AIAWU Bulletin May 2015

AIAWU BULLETIN - MAY - 2015 1

The PMs High Level CommitteeRecommendations on FCI : Road to Food Insecurity

A. Vijayaraghavan

The Bharatiya Janata Party Government underthe stewardship of Narendra Modi made an explicitcommitment to remove any kind of state interventionwhich hinders the free play of market forces. Thesuccessive policy pronouncements, be it FDI ininsurance, defense, railways, or privatization ofNavaratna companies by incremental sale of shares,welcoming foreign national entities unhindered in tovarious economic activities or the so called smartcities project, take any one, this is the sole policyobjective. The BJP government committed todestroy all the protective systems which are kept inplace in countrys endeavor of economicdevelopment. The High Level Committee appointedby the Prime Minister under the chairmanship ofShantakumar, former union minister for Food andPublic Distribution comes under this category only.

The HLC constituted on 20th August 2014 withan explicit mandate of studying " various models ofrestructuring or unbundling of, and to suggest a bestsuited model for restructuring or unbundling of FCI"," To define or give suggestions to reorient the roleand functions of FCI in MSP operations, storageand distribution of food grains and food securitysystems of the country", " strengthening andintegration of supply chain of food grains in thecountry". While submitting its report, the HLC madea scathing attack on the basis that brought FCI intoexistence. When we look at the report closely itbecomes evident that it is an eyewash attempt tore-route the governments predetermined policyorientation in the form of recommendations of a socalled expert body, which was and is the case in all

the attempts of privatization. The reference to foodsecurity failing to get space in the elaborate termsof reference reveals real intention of government.The HLC gave a detailed recommendation to phaseout public distribution system in its current form andchange over to cash transfer scheme, whoseeffectiveness is yet to be proved.

The timing of the constitution of HLC and releaseof its report are crucial. The WTO summit at Balimandated the governments to stay off from themarket distorting economic activities. The terms ofreference were tuned according to the mandates ofWTO Bali summit. The procurement of levy riceby Food Corporation of India has been found oneof such market distorting intervention by WTO.Even before the Bali summit and prelude to that, asection of economic think tanks in India started thisargument by saying that it is against the spirit ofcompetition. Those who argues in this lines aresuggesting to privatise the procurement of farmproduce. Procurement by private players is a vitallink for establishing the back-end supply chain for aprofitable operations of large scale retailers such asWallmart. The entry of FDI in to retailing is governedby profitability. Withdrawing the state from procuringagricultural commodities through various channelssuch as FCI, STC, MMTC, CCI is only to meetthis task and facilitate entry of private capital bothforeign and domestic in trading of agriculturalcommodities. In this regard, already certain vestedinterests filed a petition in the CompetitionCommission of India too seeking its intervention tostudy whether the FCI procurement amounts to

AIAWU BULLETIN - MAY - 20152

restricting the entry of private players there byrestricting the open market competition which inturnviolates WTO guidelines.

Nothing hindered the High Level Committee,neither the experiences of 1960s sever drought,food scarcity, falling production etc, from concluding," the larger food management system, of whichFCI is an integral part, has not delivered on itsprimary objectives very efficiently." On the otherhand, the report on page 44 tabular format said,"Of course, FCI may not be directly responsiblefor many of these" When it is evident that FCI notdirectly responsible for the mess up, why arecommendation to the extent that FCI be dissolvedor unbundled ? What is the logic behind this ?

The FCI was set up in 1965 under FoodCorporation Act 1964 against the backdrop ofmajor shortage of food grains, especially wheat, inthe country. To face the eventual food crisis, thecountry, then, embarked on large scale import of Pl480 which had its own implications in terms offoreign exchange management and price volatilityin the global market. That was the time when thegovernment looked inward and agreed with thecontention that we need self sufficiency in foodproduction. Accordingly the agrarian reformslaunched with the task of enhancing the foodproduction and embarked on the green revolution.This helped the newly emerging rich farmerscommunity to go on producing to meet the nationsrequirement. Again, when we look in the class angle,the government is bound to provide assured returnsfor rich farmers to secure their support for its rulingand orchestrate a ruling alliance in rural Indiacorresponding to its ruling alliance at national level.This led to a series of steps such as emergence ofcooperative system to provide inputs, credit onsubsidy and to institute the Minimum Support Pricemechanism to offset the market impact on the richfarmers earnings. This trinity of policy moves helped

to a great extent in making cultivation viable during1970s and 1980s. The rural India is thriving, so asthe ruling alliance.

As the time moved on, global and domesticeconomic conditions transformed and thegovernment both at central level and state levelembarked on the reforms. Several reforms measureswere unleashed during the last two and half decades.The basic objective of these reforms is to delink therationale of social responsibility underlying the seriesof economic decisions that were taken andinstitutions that came up during the era of mixedeconomy. Once such rational of social responsibilityis delinked, it became easy for the critiques to lookat the issues, institutions, and economy as a wholebased on the pure commercial terms dictated bymarket forces. Once we moved away from therational behind emergence of each institution, it wonttake much of time to recommend, comment againstthe spirit and objectives of the institutions themselves.That is what the neoliberal elite in India iscontributing now a days. The governmentmechanism became the biggest source to channelthis understanding of neoliberal elite. That is why allthe committees that were constituted since thecountry embarked up on the policies of globalizationrecommended against the very spirit and objectivesof the mixed economy. The same happened withthe HLC on Food security as well.

All these neoliberal elites picked up some holesin each of these institutions, mechanisms andprocesses. These holes are calculatedly developedover the period as part of government non responseto meet the situation arising out of newdevelopments. The government understandingsubmerged in to the neoliberal economicunderstanding is the key reason behind this. Nowthe same consequences of governments ineptnessis being used as basis for undermining the systemitself. The HLCs recommendation of handing over


all procurement operations of wheat, paddy and tostates is one in such a direction. That means in effect,the responsibility of food security relatedmanagement is left to the state governmentsthemselves which are already reeling under themountains of debts and deficits, courtesy, neoliberalreforms which under cut the income sources of stategovernments.

Regarding the MSP also, by simply raising aquestion that the MSP mechanism is benefiting notmore than 13% of farmers, the HLC recommendedto discontinue with this mechanism itself. Further,the HLC recommended , " Center should make itclear to states that in case of any bonus being givenby them on top of MSP, center will not accept grainunder the central pool beyond the quantity neededby the state for its own PDS and OWS". Theinstrument of bonus on the top of MSP is beingmastered by the state governments over the periodof time in order to keep their ruling alliance with thefarming community under the leadership of richfarmers intact. Now with this recommendations, thefarming community is going to loose huge amountthat is being showered on them occasionally by thestate governments. Also it has the potential to changethe ruling class alliances in rural India, whicheffectively undermines the power of rural ruling elite.

The most damaging recommendation is aboutthe implementation of National Food Security Act.Though the NFSA was enacted almost two yearsbefore, but yet to be implemented. The BJP whichcampaigned the elections with a promise ofimmediate implementation of NFSA if it comes topower, gave three extensions to state governmentsto defer the implementation. Finally through this HLCrecommendations it is going to put the food securitycommitments permanently in to dust bin. The HLCrecommended, " GoI have to have a second lookat NFSA, its commitments and implementation."The rational is a beaten track of leakages. The HLC

report says, " Leakages in PDS range from 40 50%, and in some states go as high as 60 70 %."In this context, the HLC further goes on torecommend, " GoI should defer implementation ofNFSA in states that have not done end to endcomputerisaion, have not put the list of beneficiariesonline for any one to verify, and have not set upvigilance committees to check pilferage from PDS".At the same time, the HLC failed to study thereasons behind such problems. It just pooled upthe criticism of neoliberal elite against the socialsecurity measures in general and against the PDS inparticular which is readily available in print mediaand several reports and proceeded to conclude thatthe whole system centering around FCI is wrongand it needs to be unbundled. The basic reasonbehind such a recommendation and the rational thatgoverned the constitution of HLC is neoliberal logicthat with procurement market in India under thegovernment control, making private players roledifficult to manipulate the market. The internationaltrade in agricultural commodities further stream linednow and the export and import restrictions on thesecommodities are being removed, with TradeFacilitation Agreement. Unbundling of FCI anddiscontinuation of supportive mechanisms that arehelping the farming community to sustain cultivationpartially, became the immediate policy priorities forthe central government. With this it wanted to showthe global elite that it can go against the interests ofthe nation while honoring the commitments to theinternational trading community.

This is nothing but throwing the rural economyinto the clutches of uncertain, volatile global marketforces. Implementation of the recommendations ofHLC would prove , not only the countys foodsecurity but also the countrys hard earned selfsufficiency in food management and the historicalcontribution of FCI for the countrys agrarianeconomy, very costly.


Down with Anti-Farmer LandAcquisition Ordinance

Hannan Mollah

The Modi government unleashed a barbaric attackagainst the farmers and agricultural workers of ourcountry by the Land Acquisition Ordinance-2014 on31st December 2014. The imperialist Britishgovernment enacted the Land Acquisition Act in 1894to snatch land from the farmers without their consentat anytime, anywhere and any amount and withoutproper compensation and to hand over such land toindustrialists to set up their industry. This Act forcedthe farmers to loose lakhs of acre of land during last120 years under British rule as well as under Congressand other governments after independence. Nogovernments consider to protect the farmers interest.There was wide unrest among farmers against suchforcible acquisition of their land, the only means fortheir living and livelihood. They protested again andagain against such arbitrary act. All India Kisan Sabha,demanded the abolition of this draconian imperialistact long back.

Later on buckling under the pressure of sustainedstruggle by farmers organizations, social movements,governments are forced to take note of the necessityof remaking the draconian 1894 Act. As a result in2007, two bills- one on Land Acquisition and otherone Rehabilitation and Resettlement were introducedin the Parliament. Both bills were sent to the ruralDevelopment Standing Committee. The BJP leaderKalyan Singh was its chairman and I happened to beits member. The committee made intensive studies overthese bills. On Chairmans request, I took majorresponsibility to examine the bills and we consultedlarge number of farmers organizations, NGOs,individual experts, agri-economists and many othersand in depth studies were made before finalizing thereport with recommendations. With large number of

amendments to the original bills, the report wassubmitted in Parliament. But the term of 14th LokSabha was over and the bills could not be passed.After 15th Lok Sabha election was held and UPA-IIgovernment was formed, the government submittedone single bill on Acquisition and Rehabilitation inParliament. This bill also sent to the ParliamentaryStanding Committee, which was chaired by BJP, MPSmt. Sumitra Mahajan. The committee again examinedthe bill in details. The most of the recommendationsof the previous committee were retained and somenew added. Then this new Land Acquisition andRehabilitation and Resettlement bill 2014 was passedby the Parliament in September 2013.

Though this new Act was not to the full satisfactionof the struggling masses, but we considered it animprovement over the imperialist Act of 1894. Manyof our demands were included in it and farmersinterests were protected to some extent. This bill wasunanimously recommended by the standing Committeeand after full discussion in both the Houses, the Billwas passed. At that time, the BJP was in full agreementwith the Bill. The Bill was enacted but the UPA-IIgovernments term was at the end and it could notimplemented. Certain good features of the Act wereas follows:-

a) For Land Acquisition, farmers consent wasnecessary. For Government project 70% and forPrivate project 80% of the owners and otherdependents consent was mandatory. b) Social impactassessment has to be undertaken to study the impactof the proposed acquisition on various aspects of rurallife, economy, employment, on environment andsources of livelihood. This will be assessed through


an independent team of expert on project to projectbasis. The role of local bodies and their opinion willalso be factored in the report and basing on such awidely consulted report, the acquisition process hasto be completed in a transparent manner. c)Compensation to be reasonable not arbitrary, andnegotiable, payment in advance and acquisition afterrehabilitation completed. d) No acquisition of fertileand irrigated multi cropped land. e) Better standardof living of affected people

Besides, compensation was fixed at 4 times ofmarket rate, was guaranteed. The definition of publicpurpose was restricted. Food Security was ensured,Acquisition of only minimum land as per requirement,provision of going to court by farmers against anyerrant officers were provided. Return of land to theowner, if not used within five years also provided.

But the new ordinance of Modi government takenaway all the above benefits and better provisions ofthe Act : a) The ordinance striped of the consent clause- now no consent of owner is required, b) No need ofsocial impact assessment that means whether theindustry will damage environment, scuttle localemployment, thwart sources of livelihood need notbe considered. Compensation to only farmers but notto agricultural labourer and other affected people, noconsent of panchayat, no public hearing, everythingwill be done secretly. No role of gram Sabha inacquisition. Definition of public purpose widened evenprivate company work also may be considered aspublic purpose such as private schools and hospitals.Land will not be returned after five years even if it isnot used. Farmers cannot go to court against any errantofficer it will require government permission. New thingadded for acquiring land with in the range of onekilometer on both sides of National Highway orRailway line, for industrial corridor is exempted fromthe purview of new Act only to snatch lakhs of acresof land from farmers. The other 15 land acquisitionacts have been included in the ordinance but if there isno social impact assessment, this is meaningless.

Initially Modi government told they would pass this

ordinance and listen to no suggestion. But thisordinance created wide range of anger among farmersof the country. Under the leadership of All India KisanSabha and many other organizations, thousands ofcopies of the ordinance were burnt all over the country.All India Agricultural Workers Union also became partof this nation wide movement.

Later on massive protest rally before Parliamentwas held and it was raised in Parliament. Thegovernment compelled with nationwide resistance,went one step back and announced that they wouldamend the ordinance and listen to the suggestions fromthe public. On the other hand the government and theBJP put to use their humongous chain into action tocounter the criticism raised against the Ordinance andstarted a Gobbelsian campaign only to fool thecountry. They continually campaigned that oppositionswere making false propaganda against the ordinance.They claimed that the amendments to the 2013 LandAcquisition and Rehabilitation Act are very good forthe farmers. Modi asked his MPs/MLAs to go to thevillage and convince farmers. He Modi himself led thelie-campaign through his "Man-Ki Bath" in radio. Allthese showed the government was in panic andthreatened before public anger. With this wide rangingoutrage, some of the partners of NDA also questionedthe Government and cautioned it. Now thegovernment, instead of heeding the public opinion istrying its best to convince its partners in power first toaccept the amendments and tampering with thedemocratic parliamentary process only to carry onwith its ill motivated Ordinance.

We should debunk Modis false propaganda andexplain the true nature of this anti farmer Act clauseby clause to the people. The national level coordinationmeeting decided to collect 5 crore signatures of thefarmers, agricultural workers and other affectedsections against this Bill/Ordinance. We shouldorganize and mobilize lakhs of farmers, agriculturalworkers and democratic peoples against their antifarmer conspiracy and defeat this black ordinance inits entirety.


Era of Neo-Liberal Reforms &Agricultural Workers

Subhashini Ali

The introduction of neo-liberal reforms since the1990s have created a very complex and difficultsituation for the landless, rural poor. In the last 3decades, Government policies have made agriculturea losing proposition for very large sections ofcultivators. There have been more than 3,00,000farmer suicides in this period mostly the result of thedebt-trap created by reduction of institutional creditmade available to farmers, rapidly rising prices of allfarm inputs, reduction of subsidies, failure ofGovernments to procure crops at declared prices andthe twin vagaries of weather and international markets.In a situation where cultivation itself has become aprecarious venture, the condition of the landless ruralpoor has worsened considerably. Availability ofagricultural work has been reduced to between 20-40 days in a year and migration and uncertain casualwork are very harsh alternatives.

Left led movements of the peasantry and agriculturallabour have responded with struggles and movementsbut because the vast majority of political parties andtheir Governments are united in their espousal of neo-liberal policies it has not been possible to achieveanything substantial either in the way of changes inGovernment policy or in enhancement of wages oravailability of work.

There has been one important policy intervention,however, that was possible during 2004-2008 whenthe Congress led Central Government was dependenton the support of 62 Members of Parliament belongingto the 2 Communist Parties for its survival. At thattime, the Left could push through two legislations the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act(NREGA) and the Forest Dwellers Right to Land Act.

The NREGA guarantees 100 days of work to anyrural household that demanded work. Payment was

to be equivalent to the minimum wages of the Stateconcerned and also equal pay for equal work. This isone occasion where the women are getting equal payfor their work along with male compatriots in ruralIndia. The work was very hard manual labour diggingof irrigation ditches and ponds, and other works thatdid not require machines of any kind. The schemewas laudable for many reasons the most important ofwhich was that a Government committed to the neo-liberal paradigm was forced to design and implementa scheme that went against its espousal of a policy ofthe State withdrawing as much as possible fromwelfare schemes and measures.

The Forest Rights Act conferred the right to receivehomestead land and to continue cultivation on forestland on those who had been living there for generations.The fact that this was passed at a time when large-scale evictions were the norm because large tracts offorests rich in resources and minerals were beinghanded over to corporates and multi-nationals.

It is important to keep in mind that suchinterventions could only be made successfully becauseof the fact that the Left occupied a crucial space inParliament and could make its demands more effectivebecause of the mass mobilisations that it couldorganise.

This significance of this fact was not lost on theruling classes in India. These Left led governmentsnot only provides space for discourse on alternativepolicy trajectory but also the MPs elected from thesestates acted as bull work against the neoliberalonslaught on the rural poor and urban working class.It is because of this reason, from 2004 onwards, theruling classes in India and their foreign collaboratorsspared no effort to weaken the Communist Parties,malign them and reduce the political space they


occupied. The results have been extremelydeleterious not only for the Parties themselves but forthe working class and all sections of the peasantry,especially the landless, rural poor.

The most important result of this well-plannedonslaught was the electoral defeat of the Left Front inWest Bengal in 2011. While reams have been writtenanalysing the reasons for this and, in the main, blamingthe Left Front and its largest constituent, the CPI(M),for this debacle one crucial development that hasaccompanied the new political dispensation in the Statefinds almost no mention in the political discourse eventhat emerging from a Left perspective. In the spanof three short years, hundreds of acres of land thathad been distributed to the landless are being takenback by the erstwhile landlords with the full support,co-operation and intimidatory violence of theadministration and police. Hundreds of poor familieshave seen their land taken away and sold, theirfishponds taken over by vested interests and theirfamily members tortured, beaten, raped and killed.34 years of Left Front rule had made the realities ofclass oppression seem like a long-forgotten nightmare.Organising, struggling and fighting back has to be re-learnt, re-invented. This is happening but it will takesome time for the struggles of the poor and landlessto acquire an aggressive edge.

With the influence of the Left and the CPI(M) vastlyreduced inside Parliament, the new Government ofthe Right-wing Hindu Nationalist Party, the BJP, isaggressively attacking whatever had been achievedby peoples struggles and movements in the lastdecade. The Rural Employment Scheme is beingstarved of money and support. It will take a massivestruggle to reverse what the Government is doing tocompletely destroy it. The poor tribals and forestdwellers are once again facing evictions and loss oflivelhood. The fight back against this has begun butneeds to acquire more strength if the attacks of variousGovernments are to be withstood.

With shrinking opportunities for employment inagriculture combined with very low wage rates,landless agricultural workers in considerable numberare engaged in non-agricultural work than agricultural.

They have now become part of an ever-increasingrural proletariat without any fixed form of employmentand, very often, without any fixed place of employment.Many males migrate to near and distant urban andsemi-urban areas in search of work. Some maymigrate with their families. They find work atconstruction sites or brick kilns or in road building.Their children are deprived of educational facilities andmost of these families cannot access the very meagerhealth and other services that Governments providefor the poor because they do not have the ID cardsthat are becoming more and more essential andexclusionary. Very often, women and children staybehind in the village and today the vast majority ofagricultural workers throughout the country arewomen.

Women are actually facing the brunt of the hugechanges being wrought by the neo-liberal regime. Theyare extremely vulnerable to violence, abduction andabuse both as migrants and as household-heads inthe village. They are also participating more and morein struggles and movements. It is absolutely essentialto bring large numbers of women workers into theorganisation of agricultural workers and to ensure thatthey occupy positions of leadership.

While NREGA is under threat, it still provides thepotential not only for providing employment but alsosites of organisation and struggle. In recent months,the membership of NREGA workers in the agriculturalworkers union has increased and they are participatingand leading many local struggles in different States.

At a time when neo-liberal policies are destroyingthe livelihoods and futures of the large masses of therural poor, Left and democratic forces have toovercome the adverse situation in which they areplaced and become much more aggressive inorganising the rural landless and launching effectivestruggles around issues not only of employment andwages but of social reform and gender equality. It isonly when issues like untouchability, caste oppression,violence against women and unequal treatment ofwomen workers become focal points of campaignsand struggles that the neo-liberal regime can besuccessfully challenged.


The Right to live isOur Birthright:

Suneet Chopra

The hot debate over the land acquisitionordinances of the NDA government is not accidentalor restricted only to the matter of access to a scarceresource. Land rights, and especially those that weachieved after our struggle for independence fromcolonial rule, are crucial to our social existence ascitizens with equal rights under the Indian Constitution.The denial of any of these rights is an attack on ourright as citizens of India.

It must never be forgotten that for over a thousandyears we were able to keep a fifth of our populationin the shackles of untouchability and semi animalconditions by simply denying dalits land rights in thevillage. A similar situation prevails in the case of womenwho may reproduce the family line but are denied theright to land in both the family they are born in and theone they may marry into. Social marginalization likethis may be traditional but it violates our rights as fullcitizens of a state that claims to be both secular andsocialist. Now with scarce resources likely to becomeeven more scarce with a government wishing to handover everything to corporates, foreign agencies andeven mafias, we are left with no alternative but tostruggle.

Much of the anger we see in the peasantry todayis a result of the fear that the Modi government at thecentre is taking away our citizenship of the Indian stateand handing it over to corporates, mafias andspeculators. That is why the same peasantry that notonly gave land for development freely and even itssons and daughters to defend our borders is resistingthe present governments rush to act as real estateagents for big business. Today the same peasants whodenied dalits and women land rights are coming out inprotest against the new legislation. While we supporttheir struggle firmly and actively, we must also demand

our right to compensation for work lost in landtakeovers, but also the right of landless dalits andwomen in the villages where they live and contributeto life and production.

We must not only fight this attempt of the Modigovernment to do away with our social existence inthe rural areas in one sweep, but we must deepen ourstruggle for democratic rights by demanding that landrights for dalits, tribal people and women are anecessary part of our struggle to defend the rights wewon with independence and to implement them evenmore thoroughly. Any backtracking on this count willalso lead to the erosion of our democratic rights asthey exist today as well. In this condition we have asituation in which a worker peasant alliance in the ruralareas can be strengthened meaningfully.

The struggles going on in tribal areas to protectlands seized from tribal people by the British and neverreturned to them by independent India are not merelyan economic demands but an assertion of theirdemocratic rights that were taken away from them. Inthe same way, when we struggle for house-sites fordalits in our villages or for land to the tiller, and dalitsare half the tillers of the land anyway, so we are fightingfor strengthening the roots of our democratic system.In the same way we strengthen it when we demandthat women get land rights on the land they till anywayas second-class citizens.

The struggles against the dispossession of thepeasants and the tribals by the state today must beintegrated with those for giving land rights to landlessdalits and women. These are necessary to strengthenthe roots of our democracy at the level of our villagesand will ensure we do not lose our place as equals inthe face of economic fundamentalist policies handingover our fate to a handful of corporates and billionaires


who will then feel free to transport us like cattle andtrade us off as cheap labour. Or worse, let us wanderwherever we can, begging for work and becomingtargets for human traffickers. This must not bepermitted. The human cost of this development willbe far greater than any benefit such developmentdelivers.

Even today dalits constitute 28 % of the landlesswhile they are only 16.3 % of the population accordingto 70th Round of NSSO Survey. For the ScheduledTribes the figure is 9.4 % landless of 13.4 % of thepopulation. For the OBCs the figure is 52.5 % landlessof a population of 45.4% while others who constitute24.9 % of the population, have only 10.4 % landless.This reflects the fact that caste seriously affects thepattern of land ownership and consequently thecontinued oppression and denial of rights of the lowercastes, primarily the dalits.

From this angle, the struggles for land, for workensured by MNREGA legislation and the properimplementation of provisions like reservations forscheduled castes and tribes, for backward classes andwomen, for equal wages for equal work, for free andcompulsory education, free medical aid and foodsecurity are all connected with our right to live ashuman beings in our communities and more preciselyas the citizens of a secular, democratic socialist republicbased the principle of one person one vote.

It is obvious that in a society based on sharpinequalities, laws will be made to exploit, dispossessand oppress us. But our struggles also have given laws,that we wanted in our interest, like Zamindariabolition and land ceilings, Prevention of Atrocitiesagainst Scheduled Castes, 73rd Amendment devolvingpower to local government institutions like Panchayats,the Womens reservations at various levels in thepolitical system, MNREGA, Forest Rights and FoodSecurity Acts to name only a few. But not only arethey not being implemented as they should withoutour struggles , we find powerful individuals backedby the NDA government taking over assets, dryingup job opportunities and even trying to make theselaws toothless. At such a time we cannot wait andwatch. We must fight for the demands of the mass ofour rural people from the ground upwards.

The AIAWU is well fitted to achieve this end as ithas developed as an umbrella organization of the ruralpoor in a number of states like Kerala, Telangana,Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Punjab,Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.We expect to develop our organization in West Bengalas well. So we can with some confidence take up thedefense of the democratic rights of a large mass ofour people without which the democratic rights of therest are also likely to be eroded. But it is up to us tocarry this message to them. This can only be donethrough strengthening our presence among the basicmass of the rural poor on the one hand, and our linkswith others by being part of joint struggles and at thesame time being the most militant section on the groundin our local struggles for our democratic demands andthe implementation of laws and schemes that shouldbenefit the mass of the rural poor if they could putpressure on the system to respond to them.

This will require not only the expansion of ourorganization to other states and districts in states wherewe exist but will also require that we formulate correctslogans for struggle and organize struggles that we carryforward till they are realized. This requires a closerlink between our leadership, cadre and the masses.Experience has shown that the ordinary memberfollows the pattern set by the leader and the burdenof reaching out is far greater on the leadership than onthe ordinary members who will see them as rolemodels.

It is not easy to develop such a consciousnessspontaneously or individually. It requires greaterorganizational functioning and democratic decisionmaking at every level of the organisation. At the sametime it requires systematic education of our cadre andleaders on the conditions prevailing in the country asa whole, the spontaneous upsurges resulting from themand the solutions to the problems they represent. Timeis short as the crisis is deep, but knee-jerk responsesalone are not enough. There are no short cuts in ourstruggle to protect the people and ensure their rights.So we must apply ourselves to ensuring that theprograms we choose are not only implementedproperly but are also realistic. Nothing less will do.


Widening Reach ofSocial Security in Tripura

Bhanulal Saha

In Tripura with a population of 39,00,00 having9.63 lakhs families, number of social pension holdersis 3,27,082. Nearly one third of the families of thestate is under Social Security in Tripura. When welook at the proportion of beneficiaries in totalhouseholds, Tripura stands on top in the country.Despite having financial constraints, TripuraGovernment is doing its best to bring as many peopleunder coverage of different social security measures.Even this financial year, they targeted to extend thenumber of beneficiaries by additional 20000 understate government funded schemes. There are 23different schemes for the old aged persons, widow,disable persons with (100% blind and 60% disable).Deserted women, Rickshaw pullers, Cobblers,incentive to girl child, Beedi workers, Transportworkers, Laundry workers, Barber workers,Handloom workers, Fishermen etc.

Out of these 23 schemes, only 3 are NationalLevel Schemes and more 20 such schemes are runby the State Government. Out of 3,27,082 socialpension holder, 1,86,239 are beneficiaries of CentralSchemes such as National Old Age Pension andIndira Gandhi Widow Pension scheme, where centralshare is Rs. 53.40 cr. The State Government addedmore money to the tune of Rs. 74.40 cr. to enhancethe monthly pension by Rs. 300 per month abovethe central share of Rs. 200/- per month. Besidesthat, 20 completely state pension scheme for other1,40,843 people of different categories with anexpenditure of Rs.72.56 cr. are given annually thatis total expenditure is Rs. 200 cr. per annum for thesocial security system. Out of which 27% is financed

by the Union Government and 73% by the StateGovernment.

In short it can be said that the Social SecuritySystem for the deserving people is largely made bythe state government for which a monthly pensionof Rs.500 to Rs.1000 is given to them for theirminimum expenses of their livelihood. There is a planto increase this amount though state government isfacing constraint due to the new approach of theunion governments decision to curtail the peopleoriented programmes.

Impact of this social security in Tripura is that thepoor people of below poverty line can purchase theirquota of public distribution system like rice, wheat,sugar, kerosene oil etc. the government is givingsubsidies towards food grains like rice dal, edibleoil @ Rs. 4.15, Rs.10 and Rs.15 per Kg/ litrerespectively.

18.58 lakh people is getting subsidy in food grainsand the entire people is getting subsidy in dal andedible oil. This subsidy package is also a socialsecurity to the poor. They are mainly agri-workers,poor peasants, village artisans and poor seniorcitizens. That is why, there is no starvation deathand peasants suicide in the state where nearly 55-60 % people can be termed as poor. As there is noindustry in the state and only 26% of the entiregeographical area is cultivable, the entire poor peopledepends on agriculture and get nearly 75 days worksfrom the agricultural operation in the state.

MNREGA is being implemented successfully togive 90 day job for the year 2014-15 maintaining its

( cont...page 19)


The Modi Government and Rural Poor: Road to Triple Insecurities

Veeraiah Konduri

The Constitution of India guarantees socio-economic security to the people of India. DirectivePrinciples of State Policy elaborately prescribed theobjectives of social security and prescribed measuresfor same. Since then, these directives guides the overallpolicies that are being implemented by the successivegovernments.

Article 38 of the Constitution mandates thegovernments, " (1) The State shall strive to promotethe welfare of the people by securing and protectingas effectively as it may a social order in which justice,social, economic and political, shall inform all theinstitutions of the national life. (2) The State shall, inparticular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income,and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilitiesand opportunities not only amongst individuals but alsoamongst groups of people residing in different areasor engaged in different vocations." with an objective" to secure a social order for the promotion of welfareof the people." Similarly, Article 47 of the Constitutionsays that it is the duty of State to raise the level ofnutrition, standards of living of its people and improvepublic health. Specifically, Article 45 of the Constitutionestablishes the guiding principle of Integrated ChildDevelopment Scheme when it says, "Provision for earlychildhood care and education to children below theage of six years."Given the need for employment, theDirective Principles have made a special mention ofthis. Article 41 focuses on Right to work as animportant principle which should govern the policiesof the States. Article 41 says, "The State shall, withinthe limits of its economic capacity and development,make effective provision for securing the right to work,to education and to public assistance in cases of

unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, andin other cases of undeserved want."

The governments since 1991 paid scanty attentiontowards the necessity of socio-economic security asenvisaged by the Constitution. The Modi led BJP cameinto power, which did not have any respect either onGandhi whose ideals shaped the Directive Principlesnor on Ambedkar who drafted these ideals into rights.The BJP government, in its first full budget starteddestroying the socio-economic security guaranteed bythe Constitution of India.

The NDA Government presented its first full budgetfor 2015-16 financial year. The interim budgetpresented in June 2014 can be considered as jointventure between UPA-II and NDA. This budget isprepared solely after NDA had its fullest commandover the finances of the country during last year.Reflecting its command over the economy, the budgetpresentation began by saying that under dynamic Modileadership they could give new direction to the nationseconomy. The Central Statistical Organisationsrevised estimates are being shown as a proof for strongrevival of economy. Also he announced that we areonly the country that even surpassed China in growthrate and poised achieve 10 percent growth rate withinno time. This the government wants to achieve thisgrowth at the cost of its people. It is evident from thereduced allocations for almost all the social securityschemes and programs.

India, approaching it Amrit Mahotsav ofindependence in 2022 still predominantly lives invillages. Agriculture is back bone for the rural economywhich is catering the bare minimum needs for morethan two thirds of its population. The policy makers


with neoliberal mind set neglected the constitutionalmandate of providing social security to its people. Weare talking about the social security not merely in termsof welfare schemes such as pensions and PDS. Thesocial security in our understanding includes foodsecurity, employment security and social security intraditional sense. Let us consider the budgetimplications and future policy directions in this budgeton all these three counts.

The slogan of minimum government and maximumgovernance attracted several new segments includingsome sections of first time voters who had bitterexperience with the government authorities on variousoccasions. But we need to remind that the rural Indiaas a whole having bitter experiences with theauthorities since independence. The roots of thesebitter experiences are in the policy prescriptions ofthe government but not in the individual functioningstyles of few officials. The same reflected even afterthe BJP government came to power. The focus ofpolicy direction has been shifted from rural India tourban, that too cosmopolitan landscape to be moreprecise. Thus the present budget provides minimumattention both at the level of policy and in terms ofbudget to several several social security schemes.These schemes are intended to deliver minimum reliefto the rural poor. The attention towards welfareschemes and subsidies meant for Integrated ChildDevelopment Scheme (ICDS), Public DistributionSystem(PDS), fertilizer subsidy, subsidized gascylinders, national social assistance program, IndiraAvas Yojana (IAY) , sanitation, rural drinking water,rural roads and other several other programs andschemes are being considered as non priority areas.It is unfortunate that at a time when nearly about 16lakhs children under 5 years age group are dying dueto malnutrition, the central government cut down thebudget for Integrated Child Development Scheme(ICDS) to half from its last year allocations. Similarlythe table given as part of statistical appendix informsus how the government is treating the ruraldevelopment and social security shabbily.

The government claims that due to 14th FinanceCommission recommendations, large amounts of fundshave been transferred to states, now the responsibilityof implementing these schemes are left to the stategovernments. It is to be noted that even after such ahigh pitch campaign of center transferring more fundsto state governments, the actual transfers have beenreduced from 6.2 % of GDP to 5.9 % of GDPbetween 2014-15 and 2015-16. This in factcompounds the problems of state governments byimposing new burdens on them. The union governmentcancelled 8 schemes and reduced budgetary supportfor another 24 schemes. Implementation of remainingschemes becomes state governments responsibility.In the mean time the funds earmarked for suchschemes will be transferred to state gvernments kittywhere they will be having discretion in utilizing thesefunds. All these schemes were formulated after a welllaid out thought process and expert consultation tobridge the gaps in development. But the governmentthat does not care much for such gaps in developmentwhich will fuel inequality distancing itself from thisresponsibility of ensuring social security.

Moreover after transferring these schemes and theirfunds to the shoulders of state governments, the centralgovernment is not going to share the cost of revenueexpenditure such as staff salaries. For any socialsecurity scheme, the expenditure will be consideredas plan expenditure at the conceptualization stage andfor few years till the systems are in place for its properimplementation. Once the scheme is in place for someyears, then majority of the expenditure on thatparticular scheme becomes revenue expenditure, akind of recurring expenditure. As on now, meeting thisexpenditure is the responsibility of central government.Not sharing this recurring expenditure by center means,the burden of implementing or discontinuing the saidscheme purely lies on the state governments.

Now let us consider the three key pillars of socialsecurity and their allotments in the budget. The firstpillar is job security for the rural poor. Thegovernments attitude towards this major flagship


program had been kept on changing since its inception.During the tenure of UPA 2, the MNREGAspotential impact became evident on the rural economyand also at the same time the ruling class thatcommands rural India started annoyed with the factthat the MNREGA became a powerful tool in grantingself respect to agricultural workers. It also facilitatedthe agricultural workers to demand for their legal wagesand the rich farmers are forced to increase a portionof wages for agricultural workers. Not only that.Before the introduction of MNREGA, the rural poorare forced to migrate to urban centers in search ofwork at sub-minimum wages just to save their childrenfrom half empty stomachs. Thus the urban economicactors used to get the uninterrupted supply of manpower at cheapest rates. Because of this low cost oflabour power only, the present government underModi inviting foreign companies to come to India notonly to exploit the rich natural resources but also toexploit numerically strong labour power at fraction ofwages. This is the rational behind the Make in Indiaslogan.

But this situation had undergone a change with theimplementation of MNREGA. As the MNREGAguarantees the employment with in their home village,rural workers reluctant to work for paltry paymentsin far off locations. Thus those sectors which arebanking on the cheapest labour power are now facingconstraints on their profits. Thus the ruling classalliance, both in rural India and urban India cametogether to scuttle the job guarantee program. This isevident from official data itself. The Act generatedemployment for 5,25,30,453 households in 2009where as the same came down to 3,94,76552 whichmeans during the last five years, the number beneficiaryhouseholds came down by a whopping 1, 30, 53,901 ! Average days of employment generated for eachhousehold under the Act came down drastically from53.99 in 2009-10 to 37.74 days in 2014-15. Similarlythe percentage of SC beneficiaries came down from30.48 % in 2009-10 to 22.52 % in 2014-15. Moreinterestingly the Outcome budget submitted by the

Ministry of Rural Development to Parliament indicatesthat of the total allocations, Rs. 18,333.95 crores leftunspent in 2010-11 financial year where as the unspentamount from MNREGA allocations stood at Rs.14,545.47 crores by 2012-13 financial year. Even in2014-15 financial year Rs. 4406.31 crores leftunspent. The number of person days generated camedown from 230.41 crores in 2012-13 to 164.11 croredays in 2014-15. The number of villages with nillexpenditure under MNREGA program also went upfrom 25,155 to 31939 during the same period. Thisis how the ruling class started scuttling and diluting thepremier employment security providing programMNREGA.

Let us consider the food security aspect during thelast five years. It is clear that the National FoodSecurity Act (NFSA) is yet to deliver its intendedbenefits to the eligible poor despite it was adopted bythe Parliament two years back. The Act is officiallyunder implementation only in 11 states that too withoutproper infrastructure for successful delivery of services.Though the last two years annual budgets are havingprovision for fund to implement NFSA, on the groundalready existing targeted public distribution systemalso getting a raw deal from the governments.

According to the Department related ParliamentaryStanding Committee on Food and Consumer Affairs,and Public Distribution system, the total coverageunder targeted public distribution system is limited tomere 8134.91 laksh beneficiaries where as theofficially recognized number of BPL families are faremore than that. To implement the NFSA needsbudgetary allocation of Rs. 1,31,086 crore where asthe allocations for the financial year 2014-15 standsat Rs. 100505 crore, which is almost 25 % less thanthe requirement. The fund shortage for food securityduring 2012-13 stood at Rs. 32,743 crores. TheStanding Committee itself found that shortage of fundsfor food subsidy rose from Rs. 32,743 crore in 2012-13 to Rs. 53,458 crore in 2013-14 and may go uptoRs. 60,730 crore in current year.


It is in this situation, the BJP government at thecenter appointed a high level committee under thechairmanship of former union minister for food andpublic distribution, Mr. Shanta Kumar whorecommended for dismantling of the FoodCorporation of India altogether, which is the backbone for countrys food security. The high levelcommittee also recommended not to implement theNational Food Security Act at its present form as itinvolves huge sums of subsidy. The WTO demandsto de-regulate the agricultural produces market in thirdworld countries. Accordingly the government ispreparing ground for meeting such commitments givento community of international financial capital. Financialconstraint is not the real reason behind suchrecommendation. While on one hand, precious publicmoney is being doled out to the corporate sector byway of tax concessions, it became a fashion for everyone to criticize the social security schemes. With thiskind of understanding towards the countrys foodsecurity, the government is trying its best to push thecountry to pre 1960s era where in the nationexperienced hunger deaths and roots of rural distress.This only will lead to dismantle the food security thecountry achieved at the cost of sweat and blood offarmers and agricultural workers of this country.

Finally let us consider third aspect of social security.This includes several schemes that are of incomesubstitution and expenditure substitution in nature. Thetwo key pillars above mentioned are completelydifferent from the third set of schemes. Abovementioned two pillars are ensuring right to work andright to food irrespective of the caste, creed, gender,region and religion, APL/BPL differentiation. Alsothese two social and economic security measures arebacked by law and the governments can not tweak attheir will. Unlike these two, the income substitutingand expenditure substituting schemes such as NationalRural Livelihood Mission, formerly known asSampoorn Gram Swarojgar Yojana, Indira AvasYojana, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojnana,National Old Age Pension schemes, Disability pension

schemes and other such schemes. These are all beingimplemented at the will of governments of the day.The budgetary allocations are not being fully utilized.As we have shown in this bulletin, Rs. 9954 croresleft unspent for the financial year 2010-11 for just threeschemes, SGSY, IAY and PMGSY where as thisamount went up to Rs. 12824 crores for the year2012-13 and stands around Rs. 9516 crores leftunutilized. Within this budget the allocations for oldage pensions have been reduced by one thousandcrores. Not only that. The government proposed tochange IAY is being changed into repayment basedmodel from subsidy/ grant based model. Thus thegovernment is tweaking with all these income andexpenditure substitution schemes which will imposelarger burdens on the rural poor and agriculturalworkers. More over the government asking thecorporate sector to share its social responsibility byspending peanuts from their profits. Already 124villages have been adopted by Tata Trust in Krishnadistricts of Andhra Pradesh. In such villages, the roleof Panchayati Raj institutions becomes irrelevant.Thisis the dangerous trend that is creeping into the policymaking and participatory democracy. Already thecentral government is shifting its constitutionalresponsibility to the discretionary authority of states.It is withdrawing itself from legally backed socialsecurity programs whose implementation solely lieson the shoulder of central government. Thus thegovernment wants to dismantle the existing structuresto mitigate the inequality. The programs such asMNREGA are primarily oriented towards addressingthe structural inequalities and marginalization. All thisis going for a toss under NDA government. Thus theBJP government laying foundations for tripleinsecurities employment insecurity, food insecurityand social insecurity. This is in this context we need tobuild the movement for social security. The aims ofthis movement shall be to strengthen the legally backedrights for their fullest possible implementation and theexpand the base of income/expenditure substitutionbased schemes with more funds.


TDP Government Undermining SocialSecurity in Andhra Pradesh

Pinnamaneni Murali Krishna

It has been 11 months since TDP came to powerin Andhra Pradesh. On July 8th, on the day ofswearing in, the Chief Minister signed on key fiveelectoral promises. The promise of loan waiver forfarmers became a fiasco. Of 1.18 crore lakhs withindebtedness, only 35 lakh farmers got relief. The65 lakh members of DWACRA are yet to see thelight of loan waiver. The third signature was oncanceling the belt shops. But in practice, the incomeof excise department went up by 20 % with increasedbelt shops. " To get a job, Vote for Babu" was theTDP slogan. But thousands of contract workers arebeing ousted from jobs including 3000 of fieldassistants under MNREGA. Instead of providingsocial security to marginalized and distressed, thejoint venture of Modi-Babu ensuring profit securityfor corporates.

More over. The TDP government is mercilesslyvacating the farmers from their farm lands under LandPooling System (LPS) in the name of new capitalregion. Till now 31000 acres from 29 villages havebeen pooled up. The speculative land market wascreated to convince the farmers to hand over thelands under LPS. The farmers were cheated with afalse propaganda that their benefits under LPS willbe more than under Land Acquisition Act 2013.Despite such a false propaganda, farmers of 9villages refused to surrender their land. To helpChandrababus task more easy, Modi governmentis trying to amend the Land Acquisition Act 2013where 80 % farmers consent is required for publicproject. Thus the joint venture of TDP-BJP isdetermined to see the farmers into daily wage earnerswilling to sell their labour power at cheaper wages.

Those who have realized that they were duped byTDP are not resorting to court to take back theirlands.

The Land Acquisition Act 2013 also ensures 20years royalty for those who lost their sources oflivelihood. Against this, the TDP governmentpromised only Rs. 2500 compensation for eachfamily, that too for 10 years. Under the LPS systemgovernment will be able to own 80 % of the landpooled up with out paying single paise ofcompensation. This same land is being planned tohand over to foreign companies from Singapore andJapan for their collaboration in capital design andconstruction. Thus, the poor and land less in AndhraPradesh are worst kind of primitive accumulation.

Further, TDP government wants to pool up 20lakhs acres of land under LPS. This will devastatethe rural economy resulting in loss of ruralemployment. The indiscriminate and mindless landallocations can be seen from the decision of handingover 400 acres of forest land to a Yoga guru, JaggiVasudev as a Guru Dakshina just for organising athree day yoga camp for TDP legislators and seriousbureaucrats. In addition to this, in the name ofbeautifying Vijayawada, notices are being issued tothousands of houses on canal bunds who are stayingthere for generations.

During the election campaign, TDP promised toincrease the subsidy component from Rs. 70000 toRs. 1.50 lakhs and took a task of building 5 lakhhouses in a year. But it submitted proposal to centralgovernment only to construct 1,45,570 houses ! Alsothe budget for rural housing has been reduced tomere Rs 897 crores. With this amount government


can only construct only 59800 house at the cost ofRs. 1.50 lakhs per house. Then how the governmentcan complete 5 lakh houses in a year ? This is nothingbut a clear cheating of the houseless. Even to completethe 4.6 lakh houses that were started during the lastgovernments tenure, it needs Rs. 2701 crores.

With regarding to MNREGA, the track recordof TDP is more disappointing. Over the lastagricultural year 59 lakh worker took part inMNREGA works and 70 % of workers are fromseverely draught effected Rayala Seema and NorthCostal Andhra region. Against the mandate of theAct, the government created budget allocations totie up the MNREGA workers with the land owners/land lords. The quantum of wages paid underMNREGA came down from Rs. 2138 crores in2012-13 to Rs. 1851 crores in 2014-15. Theaverage employment generated per household alsocame down from 61days to 47 day. Those who gotemployment for 100 days came down from 7 lakhshousehold to 3.88 lakh households. As themechanization of farm operations increasing, thereis an urgent need to increase minimum days ofemployment from 100 to 200 days underMNREGA. The honorarium for mates is also linkedwith whether worker earns Rs. 100 or not. In thecurrent year, the MNREGA funds are being divertedto Water-Tree scheme which was designed to ensureprofits for machinery owners from TDP.

With the reduction of employment of underMNREGA, agricultural workers from draughteffected districts are migrating to neighboring states.In an unfortunate accident in Chennai at a work site,24 migrant workers from Andhra Pradesh died. Froma village in Kurnool, the strength of school camedown from 119 to 49 just because remaining childrenmigrated along with their parents in the middleacademic year. The rate of literacy came down toless than 34 % in Kosgi mandal in Kurnool whichreflects upon the consequences of rural distress. Thisis the fate of literary in some of the rural area in India.

The TDP government even violating of Right to

Education Act. The RTE mandated one primaryschool with in one kilo meter distance, and one upperprimary school with in two kilo meter distance.Against this, the state government came out with aconcept of one cluster school with in 3 kilo materdistance there by closing down all the schools within that distance. This will lead to closing down of12919 schools in the state which will deny right toeducation to lakhs of students, obviously fromagricultural workers and rural poor families. Alreadythe state literary rate is only 67 % , which is belowthe national average of 74.4%. The private schoolshaving 40 %. With the increasing cost of traveling,uniform, fee, the quality education became a hangingfruit for agricultural workers. Also the RTE mandatesthe governments to earmark 25 % of seats for childrenfrom economically socially backward sections whichis not at all being implemented by the privatemanagements in the state. According to this provision,1,72,239 seats are to be filled with such studentswhere as only 358 such students got admissionsunder this quota in the year 2013-14 in un-bifurcatedstate of AP.

The public health system in the state is indoldrums. Earlier hundreds of crores were spent onRajiv Arogya Sri to amass the profits for corporatehospitals and neglected the primary health system.As of now there is a requirement of 20000 traineddoctors where as we have not only 6114. Out of7647 sanctioned nurse posts, 1625 falling vacant formore than three years. State government is yet toimplement the National Food Security Act 2012.Because of delay in implementation more than 3.82crore beneficiaries are denied their due right. Despiteexistence of 20 lakh tenants only 3.5 lakhs arerecognized. The crop loans dues worth Rs 400crores for tenant farmers not being implemented onthe pretext of technical reasons. Government is notcommitted to implement the minimum wages act.TDP is undermining the SC/ST Sub Plan Act. Thusit is undermining the minimum social security that isavailable for agricultural workers.


Social Security in Telangana A Mirage ?

B. Prasad

Telangana emerged as the youngest state of Indiain 2014. Sentiment based movement fueled KCR topower and became the first Chief Minister ofTelangana state. During his election campaign, heshowered number of promises, schemes, concessionsto almost all sections of people. But he did workedout a detailed plan of action to ensure that thesepromises be realized. Though he initiatedimplementation of some schemes with much adhocism. Some of the key promises that won KCR topower are as follows.

a) Three acres of land for each dalit and adivasihousehold along with capital investment for oneyear cultivation.

b) Increase of pension amount from Rs. 200 toRs. 1000.

c) 12 % reservations for SC and recognizing theAdivasi hamlets as villages.

d) House sites for all the houseless poor, two bedroom houses with hall, kitchen, with cost of 3.50lakhs grant.

e) Free education from KG to PG

f) Implementing Food Security Act

g) Strengthening of Anganwadi centers, mid daymeal scheme and public health systems.

Though these resulted in enthusiasm but when TRScame to power, the government started watering downall these promises.

Reducing Pension Beneficiaries : The pensionbeneficiaries have been categorized into a) Old Age,b) Widow, c) Disabled, d) Handloom, e) Taddytappers. Earlier pensions used to be issued on individualbasis. But the TRS government considering each

household as a unit and allotting one pension for eachhousehold. Thus the number of beneficiaries have comedown drastically. For those also it given much scopefor administrative description by increasing the numberof mandatory documents to be produced by abeneficiary.

Dubious Land Distribution : TRS captured Dalitvote bank with a promise of distribution not less thanthree acres of land for each family. On swearing in, heowed to ensure that no landlessness in the state. Outof 14.50 households in Telangana, 9.50 lakhs dalitfamilies lives in rural Telangana. Instead ofimplementing its own promise, now it says that thereis no vacant government land for distribution, he willpurchase. Accordingly on 15th August 2014, 1011.54acres of land was distribution to 512 families. Of thisonly 110 acres is government land and remaining landwas purchased from real estate developers bycompensating them. The cost of land soared from Rs.20000 to Rs. 3.59 lakhs. This only helped to amassprofits by real estate developers. Thus the TRSgovernment instead of becoming land distributor,merely becoming a land broker.

Food Security With out Rice : The governmentplaying havoc with the public distribution system.There are 2.80 lakhs BPL ration cards which are beingnow linked to Aadhar to make them Food Securitycards. Though they announced distribution of 6 kgsper head, money was not allocated for that. It isarbitrarily cutting down the list of beneficiaries andnumber of beneficiary households on different reasons.Similarly several other promises have not even beeninitiated resulting in doubt whether the social securityin Telagana a mirage ?


Social security programs became key vehiclesin the hands of central and state governments toquench the public anger. That is why from time totime, all new governments announces some or othernew schemes with their branding. The experience ofTamil Nadu is no different. There are several schemesand programs under implementation. Some of themare centrally sponsored schemes and some are stategovernment designed. In Tamil Nadu it is difficult todifferentiate between the dole outs at the time ofelections and the social security oriented schemesand programs. They are being announced andimplemented in such a mixed way. The Tamil Nadustate committee of AIAWU decided to study thefunctioning of some the schemes. In our study, wefound that number of schemes are not implementedproperly. Here we are giving a brief information aboutdifferent schemes, their guide lines and the availabledata on beneficiaries.

The peasant protection scheme : Under thisscheme, agricultural workers, small and marginalfarmers who are having not more than 5 acres of dryland or 2.5 acres of wet land are eligible forgovernment benefits. Artisans, inland fishermen,poultry owners, beekeepers have also been includedin this scheme. So far 1,68,08,350 membersregistered beneficiaries and another 1,25,78,160dependents are getting benefit from this scheme. Theregistered beneficiaries are entitled for marriagebenefit, old age pension, temporary incapacitationpension, compensation in the event of natural death,accident, and funeral expenditure. The dependentsare eligible for marriage benefit, education assistance,

and funeral expenses. Thus it is almost like anumbrella of social security for the poor in the state.Both in the case of registered beneficiaries anddependent beneficiaries, individual members ofhouseholds are considers as unit, which helps thegovernment to expand the beneficiary base.

The old age pension, Rs. 1000 is being restrictedto only those who dont receive any help from theirson or daughter. Additionally if any beneficiary iseffected by enduring illness such as TB, HIV, Canceror incapacitated temporarily, they will be gettingadditional Rs. 1000 per member. In case of naturaldeath Rs. 10000 will be given as one time grant alongwith Rs. 2500 for funeral expenditure. In case ofdeath due to accident of loss of both hands, legs, thehouseholds are eligible for Rs. One Lakhcompensation. In case of loss of eye sightpermanently, Rs. 50000 will be given as one timegrant. Apart from this, children studying will also begetting scholarship as per their class of study.

But the crux is that except the old age pension,which is sponsored by central government, all othersare incidental benefits. Each family used to get thesebenefits once in their life time. Thus the financialburden on state governments would be a limited one.But in the eyes of people, the governments of theday will be the champions of their welfare.

Apart from this, under Green House Scheme, thegrant for constructing houses in ones own land hasbeen increased to Rs. 2.10 lakhs of which Rs. 30000deducted to provide solar power generation set foreach house. This is the modified version of IAY. Each

Social Security Programs in TamilNadu : A Brief Comment

G. Mani


year, government set the target of constructing 60000houses of which 17400 (29%) beneficiaries will beselected from Dalit households, 600 (1%) from Tribaland remaining 42000( 70%) from backward classescommunities.

Also a separate marriage assistance scheme isunder implementation. Under this scheme, from apoor family with annual income below Rs. 72000with one girl is the key criteria for benefiting underthe scheme. If the girl studied below 10th class, anamount of Rs. 25000 and 4 gram gold will beprovided by the state government. If the girl studiedDiploma or more than that, her family is entitled toget Rs. 50000 along with 4 gram gold. Also thereare separate schemes for providing financialassistance for widow remarriage, widows daughtersmarriage, and in an inter-caste marriage where brideor bridegroom are from Dalit or OBC castes, theyare entitled for financial support from government.

Also the government currently implementing the

mixie, grinder, fan scheme where all the 1.83 crorehouseholds are considered as beneficiaries. All thesefamilies will be provided with mixie, grinder, and fanwith in the fiver years tenure.

Apart from above mentioned state sponsoredsocial security schemes, several governmentsponsored social security schemes are beingimplemented in the state. Some of them are centralgovernment sponsored and some are sponsored bystate governments. Under Indira Gandhi National OldAge Pension Scheme, Indira Gandhi NationalPhysically Challenged Personss Pension scheme,Widow pension scheme, Destitute Physicallychallenged persons scheme, Destitute WidowPension Scheme, Destitute Agricultural WorkersPension scheme, Destitute Women Pension Scheme,Un Married women with above 50 years pensionscheme are to mention some. Under all these listedschemes, there are 30,71,981 beneficiaries are gettingsome kind of financial benefits.

Widening Reach ofSocial Security in Tripura

supremacy in the country for last 5 years increasinghighest number of man days from this project thoughthe Government of India tried to allocate less moneythis year violating the act itself. The state governmentcome forward with money in this project to createmore mandays. Numbers of beneficiaries in thisproject is 5.75 lakh job card holders.

In the urban areas, the poor people are given thescope of work through Tripura Urban EmploymentProgramme through which 60-65 mandays havebeen created in 2014-15 to combat the poverty ofthe urban poor mainly the slum dwellers. Under IAY,we have sanctioned more than 41000 houses foreligible poor in the last three years.

With these works and social security pensions,these families are helped for their survival. There isnone who dont get two square means a day. Andfor this there is no beggar in the street. Noneremained half-fed and the question of starvationdeath does not arise.

These are the measures which the Left FrontGovernment has seriously taken to save the poorpeople from hunger, unemployment and the ruraleconomy in the state. In short this is the social impactof the three decade long Left Front rule in the statefrom 1978 to 2015 barring 1988 to 1992 due tothe conscious mass support of the poor people ofTripura.

( from...page 10)


MN

RE

GA

Yea

rwis

e O

utc

om

es b

etw

een

200

9-20

10 t

o 2

014

- 20

15

Yea

r N

o o

f

Ho

use

ho

lds

dem

and

ed

emp

loym

ent

No

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

pro

vid

ed

emp

loym

ent

Co

mp

osi

tio

n o

f B

enef

icia

ries

( P

erso

n D

ays

in L

akh

s)

Ave

rage

per

son

day

s p

er

Ho

use

ho

ld

Ho

use

ho

lds

avai

led

100

day

s

emp

loym

ent

T

ota

l

SC

s %

of

SC

ben

efic

iari

es

ST

s %

of

ST

Ben

efic

iari

es

Wo

men

%

of

Wo

men

Ben

efic

iari

es

Oth

ers

2009

-

10

5286

4608

52

5304

53

2835

9.59

86

44.8

4 30

.48

5874

.40

20.7

1 13

640.

48

48.1

0 13

840.

35

53.9

9 70

8366

3

2010

-

11

5576

3244

54

9542

25

2571

5.23

78

75.6

3 30

.63

5361

.79

20.8

5 12

274.

21

47.7

3 12

477.

81

46.7

9 55

6181

2

2011

-

12

5038

0213

49

8946

03

2117

0.77

46

60.5

3 22

.01

3862

.26

18.2

4 10

197.

74

48.1

7 12

647.

98

42.4

3 38

9658

9

2012

-

13

5041

1455

48

5612

67

2184

8.00

47

26.7

5 21

.63

3627

.81

16.6

0 11

388.

51

52.1

3 13

493.

44

44.9

9 48

2605

4

2013

-

14

5176

5569

47

6848

64

2186

7.74

49

41.3

7 22

.60

3758

.22

17.1

9 11

554.

60

52.8

4 13

168.

15

45.8

6 46

0397

3

2014

-

15

4589

9635

39

4765

52

1489

7.78

33

55.0

4 22

.52

2538

.30

17.0

4 81

97.9

3

55.0

3 90

04.4

4

37.7

4 17

4073

1

Sch

eme

wis

e A

ctu

al E

xpen

dit

ure

an

d O

utl

ays

un

der

Min

istr

y o

f R

ura

l Dev

elo

pm

ent

Sch

eme

A

ctu

al E

xpen

dit

ure

s B

ud

get

Est

imat

es

2014

-15

Rev

ised

Est

imat

es

2014

-15

Bu

dge

t

Est

imat

es

2015

-16

20

09-1

0

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

2013

-14

SG

SY

22

28.0

7

23

91.6

1

2195

.39

2022

.09

1372

.60

789.

52

1077

.70

MN

RE

GA

87

99.9

0

29

212.

92

3027

4.72

32

992.

83

3336

4.00

32

464.

00

3371

3.00

IAY

38

5.00

9872

.06

7868

.76

1298

1.65

15

976.

00

1099

0.00

10

000.

00

PU

RA

0.

00

90

.00

0.00

3.

00

50.0

0 00

.00

0.00

PM

GS

Y

1133

9.92

119.

71

8884

.31

9805

.11

4235

.41

4235

.41

4185

.00

BP

L S

urv

ey

149.

85

25

59.3

7

375.

00

303.

52

519.

30

328.

50

315.

00

SG

SY

= S

war

n J

ayan

ti G

ram

Sw

aro

jgar

Yo

jan

a, n

ow

kn

ow

n a

s N

atio

nal

Ru

ral

Liv

elih

oo

d M

issi

on

. M

NR

EG

A =

Mah

atm

a G

and

hi

Nat

ion

al R

ura

l E

mp

loym

ent

Gu

aran

tee

Act

, IA

Y =

In

dir

a A

vas

Yo

jan

a, P

UR

A =

Pro

visi

on

of

Urb

an A

men

itie

s in

Ru

ral A

reas

, PM

GS

Y =

Pra

dh

an M

antr

i Gra

m S

adk Y

oja

na.


State wise Unspent Balance of Funds for some key Programs under Rural Development

for Major States

( for 2010, 2012, 2014 ( As on December 31st

)

State Up to December 31st

, 2010 Up to December 31st

, 2012 Up to December 31st

, 2014

SGSY IAY MNREGA PMGSY Total SGSY IAY MNREGA PMGSY Total SGSY IAY MNREGA PMGSY Total

AP 25.59 691.97 1214.40 253.41 2185.37 87.18 0.00 758.83 314.98 1160.99 19.00 0.00 89.54 152.79 261.33

Assam 29.75 377.33 449.15 112.36 968.59 103.65 417.09 120.07 340.53 981.34 120.00 643.07 70.13 21.20 854.40

Bihar 318.83 1924.67 1351.23 NA 3594.73 139.37 1296.49 670.39 619.99 2726.24 590.00 1958.51 418.66 -375.66 2591.51

Chhattisgarh 32.43 54.88 682.39 423.76 1193.46 34.12 12.30 1387.71 702.24 2136.37 22.00 218.99 228.05 65.24 534.28

Gujarat 1.77 256.68 321.63 -81.27 498.81 0.00 243.36 157.76 50.64 451.72 22.00 207.66 -14.76 79.60 294.50

Haryana 17.80 38.13 18.18 14.47 88.58 8.23 6.48 169.85 15.53 200.09 6.00 39.58 61.34 23.46 130.38

H.P 6.61 5.97 222.38 147.21 382.17 7.33 1.79 216.21 142.56 367.89 6.00 19.34 28.75 79.60 133.69

Jharkhand 59.47 346.72 541.29 224.51 1171.99 59.85 132.68 315.98 619.85 1128.36 8.00 353.54 79.04 210.69 651.27

Karnataka 32.27 353.43 660.00 NA 1045.70 29.73 516.76 368.42 -70.30 844.61 34.00 660.22 95.93 -1.83 788.32

Kerala 9.46 85.48 281.34 NA 376.28 19.69 94.59 316.78 88.22 519.28 20.00 146.29 19.78 -38.70 117.37

M.P 73.22 124.36 2194.61 NA 2392.19 87.83 57.77 1105.50 308.96 1560.06 17.00 202.66 -197.27 -89.88 -67.49

Maharashtra 43.87 137.80 328.36 233.40 743.43 177.90 274.82 322.21 354.72 1129.65 128.00 242.00 269.99 57.21 695.20

Odisha 53.79 262.44 396.25 NA 712.48 75.90 241.16 566.89 472.42 1356.37 28.00 250.10 80.33 -444.60 113.83

Punjab 5.99 23.77 11.03 11.56 52.35 2.35 20.78 35.86 59.32 118.31 1.00 42.91 -0.18 -62.69 -18.96

Rajasthan 42.78 120.09 3692.45 83.69 3939.01 73.95 0.00 974.42 283.14 1331.51 52.00 55.12 348.08 156.89 612.09

Tamil Nadu 42.45 169.14 210.91 NA 422.50 104.20 272.61 3388.86 62.21 3828.88 102.00 244.47 1580.83 131.67 2058.97

Tripura 9.62 46.00 404.48 NA 460.10 8.56 39.26 796.14 164.63 1008.59 11.oo 119.56 26.93 2.66 160.15

U.P 218.91 520.92 2984.53 715.61 4439.97 250.95 509.56 1247.23 269.09 2276.83 973.00 693.57 564.22 115.79 2346.58

W. Bengal 86.92 389.90 1001.13 85.24 1563.19 57.47 391.03 469.71 390.65 1308.86 42.00 543.50 117.70 -352.02 351.18

Total India 1175.46 6047.60 18333.95

2730.17 28287.18 1387.99 4646.99 14545.47 5788.58 26369.03 2269.00 7161.87 4406.31 85.26 13922.44

IAY Allocations for 2014-15 for major states

(Rs. In lakhs, Houses in units)

State Central Share State Share Total Social Composition of proposed Beneficiaries

For Houses Admin

Exp

For Houses Admin

Exp

For Houses Admin

Exp

SC ST Minority Others Total

AP 76424 3056.976 25474.800 1018.992 101899.202 4075.968 46242 30057 12874 56397 145570

Assam 123640.546 4945.622 13737.838 549.514 137378.385 5495.135 17307 45695 48323 71846 183171

Bihar 147134.104 5885.364 49044.701 1961.788 196178.805 7847.152 77606 7848 49403 145398 280255

Chhattisgarh 22516.967 900.679 7505.656 300.226 30022.623 1200.905 7278 27560 1366 6685 42889

Gujarat 17905.426 716.217 5968.475 238.739 23873.901 954.956 4492 17996 3121 8496 34105

Haryana 18254.898 730.196 6084.966 243.399 24339.864 973.595 17831 0 3363 13577 34771

H.P 2637.024 105.481 879.008 35.160 3516.031 140.641 3689 781 118 100 4688

Jharkhand 26093.291 1043.732 8697.764 347.911 34791.055 1391.642 9819 33050 2135 4697 49701

Karnataka 49872.783 1994.911 16624.261 664.970 66497.044 2659.882 39238 28291 12170 15296 94995

Kerala 31006.956 1240.278 10335.652 413.426 41342.608 1653.704 18285 9337 17875 13563 59060

M.P 60472.957 2418.918 20157.652 806.306 80630.610 3225.224 19406 66554 9851 19735 115186

Maharashtra 98867.573 3954.703 32955.858 1318.234 131823.431 5272.937 48594 82925 18783 38017 188319

Odisha 84320.264 3372.811 28106.755 1124.270 112427.018 4497.081 36963 80220 4220 39207 160610

Punjab 29794.145 1191.766 9931.382 397.255 39725.526 1589.021 37109 0 5785 13856 56750

Rajasthan 53033.089 2121.324 17677.696 707.108 70710.785 2828.431 32285 47195 7266 14270 101015

Tamil Nadu 28050.549 1122.022 9350.183 374.007 37400.732 1496.029 32713 4075 6788 9873 53429

Tripura 6446.285 257.851 716.254 28.650 7162.538 286.502 2121 5677 651 1101 9550

U.P 223282.142 8931.286 74427.381 2977.095 297709.523 11908.381 247465 15572 91117 71145 425299

W. Bengal 227221.873 9088.875 75740.624 3929.625 302962.497 12118.500 184040 88809 78063 81891 432803

Total India 1355725.970 54229.036 419672.437 16786.897 1775398.407 71015.933 892899 618371 377929 629779 2518978


State wise Notified Wages for MNREGA from 2005- 06 to 2015

( Wages in Rs.)

State 2005-06 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Assam Rs. 62.00 Rs. 79.60 Rs. 100 Rs. 130.00 Rs. 136.00 Rs. 152.00 Rs. 167.00 Rs. 179.00

Andhra Pradesh Rs. 80.00 Rs. 80.00 Rs. 100 Rs. 121.00 Rs. 137.00 Rs. 149.00 Rs. 169.00 Rs. 180.00

Bihar Rs. 68.00 Rs. 89.00 Rs. 100

Rs. 120.00 Rs. 122.00 Rs. 138.00 Rs. 158.00 Rs. 162.00

Gujarat Rs. 50.00 Rs. 100.00 Rs. 124.00 Rs. 134.00 Rs. 147.00 Rs. 167.00 Rs. 178.00

Haryana Rs. 95.00 Rs. 141.02/- Rs. 179.00 Rs. 191.00 Rs. 214.00 Rs. 236.00 Rs. 251.00

Himachal

Pradesh

Rs. 70.00 Rs. 100.00 Non-

scheduled

Areas-

Rs. 120.00

Scheduled

Areas-

Rs.150.00

Non-

scheduled

Areas- Rs.

126.00

Scheduled

Areas-

Rs.157.00

Non-

Scheduled

Areas-Rs.

138.00

Scheduled

Areas-

Rs. 171.00

Non-

Scheduled

Areas-

Rs-154.00

Scheduled

Areas-

Rs. 193.00

Non-

Scheduled

Areas-

Rs. 162.00

Scheduled

Areas-

Rs. 203.00

Karnataka Rs. 63.00 Rs. 82.00 Rs. 100 Rs. 125.00 Rs. 155.00 Rs. 174.00 Rs. 191.00 Rs. 204.00

Kerala Rs. 125.00 Rs. 125.00 Rs. 150.00 Rs. 164.00 Rs. 180.00 Rs. 212.00 Rs. 229.00

Madhya

Pradesh

Rs. 59.00 Rs. 91.00 Rs. 100 Rs. 122.00 Rs. 132.00 Rs. 146.00 Rs. 157.00 Rs. 159.00

Maharashtra Rs. 47.00 Rs.72,Rs.70,Rs.

68 & Rs. 66

respectively for

Zone

I,II,III,IV

Rs. 100 Rs. 127.00 Rs. 145.00 Rs. 162.00 Rs. 168.00 Rs. 181.00

Odisha Rs. 55.00 Rs. 70.00 Rs.90.00 Rs. 125.00 Rs. 126.00 Rs. 143.00 Rs. 164.00 Rs. 174.00

Punjab Rs. 101 Rs. 153.00

(effect

from 28th

July,2011)

Rs. 166.00 Rs. 184.00 Rs. 200.00 Rs. 210.00

Rajasthan Rs. 73.00 Rs. 100.00 Rs. 119.00 Rs. 133.00 Rs. 149.00 Rs. 163.00 Rs. 173.00

Tamil Nadu Rs. 80.00 Rs. 80.00 Rs. 100/ Rs. 119.00 Rs. 132.00 Rs. 148.00 Rs. 167.00 Rs. 183.00

Tripura Rs. 60.00 Rs. 85.00 Rs. 100/ Rs. 118.00 Rs. 124.00 Rs. 135.00 Rs. 155.00 Rs. 167.00

Uttar Pradesh Rs. 58.00 Rs. 100/ Rs. 120.00 Rs. 125.00 Rs. 142.00 Rs. 156.00 Rs. 161.00

West Bengal Rs. 67.00 Rs. 75.00 Rs. 100/ Rs. 130.00 Rs. 136.00 Rs. 151.00 Rs. 169.00 Rs. 174.00

National

Average

52.80 108.87 98.11 130.08 141.48 157.75 176.11 191.08

Total Size of the Budget and % of Budget Foregone due to Tax

Concessions

(All Figures in Crores)

Financial Year Plan Budget Non Plan Budget Total Budget Size Revenue

Foregone

% of Revenue

Foregone in Total

Budget Size

2008-2009 243386 507498 750884 458516 61.06

2009-2010 325149 695689 1020838 482432 47.25

2010-2011 373092 735657 1108749 459705 41.46

2011-2012 441547 816182 1257729 533583 42.42

2012-2013 521025 969900 1490925 566235 37.97

2013-2014 555322 1109975 1665297 572923 34.40

2014-2015 575000 1219892 1794892 589285 32.83

2015-2016 465277 1312200 1777477

Total 36,62, 679

State-wise Share of Total Value of Output of Agriculture and Allied

Activities in NSDP and Share of Agriculture in Rural Employment

(at current prices)

States Share of agriculture in rural employment (%) Change in share of total value

of output of agriculture and

allied activities in NSDP (%

points)

Change in share of

agriculture in rural

employment (% points)

19992000 200405 200910 199900 to

200405

200405 to

200809

199900 to

200405

200405 to

200910


Reductions in Budgets for Social Security in India Under NDA Rule

( All numbers in Crores)

Ministry / Department Budget Estimates 2014-15 Budget Estimates 2015-16 Reduction in

Plan Size

Plan Non Plan Plan Non Plan

Department of School

education and Literacy

51,828 3,287 39,039 3,181 12,790

Ministry of Women and

Child Development

21,100 94 10,287 96 10,813

Ministry of Water

resources

13,237 600 3,607 625 9,630

Ministry of Drinking water

and sanitation

15,260 7 6,236 8 9,024

Department of Rural

Development

80,043 50 71,642 53 8,401

Ministry of Panchayati Raj 7,000 1 94 1 6,906

Department of Health and

Family Welfare

30,645 4,518 24,549 5,104 6,096

Department of Agriculture

and Cooperation

22,309 343 16,646 358 5,663

Department of Land

Resources

3,750 9 1,628 10 2,122

Ministry of Micro, Small

and Medium Enterprises

3,327 375 2,613 395 714

Department of Animal

Husbadry, dairying and

Fisheries

2,174 92 1,491 94 683

Department of AIDS

Control

1,785 1,397 388

Ministry of Housing and

Urban Poverty Alleviation

6,000 9 5,625 9 375

Ministry of Labour and

Employment

2,449 3,160 2,153 3,208 296

Department of Food and

Public Distribution

330 1,15,327 212 1,25,000 118

Department of Textiles 4831 866 3253 751 1308

Department of Higher

Education

16900 10756 15855 11000 1045

Ministry of Labour and

Employment

2449 3160 2153 3208 296


State-wise Share of Total Value of Output of Agriculture and Allied

Activities in NSDP and Share of Agriculture in Rural Employment

(at current prices)

States Share of agrare of agriculture in rural employment (%) Change in share of totage in share of total value

of output of agriculture and

allied activities in NSDP (%

points)

Change in share of

agriculture in rural

employment (% points)

19992000 200405 200910 199900 to

200405

200405 to

200809

199900 to

200405

200405 to

200910

Andhra Pradesh 78.8 71.8 68.7 -4.9 -3.7 -7.0 -3.1

Arunachal

Pradesh

83.4 81.9 75.7 6.8 -5.7 -1.5 -6.2

Assam 67.7 74.3 70.5 -5.2 -0.5 6.6 -3.8

Bihar 80.6 77.9 66.9 -5.5 -6.0 -2.7 -11.0

Chhattisgarh - 86.2 84.9 -11.9 -5.6 - -1.3

Delhi 7.5 7.2 0.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.3 -7.2

Goa 28.7 35.3 23.9 -5.5 -2.9 6.6 -11.4

Gujarat 79.8 77.3 78.3 -0.5 -2.4 -2.5 1.0

Haryana 68.5 64.1 59.8 -12.3 -1.8 -4.4 -4.3

Himachal

Pradesh

73.6 69.6 62.9 4.1 -2.7 -4.0 -6.7

Jammu &

Kashmir

76.3 63.9 59.7 4.0 -5.6 -12.4 -4.2

Jharkhand - 70.0 54.8 2.7 4.5 - -15.2

Karnataka 82.1 81.0 75.7 -15.4 -4.5 -1.1 -5.3

Kerala 48.3 42.0

AIAWU Bulletin May 2015

Documents

Transcript of AIAWU Bulletin May 2015