V.V. Giri Memorial Award 2009 was conferred by Shri Mallikarjun Kharge, Hon’ble Union Minister for Labour and Employment on Prof. Ravi S. Srivastava of the Jawaharlal Nehru University.  The Award has been instituted by V.V. Giri National Labour Institute, an autonomous body of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, as a mark of respect and remembrance to the invaluable contributions made by Late Shri V.V. Giri, the former President of India and a champion of labour movement. The Award which includes Rs. 1 lakh and a citation recognizes the excellence in labour research.  The theme for the V.V. Giri Memorial Award 2009 was research on labour migration.  Prof. Ravi Shankar Srivastava in his acceptance speech impressed that both governmental and non-governmental intervention needs to support migrant labourers and pro-poor development as vigorously as possible. This would not only influence the condition of migrants and the pattern of migration, but also the patterns of development, which underlie and sustain the migration. He said that Late Shri V V Giri, Bharat Ratna, and former President of India, was a great trade union leader and statesman. He stressed that despite the overall benefits of migration to households, and to the economy and society, there are large and asymmetric costs that are borne by the migrants and their families, which ultimately translate into costs for the economy and society as a whole.

Here is the text of Prof. Ravi S. Srivastava’s acceptance speech entitled Internal Labour Migration and Elements of Migration Policy for India:

Honourable Union Minister of Labour and Employment, Shri Mallikarjun Kharge ji, Dr. Mohini Giri, Former Chairperson, National Commission for Women, Secretary of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shri P. C. Chaturvedi, Director, National Labour Institute, Shri V. P. Yajurvedi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shri A. C. Pandey, friends from government, media, ILO, the academia, trade unions and other institutions and organisations present here today:

It is an honour for me that the V V Giri Memorial National Award, instituted by the National Labour Institute in 2008 has been conferred upon me, for my research in the area of labour migration. Late Shri V V Giri, Bharat Ratna, and former President of India, was a great trade union leader and statesman. He was also a doyen in the field of labour studies and a founder of the Indian Society of Labour Economics, a body with which I am associated. It is, therefore, doubly an honour for me that we meet here today to commemorate his memory and celebrate his birthday.

It is probably only a matter of coincidence that the first V V Giri Memorial Award was conferred upon Dr. K. P. Kannan, my former colleague in the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, and that the NLI has found it fit to confer this year’s award on me. But I would personally like to use this occasion to record my gratitude to Shri Arjun Sengupta, former Chairman of the National Commission for Enterprises in Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) and to my other colleagues in the Commission, who were able to work closely for some years, analysing the conditions of informal enterprises and workers, and making appropriate policy recommendations to government. One of the labour segments that we focused upon were the seasonally migrant workers, whom we called disadvantaged workers, and around whom we dovetailed our recommendations on social security and conditions of work.

I do not need to belabour the fact that population mobility is as old as human history but that it takes many forms and has many causes. The discourse on modern economic transformation is also deeply intertwined with changes in the employment structure which envisage the movement of workers from agriculture to industry and from rural areas to urban areas. Uneven development under capitalism further ensures that workers may continue to move from one region to another in order to maintain or improve their economic conditions. Thus labour migration and economic development are closely related.

Building upon Amartya Sen’s framework of capabilities and functionings and quoting Martha Nussbaum (2000), the UNDP Human Development Report, 2009,  argues that “mobility is one of the basic actions that individuals can choose to take in order realise their life plans. In other words, the ability to move is a dimension of freedom that is part of development.” (ibid. P. 15). The Report clarifies that it is concerned not so much with movement itself as with the freedom of choice to move that individuals may be able to exercise. The HDR report comes to three important conclusions: that migration, by and large, benefits both individuals and societies; that it could, however, involve sharp trade-offs for individuals; and that public policies have an important role to play in reducing costs and maximizing benefits from migration.

Two other broad conclusions can perhaps be inferred both from the evidence in the Human Development report and from a large number of other studies on migration. First, that the trade-offs that individuals face during migration depend greatly on their initial social and economic endowments. Second, that the benefits from migration are strongly interrelated with the strategy of development pursued by governments. During the course of my speech today, I will be able to discuss the first of these issues briefly, and not the second, which, however, is also critical in influencing the overall outcomes from migration.

I became personally interested in labour migration during the course of village fieldwork which I carried out in the state of Uttar Pradesh more than three decades ago. These were my initial forays into field-based research. It is common in my profession to begin with listing the households and household members in the study village. But it soon became obvious to me that preparing such a list required some reflection. A sizeable proportion of households had family members who had migrated to urban areas, but who co-owned land and property, and continued to take an active interest in the decisions of the joint family. Then there were family members who had outmigrated but returned for part of the year and who again actively participated in the decisions of the household. Standard research methodologies would not consider these individuals as being members of the households but that I felt could be erroneous. Finally, I came across a series of houses which were locked during my visit and whose household members could not be directly enumerated. These were houses of poor landless labourers, usually from the scheduled castes, who had migrated with their families to work in brick kilns in other states or districts and who would return during the rainy season. During subsequent visits, I was able to interview the seasonally migrant workers and found that the reasons for their outmigration were a complex interplay of the social and the economic. In the migration literature, the first two categories of migrant workers could be described as permanent or semi-permanent migrants in as much as they had found some niche in urban areas. But since they had not fully disentangled themselves from their rural habitat, they could also be treated as circulatory labour. The third category migrants were seasonal migrants, or short duration circulatory migrants, whose only stable niche continued to be in the areas of origin. It was clear to me that there were clear-cut hierarchies of migration. The seasonally migrant were generally poor and landless and belonged to the lowest castes. The permanent migrants were generally from the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum.

At a later stage of my research, I subjected the macro-data on internal migration, available from the Census and the National Sample Surveys, to detailed analysis (Srivastava 1988, Srivastava and Bhattacharya 2002, Srivastava and Sasikumar 2005). The census and NSS report data on population mobility and not worker mobility and the trends on the latter have to be disentangled carefully. I will dwell a more on the recent trends in worker mobility as revealed by the Census and the NSS a little later. But one important finding that emerged from this analysis is that both due to the conceptual framework adopted in these surveys, and due to empirical difficulties, the Census and the NSS mainly identify permanent or semi-permanent migration but fail to capture seasonal migration, the magnitude of which is both large and growing (Srivastava and Sasikumar 2005, Srivastava 2005).

Let me first briefly dwell on what the migration data tell us. According to place of residence definition, about 31.4 crore persons or 32 percent of the Indian population could be described as migrant in 2001. However, the bulk of the migrants are women who migrate out of their villages due to exogamous marriages. Both the census (2001) and the NSS (2007-08) show that migration rates have increased but inter-censal migration rates have declined. At the same time, however, migration for employment reasons has gone up, and urban-ward migration (both urban-urban and rural-urban) has also increased. Among urban migrants, the proportion of the regular employed and the self-employed have gone up while that of the casually employed has gone down. There are also a higher percentage of migrants in the higher consumption classes. Overall it seems that the migration, registered by the Census and the NSS, is more biased towards the urban areas and the better-off, which is consistent with the availability of greater employment opportunities in urban agglomerations thrown up under globalisation (Srivastava and Bhattacharya 2002, Srivastava 2005).

Our results do not show an overall decline in urban migration rates. This is a point made by my colleague, Amitabh Kundu (Kundu 2009). However his other results (Kundu and Sarangi 2007) also confirm our earlier conclusions, that as per the official migration data, the better-off have a greater propensity to migrate.

At the other end, both the Census and the NSS continue to suggest a decline in short period migration. The Census captures this through data on less than one year old migrants, while the NSS also collects data directly on people outmigrating for employment for more than two months. In 1999-00, short duration outmigrants were 2.1 percent of the rural employed persons and 1.3 percent of the urban employed, adding up to about 11 million workers. The decline in short duration migration rates, taken with the changing composition of the urban migrants is suggestive of another conclusion made by Kundu (2010) – that the cities are becoming more hostile to the rural migrant. This conclusion appears to be correct in as much as the rural migrant is finding it less possible to find a niche in the urban areas, both because of entry barriers as also barriers to formal markets and self-employment. The result, in my view, is not less migration but more circulatory and seasonal migration to cater to the accumulation needs of high urban growth.

Unfortunately, there is no hard data to establish increase in seasonal and circulatory migration, but this is borne out by a number of detailed empirical studies which show both a high incidence of such migration as well as its growth. In migration endemic rural areas of Central and tribal regions, Andhra Pradesh, North Bihar, Eastern Uttar Pradesh etc. the incidence of families with at least one outmigrant ranges from 30 percent to 70 percent. An industry or sector-wise picture also reveals a very high incidence of seasonal and circulatory migration in many industries/sectors. Seasonally migratory labour is concentrated in a large number of industries but the largest sectors are agriculture, construction, brick kilns, textiles, mines and quarries, large-scale and plantation agriculture, sericulture, headloaders and coolies, rice mills and other agro-processing, salt pans, rickshaws and other types of land transportation, leather manufacture, diamond cutting and polishing and other unorganised industries which have a seasonal nature, while circulatory labour is concentrated in many other industries including textiles, manufacturing, domestic and other support services. Our rough estimates show that about 30 to 35 million labourers – almost half the number of casual labourers outside agriculture and 10 percent of agricultural labourers could be seasonal migrants. A similar or higher number of circulatory migrants work as disguised self-employed in the informal sector or as informal regular workers on piece rates or wages. These workers could migrate as families (in which case, men, women and children all work) or as single male, female or child migrants.

There are gradation of issues that face migrant labour and they are the most severe for both seasonal and short term circulatory migrants In the rest of this lecture, I wish to focus mainly on the seasonal migrants only for purposes of empirical and analytical clarity and also because these migrants are severely undercounted in data and are invisible in policy discourses.

Regarding the causes of migration, the National Commission on Rural Labour (NCRL 1991), focusing on seasonal migration, concluded that uneven development was the main cause of seasonal migration.  Mobility occurs when workers in source areas lack suitable options for employment/livelihood, and there is some expectation of improvement in circumstances through migration.  At one end of the migration spectrum workers could be locked into a debt-migration cycle through some form of labour bondage, where earnings from migration are used to repay debts incurred at home or in the destination areas, thereby cementing the migration cycle and resulting in conditions of neo-bondage (Srivastava 2005, 2009). At the other end, however, migration could be largely voluntary, although shaped by limited choices.

Migration decisions are influenced by both individual and household characteristics, as well as the social matrix, which is best captured in social-anthropological studies. Factors such as age, education level, wealth, land ownership, productivity and job opportunities influence the participation of individuals and households in migration, as do social attitudes and the presence of supporting social networks.

In many sectors, the preference by employers for migrant labour arises not because of local shortages, but because migrant labour is easy to discipline and less expensive. Renjse Teerink, a student of Prof. Jan Breman had first reported parallel circuits of migration, with the same regions in Maharashtra and Gujarat, importing as well as exporting labour to the same sector (sugarcane farms). Subsequently, this situation has been observed by me in a number of other contexts. Not surprisingly, labour market segmentation goes hand in hand with the deployment of migrant labour in such situations.

It is important to acknowledge that in most cases, as a result of migration, migrants are either able to maintain subsistence, even if under very adverse conditions, or even to improve their living somewhat. Moreover, migration has several other negative as well as positive consequences for migration and their families. Some of these are well known but it is important to reiterate these in order to focus on the key policy issues.

Working and living conditions of seasonally migrant labourers are seriously inadequate. Wages, working hours, safety standards do not conform to any minimum norm and where advances have been given, there is no notion of a standard wage. Migrant labourers, whether in agricultural or non-agricultural activities, in rural or urban areas, usually live in deplorable conditions with inadequate provision of drinking water and basic services. Seasonal migrant labourers live in open spaces or makeshift shelters in spite of the Contract Labour Act in force. Apart from seasonal workers, workers who migrate to the cities in search of work live in parks and on the pavement, in squatter settlements or slums.

The poorer migrant workers are not able to access their entitlements in source areas as well as the destination areas. As labour migrants are not registered and have no access to PDS and temporary ration cards, they have to spend more on food and other living necessities.

            Health of workers and their families is a major casualty. Obliged to work and alive in harsh and unhygienic conditions, migrant labourers are particularly vulnerable to diseases, occupational health hazards, and accidents. Yet, because of their temporary status, if they are registered at all, they cannot access various health and family care programmes. Having no one to look after their children, migrant families often take their children with them to their workplace. Because of their poor and unhygienic living conditions, and exposure to dust at the work site, children suffer from various health problems.

            Moreover, children of migrant workers or migrant child labourers have little opportunity to obtain an education either in their original place of residence or where their parents work. In the case of male migration, the absence of male supervision can reduce the chances of children acquiring an education. Where women migrate together with the male members of their households, it is common for younger siblings and older children to accompany their parents and to work alongside them, drastically reducing their chances of getting any formal education (Srivastava and Dasgupta 2010).

Where men migrate alone, the impact on the family unit and on women, children and the elderly left behind can be quite significant. Family migration also usually implies the migration of the younger members of the family and leaving the elderly behind, who then have to cope with additional responsibilities, while at the same time fend for their subsistence and other basic requirements.          

The absence of men adds to material and psychological insecurity of women, causing pressures and requiring negotiations with the extended family members. On the other hand, male migration has also been seen to influence the direct participation of women in the economy as workers and decision-makers and increased the degree of their interaction with the world beyond the family and kin. But given the patriarchal tradition, women may have to cope with a number of problems that are further exacerbated by the uncertainty of the timing and size of remittances on which the precarious household economy ultimately depends. This, in turn, pushes women and children from poor labouring households to participate in the labour market under adverse conditions. Thus, the impact of migration on women can be twofold, but the strong influence of patriarchy restricts the scope of women’s autonomy. The impact of male migration can be especially adverse for girls, who often have to bear the additional domestic responsibilities and take care of younger siblings.

Exposure to a different environment and the resulting emotional stress, affect the attitudes, habits and awareness levels of migrant workers, depending on the duration of migration and the destination. Such changes are more dramatic in the case of urban migrants, in whom migration develops a greater awareness regarding the conditions of work, reduces personalized dependence, and inculcates a change in their attitude towards personalized labour relations (Srivastava 1999). Such modified life styles and changes in personal awareness may affect other family members in a variety of ways, some of them being positive. For instance, the increased awareness which migrants gain, especially in urban areas, can help them realize the importance of their children’s education.

What we wish to stress is that despite the overall benefits of migration to households, and to the economy and society, there are large and asymmetric costs that are borne by the migrants and their families, which ultimately translate into costs for the economy and society as a whole. The need to reduce the costs of migration for migrants and their families is probably easily understood but it also needs to be understood that the pattern of seasonal and circulatory migration in India is quite distinct from other countries, for example China. It is sustained by what one may call a “low route to capitalism” and it impedes a healthy productivity led growth of the economy. Further, the development policy discourse in India has not fully understood the extent to which the nature of migration in India impacts on the key developmental goals adopted by the country as well as the international community. Migration policy not only concerns the support to be given to migrants, but also the linkages between migration and development.

I have attempted to briefly suggest some elements of a possible migration policy, focused on the segment of migrant labourers, whom I have dealt with in this speech:

·         Pro-poor development in backward areas. A major set of policy initiatives has therefore to aim for a more vigorous pro-poor development strategy in the backward areas. These could take the form of land and water management through the watershed approach, public investment in the source areas, such as better irrigational facilities, improved infrastructure and the creation of non-farm employment where land is scarce. These strategies need to be accompanied by changes that improve the access for the poor to land, to common property resources, social and physical infrastructure, and to governance institutions. The latter set of changes will require strong organizational intervention by, and on behalf of, the poor. In the rain-fed areas, the Employment Guarantee Act, which proposes to dovetail employment with the need for the building of physical and social infrastructure, could have important implications for pro-poor development.

·         Employment and food security and credit based interventions. The MGNEGA not only provides employment in lean periods, it also has several important labour market impacts. The Act can reduce some of harsher and distress related features of migration but is unlikely to eliminate these altogether. Further steps can be taken to strengthen the position of the poor who resort to survival migration. This involves helping the poor overcome two major constraints they face, viz. food and credit. The poor’s access to food can be improved through the proposed Food Security Act and a more effective public distribution system. Organizing the poor into self-help or savings groups, which are specifically tailored to the requirements of migrants, could help increase the access to credit at comparatively low cost.

·         Ensuring basic entitlements in other schemes. A major policy focus has to be on ensuring that migrant households have citizenship rights in the destination areas, and are able to access basic facilities, benefits of public programmes, and social security schemes meant for poor households. All central government schemes should be designed to be fully portable and the central government should enter into agreement with state governments to ensure that their benefits continue to accrue to migrant workers and their families. The NCEUS had proposed a universal registration system and unique social security number for all workers. It had further built elements of portability into its proposed universal minimum social security package. The government’s proposed UID or registration system should be woven into the portability of its schemes.

·         Implementing RTE for migrant(s’) children. A special focus has to be to ensure access of migrant labourers’ children to schooling (and that they are not pushed into labour). The education of several hundred thousand children is affected by migration and bringing them into the educational mainstream will require innovative governmental and non-governmental support.

·         Improving the information base and bargaining strength of migrant workers. Being economically extremely vulnerable, poor migrant workers lack bargaining strength. Further, their sense of vulnerability and social isolation is exacerbated by their ignorance, illiteracy and the alien environment in which they have to work. In many parts of the country, NGO strategies as well as initiatives taken by governments have enabled migrants to form groups or unions and to negotiate directly with employers, ensuring a better deal for themselves.

·         Role of Panchayats. Panchayats should emerge as the focus of the resource pool for migrant workers residing in their area. They should maintain a register of migrant workers and issue identity cards and pass books to them. Further, it should be mandatory for recruiters to deposit with the Panchayats a list of the labourers recruited by them, along with other employment details. With growing IT-based communication it may become possible for Panchayats or NGOs to maintain a record of potential employers and employees.

·         Enforcement of labour laws and enactment of a comprehensive law. At the work places, stricter enforcement of existing labour laws is essential. The subjection of contractors and employers to the rule of law requires commitment on the part of the government for implementing the Inter-state Migrant Workmen’s Act. However past experience suggests that there is need for the closer scrutiny and simplification of some of these laws. The comprehensive Unorganized Sector Workers Act proposed by the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector sets a floor in terms of working condition and wages for all unorganised workers and covers many issues that are potentially beneficial to migrant workers. There should be a vigorous debate on the proposed Act and how it can meet the requirements of migrant workers as fully as possible.

Thus, the thrust of these suggestions is that both governmental and non-governmental intervention needs to support migrant labourers and pro-poor development as vigorously as possible. This would not only influence the condition of migrants and the pattern of migration, but also the patterns of development, which underlie and sustain the migration.

In conclusion, I would again like to thank the National Labour Institute for conferring this honour on me, and in drawing attention to a theme, which is of central importance if India is to achieve its development objectives.

*****

YSK / PM