After the fall of Tipu Sultan (1799), the East India Company government restored the Mysore kingdom to the Wodeyar dynasty. It decided to pay a stipend to Tipu’s sons and intern them in two palaces, Hyder Mahal and Tipu Mahal, specially constructed for them in the Vellore Fort. Along with the family of Tipu Sultan, about 3,000 Mysoreans settled in Pettai, a habitat around the fort. For about five years there was calm. Then suddenly erupted an armed insurgency in the Fort.
The English garrison of Vellore at the time of the uprising consisted of four companies of His Majesty’s 69th Regiment, six companies of the 1st Battalion of the 1st Regiment of Native Infantry, and the 2nd Battalion of the 23rd Regiment.
The Europeans were about 370 in number, the natives 1,700. Colonel John Fancourt was the garrison’s commandant. The 1st Battalion of the 1st Regiment comprised Mysore Muslims, many of whom had been in the service of Tipu.
Its Commandant was Lt. Colonel Nathaniel Forbes. The 23rd Regiment had been raised in the district of Tirunelveli and contained in its ranks a number of followers of the Palayakkarars of southern Tamil Nadu. John McKerras commanded this regiment.
Controversial Rules
Soon after Sir John Cradock assumed office as the new Commander-in-Chief of the Madras Army (1805), he obtained the Governor’s permission to codify the regulations of the military department. The newly compiled code of military regulations and dress, notified to the Army by the Commander-in-Chief on March 13, 1806, insisted that an Indian soldier should not denote his caste on his forehead or wear earrings when dressed in his uniform and should have his chin clean-shaven at all parades.
This caused resentment in the Indian infantry as it was viewed as an attempt to coerce natives into Christianity. The most offensive part, from the Indian perspective, was the leather cockade in the new turban. Usually the turban was made of an iron frame and blue braid cloth and a plume, or cotton tuft. This time the cockade was made of animal skin. Pig’s skin was anathema to Muslims, while upper-caste Hindus shunned anything to do with cowhide.
First Protest
The first incident of protest occurred in May. The men in the 2nd Battalion of the 4th Regiment at Vellore refused to wear the new turban. On the evening of May 6, the Adjutant reported that the men refused to put on their side arms. The following day, the commandant Lt.-Col. Darley paraded the corps.
When the men were about to be dispersed, someone from the sepoy crowd jeered “dhoot, dhoot”, meaning “get lost”. The matter was reported to the Commander-in-Chief, who ordered that the ringleaders be arrested and sent to Madras for trial.
The court martial, after investigations, tried 21 privates (10 Muslims and 11 Hindus) for defiance. Governor William Bentinck communicated the result of the trial to the Adjutant General for action.
Two soldiers, Sheik Abdul Rymen and Anantaraman, refused to apologise and hence were sentenced to receive 900 lashes each and were discharged from service. The remaining 19, who complied with the orders of the court and apologised, were sentenced to 500 lashes each but pardoned. The Company government heaved a sigh of relief that a great disaster had been averted. But in two months a major uprising broke out in Vellore Fort.
At 2 a.m. in the morning on July 10, the guns boomed in Vellore Fort. Col. Fancourt, alerted by the firing at the main guard, which was close to his house, rushed out in his dressing gown. He was shot on his own doorstep and died a few hours later.
The second victim was Lt.-Col. Kerras, the Commanding Officer of the 23rd Regiment. Sergeant John Eley of the 69th regiment, who was wounded and had a handkerchief tied round his head, was brought from the ramparts. He begged the sepoys for mercy. But he was chased into the guard room and slain.
Major Armstrong of the 16th Native Infantry was outside the Fort when he heard the sound of firing. He alighted from the palanquin he was travelling in, advanced to the glacis and asked what the firing meant. He was answered by a volley from the ramparts, which killed him instantly.
Scores of native soldiers surrounded the barracks, stormed the houses of the Europeans and put to death, with unsparing ferocity, all those they could locate. Totally 15 European officers and 119 European soldiers were killed on that day. The victorious Indian soldiers then hoisted the Mysore Sultan’s Tiger standard in the Fort.
A Jamedar on the late evening of July 9 in a drunken mood disclosed the plan of revolt, and as a consequence the sepoys were constrained to launch the revolt that day itself. Therefore, the information of the revolt did not reach Pettai. Contrary to expectation, armed forces from Kunrathur and Arcot also did not arrive to join the rebels.
Adjutant Ewing, who could slip out of the Fort, managed to assemble several Europeans and join Col. Nathaniel Forbes, who lived outside the Fort. Accompanied by a number of unarmed men belonging to the 1st Battalion of the 1st Regiment, these two officers took possession of the hill fort and waited there until British authority was re-established in the main Fort.
The native troops made the tactical blunder of not checking how many European privates were hiding in the fort and how many had left it and rallied under their surviving masters. As a result, Sergeant Jones of the 1st Regiment and Sergeant Dean of the 23rd Regiment could collect all those who survived the firing of native troops and succeeded in bringing them under their control.
Suppression of revolt
The Indian troops remained unchallenged until Colonel Gillespie, stationed at Arcot, 25 kilometres away, arrived at 9 a.m. with a squadron of the 19th Dragoons and the 7th Madras Cavalry. The Dragoons, supported by the Madras Cavalry, then charged into the Fort and wreaked vengeance on the mutineers.
Hundreds of fleeing soldiers were caught and butchered, while many were taken prisoner in different parts of the country within the next few days. There is no consensus among historians on the death toll. However, W.J. Wilson’s number of 879 out of 1,700 in the Fort is acceptable.
General Harcourt’s official figures tell us the number of prisoners. There were 466 prisoners in Vellore, while 321 were still at large. Apart from these 787 prisoners, there were also persons kept in confinement in different parts of the country.
Court of Inquiry
Immediately after the suppression of the rebellion, Colonel Gillespie constituted a court of inquiry, presided over by Lt.-Col. Kennedy of His Majesty’s 19th Dragoons. However, a Special Commission was appointed by the Company government on July 12, 1806, with Major General Pater as President.
Many officials, realising that the safety of the Empire depended on the bonding between the native troops and their British officers, pressed for admonition and not “barbarous punishment”. General pardon was given to 516 mutineers, who were allowed to continue in service without any restraint. At the same time, on the basis of depositions before the court of inquiry, the Native General Court Martial awarded death punishment and banishment to select individuals.
Even before the commission of inquiry presented its findings, the Mysore princes were ordered to be sent to Calcutta. Moiz-Ud-Din, against whom there was still suspicion, was kept for some time in confinement but was eventually liberated.
Eight of the retainers of the Mysore princes were tried before a Special Commission at Chittoor in April 1807, and the proceedings were confirmed by the government in May. One was sentenced to death, two to transportation for life, one to imprisonment for life, one to imprisonment for 10 years, and three were acquitted.
The officers and men engaged in the suppression of the mutiny were thanked for their services. Sergeant Brady of the 69th Regiment was promoted as Conductor of Ordnance, Colonel Gillespie was presented 7,000 pagodas (Rs. 24,500), and Sergeant Brady 800 pagodas (Rs.2,800) in acknowledgement of their services.
The native cavalry detachment that consisted of 107 men of the 7th Regiment under Captain Doveton, and of 305 men drawn from all ranks of the other seven regiments, under Captain Mason of the 5th Regiment, was rewarded with enhanced pay.
Finding Scapegoats
The Special Commission presided over by J. Pater, which commenced its inquiry on July 21, presented its findings to the government on August 9. According to the commission, the decisive factor for the revolt was the residence of Tipu’s family at Vellore. The confessional statements extorted from the sepoys were mostly on a promise of pardon or enticement. As a result, many of them turned approver.
The higher tribunals of the Home Government held the Governor of Madras, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Adjutant General responsible for the bungling and ordered their recall. The Adjutant General P.A. Agnew was subsequently restored to his post. The Deputy Adjutant General Major Pierce was made a scapegoat and ordered to return to England.
The obnoxious regulations to which the soldiers objected were withdrawn. A government order issued on July 17, and reissued on September 24, prohibited all unauthorised alterations in dress and interference with the native soldiers’ national customs.
It was further directed that the turban sanctioned by the government on March 15, 1797, should continue to be the pattern for the army. The new regulation about the turban was repealed on September 24, 1806. The government dissolved the 1st and 23rd Regiments from December 31, 1806, and in their places stationed two regiments of two battalions each, numbered the 24th and the 25th Regiments.
Causes of the Revolt
The military historian John William Kaye and the historian S.S. Furnell attributed the trouble to the estranged relationship between European and native officers, caused by the racial arrogance of the former and their lack of acquaintance with native languages.
The refusal of the erstwhile Palayakkarars and rajas to reconcile themselves to Company rule, French instigation stoking their hopes of regaining their regimes, and the contact of Fateh Ali, Tipu’s nephew, with the Marathas and the French in Pondicherry were thought to be contributory factors by the historian Dodwell.
Some military officials attributed the mutiny to the activity of Christian missionaries. According to historians James Mill and H.H. Wilson, the interference of the government in matters of religious faith was disastrous. The role of Fakirs in inciting the people and the army against the government was emphasised by Furnell.
The exploitative land revenue policy of the British resulting in successive droughts, and increasing incidence of poverty, the loss of power and authority suffered by south Indian potentates, and the Palayakkarars, who were looking for an opportunity to be rid of the British, and the apprehension of the Indian armed personnel that the controversial military regulations, dress and hat were aimed at forcing them into Christianity were the factors that contributed to the outbreak of the revolt.
United action
Sinking their regional, religious, linguistic and caste differences, Indian soldiers decided to rally behind Tipu’s family to forge a united front against the common adversary, the British. Albeit confined to cantonments, in its origin and in terms of causes, the 1806 Vellore Revolt is certainly a forerunner to the more widespread Great Rebellion of 1857.
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.