1. Unemployment in India: A Look at Conflicting Reports
Issue: Public confusion about the extent of unemployment due to conflicting reports and statements from government and private agencies.
India’s large unorganized sector (94% of workforce) poses data collection challenges compared to organized sector.
Four recent economic shocks (demonetization, GST, NBFC crisis, COVID-19) further complicate data collection.
Reasons for Discrepancies– Data Sources:
- KLEMS Data: Measures productivity, not employment. Relies on outdated data from PLFS and ASUSE surveys.
- ASUSE Survey: Covers organized and unorganized sectors but uses data from the 2011 Census and Urban Frame Survey (2012-17), leading to inaccuracies.
- PLFS: Official data source with broader definition of “employed” compared to CMIE (includes unpaid work).
- CMIE Data: Private data based on ILO definition, considers only income-generating work as employment.
Methodology:
- PLFS: Counts disguised unemployed and underemployed, leading to lower unemployment figures.
- CMIE: Focuses on active job seekers, reflecting true unemployment picture.
Consequences:
- Public confusion about the real unemployment situation.
- Government denial of the problem, delaying necessary policy interventions.
- Growing youth frustration due to lack of job opportunities.
Recommendations:
- Address data gaps: Conduct regular Census and Urban Frame Surveys.
- Standardize definitions of “employed” and “unemployed” across agencies.
- Acknowledge the problem and formulate policies to address unemployment.
Improve skill development and training programs for employability.
Conclusion:
The discrepancies in unemployment data highlight the need for robust data collection practices, standardized definitions, and acknowledging the issue to formulate effective employment generation policies.
2. The Critical Role of Family Planning in Women’s Health
Introduction
With India’s large and growing population, family planning is crucial for balancing resource allocation and promoting the well-being of families.
- Family planning empowers women and improves maternal and child health.
- Various contraceptive methods are available and accessible in India.
- Overcoming social stigma and promoting education are crucial for wider family planning adoption.
- Collaborative efforts are needed to ensure effective utilization of family planning services.
Benefits of Family Planning:
- Reduces unintended pregnancies and abortions.
- Allows couples to time pregnancies for optimal maternal and child health, especially avoiding teenage and late-maternity pregnancies.
- Prevents high-risk pregnancies associated with health complications.
- Improves maternal and child health outcomes by allowing for proper spacing between pregnancies.
- Empowers women by giving them control over their reproductive choices.
- Contributes to better overall family health and well-being.
Government Initiatives:
- India has a long history of family planning programs offering various contraceptive methods.
- Increased accessibility of contraceptives through government hospitals, social marketing, and home delivery services.
- Focus on expanding services beyond target couples to all women and adolescents.
Challenges and Opportunities:
- Need to address the remaining unmet need for family planning services (around 9.5%).
- Importance of overcoming social stigma and promoting open communication about family planning.
Educating both women and men about reproductive rights and contraceptive options.
Conclusion
- Family planning services are essential for ensuring women’s health, reducing maternal mortality, and promoting a healthier society.
- Collaborative efforts by the government, NGOs, healthcare providers, and communities are necessary to make family planning services accessible, acceptable, and effectively utilized.
- By prioritizing reproductive rights and education, India can achieve a healthier future for its citizens.
3. The BNSS and Violation of Article 21
Issue: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) removes the 15-day limit on police custody, potentially violating an undertrial’s right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Comparison:
- CrPC: 15-day limit on police custody, judge oversees longer detentions.
- UAPA: 30-day limit on police custody, requires reasons for extension.
- BNSS: Up to 90 days in police custody, limited judicial oversight.
Arguments Against BNSS:
- Longer Police Custody: BNSS allows police custody for up to 90 days, compared to 15 days under the CrPC. This extended period increases the risk of custodial violence and torture.
- Violation of Article 21: The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to include protection from torture and the right to live with dignity. Long police custody undermines these rights.
- No Safeguards: Unlike UAPA (30 days max. Police custody), BNSS lacks safeguards like mandatory reasons for extended custody.
- Unfair Trial: Long detentions can harm an accused’s mental well-being and ability to defend themselves in court.
Conclusion:
The BNSS’s extended police custody provisions raise concerns about human rights violations and potentially conflict with Article 21. This legislation might be challenged in the Supreme Court.
