Labourers’ dignity

It may be a matter of dispute whether the lockdown served its purpose or not. An assessment report into the entire exercise which brought all activities to halt in a bid to curb the spread of Coronavirus must be conducted to identify the pros and cons. However, the one undisputed outcome of the lockdown was the plight of migrant labourers. Dissecting it further, the dignity and rights of those labourers were emphatically underlined. Often tagged collectively as the backbone of this country for the manual labour they pour in developing projects that make cities, their plight during the

lockdown has been a painful sight, hovering in the sub-conscious and difficult to ignore. Lakhs of them left the industrial states of Maharasthra and Gujarat for their homes in UP and Bihar in the largest reverse migration exercise. The exodus en masse underlined the raw human resource that has remained underutilised in home states. It also underlined, through individual accounts, that the same has been inadequately paid and treated in the work states. Uttar Pradesh CM’S assertion on social security net for the migrant workers was a pleasant change in approach towards migrant workers. It remains to be seen how efficiently UP’S migrant commission implements the observed objectives of the CM but the thought in the public domain was enough to pose a question: Is India offering its

labourers the dignity they deserve? The Jharkhand government raised serious concerns on the plight and exploitation of

labourers from the state in letter exchanged with the BRO. It had received complaints from labourers who were recently airlifted from Ladakh regarding delayed payments, lower wages than specified in the scheduled rate chart of BRO as well as withholding of ATM cards by contractors. In fact, last week, Jharkhand CM Soren had urged state’s labourers to seek state government’s nod before venturing out. This was naturally to protect workers’ rights and come to their aid in a situation of need. Consequently, the Jharkhand government asked BRO to recruit labourers directly from the state, urging BRO to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for ensuring the welfare of workers in all future recruitments. While currently, the Jharkhand government has granted BRO a one-time waiver from registration in the interest of work and national security implications, the effort from the state to exact a safety net for its workers is laudable. The Jharkhand-bro episode brings us to the general discussion of whether the unique MOU that both parties are due to sign should be made a general norm between states or industries and states. Unofficial employments are more pervasive than one could imagine. Dodging

labour-centric legal requirements, employers tend to hire and exploitation, thereafter, remains unchecked.

The gradual unlocking of the country and resumption of economic activity may spark migration of labourers once again since villages in their home states can barely support the raw human resource — which is another concern. MGNREGA has not been bolstered to the point where it can provide adequate workdays to the population of labourers that have returned. Assuming that a return is imminent for these labourers, notwithstanding the pandemic that continues to increase the caseload in the country, governments must ponder on the harsh reality of exploitation that labourers undergo. Even if employers hold on to their end of the deal, the middlemen tend to inflict deprivation in the form of reduced wages. Eradicating middlemen and ensuring full-proof contracts under which

labourers can thrive is a goal to push for. For the hard work that these labourers put in, building roads, dams and a variety of projects, regular and complete wages is the least that they should procure in return.