An eval­u­a­tionof Self-em­ploy­ment schemes in Na­ga­land

Economic Challenger - - CONTENTS - - Kedilezo Kikhi


The government of Na­ga­land over the last few decades has been the key agency for for­mu­lat­ing poli­cies and im­ple­ment­ing var­i­ous schemes/projects based on th­ese poli­cies. It is very es­sen­tial to ex­am­ine the var­i­ous schemes op­er­at­ing in the state. The study is also vi­tal, be­cause a self-em­ploy­ment scheme be­comes an im­por­tant devel­op­ment package and also one cru­cial alternative to check the alarming rise of un­em­ploy­ment in the state. The study was at­tempted to crit­i­cally ex­am­ine - the sys­tem of se­lect­ing ben­e­fi­cia­ries, the kind of train­ings and al­lo­ca­tion of re­sources, ded­i­ca­tion and uti­liza­tion of funds, iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of trade/skills vis-à-vis lo­cal econ­omy, mar­ket­ing ar­range­ments, success and dura­bil­ity of the projects.


The state of Na­ga­land con­tin­ues to be the sole agent of devel­op­ment and one can­not imag­ine of devel­op­ment with­out the state funds be­cause the devel­op­ment, to many Na­gas would sim­ply mean spend­ing of huge money. Na­ga­land state has quite a few for­eign devel­op­ment models too like the Swiss model or the Cana­dian model. Self em­ploy­ment schemes have also be­come a cru­cial devel­op­ment package for the state. But the more im­por­tant ques­tion is - are they work­ing? Are they suit­able models or proper pack­ages in Na­ga­land con­text? One can ar­gue it does not ap­pear al­right for you giv­ing a for­eign package or an alien medicine for a lo­cal disease. Has devel­op­ment in Na­ga­land at its present con­text failed? What about the flow of money in the form of spe­cial eco­nomic pack­ages ear­marked for the re­gion and re­spec­tive states from the suc­ces­sive cen­tral gov­ern­ments. Why the state con­tin­ues to de­cel­er­ate even while sev­eral spe­cial eco­nomic pack­ages had been put in op­er­a­tion? One in­stance of such is Rs 365 crore Peace Bonus Package to Na­ga­land state from the NDA government dur­ing the Prime Min­is­ter­ship of Shri Atal Be­hari Va­j­payee. Th­ese huge funds from the fed­eral ex­che­quer are pock­eted by a few elites of the state. When an abun­dant money is in­jected into the econ­omy with­out due accountability it cre­ates a regime of cor­rup­tion (Kikhi 2009: 356).

The other re­lated is­sue but not lesser im­por­tant is of in­sur­gency, cease­fire and ex­tor­tion in the state, dis­cour­ag­ing pri­vate in­vest­ment and thus, devel­op­ment. Ex­tor­tion has be­come a se­ri­ous is­sue af­fect­ing the econ­omy of ev­ery house­hold. State­ments like 'they' are ex­tort­ing from the 'out­siders' or 'non­lo­cals' do not have any ra­tio­nal­ity. No busi­ness­man (ir­re­spec­tive of be­ing an out­sider or in­sider) is fool­ish to run his busi­ness at a loss but will have to re-price ev­ery com­mod­ity in his shop to make up the ex­torted money be­sides mak­ing profit. The ques­tion is who is ac­tu­ally paying for the ex­torted money? It is un­der­stood that cease­fire has 'ground rules', the le­git­imi­sa­tion of the ces­sa­tion of hos­til­i­ties, an ac­knowl­edge­ment of the fact that we need to give di­a­logue a chance. But the ques­tion is, does it serve the pur­pose or whose pur­pose does it serve? When the ground rules are not main­tained, it ap­pears like the In­dian government is try­ing to buy more time or ap­ply­ing de­lay tac­tics to neu­tral­ize the is­sue or ex­pect­ing it to die nat­u­rally. On the other hand,

the un­der­ground fac­tional groups should not use cease­fire as a means to openly ex­tort money build­ing pala­tial houses in Dimapur or else­where. What about the gen­eral pub­lic? (Kikhi 2009: 358359).

I am led to make this mi­cro-study not only on the ba­sis of this in­tro­duc­tory back­drop, but also, when a lo­cal pa­per re­ported that two youth ben­e­fi­cia­ries of the CM Cor­pus funds are above 50 years of age. One can ques­tion - are not th­ese self- em­ploy­ment schemes for the un­em­ployed youth, es­pe­cially for those who are ed­u­cated? The study is also an at­tempt to deal with other ques­tions like - Who is an un­em­ployed youth? Are the self-em­ploy­ment schemes suf­fi­cient enough for the un­em­ployed youth in the state? Are the funds/loans/money suf­fi­cient enough for the projects? Are the right per­sons/ right un­em­ployed youth ben­e­fited from the var­i­ous self-help schemes/projects? Are the var­i­ous schemes/loans of self-em­ploy­ment projects prop­erly uti­lized? Are the ben­e­fi­cia­ries ac­tu­ally ben­e­fit­ting from the projects? Is the government se­ri­ous in re­duc­ing un­em­ploy­ment prob­lem?


The uni­verse of the study is Ko­hima town in par­tic­u­lar and Na­ga­land in gen­eral. Ko­hima be­ing the cap­i­tal town has an in­flux of peo­ple, par­tic­u­larly youth from all parts of the state - for ed­u­ca­tion and em­ploy­ment. Thus, the ter­ri­to­rial rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the study is ex­clu­sive and fairly rep­re­sen­ta­tive. The study is fo­cused upon un­em­ployed youths and thus the sam­ple is sorted out by ran­domly se­lect­ing 10 un­em­ployed youths from each of the 15 wards mak­ing a sam­ple size of 150 re­spon­dents.

Both pri­mary and sec­ondary data are used with pri­mary data as the main em­pha­sis. A ques­tion­naire which con­sists of both close-ended and open-ended is the main re­search tool for col­lec­tion of pri­mary data. In­ter­view tech­nique is also used to aid the ques­tion­naire method for the need­ful pur­pose. The col­lec­tion of sec­ondary data is from the re­views of rel­e­vant lit­er­a­ture, jour­nals and mag­a­zines, news­pa­pers, re­search and sur­vey con­ducted by var­i­ous or­ga­ni­za­tions viz. the Cen­sus Re­ports, the Di­rec­torate of Em­ploy­ment and Crafts­men Train­ing, the Di­rec­torate of Eco­nom­ics and Statis­tics, the An­nual Ad­min­is­tra­tive Re­ports, etc.

Con­cep­tual Frame­work

Un­em­ploy­ment - refers to a sit­u­a­tion where per­sons who are able to work and also will­ing to work at the pre­vail­ing rate of wages, do not find work. This is an in­vol­un­tary idle­ness lead­ing to wastage among the un­skilled, highly skilled and tech­ni­cally qual­i­fied per­sons. How­ever, able­bod­ied per­sons who vol­un­tar­ily re­main un­em­ployed are ex­cluded from the con­cept of un­em­ploy­ment. Naba (1968) has ex­plained un­em­ploy­ment as a con­di­tion of in­vol­un­tary idle­ness. D’Mello ( 1969) has de­fined un­em­ploy­ment as a con­di­tion in which an in­di­vid­ual is not in a state of re­mu­ner­a­tive oc­cu­pa­tion de­spite his de­sire to do so. Ba­j­pai (1992) refers un­em­ploy­ment to the con­di­tion of job­less­ness in one's life (cited in Kikhi 2006: 8).

An un­em­ployed per­son there­fore, is - one hav­ing po­ten­tial­i­ties and will­ing­ness to earn, but is un­able to find a re­mu­ner­a­tive work. It has the im­por­tant three el­e­ments: a) an in­di­vid­ual should be ca­pa­ble of work­ing. b) an in­di­vid­ual should be will­ing to work. c) an in­di­vid­ual must make an ef­fort to find work (Kikhi 2006: 8).

Youth - It is es­sen­tial to de­ter­mine the age bracket that con­sti­tutes youth in or­der to launch any mean­ing­ful pol­icy and pro­gramme. But, it is dif­fi­cult to ac­cu­rately as­sign lower and up­per age lim­its for the youth, be­cause this varies from so­ci­ety to so­ci­ety and also from time to time. As for in­stance, amongst the Angami Na­gas, men is still con­sid­ered youth even at the age of 50 while a woman sim­ply by virtue of be­ing mar­ried (with or with­out kids) is ex­empted from youth mem­ber­ship and youth ac­tiv­i­ties. To Kup­puswamy (1984), early youth would re­fer to the 13 to 19 years age group. To some oth­ers, it refers to the 12 to early 30's ( Chauhan, 1990). The UNO has cat­e­go­rized youth to be be­tween the age group of 15-24 years. In In­dia for cen­sus op­er­a­tions, and in ac­cor­dance with the prac­tice of the government of In­dia, the age-group of 1534 is rec­og­nized as youth which is fur­ther clas­si­fied into three groups: a) 15-19 years as

sub-ju­nior, b) 20-24 years as ju­nior, c) 25-34 years as se­nior youth (Saraswathi, 1988). Thus, the work­ing def­i­ni­tion of an un­em­ployed youth in this study is any­one be­tween the age group of 15-34 years who is ca­pa­ble of work­ing, will­ing to work and mak­ing an ef­fort to find work but is un­able to find any re­mu­ner­a­tive job (cited in Kikhi 2006: 9).


The In­dian ex­pe­ri­ence shows that each in­ter­ven­tion has to meet the spe­cific re­quire­ments of the spec­i­fied tar­get groups. a) For some cat­e­gories of peo­ple, self­em­ploy­ment is the right an­swer, while b) for some oth­ers; wage-em­ploy­ment needs to be propped up. For pro­mot­ing self-em­ploy­ment, i) train­ing and skill-upgra­da­tion seem to suf­fice in some cases, ii) But in some other cases, cap­i­tal as­sis­tance is a must, iii) while in few other sit­u­a­tions, mar­ket sup­port re­mains the most cru­cial el­e­ment (Chadha, 2000). More­over, it is un­der­stood that self-em­ploy­ment projects/ schemes are just one alternative and can­not be the en­tire so­lu­tion of un­em­ploy­ment. Em­ploy­ment-pro­mo­tion pro­grammes are di­vided into two sets: a) one deal­ing with em­ploy­ment-pro­mo­tion for peo­ple in gen­eral which in­cludes the youth of the coun­try and b) the sec­ond set di­rectly, and ex­clu­sively, ap­proach­ing the prob­lem of youth un­em­ploy­ment ( Chadha, 2000). Like­wise there are a num­ber of em­ploy­ment-pro­mot­ing pro­grammes di­rected specif­i­cally at the ed­u­cated youth and di­rected at peo­ple in gen­eral in the state. The im­por­tant em­ploy­ment-pro­mo­tion pro­grammes op­er­at­ing in the state of Na­ga­land over the last two decades have been high­lighted be­low fo­cus­ing on the core ob­jec­tives. i) SEEUY (Self- Em­ploy­ment Scheme for Ed­u­cated Un­em­ployed Youth) was launched in 1983-84 in the state. It aims at pro­vid­ing fi­nan­cial as­sis­tance to un­em­ployed youths, to the ed­u­cated un­em­ployed youths for un­der­tak­ing eco­nom­i­cally vi­able ac­tiv­i­ties. ii) PMRY (Prime Min­is­ter Rozgar Yo­jna) is an­other pro­gramme which was launched on Oc­to­ber 2, 1993 and had been de­signed to pro­vide self-em­ploy­ment to more than a mil­lion of ed­u­cated un­em­ployed youth in the age-group of 18 to 35 years through in­dus­try, ser­vice and busi­ness routes. This scheme also sought to as­so­ciate re­puted NGO's in its im­ple­men­ta­tion, es­pe­cially in the se­lec­tion and train­ing of would-be en­trepreneurs and in the prepa­ra­tion of project pro­files. It be­gan as an ur­ban pro­gramme in 1993 but just af­ter a year, it en­com­passed both ru­ral and ur­ban ar­eas to suit the ma­jor­ity Na­gas rooted in the vil­lages.

Un­der the scheme, projects up to Rs. 1 lakh are cov­ered in the case of in­di­vid­u­als. And if two or more el­i­gi­ble per­sons joined to­gether in a part­ner­ship, projects of higher cost can also be cov­ered. For avail­ing fi­nan­cial as­sis­tance for the project, the prospec­tive en­tre­pre­neur is re­quired to con­trib­ute 5 per cent of the project cost, the rest will come through in­sti­tu­tional loans. The cen­tral government pro­vides a sub­sidy @ 15 per cent of the project cost sub­ject to a ceil­ing of Rs. 7500 per en­tre­pre­neur. The schemes stip­u­late com­pul­sory stipen­di­ary train­ing for a pe­riod of 15 to 20 work­ing days for ser­vice/ busi­ness sec­tors, af­ter the loan is sanc­tioned. In Na­ga­land, the de­part­ment of small-scale in­dus­tries has framed suit­able train­ing mod­ules for in­dus­try and ser­vice/busi­ness sec­tors. iii) IRDP ( In­te­grated Ru­ral Devel­op­ment Pro­gramme) and its al­lied ac­tiv­i­ties were ma­jor self-em­ploy­ment pro­grammes for poverty al­le­vi­a­tion. The ba­sic ob­jec­tive of IRDP was to en­able the iden­ti­fied ru­ral fam­i­lies to cre­ate av­enues of self­em­ploy­ment through ac­qui­si­tion of cred­it­based pro­duc­tive as­sets and in­puts, which would gen­er­ate ad­di­tional em­ploy­ment on a sus­tained ba­sis. As­sis­tance is given in the form of sub­sidy by the government and term credit by the fi­nan­cial in­sti­tu­tions for in­come gen­er­at­ing ac­tiv­i­ties. The scheme had been in op­er­a­tion in Na­ga­land since 1983-84. This was a cen­trally spon­sored scheme funded on 50:50 bases by the cen­tre and the state. It was stip­u­lated that at least 50 per cent of the as­sisted fam­i­lies should be women. This scheme was merged with an­other scheme and re­mained in Au­gust 1999.

iv) TRYSEM (Train­ing of Ru­ral Youth for Self­Em­ploy­ment) was a fa­cil­i­tat­ing com­po­nent of poverty-erad­i­ca­tion pro­gramme, IRDP. It aims at pro­vid­ing ba­sic tech­ni­cal and en­tre­pre­neur­ial skills to the ru­ral poor in the age group of 18 to 35 years to en­able them to take up self- or im­age-em­ploy­ment. At least 40 per cent of the ben­e­fi­cia­ries had to be women. Train­ing was im­parted both through train­ing in­sti­tu­tions and through the non-in­sti­tu­tion­al­ized mode, e.g. master crafts­men func­tion­ing from their own place of work. Ev­ery TRYSEM trainee be­came el­i­gi­ble to avail as­sis­tance un­der IRDP for set­ting up a self-em­ploy­ment en­ter­prise like dairy-farm, pig­gery, poul­try, goatery, etc. v) SGSY (Swarn­jayanti Gram Swaroz­gar Yo­jana) is an­other cen­trally spon­sored scheme in­tro­duced in the state dur­ing the year 1999-2000 with the ob­jec­tive of bring­ing ev­ery as­sisted poor fam­ily above the poverty line within three years through the pro­vi­sion of mi­cro-en­ter­prise. The poverty al­le­vi­a­tion pro­grammes were clubbed to­gether into th­ese schemes which in­cluded all IRDP pro­grammes i.e. a) IRDP and its com­po­nent TRYSEM which we have al­ready dis­cussed above, b) DWCRA, c) GKY, d) MWS and Tool Kits. vi) JRY (Jowa­har Rozgar Yo­jana) has been launched on April 1, 1989 as a cen­trally spon­sored scheme. Its main ob­jec­tive is to gen­er­ate ad­di­tional gain­ful em­ploy­ment for un­em­ployed and un­der­em­ployed peo­ple, both men and women, in the ru­ral ar­eas through the cre­ation of ru­ral eco­nomic in­fra­struc­ture, com­mu­nity and so­cial as­sets, with the aim of im­prov­ing the qual­ity of life of the ru­ral poor, which in­clude the ben­e­fi­cia­ries them­selves. At least 30 per cent of the em­ploy­ment is to be pro­vided to women. In prac­tice, the pro­gramme is self-tar­get­ing. JRY since April1, 1999, has been re­named Jawa­har Gram Sam­ridhi Yo­jana (JGSY). The new JGSY pro­gramme is ded­i­cated en­tirely to the devel­op­ment of ru­ral in­fra­struc­ture at the vil­lage level and is im­ple­mented by the vil­lage pan­chay­ats. vii) EAS (Em­ploy­ment As­sur­ance Scheme) is an­other cen­trally spon­sored scheme op­er­at­ing in the state. viii) IAY ( Indira Awas Yo­jana) is an­other pro­gramme that is op­er­at­ing in the state with the ob­jec­tive of help­ing the tar­geted poor peo­ple in con­struct­ing houses. ix) Grants/Aid to Vil­lage Devel­op­ment Board is al­lo­cated to ev­ery VDB in the vil­lage @ Rs. 750 per house­hold to take up so­cio-eco­nomic pro­grammes as well as to de­velop ba­sic in­fra­struc­tures. x) BMS ( Ba­sic Min­i­mum Ser­vices) was a pro­gramme in­tro­duced by the government of In­dia in 1996-97. The main ob­jec­tive of the pro­gramme is to bridge the gap in the in­fra­struc­ture sec­tor and the eco­nomic devel­op­ment of the peo­ple. The Ru­ral Devel­op­ment de­part­ment is im­ple­ment­ing the BMS un­der two sec­tors: a) Ru­ral Hous­ing and b) Road Con­nec­tiv­ity (Kikhi 2006: 131). xi) CM Cor­pus Fund is an­other pro­gramme in­tro­duced by the government of Na­ga­land in 2003-04 upto 2009-10. The main aim of this pro­gramme is to fa­cil­i­tate and gen­er­ate sus­tain­able in­come to un­em­ployed youth of the state through gen­er­a­tion of self em­ploy­ment av­enues and ca­pac­ity build­ing mea­sures. To sup­ple­ment the work­ing cap­i­tal re­quire­ments of po­ten­tial en­trepreneurs and to en­hance the ca­pac­i­ties of the youth to make them self re­liant, for in­stance, a cor­pus fund of Rs. 8 crore has been ear­marked dur­ing the years 2009-2010. The type of ac­tiv­i­ties that can be as­sisted through the cor­pus fund in­clude for the year: a) Train­ing and ca­pac­ity build­ing pro­gramme which will re­sult in sus­tain­able em­ploy­ment for the trainees. b) At­tend­ing coach­ing classes - for ap­pear­ing com­pet­i­tive ex­ams of Union Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion. c) Link­ages with in­sti­tu­tional fi­nances. d) Fi­nance in­puts and sub­si­dies in crit­i­cal

ar­eas. e) Pro­mot­ing re­cruit­ment/ self em­ploy­ment by bring­ing likely em­ploy­ers and the un­em­ployed youths on a sin­gle plat­form. f) As­sis­tance to or­ga­ni­za­tions/en­trepreneurs do­ing ex­em­plary work in gen­er­at­ing em­ploy­ment op­por­tu­ni­ties in the state. g) De­velop pro­grammes and projects that will re­sult in self em­ploy­ment for the youth (GON 2009-2010: 3-4).

Un­der the CM cor­pus fund, all in­dige­nous per­sons of the state, who are not oth­er­wise em­ployed, are el­i­gi­ble for avail­ing as­sis­tance through the pro­gramme. The guide­lines state, the first pri­or­ity to be given to reg­is­tered ed­u­cated un­em­ployed youths in the Em­ploy­ment Ex­change of the State who have passed min­i­mum of class IX stan­dard and who have not availed any fi­nan­cial as­sis­tance un­der any scheme of the government. As the scheme is ba­si­cally tar­geted at em­pow­er­ment of the youth, through cre­ation of self em­ploy­ment op­por­tu­ni­ties, the guide­lines also lay down the con­di­tion that the scheme is re­served for the youth in the age group of 25 to 40 years (GON 2009-2010: 6).

On this back­drop, ta­ble 1 has been pre­sented to show in­sights on the pref­er­ences of un­em­ployed youth about the na­ture of job. The ta­ble is ar­ranged in or­der to as­sess the opin­ions of the un­em­ployed youths to­wards self­em­ployed jobs and self-em­ploy­ment schemes. The find­ings con­firm that about 67.34 per cent of the youths’ most pre­ferred job is government ser­vice, while about 27.33 per cent youths’ pre­ferred self-em­ployed jobs, and about 05.33 per cent youths pre­ferred pri­vate jobs. Sim­i­lar study was con­ducted in Ut­tar Pradesh by Ba­j­pai (1992) and the find­ings put the self-em­ployed jobs (about 8 per cent) at the last cadre of pref­er­ence. How­ever the present study re­veals that the self-em­ployed jobs are bet­ter pre­ferred above the pri­vate jobs in the state of Na­ga­land. In other words we can con­clude that the un­em­ployed youth in the state has slightly bet­ter favourable at­ti­tude to­wards self­em­ployed jobs as com­pared to the state of Ut­tar Pradesh.

On fur­ther in­ves­ti­ga­tion, the study re­veals that th­ese un­em­ployed youths pre­fer government jobs due to ser­vice se­cu­rity and sta­bil­ity of em­ploy­ment. It may be sum­ma­rized that the so­cial recog­ni­tion of government ser­vice is an­other fac­tor to mo­ti­vate the youths for government jobs. Again, it ap­pears that most of the youths do not want to take any en­tre­pre­neur risk in­volved in the self-em­ployed jobs, and there­fore, they give very less pri­or­ity to it. Many ed­u­cated un­em­ployed youths also lack en­trepreneur­ship zeal or skill and at the same time in the tra­di­tional sys­tem, land mar­ket does not ex­ist, as land is owned by the com­mu­nity. The ab­sence of land mar­kets is a se­ri­ous hin­drance to the flow of in­vest­ment par­tic­u­larly from out­side the Na­ga­land.

On be­ing asked a ques­tion would you take up self-em­ploy­ment projects if you are given as­sis­tance? The find­ings con­firm that about 96 per cent of the youth would take up if they are given as­sis­tance. But, only a mea­ger 9.33 per cent had tried for self-em­ploy­ment schemes so far. And this has pre­sented a du­bi­ous ques­tion which needs fur­ther in-depth study. It could also be that the ma­jor­ity of the un­em­ployed youths do not know about the self- em­ploy­ment schemes or are not aware of th­ese projects which are meant for them. Of the 14 re­spon­dents (i.e. 9.33 per cent), who have tried for the schemes/projects ear­lier, 05 per­sons have tried for SEEUY, 03 per­sons have tried for JRY, 02 per­sons have tried de­part­men­tal schemes and the re­main­ing 04 per­sons have tried other schemes not listed in the ques­tion­naire.

Ma­jor­ity of the youths are of the opin­ion that the as­sis­tance ren­dered by the government is in­suf­fi­cient to start any self-em­ploy­ment project (in terms of money). Again, of those who know about th­ese schemes have ar­gued that the schemes are not run­ning fairly and a num­ber of mal-prac­tices are in­volved in is­su­ing the grant such as com­mis­sion pay-offs, wrong se­lec­tion of ben­e­fi­cia­ries, un­due de­lay, etc. Fur­ther, on an­a­lyz­ing the re­sponses of the un­em­ployed youth in the ques­tion­naire, the self­em­ploy­ment schemes that are op­er­at­ing in the state seem to be, by and large a to­tal fail­ure. This state­ment can be sup­ported by the fol­low­ing ar­gu­ments.

Firstly, the find­ing shows about 50.00 per cent of the un­em­ployed youth re­sponded that the self-em­ploy­ment schemes avail­able in the state are 'not suf­fi­cient' for the youth, while about 22.67 per cent crit­i­cally re­sponded that the projects are ' not at all suf­fi­cient'. It has to be noted that only 26.67 per cent of the un­em­ployed youths re­sponded that the projects were ' just suf­fi­cient' and a mea­ger 0.66 per cent (i.e. 1 re­spon­dent) agreed that the projects for the youth were ' fully suf­fi­cient'. It can be ar­gued that the find­ings are ob­vi­ous, be­cause only a few hun­dreds are ben­e­fited from the self­em­ploy­ment schemes in a state which has more than 45,000 un­em­ployed youths reg­is­tered on the Live Reg­is­ter.

Se­condly, as shown in ta­ble 2, about 72.67 per cent of the un­em­ployed youths are of the opin­ion that the funds (money) pro­vided for the pro­grammes are not suf­fi­cient to im­ple­ment the projects. Gen­er­ally, the self-em­ploy­ment schemes in­clude sub­si­dies and loans which have to be re­paid in due time. The study finds that in many oc­ca­sions, most of the ben­e­fi­cia­ries landed in prob­lem due to fail­ure of their projects and as also they have to re­pay the loans. On other ques­tions re­lat­ing to the tech­nol­ogy of pro­duc­tion and mar­ket­ing, the study finds that the projects are not tech­no­log­i­cally hooked-up with mod­ern in­dus­trial en­ter­prises and thus, it in­vites its own fail­ure in the open and com­pet­i­tive mar­ket.

Thirdly, about 69.33 per cent of the un­em­ployed youths agreed, that the de­serv­ing youths are not ben­e­fited from the var­i­ous self­help schemes. There­fore, the weak­ness of the pro­gramme, most no­to­ri­ously, the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of ben­e­fi­cia­ries and the pro­vi­sion of credit has been a mat­ter of great pub­lic de­bate. Many ben­e­fi­cia­ries un­der the var­i­ous schemes are ac­tu­ally in­el­i­gi­ble on var­i­ous counts in­clud­ing age and ed­u­ca­tional qual­i­fi­ca­tions, apart from in­clu­sion of those al­ready hav­ing es­tab­lished busi­ness or be­ing em­ployed else­where. The youth unan­i­mously agreed that the main ben­e­fi­cia­ries of the scheme are those as­so­ci­ated with lo­cal politi­cians and other lud­dites. The study also in­di­cates that few ben­e­fi­cia­ries have man­aged to get project loans twice at the cost of other ben­e­fi­cia­ries who are de­nied even once.

Fourthly, the loans (money) pro­vided for es­tab­lish­ing self-em­ploy­ment are not prop­erly uti­lized as agreed by 64.67 per cent of the youth. The projects seem fu­tile as most of the un­em­ployed per­sons are in­ter­ested in gob­bling up di­gest the money sub­sidy and not for the success and main­te­nance of the project (Kikhi 2006: 135).

Fifthly, about 80 per cent of the youths are of the view that the un­em­ployed ben­e­fi­cia­ries are not ac­tu­ally im­ple­ment­ing the projects. This study shows that many of the projects be­gin and end with sim­ply avail­ing of the pro­vi­sion of short-term train­ing in dif­fer­ent trades. Again the study also re­veals that many schemes are of­ten un­re­lated to the trend and growth of the lo­cal econ­omy. In ma­jor­ity of the cases, there is no fol­low-up in build­ing the projects, thus, fail­ing in the sus­te­nance of the projects.

And sixthly, the CM Cor­pus Fund has shown that the three ba­sic cri­te­ria for se­lect­ing ben­e­fi­cia­ries are: i) one should be a youth, ii) ed­u­cated and iii) un­em­ployed. Yet an ed­u­cated as de­fined in aca­demic cir­cles should be at least ma­tric­u­late and above, but in he case of Na­ga­land it be­comes ques­tion­able when an ed­u­cated has to in­clude class IX stan­dard. The

age bracket for youth is also ques­tion­able be­cause UNO de­fined age bracket as 15-24 years. In In­dia for cen­sus op­er­a­tions, and in ac­cor­dance with the prac­tice of the government of In­dia, the age-group of 15-34 is rec­og­nized as youth.

Thus, the per­ti­nent ques­tion of why the self-em­ploy­ment schemes in Na­ga­land are fail­ing will lead us to con­clude with the fol­low­ing ob­ser­va­tions: a) In­ad­e­quate re­source al­lo­ca­tion needed for

achiev­ing the ob­jec­tives. b) Wrong iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of ben­e­fi­cia­ries. c) Lack of ded­i­ca­tion to the job as­signed. d) Im­proper uti­liza­tion of funds. e) Lack of com­mit­ment on the part of the

ben­e­fi­cia­ries to ex­e­cute the pro­grammes. f) Lack of po­lit­i­cal and ad­min­is­tra­tive will and g) Lack of sym­pa­thy for the poor vis-à-vis

schemes for the poor.


1. Ba­j­pai, Pramod Ku­mar; 1992; Youth, Ed­u­ca­tion and Un­em­ploy­ment; New Delhi; Ashish Pub­lish­ing House. 2. Chadha, G.K; 2000; ' Youth Un­em­ploy­ment in In­dia: Past Pol­icy Gaps and Fu­ture Strate­gic Op­tions' in The In­dian Jour­nal of Labour Eco­nom­ics; Vol. 43, No. 4, Oct-Dec. 3. Chauhan, S.S. (Ed.); 1990; Ad­vanced Ed­u­ca­tional Psychology; New Delhi; Vikas Pub­lish­ing House. 4. Das, Samir Ku­mar; 2010; 'Fast For­ward or

Liv­ing in a Per­ma­nent State of Na­ture?' in East­ern Quar­terly; Vol. 6, Is­sue III, Au­tumn 2010, pp. 87-94; New Delhi. 5. Kikhi, Kedilezo; 2002; ' Ed­u­cated Un­em­ploy­ment in Na­ga­land: Trend and Mag­ni­tude' in C. Joshua Thomas and Gu­ru­das Das ( eds.), Di­men­sions of Devel­op­ment in Na­ga­land; pp. 85-108; New Delhi; Re­gency Pub­li­ca­tions. 6. Kikhi; 2006; Ed­u­cated Un­em­ployed Youth in Na­ga­land - A So­ci­o­log­i­cal Study; New Delhi; Akan­sha Pub­lish­ing House. 7. Kikhi; 2009; ' What ails the North East? Chal­lenges and Re­sponses' in So­ci­o­log­i­cal Bul­letin - Jour­nal of the In­dian So­ci­o­log­i­cal So­ci­ety; Vol. 58, No. 3, Septem­berDe­cem­ber; pp. 346 - 366; New Delhi. 8. Kup­puswammy, B. (Ed.); 1984; Ad­vanced Ed­u­ca­tional Psychology; New Delhi; Ster­ling Pub­lish­ers Pvt. Ltd. 9. Naba, Gopal Das; 1968; Em­ploy­ment, Un­em­ploy­ment and Full Em­ploy­ment in In­dia; New Delhi; Vikas Pub­lish­ing House. 10. Saraswathi, S; 1988; Youth in In­dia; New

Delhi; ICSSR. 11. Government of Na­ga­land; Di­rec­torate of Eco­nom­ics and Statis­tics; Sta­tis­ti­cal Hand Book of Na­ga­land (2008, 2009, 2010); Ko­hima. 12. Government of Na­ga­land; Guide­lines for Pro­grammes on Gen­er­a­tion of Self­Em­ploy­ment Op­por­tu­ni­ties for Un­em­ployed Youth with As­sis­tance un­der the Chief Min­is­ter's Cor­pus Fund; De­part­ment of plan­ning & Co-or­di­na­tion; 2009-10; Ko­hima.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.