Geographical Indication and India :-
What is GI :-
“Darjeeling”, “Ceylon”, “Assam”, “Kolhapuri”, “Banarasi”, “Champagne”, “Roquefort”, “Chianti”, “Sheffield”, “Camember”, “Havana” are some well-known examples for names which are associated throughout the world with products of a certain nature and quality. One common feature of all these names is their geographical connotation, that is to say, their function of designating existing places ,towns, regions or countries. However, when we hear these names we think of products rather than the places they designate.
There are various conventions and agreements addressing the issues of protection geographical indications. These include Paris Convention for protection of industrial property, TRIPS Agreement, Madrid Agreement for the repression of false or deceptive indications of source on goods and Lisbon Agreement for the protection appellation of origin and their international registration.
The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property does not use the term geographical indication. Article 1 paragraph (2) defines as subjects of industrial property, inter alia, indications of source and appellations of origin. This is the terminology traditionally applied and still officially used in the conventions and agreements administered by WIPO. According to this terminology, the following distinction is made between indication of source and appellation of origin:
Indication of Source means any expression or sign used to indicate that a product or service originates in a country, a region or a specific place. For example, Made in India is an indication of source. The Appellation of Origin means the geographical name of a country, region or specific place which serves to designate a product originating therein, whose characteristic qualities are exclusively or essentially due to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors. For e.g. -“Darjeeling Tea” or “Champagne Wine” represents Appellation of Origin
Make in India and GI:-
One of the objectives of the “Make in India” programme is to improve and protect the Indian intellectual property (IP) regime. The steps envisaged to achieve this objective include increased posts in IP offices, e-filing facilities, major fee reduction for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, holding awareness programmes etc.
A less discussed IP right in this context is ‘geographical indications’ (GIs), a right aptly described as “sleeping beauty” (as it was in slumber till the advent of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement) in the mid-1990s by Florent Gevers, a renowned European IP lawyer. GIs indicate goods as originating in a specific geographical region, the characteristics, qualities or reputation thereof essentially attributable to such region. GI-branded goods possess a recall value amongst consumers who essentially attribute these characteristics, qualities or reputation to such geographical origin. Scotch whisky, produced only in certain regions of Scotland in accordance with regulations, is an example.
Europe has been protecting GIs since the 1800s.
The GI ripple effect
GIs support and protect local production (as opposed to global production), generate local employment and are mostly untouched by industrialisation, originating in villages or small towns. Since consistent quality is a must in GI-branded goods, and often cements itself as a consumer recollection point, producers are expected to diligently follow specific production methods.
Champagne, cognac etc are some European names that started humble lives decades ago and became the icons that they are today owing to such quality control and perseverance. Many European GIs have also successfully built up ancillary industries like tourism and lodging in the respective regions, enabling visitors to get a first-hand experience of the manufacturing process and absorb the history thereof. Such ancillary industries also create local employment and aid in the socio-economic development of the region in the long run.
Complying with World Trade Organisation obligations, India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act) and has set up a registry in Chennai to register such names. Covering agricultural goods, manufactured and natural goods, textiles, handicrafts and foodstuffs, the GI Registry’s website lists 238 registered names as of March 2016. While the list has popular GIs like Basmati rice, Darjeeling tea and Pashmina shawls, many names on the list are lesser known or never heard of, despite being in existence for decades.
With emphasis laid on innovation, new initiatives and robust infrastructure, IP rights like patents, designs and trademarks can prima facie find a place in the Make in India programme.
Despite the gradual rise in GI registrations, the role and scope of GIs in the Make in India programme has perhaps remained unnoticed in discussions. Considering that GI-branded goods can be made 100 per cent in India without the need for any foreign direct investment (FDI) and that they can promote socio-economic development of the respective regions (like their European counterparts), GIs are perhaps the most ideal IP rights to foster and realise a programme like Make in India.
Quality issues in India
So why haven’t GIs naturally shown themselves up as a potential tool to aid the programme? One of the foundations of this initiative is the making of quality products. So, does the legal framework for the protection of GIs in India emphasise the importance of quality products? Europe has always recognised the need to preserve and maintain high quality in such origin-specific goods. The European law on the protection of names relating to agricultural goods and foodstuffs (ECR 1151/2012) recognises that GIs give a competitive advantage to producers and enable consumers to make more informed choices by providing clear information on origin-specific products and their characteristics. To preserve this consumer trust, the European law mandates: (i) effective verification and controls at multiple levels in the supply chain, ensuring compliance with product specification before placing it in the market and (ii) market monitoring of the use of the names to ensure legal compliance.
In contrast, India’s GI Act does not lay much emphasis on inspection and monitoring mechanisms for GI protection. The only two references thereto appear in the enabling rules in Rule 32(6)(g) and Form GI-1. While Rule 32(6)(g) requires an applicant to list particulars of the inspection structure, “if any”, to regulate the use of the GI, Form GI-1 perfunctorily asks for the details of an “Inspection Body”. Quality associated with geographical origin is the hallmark of a GI and the current legal framework evidently lacks teeth to ensure it. This perhaps explains why one has not heard of many GI success stories in India.
The current Indian legal framework for GIs needs to be strengthened to address quality control and consumer expectations by insisting on multi-layered quality control systems as a precondition for registration. Other important issues faced by GI producer bodies are market access and funding for enforcement and marketing. Still a greenhorn in GI protection, India must hand-hold producer bodies, look at successful models elsewhere and mould these to suit the ground realities of protection and enforcement in a developing country.
Every region in India boasts of many locally produced unique goods and this law, with a few amendments to fill the serious missing gaps described above, coupled with diligent implementation can turn into a magic wand for the Make in India programme.
It it also imperative to realize that most of the local industries who are engaged in production of such GI products are invariably still in the MSME sector. Therefore before they can achieve economies of scale and contribute significantly to the Make in India program, we must ensure that proper training, skill development and an overall favorable environment (in terms of labour laws etc.) is provided. Laying greater emphasis on inspection, monitoring etc is of no use unless these producers are enabled to become more competent and produce world class products.
Female Foeticide:-
As per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), NCRB has started collecting data on female foeticide since 2014. A total of 50 cases were reported under female foeticide in 2014.
State-wise data:-
| MADHYA PRADESH | 15 |
| RAJASTHAN | 11 |
| PUNJAB | 7 |
| HARYANA and Uttar Pradesh | 4 Each |
| CHHATTISGARH & TELENGANA | 2 Each |
Uttarakhand – 1 and rest of the state is zero..
Analysis :-
The above data is related to cases registered under female foeticide. From an initial reading one may think that in a particular state (as in this case MP ) the practice is widespread. However , it is only part of the grim reality. Case of this nature usually never come to the fore and registering a case of female foeticide has been very rare. The simple fact is that in a country of billion plus population and given the prevailing societal inclination for male child , Only 50 cases a year is far from truth.Hence states with zero or lower number of registered cases throws two parables – either the states have genuinely low female foeticide or the cases does not reach the authority for one reason or another – if this is the case then the authorities have 2 issues and not one to deal with – Prevention of female foeticide through different means and Ensuring a conducive environment to uphold the law and order in the state that usually ignore the subtleties of this case.
Thorium based Reactor:-
Research & Development on Thorium utilisation continues to be a high priority area of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).
On account of physics characteristics of Thorium, it is however not possible to build a nuclear reactor using Thorium alone. It has to be converted to Uranium-233 in a reactor before it can be used as fuel.
With this in view, a three-stage nuclear power programme, based on a closed nuclear fuel cycle has been chalked out to use thorium as a viable and sustainable option, right at the inception of India’s nuclear power programme.
The three stage nuclear power programme aims to multiply the domestically available fissile resource through the use of natural uranium in Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors, followed by use of plutonium obtained from the spent fuel of Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors in Fast Breeder Reactors.
Large scale use of Thorium will subsequently follow making use of the Uranium-233 that will be bred in Fast Breeder Reactors, when adequate capacity has been built in the country. The third stage of Indian nuclear power programme which contemplates making use of Uranium-233 to fuel Thorium Uranium-233 based reactors can provide energy independence to the country for several centuries. All efforts towards technology development and demonstration are being made now, so that a mature technology is available in time.
India has abundant quantity of thorium resources contained in the mineral monazite occurring in the beach sand placer deposits along the eastern and western coasts of the country as well as the inland placers in parts of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) through its Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research (AMD) has carried out exploration activities over the past six decades, which have resulted in establishing in situ resources of 11.93 million tonnes of monazite as on February 2016 in the country. Indian Monazite contains about 9-10% of Thorium oxide (ThO2) which in turn results in about 1.07 million tonnes of Thorium oxide (ThO2).
A three stage nuclear power programme has been devised to efficiently utilise this large reserve of thorium. The energy potential of this thorium reserve is estimated to be more than 155,500 GWe-years.
India ranked 118th in UN’s world happiness index; behind Pak, China
India has been placed at 118th position out of 156 countries in a global list of the happiest nations. This was revealed by The World Happiness Report 2016, published by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), a global initiative for the United Nations.
Quantifying Happiness:-
The report takes into account GDP per capita, life expectancy, social support and freedom to make life choices,generosity, perceptions of corruption, and dystopia as indicators of happiness.
Highlights of the report:
- Denmark takes the top spot followed by Switzerland(2nd) ,Iceland (3), Norway (4) and Finland (5).
- India ranked 118th, down from 117th in 2015.
- India was among the group of 10 countries witnessing the largest happiness declines along with Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen and Botswana.
- India comes below nations like Somalia (76), China (83), Pakistan (92), Iran (105), Palestinian Territories (108) and Bangladesh (110).
- The US is ranked 13th, standing behind Australia (9) and Israel (11).
- The report notes that Rwanda, Benin, Afghanistan, Togo, Syria and Burundi are the least happiest countries.
This report for the first time gives a special role to the measurement and consequences of inequality in the distribution of well-being among countries and regions.
- This reflects a new worldwide demand for more attention to happiness as a criteria for government policy and can also be used effectively to assess the progress of nations.
- Previous reports have argued that happiness provides a better indicator of human welfare than income, poverty, education, health and good government measured separately but now experts also point out that the inequality of well-being provides a broader measure of inequality.
Few thoughtful questions and Analysis :-
- One of the key indicator is GDP per capita – Does it mean richest are the happiest ?If so , then how Bhutan is regarded as a happy country.
- Life expectancy indicator – Does it mean if a person has a high life expectancy will lead a happy life or on the contrary a short life is a miserable life.
- Countries with least democratic freedom , more social inequality are ranked higher than India – How it could be a possibility ?
- Freedom to make life choices – For the citizenry who really can not have a say to chose their leader – does they really have freedom to make life choices.For the countries that are ranked at the top , one of the life choices is to have a home – but unfortunately to get a permission to have a house of your own takes more than a decade in NORDICS.
- Perception of Corruption :- Does the perception matters or the ground reality has a say ?Above all how to quantify perception.
- The general trend in all the report is that it is always topped by geographically small countries for obvious reasons and they will continue to do so as long as the reports are crafted on the basis of very little sampling of data and perception.This does not mean they should not top or their ranking is assigned arbitrarily. What is missing is the parity factor between geographically large and socially diverse countries with that of the small and mostly socially uniform countries. It makes no sense to compare the life of a bird with a tiger (metaphorically) and to state that a bird is happier because it can fly and tiger is unhappy because he can not .Hence the report has to go beyond simple generalization if it has to reflect the reality as it is .For that a large survey which includes multiple factors should be taken in to account and weightage to each factor should be assigned appropriately.One solution is to compare countries with similar geographical, political and social attributes and produce different reports for each category of countries.
- Happiness is not only a economic or health or social factor , it is also very individualistic and psychology has a major role in it.That is the reason why , a person who is unhappy today can be happy tomorrow (For eg- success in civil services) and of course in a day the happiness has changed but the person’s economic, social or life expectancy has not changed (it is the hope of good future that made the person happy). One can see a poor but happy person in one side of the road and an unhappy but rich person on the other side.Hence the rich are as much happy/unhappy as much as the poor .What make one happy is unpredictable and multiple factor comes in to play , to predict the subjective subject of happiness in objective terms of index for a society and for that matter for a country is a humongous task and only economic, social or political factors are just not enough to paint the full picture with utmost clarity.
Note :- The analysis is exclusive to UPSCTREE.At any given point of time, no one really knows everything and if you have any concern or feedback with regards to our analysis , please do engage with us and enlighten us.Views are always subject to change and reasoning can change with the discovery of new information and hence we strongly believe in debate and discussion.
Reservation for Dalit Christians
An individual belonging to Scheduled Tribes may profess any religion and the Castes/ Tribes included in the list of Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 of the Constitution, are entitled for getting the benefits of reservation in services of the Central Government.
The Scheduled Castes converted to Christianity are included in the Central List of Other Backward Classes of some of the States and are entitled to the benefit of the reservation in services of the Central Government. However, the issue of extension of Scheduled Caste status to Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity is presently subjudice in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Depot Online System:-
- It is an online System to automate all the operations of FCI depots to make it leak-proof
- “Depot Online” is an important project under Digital India initiative of Government
- It will digitally manage and automate almost all FCI function such as – godown operation, dumping management, stack management, spillage management, stack suggestion, storage loss calculation
Facts:-
- Iron Fist 2016:-Exercise Iron Fist is a biennial event that showcases the firepower capacity of the Indian Air Force. The exercise will include combat manoeuvres and live firing of Air-to-Ground and Air-to-Air precision weapons by Fighters, Transport Aircraft and Helicopters.
- SIDBI STARTUP MITRA :- A national portal for start-up entrepreneurs developed by SIDBI
- World Sufi Forum :- The Forum has been convened by the All India Ulama and Mashaikh Board, to discuss the role of Sufism in countering rising global terror hosted in Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.
- Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan appointed as chairperson of the 21st Law Commission of India(fora period of 3 years)
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.
On March 31, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its annual Gender Gap Report 2021. The Global Gender Gap report is an annual report released by the WEF. The gender gap is the difference between women and men as reflected in social, political, intellectual, cultural, or economic attainments or attitudes. The gap between men and women across health, education, politics, and economics widened for the first time since records began in 2006.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]No need to remember all the data, only pick out few important ones to use in your answers.
The Global gender gap index aims to measure this gap in four key areas : health, education, economics, and politics. It surveys economies to measure gender disparity by collating and analyzing data that fall under four indices : economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.
The 2021 Global Gender Gap Index benchmarks 156 countries on their progress towards gender parity. The index aims to serve as a compass to track progress on relative gaps between women and men in health, education, economy, and politics.
Although no country has achieved full gender parity, the top two countries (Iceland and Finland) have closed at least 85% of their gap, and the remaining seven countries (Lithuania, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Rwanda, and Ireland) have closed at least 80% of their gap. Geographically, the global top 10 continues to be dominated by Nordic countries, with —Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden—in the top five.
The top 10 is completed by one country from Asia Pacific (New Zealand 4th), two Sub-Saharan countries (Namibia, 6th and Rwanda, 7th, one country from Eastern Europe (the new entrant to the top 10, Lithuania, 8th), and another two Western European countries (Ireland, 9th, and Switzerland, 10th, another country in the top-10 for the first time).There is a relatively equitable distribution of available income, resources, and opportunities for men and women in these countries. The tremendous gender gaps are identified primarily in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
Here, we can discuss the overall global gender gap scores across the index’s four main components : Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment.
The indicators of the four main components are
(1) Economic Participation and Opportunity:
o Labour force participation rate,
o wage equality for similar work,
o estimated earned income,
o Legislators, senior officials, and managers,
o Professional and technical workers.
(2) Educational Attainment:
o Literacy rate (%)
o Enrollment in primary education (%)
o Enrollment in secondary education (%)
o Enrollment in tertiary education (%).
(3) Health and Survival:
o Sex ratio at birth (%)
o Healthy life expectancy (years).
(4) Political Empowerment:
o Women in Parliament (%)
o Women in Ministerial positions (%)
o Years with a female head of State (last 50 years)
o The share of tenure years.
The objective is to shed light on which factors are driving the overall average decline in the global gender gap score. The analysis results show that this year’s decline is mainly caused by a reversal in performance on the Political Empowerment gap.
Global Trends and Outcomes:
– Globally, this year, i.e., 2021, the average distance completed to gender parity gap is 68% (This means that the remaining gender gap to close stands at 32%) a step back compared to 2020 (-0.6 percentage points). These figures are mainly driven by a decline in the performance of large countries. On its current trajectory, it will now take 135.6 years to close the gender gap worldwide.
– The gender gap in Political Empowerment remains the largest of the four gaps tracked, with only 22% closed to date, having further widened since the 2020 edition of the report by 2.4 percentage points. Across the 156 countries covered by the index, women represent only 26.1% of some 35,500 Parliament seats and 22.6% of over 3,400 Ministers worldwide. In 81 countries, there has never been a woman head of State as of January 15, 2021. At the current rate of progress, the World Economic Forum estimates that it will take 145.5 years to attain gender parity in politics.
– The gender gap in Economic Participation and Opportunity remains the second-largest of the four key gaps tracked by the index. According to this year’s index results, 58% of this gap has been closed so far. The gap has seen marginal improvement since the 2020 edition of the report, and as a result, we estimate that it will take another 267.6 years to close.
– Gender gaps in Educational Attainment and Health and Survival are nearly closed. In Educational Attainment, 95% of this gender gap has been closed globally, with 37 countries already attaining gender parity. However, the ‘last mile’ of progress is proceeding slowly. The index estimates that it will take another 14.2 years to close this gap on its current trajectory completely.
In Health and Survival, 96% of this gender gap has been closed, registering a marginal decline since last year (not due to COVID-19), and the time to close this gap remains undefined. For both education and health, while progress is higher than economy and politics in the global data, there are important future implications of disruptions due to the pandemic and continued variations in quality across income, geography, race, and ethnicity.
India-Specific Findings:
India had slipped 28 spots to rank 140 out of the 156 countries covered. The pandemic causing a disproportionate impact on women jeopardizes rolling back the little progress made in the last decades-forcing more women to drop off the workforce and leaving them vulnerable to domestic violence.
India’s poor performance on the Global Gender Gap report card hints at a serious wake-up call and learning lessons from the Nordic region for the Government and policy makers.
Within the 156 countries covered, women hold only 26 percent of Parliamentary seats and 22 percent of Ministerial positions. India, in some ways, reflects this widening gap, where the number of Ministers declined from 23.1 percent in 2019 to 9.1 percent in 2021. The number of women in Parliament stands low at 14.4 percent. In India, the gender gap has widened to 62.5 %, down from 66.8% the previous year.
It is mainly due to women’s inadequate representation in politics, technical and leadership roles, a decrease in women’s labor force participation rate, poor healthcare, lagging female to male literacy ratio, and income inequality.
The gap is the widest on the political empowerment dimension, with economic participation and opportunity being next in line. However, the gap on educational attainment and health and survival has been practically bridged.
India is the third-worst performer among South Asian countries, with Pakistan and Afghanistan trailing and Bangladesh being at the top. The report states that the country fared the worst in political empowerment, regressing from 23.9% to 9.1%.
Its ranking on the health and survival dimension is among the five worst performers. The economic participation and opportunity gap saw a decline of 3% compared to 2020, while India’s educational attainment front is in the 114th position.
India has deteriorated to 51st place from 18th place in 2020 on political empowerment. Still, it has slipped to 155th position from 150th position in 2020 on health and survival, 151st place in economic participation and opportunity from 149th place, and 114th place for educational attainment from 112th.
In 2020 reports, among the 153 countries studied, India is the only country where the economic gender gap of 64.6% is larger than the political gender gap of 58.9%. In 2021 report, among the 156 countries, the economic gender gap of India is 67.4%, 3.8% gender gap in education, 6.3% gap in health and survival, and 72.4% gender gap in political empowerment. In health and survival, the gender gap of the sex ratio at birth is above 9.1%, and healthy life expectancy is almost the same.
Discrimination against women has also been reflected in Health and Survival subindex statistics. With 93.7% of this gap closed to date, India ranks among the bottom five countries in this subindex. The wide sex ratio at birth gaps is due to the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices. Besides, more than one in four women has faced intimate violence in her lifetime.The gender gap in the literacy rate is above 20.1%.
Yet, gender gaps persist in literacy : one-third of women are illiterate (34.2%) than 17.6% of men. In political empowerment, globally, women in Parliament is at 128th position and gender gap of 83.2%, and 90% gap in a Ministerial position. The gap in wages equality for similar work is above 51.8%. On health and survival, four large countries Pakistan, India, Vietnam, and China, fare poorly, with millions of women there not getting the same access to health as men.
The pandemic has only slowed down in its tracks the progress India was making towards achieving gender parity. The country urgently needs to focus on “health and survival,” which points towards a skewed sex ratio because of the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices and women’s economic participation. Women’s labour force participation rate and the share of women in technical roles declined in 2020, reducing the estimated earned income of women, one-fifth of men.
Learning from the Nordic region, noteworthy participation of women in politics, institutions, and public life is the catalyst for transformational change. Women need to be equal participants in the labour force to pioneer the societal changes the world needs in this integral period of transition.
Every effort must be directed towards achieving gender parallelism by facilitating women in leadership and decision-making positions. Social protection programmes should be gender-responsive and account for the differential needs of women and girls. Research and scientific literature also provide unequivocal evidence that countries led by women are dealing with the pandemic more effectively than many others.
Gendered inequality, thereby, is a global concern. India should focus on targeted policies and earmarked public and private investments in care and equalized access. Women are not ready to wait for another century for equality. It’s time India accelerates its efforts and fight for an inclusive, equal, global recovery.
India will not fully develop unless both women and men are equally supported to reach their full potential. There are risks, violations, and vulnerabilities women face just because they are women. Most of these risks are directly linked to women’s economic, political, social, and cultural disadvantages in their daily lives. It becomes acute during crises and disasters.
With the prevalence of gender discrimination, and social norms and practices, women become exposed to the possibility of child marriage, teenage pregnancy, child domestic work, poor education and health, sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence. Many of these manifestations will not change unless women are valued more.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.