces – in particular the scene, when the officer, with his family in a retail mall, finds it difficult to pay for essential items. Here, the point is that satire is entirely missing in the realistic portrayal of the scene and therefore, acts as a compromise. Third, is in caricaturing the protagonist – the honest but naive person named Newton trying to go by the rule book. In the film, the person who is ‘honest’ and wanting to change the system, is a fool with no sense of imaginative action, strategic thinking or intelligence. Honesty and commitments are virtues of the imbeciles!!
Consequently, we return to where we began the journey with the characters of the film, in a circular motion, but with a guilt ridden satisfaction that the actors in the system – especially the election commission which sets up an election booth for just 76 voters in the interior forest of Bastar district, Chhattisgarh; the military forces who defend the nation laying down their lives and willing to support the election officers; the bureaucracy which is willing to risk life in making democracy work – are doing their ‘karma’ diligently, may be within the limits set by the system itself. None can be blamed too much. Probably, we can take further solace by blaming the political class as such – as being done by the anti-corruption brigade in India. What a relief!!!
This could be what Amit V Masurkar, the Director intended to communicate – that we are a nation of imbeciles. In that case, he has succeeded in it.
The film distinguishes itself by fine performances from Rajkummar Rao (Newton), Pankaj Tripathi (Atma Singh, the Paramilitary Officer), Anjali Patil (Malko, the Adivasi Block Level Officer), Sanjay Mishra (Election Commission Instructor), Raghubir Yadav (Loknath, Election Officer) and Mukesh Prajapathi (Shamboo, the Election Officer).
Directed by Amit V Masurkar
Produced by Manish Mundra
Written by Amit V Masurkar
Screenplay by Amit V Masurkar | Mayank Tewari
Starring Rajkummar Rao | Pankaj Tripathi | Anjali Patil| Raghubir Yadav
Music by Naren Chandavarkar & Benedict Taylor
Cinematography Swapnil S. Sonawane
Edited by Shweta Venkat Mathew
Production company Drishyam Films
Distributed by Eros International
Release date 22 September 2017
Running time 106 minutes
J John Edoor 