1)WTO and India:-
Background :-Over the past few years , the WTO round of negotiation has seen more confrontation between policy makers than cooperation.This confrontation was heightened in Doha round of negotiations. In this context , it is important to understand the keys issues that led to confrontation and what the future holds for WTO and India.
What the Confrontation is all about?
Before getting in to the question , lets take a cue from our colonial history.While analyzing the economic situation in Colonial India , Karl Marx wrote that :-
“The colonial empire inundated the very mother country of cotton with cotton ”
(Keeping the views and philosophies of Karl Marx aside, it is undoubtedly clear that , he was the one who exposed the evils of capitalism and his rational analysis led the world to rethink over “absolute capitalism” and its viability of its economic framework)
So the colonial masters, with their policies , inundated India with cotton clothes manufactured in foreign industries. With the power of machine and a regressive policy , they managed to drive the Indian cotton industry to the brink of collapse, there by pushing large no. of artisans and cotton traders to give up their trade, who upon distress took up to subsistence agriculture.
Upon Independence , India took to an isolated economic policy until 1991. Many economist argue that, had India been self-sufficient in meeting its energy demands, it would have remained relatively an isolated economy till date.
Anyway, after the integration of Indian economy to the world economy post the liberalization phase, India found itself in a dilemma. It wanted foreign capital and technology for majority of its sectors , yet retained protectionist policies for other sectors where it didn’t want the foreign influx.One of such protected sector being Agriculture.
To understand agriculture protectionism , it is essential to understand what the WTO stands for and what are its policies.
Agriculture in India:-
Most of the developed world , have a robust agriculture sector – producing profits like any other sector.For example – only 3% of farmers feed 100% of America.Thus American farmers are quite well-off and for them agriculture is commerce – not a necessary tool for sustaining livelihood as like India.
On the contrary , India’s agriculture and its farmers are overwhelmingly Marginal and Small farmers. Which means, our farmers produce to feed themselves first and sell only the excesses.Hence , Indian agriculture sector is not commerce , but a social tool for sustaining livelihood.
WTO and India :-
Being a Trader Organization , it has its obvious goals- get access to the market and secure the market.The WTO as an organization is a promoter of “Free market economy”. It lends loans to different countries and tries to meddle with their policies to suit the needs of the organization . One of the key component of free market economy is to open up all sector of economy, remove subsidies , there by throwing it to world competition.
One might wonder, competition is good for any sector, so why the policies of WTO is objected by India for agriculture sector. The understanding lies in following facts :-
- Indian agriculture sector if put to world competition , our farmers will suffer, for them it is not commerce and hence they can not be competitive with foreign farms.There by , unable to compete they will be bereft of the little income they obtained from the sector.While in distress , our cotton trader and artisan took up agriculture in past, but if our farmers are thrown out of farming, there is no option left for them to sustain their livelihood. Hence , it is important that Indian policy should protect its farmers.
- The very protectionism is objected by WTO as the farms of developed country have no access in this sector.Hence the propaganda of free market economy and removal of subsidy.
While developed country , want to have access to the agriculture sector , majority of the world is either developing of least developed countries and this sector is the only hope of their livelihood.
Recent developments:-
Our policy makers , did not give in to the pressures of WTO demands and engaged and exposed the facets and rationale behind their stand firmly.
Overtime, the policy makers across the world came to recognize the stand and India’s stand is vindicated over time.
Conclusion:-
It is undoubtedly clear that , though as much as we love competition and integration with world economy, there are certain sectors that needs protection that have significant impact on millions at home.Hence India’s rationale behind the confrontation is well founded and in fact visionary .Being a developing country ,and millions of life at stake ,it becomes imperative to give a helping hand to our citizens. As much as we hate farm subsidy , loan waiver , protection by tariff and as much as we love competition and integration , India can’t shy away from its basic duties and need of the time.As long as India remains a developing country and as long as majority of Indians are engaged in agriculture , India can’t bow down to free market propaganda of WTO , put millions of lives at risk and let foreign farms to inundate the country with farm produce where majority of population are farmers.
2)Indo-Japan Relationship:-
Background :- Recent visit of Japanese PM to India
History:-
Cultural exchanges between India and Japan began early in the 6th century with the introduction of Buddhism to Japan from India. The Indian monk Bodhisena arrived in Japan in 736 to spread Buddhism and performed eye-opening of the Great Buddha built-in Tōdai-ji,and remained in Japan until his death in 760.
Buddhism and the intrinsically linked Indian culture had a great impact on Japanese culture, still felt today, and resulted in a natural sense of amiability between the two nations.
One of the most famous Japanese travellers to the Indian subcontinent was Tenjiku Tokubei (1612–1692), named after Tenjiku (“Heavenly Abode”), the Japanese name for India.
Japan’s emergence as a power in the early 20th century was positively viewed in India and symbolised what was seen as the beginning of an Asian resurgence. In India, there was great admiration for Japan’s post-war economic reconstruction and subsequent rapid growth.(Mains Question of 2013 -How Japanese Industrial revolution is different from the “West”)
Since India was under British rule when World War II broke out, it was deemed to have entered the war on the side of the Allies. Over 2 million Indians participated in the war; many served in combat against the Japanese who conquered Burma and reached the Indian border. Some 67,000 Indian soldiers were captured by the Japanese when Singapore surrendered in 1942, many of whom later became part of the Indian National Army (INA). In 1944-45, the combined British and Indian forces defeated the Japanese in a series of battles in Burma and the INA disintegrated
The Japanese Government built, supported and controlled the Indian National Army (Subhas Chndra Bose) and the Indian Independence League. Japanese forces included INA units in many battles, most notably at the U Go Offensive at Manipur. The offensive culminated in Battles of Imphal and Kohima where the Japanese forces were pushed back and the INA lost cohesion.
(The U Go offensive, or Operation C was the Japanese offensive launched in March 1944 against forces of the British Empire in the northeast Indian region of Manipur. Aimed at the Brahmaputra valley, through the two towns of Imphal and Kohima)
Modern Relationship:-
At the United Nations International Military Tribunal for the Far East, trials for Japanese war crimes ; Indian Justice Radhabinod Pal became famous for his dissenting judgement in favour of Japan. The judgement of Justice Radhabinod Pal is remembered even today in Japan.This became a symbol of the close ties between India and Japan.
The Yasukuni Shrine and the Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine have monuments specially dedicated to Judge Pal
After the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty, Japan and India signed a peace treaty, establishing official diplomatic relations on 28 April 1952, in which India waived all reparation claims against Japan.
Relations between the two nations reached a brief low in 1998 as a result of Pokhran-II, an Indian nuclear weapons test that year. Japan imposed sanctions on India following the test, which included the suspension of all political exchanges and the cutting off of economic assistance. These sanctions were lifted three years later. Relations improved exponentially following this period, as bilateral ties between the two nations improved once again.
Japan is currently India’s fourth largest source of foreign direct investment.
In recent years, Japan has assisted India in infrastructure development projects such as the Delhi Metro Rail Project. Both sides are discussing the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project and Dedicated Freight Corridor Projects on the Mumbai-Delhi and the Delhi-Howrah routes.
India and Japan also have close military ties. They have shared interests in maintaining the security of sea-lanes in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean, and in co-operation for fighting international crime, terrorism, piracy and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The two nations have frequently held joint military exercises and co-operate on technology
In 2014, the Indian Navy participated in Exercise Malabar with the Japanese and US navies, reflecting shared perspectives on Indo-Pacific maritime security.
Japan has also supported the reconstruction of Nalanda University, an ancient Buddhist centre of learning and has agreed to provide financial assistance, and recently approached the Indian government with a proposal
Conclusion :-
The Indo-Japan relationship has profound convergence.Japan is known for its Disaster Management and can substantially help India in this arena.The cultural ties have robust grounds which will keep these two nations together even if the economic and geopolitical forces change in future.The importance of cultural ties is best explained by a Chinese diplomat :-
Moreover, if looked closely , Japan is a developed county of the East which modernized itself without giving into temptation of westernization , which is essentially a question that baffles many in India too. The question before India is simple – How to modernize without being westernized ? , and Japan can be the answer to this Indian dilemma.
3) ‘Call money’ racket in Andhra Pradesh and Telengana:-
Call money is an instant loan available over a call through flexible process where the lender comes home with money, promissory note and other documents which can fix borrowers. The interest rate usually ranges from 120 per cent to 200 per cent. Another key ingredient in the process is that the lender can demand return of the money over a call any time and anywhere.
In case the borrower is unable to repay, vehicles, houses and other movable and immovable properties are demanded as a guarantee.
Hundreds of women were threatened, coerced and dragged into flesh trade if they were unable to repay on time.
Though this News is reported from these two states, yet the situation is more or less similar where there is low banking penetration and institutional micro-credit lending is absent.
The solution to this is to broaden the network of banking and micro-credit financing with affordable interest rate coupled with insurance in case of bankruptcy.
4)Education as an Eligibility to contest Election:-
Background :-
The Supreme Court in the Rajbala vs. State of Haryana case (Dec. 2015) upheld the validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act requiring that a matriculate alone can hold the post of Panchayat president or ward member.
Note :-
Please note that , many editorials in the newspapers are running this , with the almost equivocal theme across all newspaper which ask the strange logic behind this law and questioning the supreme court’s intellect.
There is no doubt that supreme court can not be wrong, it had wronged in the past , but it has corrected itself too.
In this particular case, the editorials are simply arguing on the grounds of political right and have not given due consideration to the dismal status quo of Indian education and whether this Law can transform Indian education system , if not substantially , at least partially.
In this regard ,we have publish an editorial that more or less supports the view of the supreme court and the analysis is taken different aspects and not just plain theme of political right as many newspapers did.
You can read the editorial here and post your views in comment section :-
5)One-man commission on OROP appointed:-
The Union government has appointed Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as the one-man judicial commission to look into the implementation of the one rank one pension scheme.
- The appointment of the committee is in keeping with the points of the notification issued by the government in November for implementing the scheme.
- The committee will make recommendations on removal of anomalies that may arise in the implementation of the OROP, which the government notified on November 7. It will also address inter-service anomalies, and any other matter referred by the Central Government.
Veterans have rejected this commission. They have been demanding for a five-member judicial commission with representatives from the military.
6)India ranks 130th out of 188 on Human Development Index in 2015
Comparative :-
| Country | HDI rank |
|---|---|
| Norway | 1 |
| Brazil | 75 |
| China | 90 |
| India | 130 |
| Bangladesh | 142 |
Global Human Development report, released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), has placed India at 130 among 188 countries.
- With a score of 0.609 on HDI, India stands well below the average score of 0.630 for countries in the medium human development group. But it is marginally above the South Asian countries’ average score of 0.607.
- India stands higher than neighbours Bangladesh and Pakistan but lower than countries like Namibia, Guatemala and Tajikistan, even Iraq.
- Norway tops the HDI ranking, followed by Australia, Switzerland and Denmark.
- Data show that life expectancy at birth in India has over the past decade risen from 64.5 years (in 2005) to 68 years in 2014. Similarly, mean years of schooling have increased from 4.8 to 5.4 over the same period.
- Per-capita incomes in India have also risen significantly, from $3239 to $5497 (at 2011 purchasing-power parity).
- On the gender development index (GDI), with a value of 0.795, India ranks behind Bangladesh (0.917), Namibia, Guatemala, even Tajikistan.
- On the gender inequality index (GII), India stands at 130 among 155 countries, well behind Bangladesh and Pakistan, which are ranked 111 and 121 respectively.
What the HDR 2015 says:-
- For just four per cent of its GDP, India could provide “a basic and modest set of social security guarantees for all citizens with universal pension, basic health care, child benefits and employment schemes”.
About HDI:-
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.
A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth
Education index: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP US$)
The HDI was developed by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, is anchored in the Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s work on human capabilities, often framed in terms of whether people are able to “be” and “do” desirable things in their life and was published by the United Nations Development Programme.
Criticism of HDR:-
The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of grounds including alleged ideological biases towards egalitarianism and so-called “Western models of development”, failure to include any ecological considerations, lack of consideration of technological development or contributions to the human civilization, focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, lack of attention to development from a global perspective, measurement error of the underlying statistics, and on the UNDP’s changes in formula which can lead to severe misclassification in the categorisation of ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’ human development countries
If we go by the definition of Human Development as stated by Mahbub Ul Haq :-
“Human development is defined as the process of enlarging people’s freedoms and opportunities and improving their well-being. Human development is about the real freedom ordinary people have to decide who to be, what to do, and how to live.”
And now if we look at the indices of HDR , which has only 3 components – health, education and economy and does not include :-
- Political rights and Freedom of Choice.(For eg- France is looked upon as a country that taught liberty and freedom to the world, however the irony is that The Law in France does not allow people to wear their religious attire in public places)
- Legal Regime :- HDR does not take in to account the Laws and policies that govern Human Development.
- Tax Policy ( For e.g.- Norway which ranks 1st int HDI has a regressive tax policy . On the contrary few middle eastern countries – where women don’t have voting rights and their laws are far from liberal , yet many of these countries don’t tax their citizens)
- Peace and Happiness (Both intra and inter-national) – For eg- Bhutan ranks quite high in Gross Happiness Index even though it’s per capita income is lower.This throws the question – what is the use of education, Money or long life(3 indices of HDR) – if you are not happy, because happiness is an integral part of Human development and well-being.
The examples will be endless, and what stands out is that the world is full of oddities and to compare all the country only on 3 indices is questionable.
If looked closely, what the HDR tries- is to quantify and look at the objective data from medical,schools etc. Even though the definition as put forth by the ones who developed the report is subjective, the report categorically does not allow the subjective parts because it is difficult to quantify the subjective parts.
However it is equally necessary to quantify or include these subjective parts, as human development cannot completely rely on objective data being a subjective issues.
Thus to call this report as Human Development Report , without a holistic addition of all the factors that one way or other contribute to human development would not do justice to its name .As long as the indices remain as is- it is just a tool to know – education index, mortality index and economic index, which are only 3 aspects of human development and not inclusive.
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.