Background :-
The recent diplomatic engagements that played over a month upto the Seoul Plenary session of NSG and the subsequent developments has been at the center stage of Indian media.The consequence of India not getting a membership of NSG has been disappointing.However , while many have lauded the diplomatic pursuations few have criticized it on the basis of outcome. In this regard, here is our analysis of the issue :-
India has already got NSG waiver , so should we worry about membership ?
Ans– In this regard, there was an article that reads “India’s obsession with NSG” , although we have not gone through the entire article , it is quite indicative of its stance from the heading itself.The question is should India be obsessed with NSG ?
To answer the above question , we have been deliberating why and why not , however one of our UPSCTREE core member pointed out a very good arguments in this regard:-
“It is always better to be inside the room that takes decisions and makes policies than to be an outside of its door , waiting for the outcome”
So , in this ground , it is always better to be on the decision making table , becasue that changes the whole game altogether and most importantly , one will have a say in the decision making process – which is as important as the outcome of the decision itself.
In a nutshell, yes, India should put its all weight to get things done diplomatically and more so to get NSG membership.
The next question is the way the diplomatic engagement was launched and the way media played it out as if it is a do or die situation.
Ans :- In this regard, we firmly believe that every action that one pursues should be a do or die situation.Because there should not be regret afterwards that we have not done enough.That’s a regret one can not afford- whether preparing for an exam or getting a membership.
In this context , India did manage to punch above its weight , the outcome are indicative of it.
What are the lessons from the outcome ?
Here is the list :-
- India managed diplomatically pursue the matter and made enough noise about it, which is good.Noises are good in geopolitik , becasue right noise builds right perception and India’s geopolitics profile has only increased after this.
- The outcome clearly indicated who are our friends and who are our foes- pretty clearly.Which is good , becasue , then one knows who the foes are and how to fight it- you can not win a fight if you don’t know the opponent.We now know who is who and policy can be calibrated accordingly.
- The fact that all the major countries – 38 out of 48 out-rightly supported India , where as 9 remained neutral and one played the spoil-sport indicates India’s international importance.
- Moreover , nothing is stronger than an Idea whose time has come .India’s time has come , and it is just a matter of time.
- If one delves in to the philosophical angel of this question, Indian philosophy gives importance to work than outcome.Work is in our control , not the results- so working hard is not a bad thing.Means are as important as ends ,in diplomacy one should not only be judged by outcome but also by the means.
- Disappointment on the outcome is fine , but to be disheartened due to the outcome is neither necessary nor required.Diplomacy is a subtle art , everyone will pay their debt and everyone will get their credit – history stands testament to it.
- To blame the diplomats for putting all the effort is a no-brainer.The outcome is not the result of this particular endeavor, it has it’s past too.History clouds the judgements and has its way to influence geopolitics.Why China did what it did becomes obvious if we look at our past clearly.The efforts are new but the outcome is old.
Interestingly, the MEA has put a public statement saying that it will be difficult for India to implement Paris climate agreement as it hits NSG roadbloack.
Here is an article that explains rather clearly why China did what it did ?We are publishing it as is-
Editorial :-
If reports emanating from Seoul, where NSG plenary session was held on June23-24, are to be believed, India’s request for membership was turned down despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of 38 out of 48 member countries favoured India’s inclusion into the group. Nine other members were not against India’s inclusion but they wanted clear-cut criteria to be put in place simultaneously for inclusion of non-NPT signatories like New Delhi.
However, there was one country which was dead against India’s inclusion and it was none other than China, India’s arch-rival in Asia as well as one of the two neighbours with whom India had fought an overt and full-fledged war in the past.
Despite the strenuous efforts of Ministry of External Affairs and its diplomats, China refused to budge an inch from its stand. In fact, it was not even ready to discuss India’s case in Seoul. Facing tremendous pressure from other member states, it agreed for a discussion reportedly on the condition that India will not be granted membership, at least in this session.
Even the much-touted ‘personal touch’ diplomacy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi , who met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on June 23 and pleaded for Chinese support, failed to work or break the ice.
Not only that, Chinese even refused to pay any heed to the sane advices that came from common friends like Russia and France. The US also tried its best to persuade China, although not at the same level they had worked phones in 2008 to ensure one time waiver for US-India civil nuclear deal, but to no avail.
Since NSG as a group takes all decisions through consensus, China’s strident anti-India posture ensured that New Delhi was denied entry into NSG, at least for the time being. China, obviously, played the spoilsport for India.
In international diplomacy, these things are neither unusual nor unheard of. It is only natural that a big group rather a cartel like 48-member NSG will take its own time before it arrives at a consensus on an issue which generates diverse viewpoints and opinions.
However, what has baffled observers is the obduracy with which China publicly took an anti-India stand this time. It’s a fact that even in 2008, China was not in favour of the India-specific favour but it had preferred not to go public with its opposition. At that time, Chinese relented after the then US President George Bush personally called up the then Chinese President Hu Jintao.
In fact, NSG is not the first instance in the recent times when China has taken an anti-India position.
On April 1, 2016, it had blocked an UN Security Council move to blacklist Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar who India has accused of masterminding the Pathankot airbase attack.
What has changed since 2008 that has forced China to take an unambiguous anti-India stand on international forums like NSG and UNSC?
In fact, there are a host of issues and developments that has made China wary of India’s rising international profile.
In Seoul, China objected to India’s NSG entry on the ground that New Delhi is yet to sign the NPT but in reality, the NPT was just a fig leaf that Beijing used to thwart India’s candidature.
Despite being a NPT signatory, China’s own record on proliferation – from Pakistan, North Korea and Iran – is pathetic.
The actual reasons behind China’s anti-India hostilities go beyond NPT. In fact, they have nothing to do with NPT.
Let’s have a look at some of these factors:
1. China’s growing unease over deepening Indo-US military ties
It’s an open secret that China has always been suspicious of deepening military ties between India and the United States.
China believes that through these military tie-ups, United States is trying to prop up India as Beijing’s counterweight in Asia-pacific reason.
China did not hide its concern over the recent Indo-US logistics exchange agreement under which militaries of India and the US can use each other’s assets and bases.
US willingness to sell India cutting-edge military hardware including local manufacturing of F-16 fighter jets has further added to the Chinese fears.
The recent statement of an US official that Washington will do everything to boost India’s naval power has been seen by China as yet another American attempt to undermine and challenge its strategic interests in Indian ocean region.
China knows that it can’t stop two sovereign nations from engaging into military cooperation but its frustration over its helplessness is now getting manifested in its increasingly anti-India posturing on international platforms.
2. Beijing’s fears on Indo-US interference in South China sea dispute
China’s construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands have been objected to by many countries. In fact, China has faced resistance on this issue from time to time by many countries including Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia.
The dispute also involves clash of interest between different nations on issues like acquiring fishing areas, the potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas under the waters of various parts of the South China Sea, and the strategic control of important shipping lanes.
The United States has openly opposed the Chinese move and India has also started calling for restraint and peaceful resolution of the dispute.
The two countries have started mentioning South China Sea in joint statements recently although during last US visit of Modi, the two sides deliberately omitted the topic given the fact that India was hopeful of Chinese support on NSG issue.
China sees a design in India and US taking a similar line on South China Sea dispute and considers it a ploy to curtail its influence in the region
3. China alarmed over India’s military ties with its adversaries like Japan and Vietnam
The recent reports of India trying to sell supersonic BrahMos missile to Vietnam has also alarmed China. Some media reports have also pointed out that Vietnam has expressed keen interest in Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas as well.
The growing military ties between India and Japan have further annoyed china. Much to China’s discomfort, India, Japan and US are regularly holding naval exercise, Malabar 2016 being the latest one.
Obviously, China is not taking these military moves kindly.
4. Not ready to welcome New Delhi on big table and de-hyphenate India and Pakistan
China does not want India to emerge as a rival power in Asia and as part of the strategy, it wants India to remain bogged down with Pakistan.
That’s one reason why China encouraged Pakistan to apply for NSG membership just after a week India moved its application.
China knows that as long as India is forced to compete with Pakistan on international platforms, it can’t acquire the respect to claim a seat on the table meant for big powers.
5. Chinese concern over aggressive diplomacy of PM Modi in neighbourhood
China is also looking with suspicion at the aggressive diplomatic posturing of PM Modi.
The recent Chabahar port agreement between India and Iran has also ruffled the Chinese feathers.
Chinese believe that Indian presence in the neighbourhood of Gwadar port (that it is developing in Pakistan) may also give a foothold to Americans as the two countries now share a logistics exchange agreement.
PM Modi’s outreach to countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Qatar and Afghanistan has further raised the eyebrows of the Chinese. It is concerned over the impact of India’s new aggressive diplomacy over its client state Pakistan.
Should India retaliate against China?
India’s attempt to get entry into NSG may have failed this time but this is not end of the road for New Delhi.
As the Americans have pointed out, the process has begun and India may get the membership by end of this year. The American official pointed out that even in the case of India’s MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) application, the members deliberated upon it for nearly a year and then arrived at a conclusion.
There have been suggestions that India should curtail trade opportunities for Chinese as a retaliatory measure but there is no unanimity among experts on that.
“This will be very immature. In international diplomacy, ups and downs are part and parcel of the game. Even Chinese have faced similar situations. There is no need for any knee-jerk reactions,” former diplomat TCA Rangachari pointed out.
Ambassador Rangachari is not the only one who advises against any knee-jerk reaction from India. Former diplomat Kishan S. Rana agrees with him.
“ It’s true that China is opposing India’s NSG bid and wants to support Pakistan on this issue. But we have to take every call with a cool mind,” Ambassador Kishan S. Rana said.
On their part, both India and China look to keep each other engaged both bilaterally as well as on multilateral platforms.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be travelling to Hangchou in September to attend G20 summit while Chinese President Xi Jinping is coming to India in October to attend BRICS summit.
That India will be finally included in the NSG club is almost certain but whether Chinese will fall in line easily or will delay India’s entry for a longer duration remains to be seen.
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.