Things are only going downhill... India’s worst recession is here

From March through May, around 1 crore migrant workers fled India’s megacities, afraid to be unemployed, hungry and far from family during the world’s biggest anti-Covid-19 lockdown.

Now, as Asia’s third-largest economy slowly reopens, the effects of that massive relocation are rippling across the country. Urban industries don’t have enough workers to get back to capacity, and rural states worry that without the flow of remittances from the city, already poor families will be even worse off -- and a bigger strain on state coffers.

Meanwhile, migrant workers aren’t expected to return to the cities as long as the virus is spreading and work is uncertain. States are rolling out stimulus programs, but India’s economy is hurtling for its first contraction in more than 40 years, and without enough jobs, a volatile political climate gets more so.

“This will be a huge economic shock, especially for households of short-term, cyclical migrants, who tend to come from vulnerable, poor and low-caste and tribal backgrounds,” said Varun Aggarwal, a founder of India Migration Now, a research and advocacy group based in Mumbai.

In the first 15 days of India’s lockdown, domestic remittances dropped by 90%, according to Rishi Gupta, chief executive officer of Mumbai-based Fino Paytech Ltd., which operates the country’s biggest payments bank.

By the end of May, remittances were back to around 1750 rupees ($23), about half the pre-Covid average. Gupta’s not sure how soon it’ll fully recover. “Migrants are in no hurry to come back,” Gupta said. “They’re saying that they’re not thinking of going back at all.”

If workers stay in their home states long term, policymakers will have more than remittances to worry about. If consumption falls and the new surplus of labor drives wages down, Agarwal said, “there will also be a second-order shock to the local economy. Overall, not looking good.”

India announced a $277 billion stimulus package in May and followed it up with a $7 billion program aimed at creating jobs for 125 days for migrants in villages across 116 districts. Separately, local authorities are also looking for solutions.

Officials in Bihar have identified 2,500 acres of land that could be made available to investors, said Sushil Modi, deputy chief minister of Bihar, a state in east India. “We can use this crisis as an opportunity to speed up reforms,” he said.

The investors haven’t materialised yet, and in the meanwhile, state governments are relying on the national cash-for-work program that guarantees 100 days worth of wages per household.

Skilled workers don’t want to do manual labor offered through the program, and even if they did, says Amitabh Kundu of RIS, many think of it as beneath their station. “There will be an increase in social tensions,” he predicts. “Caste may again start playing a role. It’s absolute chaos.”

For skilled workers, initiatives vary:

* Uttar Pradesh, which received 3.2 million people, is compiling lists of skilled workers who need employment and trying to place them with local manufacturing and real estate industry associations. So far, the government says, it’s placed 300,000 people with construction and real estate firms.

* Bihar has placed returners in state-run infrastructure projects and hired others to stitch uniforms and make furniture for government-run schools, even as they waited in quarantine centres, said Pratyay Amrit, head of the state’s disaster management department.

* The eastern state of Odisha announced an urban wage employment program aimed at putting as many as 450,000 day labourers to work through September. Some 25,000 people have been employed, so far, under the scheme, G. Mathivathanan, principal secretary for housing and urban development said.

Attracting Investments

It’s not clear any of this will be enough to make a dent, says Ravi Srivastava, professor at New Delhi-based Institute of Human Development, adding that the states don’t have much of a track record on economic development.

“It was the failure of these states to improve governance and put development plans in place that led to the out-migration in the first place,” he said.

But officials and workers’ rights advocates see opportunity. Uttar Pradesh has established liaisons to encourage companies from the US, Japan and South Korea to establish manufacturing in the state. There and in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the government has made labour laws more friendly to employers, making it easier to hire and fire workers.

Modi, the minister from Bihar, said the migration may also give workers--historically a disenfranchised group--new power, particularly as urban centres struggle. “The way industries treated workers during the lockdown -- didn’t pay them, the living conditions were poor -- now these industries will realize the value of this force,” Modi said.

“In the days to come, labour will emerge as a force that can’t be ignored anymore,” he added. “That’s the new normal. We will work out how to ensure dignity, rights to our people who are going to work in other states.”

Bihar is due for elections by November, a vote that could be an early test of the mass migration’s political consequences. The state is currently governed by a coalition that includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Amitabh Kundu, a fellow at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries, a New Delhi-based government think-tank, said migrant workers are likely to be angry voters.

“Chief ministers are telling these migrants that they will not have to go back for work,” he said. “But their capacity to do something miraculous in the next four to five months is doubtful. If they can retain even one-fourth of the migrants, I would call it a success.”

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.