Pranav Jeevan P | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/pranav-jeevan-p/ News Related to Human Rights Mon, 26 Aug 2024 05:40:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Pranav Jeevan P | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/pranav-jeevan-p/ 32 32 Workers who sowed a Seed: Story of IIT Bombay Workers’ Fight for Gratuity https://sabrangindia.in/workers-who-sowed-a-seed-story-of-iit-bombay-workers-fight-for-gratuity/ Mon, 26 Aug 2024 05:40:07 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=37483 On December 31st, 2019, Raman Garase, along with Dadarao Ingale and Tanaji Lad, were verbally informed by IIT Bombay’s administration that as they have completed 60 years of age, from tomorrow onwards they should not come for work. After their retirement, the IIT administration refused to pay them the gratuity they had accrued over three […]

The post Workers who sowed a Seed: Story of IIT Bombay Workers’ Fight for Gratuity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
On December 31st, 2019, Raman Garase, along with Dadarao Ingale and Tanaji Lad, were verbally informed by IIT Bombay’s administration that as they have completed 60 years of age, from tomorrow onwards they should not come for work. After their retirement, the IIT administration refused to pay them the gratuity they had accrued over three decades of service. Resolute in their fight for justice, the trio approached the labour commission and successfully obtained rulings twice in their favour, which ordered IIT Bombay to make the payments. Yet, as the administration geared up to appeal these decisions in a higher court, Garase lost all hope. Tragically, on the night of May 1st, Raman Garase took his own life at his home near the IIT campus, where he had worked for 38 years. He died awaiting the receipt of Rs 4,28,805 in gratuity, funds he had intended to use to address several severe health issues, including paralysis, which had developed in the years following his retirement.

Raman Sukar Garase used to work as a Mali (gardener), providing skilled labour to Nursery, Estate Office, IIT Bombay. He was well known for his skills, knowledge of flora and fauna, perseverance and caring nature. For 38 years starting from 1981 till December he has nurtured thousands of trees and plants, shaping their growth with his incessant hard work. By nurturing these trees he has not just contributed to the life of IIT but also has given a breath of fresh air for the residents of Mumbai. In 1981, he was called for work, but a proper interview happened in 1982. Despite working for almost 4 decades, he was never made a permanent employee of the institute.

Dadarao Tanaji Ingale worked as a helper for work of a mason/plumber/carpenter from 1994 to 2019. A permanent employee working at the Estate Office, IIT Bombay, appointed him for the work. It was the IIT officials at the estate office that paid him salary in cash, with the salary slips having IIT Bombay’s name mentioned in them. Tanaji Babaji Lad used to work in the central area, Estate Office, IIT Bombay from 1999 to 2019. He was appointed by an engineer at IIT Bombay. All 3 of them were forced to retire on 31 December 2019, without any prior notice, citing that workers over 60 years of age cannot be employed.

Though they joined IIT in different periods of time, they were destined to be connected in the future. On numerous occasions they worked with each other throughout the period, which developed a certain kind of bond among them. On receiving the news of termination from service they were shocked and became partners in thinking about their uncertain future. The entire work life at IIT started flashing in front of them. The feeling of being cheated and robbed started engulfing them. Being aware of certain labour rights, they thought at least they should receive gratuity. Raman Garase was the most proactive among the three. On 3rd January 2020 he wrote the first letter to the administration demanding their rightful gratuity. It was the first time in the history of IIT Bombay that contract workers were claiming gratuity payment. Administrators who were blissfully ignorant of their duties and legal binding to follow the labour laws, never on their own have proceeded to disburse gratuity amount, nor any contractor (though working for more than 5 years) paid gratuity.

Gratuity is a retirement benefit in India governed by the Payment of Gratuity (PoG) Act, 1972, which mandates that all employees, whether permanent or contractual, are eligible for post-retirement gratuity if they have completed five years of continuous service. The employer must pay gratuity within 30 days of eligibility, with interest accruing on delayed payments. The principal employer is responsible for paying gratuity even for contractual workers hired through contractors. This legislation emphasizes the employer’s duty to acknowledge employees’ long-term contributions by providing financial benefits at the end of their service, underscoring gratuity as both a labour and human right essential for a dignified retirement.

On receiving no response from the IIT administration, workers approached the workers union Asanghatit Kantrati Kamgar Sanghatna (AKKS) for support. Union leaders intervened in the matter and asked the administration to implement the gratuity act for all the contract workers. The union which was formed in 2014 had the largest reach among the workers with around 700 workers being their members. On various issues before, APPSC had been working with the union and with the latest struggle for reinstating hostel 10 mess workers, the solidarity between the workers and students were thickened.

After not getting any positive response from the administration, the union approached the student organization, and together they started to push the administration to heed to workers’ demands. In February 2020, workers submitted the “Form I” to the administration demanding their gratuity. Despite persistent efforts by the workers, workers union and student organization to prompt action, the administration remained unresponsive and failed to provide the workers with their entitled benefits. Early months of 2020 were also the period of strong anti-CAA and anti-NRC protests in IIT Bombay, where various organizations coming together under the forum IIT Bombay for Justice also got involved in demanding gratuity for the contract workers.

Meanwhile, realizing from the non-response from administration and the overall malpractices that goes into the campus, workers also started to put together all the documents they had, that might be useful to claim gratuity. Various documents they collated contained a document dated 9th January 1986 clearly stating that Mr. Raman Garase was working for the last five years under D. C. Purohit, Horticulturist, Estate Office, IIT Bombay. The document also clarified that the relation of Mr. Raman Garase with IIT Bombay was that of employer and employee. Another document dated July 5th 1984 strengthened this argument further, where the Director of IIT Bombay of that time, Prof. A. K. De on his letterhead mentioned that Mr. Garase has been working for the last three and half years within the premises of IITB campus.

For many workers the relationship between IIT Bombay and workers was that of the immediate employer and the employee. However, with the introduction of contractorship between the workers and IIT Bombay, IIT Bombay became the principal employer bound by not only by the PoG act, 1972 but also by section 21(4) of The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA) which stipulates that if a contractor fails to pay wages within the prescribed period or makes a short payment, the principal employer is responsible for paying the full wages or the unpaid balance to the contract labour.

Even though the three workers fighting for their gratuity were contract workers, it was the officials and engineers of IIT Bombay who used to give them instructions about the work. They used to tell what work has to be done and where it has to be done. Even the decisions about their holidays and leaves were taken by IIT Bombay officials. Moreover, the IIT officials often asked them to do other work on the campus apart from the designated work, such as, Garase and others were asked to remove the ‘jhopda’ (‘illegal encroachments’) on campus. The contractor was responsible only for handing over the salary. During their decades long service, they have seen contractors change after a few years, but have continued working at the Estate office, IIT Bombay. Neither the contractor nor IIT Bombay have given them any terminal benefit or retirement compensation at the time of retirement.

IIT was already violating law by employing contract labourers to do work which should not be done by them. The CLRA, 1970 clearly states that if the work is perennial in nature (i.e., it is not seasonal or temporary but lasts throughout the year), it needs to be done by regular workers rather than contract labour. But in order to not pay the welfare benefits that need to be paid for permanent workers, they choose to keep employing contract labour.

The efforts to seek gratuity also got struck with the COVID lockdown where union, and student organizations were caught up in firefighting efforts as well as seeking rights for workers. The petitions written by the union and IIT Bombay for Justice till August did not receive any response from administration. In September 2020, IIT Bombay for Justice, again raised the issue of non-payment of gratuity to several retired workers who served the institute for decades.

For the first time, the administration gave a written response. They had admitted that the Deputy Registrar, Estate Office, IIT Bombay is the Principal Employer as per provisions of CLRA 1970 and Rules 1971, in an email dated 8th September 2020. This means that the Deputy Registrar, Estate Office, IIT Bombay is violating the law by having not paid gratuity to several of its workers, and specifically, to Raman Garase, Tanaji Lad, and Dadarao Ingale who submitted their “Form I” requesting their gratuity amounts in February 2020. They also mentioned that there is no precedence of providing the gratuity to contract workers so they had forwarded these demands to the legal team of IIT Bombay.

On not receiving anything from the legal team and as already 9 months had passed since the retirement of the workers, they went on to submit the “Form N” i.e. Application for direction before the Controlling Authority under the PoG Act, in September 2020. Controlling authority sought a response from IIT Bombay where the institute refused to pay the gratuity amount and chose to face the trial. In the labour court Akshay Sawant (an author of this series) along with the workers union secretary, represented the workers in labour court to argue their case. In the labour court, IIT Bombay contended that it did not have an employer-employee relationship with three workers, despite their continued employment over the decades under different contractors. The workers’ testimonies contradicted this, demonstrating that IIT Bombay consistently assigned tasks that extended beyond the scope of any current contractor’s responsibilities. This evidence challenged IIT Bombay’s assertion that no employer-employee relationship existed at any time with the institute.

Additionally, IIT Bombay had the audacity to argue that these workers were engaged for “short durations” and tasks related to “wear and tear,” such as “falling of branches of tree,” “nuisance made by cattle,” and “heavy rain.” However, the workers presented decades of pay slips, effectively disproving the institute’s claims and highlighting a serious disregard for labour laws. Tanaji Lad, in particular, demonstrated remarkable diligence by keeping immaculate records of his monthly pay slips over many years. In an era where even ‘prestigious’ institutions armed with elaborate and highly paid bureaucratic machinery,  like IITs, fail to maintain accurate records of their long-term employees, Tanaji Lad’s commitment to documentation stands out as an exemplary practice deserving of recognition. IIT was clearly trying to conceal the glaring facts with the malicious intent of denying what is rightful to the workers. There was also a deliberate attempt by IIT to delay the proceedings by keeping on asking for extensions, or not submitting the documents in the given stipulated period, making some lame excuses. The court proceeding took 2 years, with hearings happening almost once in a month, during the COVID pandemic. However, all the workers and their representatives were always present in the hearings despite their old age and health threats due to the pandemic.

On January 2022, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Controlling Authority under the PoG Act, 1972 passed an order concluding that the claim of workers is valid and further directed IIT Bombay to pay a sum of INR 4,28,805/- to Mr. Raman Garase, INR 2,35,170/- to Mr. Dadarao Ingle and INR 1,89,945 to Mr. Tanaji Lad. The order also stated that 10% simple interest is payable in addition to this from 31/12/2019 till the date of payment. It observes that the fundamental principle underlying gratuity is that it is a retirement benefit for long service as a provision for old age. Demands of social security and social justice made it necessary to provide for payment of gratuity. On the enactment of the PoG Act, 1972, a statutory liability was cast on the employer to pay gratuity. It added that the PoG Act is in the genre of statutes like the Minimum Wages Act, ESI etc. which lay down the relevant minimum benefits which must be afforded by employers to their workers. It also observed that the PoG Act, 1972, serves as a central law, and Section 14 clearly dictates that its provisions supersede any conflicting terms in other laws or agreements. It is evident that when the gratuity of an employee is governed by the Gratuity Act, this statute takes precedence over all other legislative or contractual provisions. It also observed that Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of their property unless authorized by law. Thus, the removal of a pension, gratuity, or leave encashment by the appellant without legal backing or merely on administrative grounds is fundamentally unjustifiable and cannot be supported.

The Controlling Authority noted that IIT Bombay is the Employer in case of worker’s gratuity claim as per definition of an “employer” as per Section 2(f) of the Act, emphasizing those with ultimate control over the establishment’s affairs. At the time of the applicant’s employment cessation due to age, IIT Bombay through its contractor was identified as the employer since it controlled the establishment’s operations. The PoG Act, 1972 says that an employee means any person. This “any person” is a broader term, which includes even a contract worker. The applicant was initially employed directly by IIT Bombay and subsequently through various contractors, working continuously for years. The Controlling Authority observed that given the absence of any formal appointment letter, it can be deduced that the workers were employed under implied terms of employment, thus qualifying as an employee under the PoG Act, 1972. The judgment also details evidence submitted by the workers, including wage slips and ESI identity cards, to support their claim of continuous service at IIT Bombay, and it critiques IIT Bombay’s lack of evidence to dispute the employment relationship. The judgment underscores that in social welfare cases, where precise records may not always be available, decisions should be based on the balance of probabilities to promote social justice.

The judgment concluded that evidence submitted by workers confirms that they completed decades of continuous service at IIT Bombay, until their retirement in December 2019, when they reached 60 years of age—the designated retirement age for IIT Bombay employees. This duration of service and the retirement circumstances were not contested by the institute. Notably, although contract labourers typically do not have a specified retirement age under the CLRA 1970, IIT Bombay retiring these workers upon reaching the retirement age applicable to IIT Bombay employees, also proved that they are employees of IIT Bombay.

The judgement discusses the importance of livelihood as an integral part of the right to life (Article 21), as recognized by the Indian Supreme Court. It argues that the PoG Act, 1972, and other social welfare legislations like the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, protect the welfare of contract workers by including them in the definition of “employee.” This inclusion ensures that contract workers are entitled to the same benefits as other employees, including gratuity.

One of IIT’s contention with demand for gratuity was that it will raise objections in audit by Comptroller and Auditor General because many other institutes were not giving gratuity. They would also have to justify why they did not give gratuity to all the workers who worked before 2019. They would also be at fault for not mentioning about gratuity in the contract tenders that were floated over the years.

While the case was going on in front of the Controlling Authority at the labour court, IIT officials stooped further low to start vilifying these three workers in order to break the unified strength of workers. They spread rumours among campus workers blaming these 3 workers who went to court, claiming that IIT was always ready to give gratuity to all workers but now due to the court case, it is getting delayed. IIT Bombay administration has a long history of doing propaganda to break the unity of workers and sowing seeds of discord. Towards the last phase of the hearing they also offered an outside court settlement on the condition that workers take back the case, and IIT will only pay for the period of 7 years from 2013 which is for the latest contractor. So, their plan was to pay workers from the contractor’s side and absolve themselves from paying the gratuity money for the previous years. Knowing the malicious plans of IIT administration workers remained resolute and continued to fight the case in the court. While on the other hand some officials also promised that they are in favour of workers’ rights and it is a justified demand that workers should get the gratuity amount. They promised that they will make sure workers get the gratuity amount once the order is passed.

However, once the order was passed, IIT Bombay never paid the gratuity. Instead, to further delay the payment of gratuity, they challenged the judgment of the Controlling Authority with the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, the Appellate Authority under PoG Act, 1972 in June 2022. The appeal by IIT Bombay lacked new arguments or fresh evidence, merely repeating points previously addressed by the Controlling Authority. The Institute again shamelessly claimed contract workers are hired temporarily for maintenance tasks, whereas the documentary evidence screams out loud proving otherwise. The whole appeal was a clear case of concealing the glaring facts with the malicious intent of denying what is rightful to the applicants. Workers sought help from advocate Sudha Bharadwaj, who argued again that they were under the direct supervision and control of IIT Bombay, which was responsible for giving work instructions, approving leave, and processing salaries, despite the contractors changing over time. The workers were involved in continuous service for IIT Bombay, often performing tasks beyond their initial job description, such as demolishing slums and clearing lake areas, activities that posed risks to their safety. The use of contractors was primarily a means for IIT Bombay to handle salary payments, serving as a way to circumvent the establishment of permanent employment relationships and avoid providing equal pay to the workers compared to permanent staff.

On August 4, 1999 a learned full bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case of Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd vs. Shramik Sena [1999 (83) FLR 74] has ruled that the contract workers working in the canteen of the factory would be the employees/workers of the Principal Employer for the purpose of Factories Act, 1948. The Honourable High Court of Madras, in the case of Dhakshinamurthy S vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Appellate Authority under PoG Act, 1972, Chennai & others (2003-I-LLJ-32), has ruled that “the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract labor”. In a recent case (Subramaniam S. Arjun and Ors vs ONGC), the Bombay High Court in 2023 ruled that ONGC, as the principal employer, was liable for the gratuity payments to the contract workers, even though they were employed through contractors. These decisions affirmed the workers’ right to gratuity despite the contractual nature of their employment and show that gratuity should be treated as wages, and the onus of payment falls upon the principal employer if the written contract does not ask the contractor to pay or the same worker has worked under different contractors who fail to pay gratuity even though the contract mentions the contractors to pay. This binds IIT Bombay as the principal employer to pay gratuity to the contract worker from the time they had started working for the Institute.

IIT Bombay kept proposing out-of-court settlement offers to these three workers, maximum offering compensation equalling 10 years of gratuity. However, the compensation was to be framed not as gratuity, but as a welfare contribution or donation, sourced from alumni and faculty. The workers declined these offers, standing firm in their demand for rightful wages, which they believe are due after decades of service. They recognized that accepting gratuity would set a legal precedent, potentially aiding thousands of other workers at IIT Bombay and even millions across the country in securing similar entitlements. This battle, they understand, extends beyond their individual circumstances and holds significant implications for the labour rights of millions of workers nationwide.

In August 2022, following a favourable ruling from the controlling authority in response to workers’ demands for gratuity, IIT Bombay established a committee to address the issue for all workers. The committee is composed of five faculty members, a retired labour commissioner, and three deputy registrars. IIT Bombay has agreed to pay gratuity to all contract workers for their employment since 2010, marking a significant victory after the year’s long struggle led by these three determined contract workers. Despite this progress, IIT Bombay remains adamant in its decision not to provide gratuity for work performed before 2010.

On 3rd April 2024, 4 years 3 months after the workers submitted their demand for gratuity, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the controlling Authority and deemed the appeal by IIT Bombay invalid, in a significant victory for workers. Raman had endured significant mental, physical, and financial hardships during this long legal battle, steadfastly refusing to give up. In contrast, for a large institution like IIT, the costs associated with this case likely represented a minor financial blip in its vast budget, one that probably went unnoticed by the institution and could have persisted for years without significant attention. This victory in the labour court brought no relief to the ailing Raman, as he learned that IIT Bombay was planning to appeal against this victory in the High Court. He knew that an appeal in one more court meant a tedious legal battle of at least another 3-4 more years.

He ended his struggle for justice by committing suicide on the night of May Day, which is observed internationally as Labour Day. Looking back, Raman may have regretted the respect he once had for this “prestigious” institution. When it came to acknowledging his fundamental rights, this “prestigious” institution not only ignored him but also used its influence and reputation to drive him to despair, which ultimately led to his demise, instead of honouring his basic rights—simply because it faced no consequences. Instead of recognizing the workers’ rights, IIT Bombay opted to spend substantial amounts on hiring expensive legal counsel, prioritizing legal fees over fair treatment of its workers.

Providing workers with their rightful compensation is not just a matter of legal compliance; IIT Bombay and the entire campus community hold a deep ethical responsibility toward these contract workers. These individuals have dedicated years of service to the institution, during which they have woven themselves into the fabric of campus life, building close social ties with students and faculty alike. Over time, they have become an integral part of our community. Despite this, there is a palpable sense of disenchantment among these workers. They are marginalized and overlooked, as their contributions are rendered invisible and their jobs are perpetually unstable. This series aims to highlight these issues, urging a reassessment of how the campus community values and recognizes the essential roles these workers play.

The ongoing injustice faced by contract workers at IITs reveals a disturbing disregard for labour rights within these prestigious institutions. Despite labour courts twice ruling in favour of the workers, mandating the payment of their rightful gratuity, the IITs have obstinately continued to appeal to higher courts, dragging out the process for years. This relentless legal battle, seemingly designed to exhaust and demoralize the workers, has led to tragic consequences, including the suicide of Raman Garase who fought tirelessly for justice. His death, a direct result of the institutions’ callousness, highlights the severity of this crisis. The IITs’ practice of employing contract workers for permanent tasks is not only illegal but also a flagrant abuse of power. Such exploitation diminishes the dignity of labour and denies workers their deserved respect, welfare, and wages. It is imperative that these institutions cease their exploitative practices, grant permanent status to the workers, and honour their fundamental rights. The IITs must be held accountable for their actions and must commit to creating a fair and humane working environment that truly reflects the values of justice and integrity they profess to uphold.

Raman Garase, Dadarao Ingale and Tanaji Lad with their tireless fight have done what Raman did the best throughout his life. They have planted a seed, a seed for incessant fight for justice, and demand to be treated rightful and dignified. It is up to us now how we nurture and grow this plant they have sowed.

The Authors are students at IIT Bombay and members of Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC).

 

Related:

Raman Garase’s suicide on May Day, 2024 is a sombre reminder of how badly IITs treat their labour

400 academics & activists express solidarity with fish workers’ protest against Adani International Seaport at Vizhinjam, Kerala

Death and Despair: Reflecting on Assam’s Tea Gardens and Its Workers

The post Workers who sowed a Seed: Story of IIT Bombay Workers’ Fight for Gratuity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
The Growing Divide: A Deep Dive into India’s Inequality Crisis https://sabrangindia.in/the-growing-divide-a-deep-dive-into-indias-inequality-crisis/ Tue, 28 May 2024 06:11:22 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=35689 Inequality in India is rising sharply, with the wealthiest individuals accumulating a significant portion of wealth through crony capitalism and inheritance. While the rich grow richer, the poor struggle to earn a minimum wage and access quality education and healthcare, which suffer from chronic underinvestment. Wealth concentration follows the caste hierarchy, with savarnas monopolizing wealth […]

The post The Growing Divide: A Deep Dive into India’s Inequality Crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Inequality in India is rising sharply, with the wealthiest individuals accumulating a significant portion of wealth through crony capitalism and inheritance. While the rich grow richer, the poor struggle to earn a minimum wage and access quality education and healthcare, which suffer from chronic underinvestment. Wealth concentration follows the caste hierarchy, with savarnas monopolizing wealth and Dalit Bahujan Adivasis being marginalized. Inherited wealth and caste privilege continue to shape power and influence, while historically marginalized communities face systemic exclusion and intergenerational poverty. This extreme inequality reinforces their oppression and precariousness.

On march 2024, the World Inequality Database released a report titled “Economic Inequality in India: The “Billionaire Raj” is now more Unequal than the British Colonial Raj” which comprehensively analysed wealth and income inequality in India from 1922 to 2022.

Among the 92 crore adults (aged 20 and above) in India, the average annual income in 2022-23 is Rs. 2.3 lakhs, which translates to less than Rs. 20,000 per month or Rs. 800 per day (assuming 25 working days per month). However, this average is misleading as most Indians earn significantly less. For instance, someone earning Rs. 24,000 per month earns more than 90% of the population, meaning that 82 crore adults earn less than Rs. 2.9 lakh per year.

The median annual income in 2022-23 is Rs. 1 lakh, meaning anyone earning more than Rs. 8,750 per month (Rs. 350 per day) earns more than the bottom 50% of the population, which consists of 46 crore people. For this bottom half, the average annual income is about Rs. 71,000, or less than Rs. 6,000 per month (Rs. 250 per day). The middle 40% of the population, about 36 crore people, have an average annual income of Rs. 1.6 lakhs, equating to Rs. 13,000 per month or Rs. 550 per day.

In contrast, income distribution in India is highly concentrated at the top. The top 10% (9 crore people) earn an average annual income of over Rs. 13 lakhs. The top 1% (90 lakh people) earn over Rs. 53 lakhs annually, and the top 0.1% (9 lakh people) earn over Rs. 2 crores. At the pinnacle, the top 0.01% (around 10,000 people) earn more than Rs. 10 crores annually, and the top 9,223 individuals earn an astounding average of Rs. 50 crores.

According to Forbes billionaire rankings, the number of Indians with a net wealth exceeding $1 billion (Rs. 8,300 crores) increased from just 1 in 1991 to 162 in 2022. Their total net wealth grew from less than 1% of India’s national income in 1991 to 25% in 2022, surpassing the entire Union budget of India. Among these ultra-wealthy individuals, savarnas are significantly overrepresented, making up 90% of the total. STs have no representation, OBCs own about 10% of the billionaire wealth, and SCs only a meagre 2.6%. Interestingly, during the Modi years (2014-2022), the OBC share in billionaire wealth fell below 10% from 20%, while the savarna share rose to 90% from 80%.

Inequality in India declined after independence until the early 1980s, but has been rising sharply since the early 2000s. In 2022-23, the top 1% of the population (just 1 crore people) controlled 22.6% of the national income and 40.1% of the national wealth. This extreme concentration of wealth and income among a tiny fraction of the population is likely the highest since 1922, surpassing even the inequality seen during British colonial rule. The report describes the present as an era of “Billionaire Raj,” dominated by India’s modern capitalists. India’s top 1%’s share of national income is among the highest in the world, exceeding that of South Africa, Brazil, China, the UK, and the US, making India one of the most unequal countries in the world. Meanwhile, 46 crore people, or 50% of the population, account for only 15% of the national income.

Now let us examine wealth inequality in detail. Physical assets like land and buildings constitute almost 90% of total household wealth. Since 1991, wealth concentration has increased, paralleling the trend in income inequality. The top 10% of the population saw their wealth share rise from 45% in 1961 to 65% in 2022-23. In contrast, the shares for the bottom 50% and the middle 40% have significantly declined over this period.

The top 1% of Indians have an average wealth of Rs. 5.4 crores, which is 40 times more than the average wealth of Indians (Rs. 13 lakhs). The bottom 50% have an average wealth of Rs. 1.7 lakhs, while the middle 40% have Rs. 10 lakhs. At the very top, about 10,000 of the wealthiest individuals own an average of Rs. 2,260 crores, accounting for 16% of national wealth, which is more than twice the wealth owned by the bottom 50 crore Indians.

To be in the top 50% of the population, one needs a wealth of Rs. 4 lakhs. To reach the top 10%, Rs. 22 lakhs is required, Rs. 81 lakhs for the top 1%, and Rs. 275 crores to be among the 10,000 wealthiest people (top 0.001%). The bottom 50% of the population holds just 6% of national wealth, while the top 1% owns 40%, more than five times that of the bottom half. Less than 1 crore people at the top own more wealth than the 85-crore people at the bottom. Furthermore, Forbes’ annual rich lists indicate that the net wealth of Indian billionaires has increased by over 280% between 2014 and 2022, a rate that is 10 times faster than the growth of the national income, which was 27.8% over the same period.

Savarnas, who make up just over 25% of the population, own nearly 55% of the national wealth, making them the only caste group whose wealth share exceeds their population share. In contrast, the wealth shares of SC and ST are less than half of their respective population shares. Other Backward Classes (OBCs) hold just under 35% of national wealth, which is about three-quarters of their population share.

Pai and Vats (2023) reveal that a very small segment of Indians dominate consumer transactions. Their data shows that only 1% of Indians (1 crore people) account for 45% of flights, 2.6% (4 crore people) invest in mutual funds, and 6.5% (5 crore users) handle 44% of digital transactions on the Unified Payment Interface (UPI). Additionally, 5% of users (29 lakh people) make a third of the orders on Zomato. The entire consumer and digital ecosystem are primarily designed to cater to the top 5% of the population.

The Indian government imposes minimal taxes on its wealthiest citizens and allocates very little funding to public healthcare, making it one of the lowest healthcare spenders globally. Instead of investing in a robust public health system, it has favoured the growth of a powerful private health sector. Consequently, quality healthcare has become a luxury accessible only to the elite. Despite being a leading destination for medical tourism, India’s poorest states suffer from infant mortality rates higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, India accounts for 17% of global maternal deaths and 21% of deaths among children under five years old.

Life expectancy at birth is significantly lower for the bottom 20% of households in India, at 65.1 years, compared to 72.7 years for the top 20%. Dalit women, on average, die 14.6 years earlier than savarna women. Tribal populations in India have a life expectancy approximately three years shorter than the non-tribal population, with 42% of tribal children suffering from malnutrition. Despite 75% of the population living in rural areas, only 31% of hospitals and 16% of hospital beds are located there. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, the lack of adequate public health infrastructure and the high cost of private healthcare are impoverishing over 5 crore Indians annually.

According to the Oxfam report 2023, India has the highest number of poor in the world, with 23 crore people living in poverty. Wealth inequality has deprived 70% of Indians of a healthy, consumable diet, leading to 17 lakh deaths annually from malnutrition-related diseases. Even the median wage earner, who earns more than the bottom 50% of the population, earns just enough for basic sustenance, and losing a week’s income could push them to starvation. Wages for the bottom tier have stagnated, and rising inflation has led to reduced consumption and eroded household savings. A 1% increase in food inflation can cause a 0.5% rise in undernourishment and a 0.3% rise in infant and child mortality rates. The bottom 25% of the population spend more than 53% of their income on food, making them highly vulnerable to acute malnutrition due to food inflation. This inflation forces them to cut back on essential expenses for health, education, clothing, and shelter.

Another major issue is the lack of quality education for the majority of the population, which is made deliberately expensive so that it will remain accessible only to the elites. According to the 2011 census, nearly 30% of Indians were still illiterate. In recent years, the government has cut funding for social justice schemes, such as scholarships for students from marginalized communities. Additionally, public universities across the country have seen massive fee hikes. Dropout rates among primary classes doubled in 2021-22. The dropout rate at the secondary level is 15.6% for the general category but significantly higher for marginalized communities: 22.5% for SCs, 26.9% for STs, and 20% for OBCs. The unavailability of schools within 5 km makes it difficult for girls to attend school, putting ten million girls at risk of dropping out. More than half of children between 14 and 17 years old are unable to access secondary education in India.

In India, the majority of workers are in the informal sector, lacking job security, fixed salaries, or legal protections. According to the NCRB, an average of 115 daily wage workers died by suicide each day in 2021. Inequality is further exacerbated by caste and gender, with marginalized castes earning 55% less than savarnas, and women earning only 63 paise for every rupee earned by men. Additionally, rural workers only earn half as much as their urban counterparts.

Official statistics reveal sluggish economic growth during the Modi years, with real year-on-year income growth rates declining from over 6% in 2015-2016 to 4.7% in 2017, 4.2% in 2018, and a dramatic drop to 1.6% in 2019. This downturn occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic, which further caused incomes to plummet by 9% in 2020. Unemployment rates, especially among youth (15-29 years), saw a significant rise from 2011-12 to 2017-18. Real wages across various sectors have stagnated over the past decade. Between 2014 and 2022, the primary beneficiaries of government economic policies have been the super-rich, particularly the top 1% and above. Wealth concentration at the top has significantly increased, making India’s recent economic system resemble a “conclave economy.” In such a system, decision-making and economic benefits are concentrated among a small, exclusive group of elites who wield disproportionate control and influence over economic policies, resources, and opportunities, often to the exclusion of the broader population.

Direct taxes, such as income tax and corporate tax, primarily target the rich (top 10%), while indirect taxes, such as Goods and Services Tax (GST), excise duties, and sales tax, affect everyone, including the bottom 90%. Income tax is progressive, taxing higher income earners more, whereas indirect taxes are regressive, impacting all individuals equally regardless of income. From 2017 to 2020, only 9% (8 crore) of Indians filed income tax returns, as only those in that bracket earned enough to pay income tax.

In 2019, before the pandemic, the Central Government reduced the corporate tax rate from 30% to 22%, with newly incorporated companies paying just 15%. This policy change resulted in a revenue loss of Rs. 1.8 lakh crore. Similarly, in 2020-21, the government lost over Rs. 1 lakh crore in revenue due to incentives and tax exemptions for corporations (an amount exceeding the budget for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)).

To offset these losses, the Union Government increased GST on essential goods and excise duties on diesel and petrol while reducing exemptions. This shift towards higher indirect taxes disproportionately burdens the most marginalized populations. Failing to tax wealthy individuals and corporations fairly exacerbates inequality, forcing the government to raise indirect taxes and cut spending on essential services like public health, education, and social security, which are crucial for reducing inequality.

Consumption taxes like VAT are regressive, as the poor pay a larger share of their income. The bottom 50% of the population pays six times more in indirect taxes, as a percentage of income, compared to the top 10%. Of the total taxes collected from food and non-food items, 64% comes from the bottom 50%. Nearly two-thirds of the total GST revenue comes from the bottom 50%, one-third from the middle 40%, and only 3% from the top 10%. More than 50% of the government’s tax revenue comes from indirect taxes, disproportionately affecting the poor.

The Indian income tax system is also regressive when considering net wealth. A restructuring of tax laws to account for both income and wealth, along with broad-based public investments in health, education, and nutrition, is essential.

Oxfam report shows that just taxing the 160 Indian billionaires can significantly fund essential programs. A 3% wealth tax on billionaires can fund the National Health Mission for 3 years, while a 2% tax on them can fund the Supplementary Nutrition Programme. A 5% tax on the top 10 billionaires can cover tribal healthcare costs for five years. Raising health expenditure to 3% of GDP is achievable by taxing just the top 100 billionaires at 2%. Taxing the wealthiest 100 billionaires at 2% would cover the cost of running Breakfast Scheme for nearly 3.5 years. A one-off tax on unrealized gains from 2017–2021 on just one billionaire, Gautam Adani, could have raised Rs. 1.79 lakh crore, enough to employ more than 50 lakh Indian primary school teachers for a year.

A new progressive tax regime was proposed which taxes only the ‘crorepatis’ and leaves 99.96% of the population untouched, thereby taxing only the very wealthy. These taxes kick in only for those with a net wealth exceeding ₹ 10 crore (only the top 0.04% of adults would fall above this threshold). The total wealth of this top 0.04% is 25% larger than India’s entire economy. In the baseline tax proposal, a 2% annual tax on net wealth over ₹10 crore and a 33% inheritance tax on estates over ₹10 crore would generate 2.73% of GDP in revenue. The moderate tax variant suggests increasing the wealth tax to 4% for wealth over ₹100 crore, alongside a 33% inheritance tax on estates between ₹10 crore and ₹100 crore, and 45% on those over ₹100 crore, yielding 4.6% of GDP. The ambitious tax variant proposes higher rates of 3%-5% for wealth tax and 45%-55% for inheritance tax, potentially generating 6.1% of GDP in revenue.

The revenue from the baseline variant could nearly double the current public education expenditure. The moderate variant could nearly double the combined health and education budget or more than triple health expenditure alone. The ambitious variant could double the combined health and education budget and still leave surplus funds.

Savarnas hold a significantly disproportionate share of national wealth, and Indian billionaires are largely a savarna club. A progressive wealth tax package of the kind proposed above is most likely to benefit Dalit Bahujan Adivasis and the middle classes at the detriment of only a tiny number of ultra-wealthy upper-caste families. In that respect, besides addressing extreme wealth inequality, such taxes could also play a small role in weakening the rigid link between social and economic inequalities in India.

The government should also reduce the GST slabs on essential commodities which the poor consume, and hike the taxes on luxury goods which the top 1% consumes. This will lead to revenue generation, which is progressive in nature and reduce the burden on the poor. The government spending on public healthcare and education needs to be much higher and proper worker protection measures should be implemented to protect the labour rights of the informal sector. The government should stop working for the greed of 1% and work for welfare of the 99%.

“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

 

The post The Growing Divide: A Deep Dive into India’s Inequality Crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Raman Garase’s suicide on May Day, 2024 is a sombre reminder of how badly IITs treat their labour https://sabrangindia.in/raman-garases-suicide-on-may-day-2024-is-a-sombre-reminder-of-how-badly-iits-treat-their-labour/ Fri, 17 May 2024 12:44:11 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=35447 This article is the first in a series examining the labour practices of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), with a specific focus on IIT Bombay. Renowned as premier educational institutions in India, IITs are held in high esteem by the public. However, these institutions are engaging in labour practices that violate existing laws and exploit contract workers.

The post Raman Garase’s suicide on May Day, 2024 is a sombre reminder of how badly IITs treat their labour appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
On May Day of 2024 —internationally recognised as the Labour Day, a day to honour workers and the international labour movement—Raman Garase, a former IIT Bombay worker, died by suicide. Raman Garase, along with Dadarao Ingale and Tanaji Lad, have been fighting an uphill battle with the mighty institute for their rightful post-retirement gratuity benefits. He had worked for the IIT for around 38 years. In his initial letter written to the IIT Bombay administration in January 2020, asking for the gratuity payment, Garase wrote in Marathi, “I have served the IIT for the whole of my life. In spite of that, when we completed 60 years of age, IIT discontinued our services without giving us anything to rely upon. I have worked for your institution with various contractors for 38 years. I request you to grant me the gratuity benefits as per the rules.” The IIT did not respond to his plea. Resolute in their pursuit of justice, Garase and others took their case to the labour court.

Over the period of next four years, the labour court ruled twice in favour of the workers, ordering IIT Bombay to disburse the gratuity payments. However, the IIT kept prolonging the legal battle. The prolonged legal battle meant the loss of crucial years of post-retirement life where the gratuity amount is supposed to be helpful to the workers in their old age, to ensure them a decent standard of life on their retirement. The administration’s apathetic behaviour stalled the distribution of gratuity amounts. Their highly paid registrars and lawyers (formed to look after gratuity matters) sat in their AC ivory towers, contemplating moving to the High Court and, if needed, to the Supreme Court against the rulings of the labour court.

Raman Garase had recently learnt that the IIT was again planning to appeal against the labour court ruling. Disheartened by the prolonged struggle and the dimming hope of ever receiving his gratuity of Rs 4,28,805, his death underscores the harsh realities many workers face in securing their rights and dignity not just in IITs, but across the nation. The tragic death of Raman Garase is a significant moment that demands an introspection on the condition of workers in IITs. In this series of articles, we attempt to initiate a discussion on the workers’ conditions, with the hope that it will be followed by more robust discussions and political interventions that change the current state of affairs.

IITs: The Savarna bastions in post-independence India

To begin with, we need to locate workers in the larger political economy of the IITs. The IITs are a set of 23 public institutions of higher education, with the original five founded between 1951-61 through bilateral cooperation of the Indian government and foreign governments. IITs, founded with the idea of constructing a new nation, were declared to be Institutions of National Importance. Located in various corners of the nation, they were gesturing to the postcolonial states’ zeal for both national integration and regional commitments. While placing IITs as institutes of national importance by constituting a particular act called The Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (hereafter IITs Act), they were exempted from applying the reservation policies that began for educational institutions in 1953.

It was this understanding from a top-down approach to science that, in contemporary times, many movements and leaders have criticised. It also suggests what nation it attempted to catered to by establishing special criteria at the foundation of creation. The IITs Act provided a shield away from the strong articulation and significant debates of the constitutional provisions achieved by long-time social and political movements of in contemporary times.

So much so, that with the impending pressure from various organisations based within IITs, like that of Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC) IIT Bombay and many other institutions, in 2019, a committee was formed under the chairmanship of IIT Delhi director to oversee the proper implementation of reservation (read affirmative action). Instead of devising a considered plan to implement reservation and evolve a clear plan of action for coming years during which they fill the backlog of seats denied for decades to the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates, the committee went on to demand exemption from reservation policy invoking IITs Act.

In many ways, the marginalisation of Dalits and Adivasis has been inscribed in the very foundation stone of IITs, which continues to bear its fruits even today and will continue to do so until a more robust restructuring does not take place. It is always the case with IITs that the administration has been constituted of what is known as the ‘general category’ (savarnas). Many chairmen of IITs, the Board of Governors, and council members come from the industrial sector and from among capitalist businessmen. The administration of IITs and members of various faculties came largely from among the savarnas as IITs “were exempt” from reservation. Students, too, largely belonged to the general category, with reservation norms still not followed to honour the constitutional mandate. Dalits and Adivasis were present only employed as grade C and grade D workers! Today, the majority of workers who are employed for manual labour on these campuses come from Dalit and Adivasi communities, while a majority of persons in the faculties and students are from among the savarnas.

“Casual” labourers in “Eminent” Institutions

All the IITs have been built on huge pieces of land, and they are well known for their lush green campuses. However, lesser-known facts are how the land was acquired for these campuses and how many persons and who got displaced. Many of the stories and struggles of Adivasis are buried under the rubric of IITs, where they were/are displaced from their land, cut off from their livelihood, and made to be dependent on the employment provided by IITs, mainly catering manual labour. Often, the IITs initially promised permanent employment and rehabilitation for their land. However, these promises were never kept and they often ended up as landless, manual labourers within IITs! This method of displacement has continued through the last decade with  IIT Bombay evicting local Adivasi communities of Peru Baug for constructing a research park. Only sometimes have local communities been successful in pushing away this land grab, as in the case of how the protests led to a change of IIT Goa campus site away from Sanguem.

Around the 1970s-80s, the process of contractualisation of labour work started when IITs introduced interim contractors for various works related to maintenance and smooth functioning of the campus. They proceeded to move away from employing permanent workers and started replacing them with contract workers (at times called casual labourers). The contractors acted as intermediaries only for making the payment of wages. The authority that has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and the said work always remained with the IIT officials and not with the contractors. This enabled the IITs to hold more power over workers and not take any responsibility for providing worker benefits and security.

The casual/contract workers were paid less than half the amount which the permanent workers were paid for the same work. Such a shift in IITs like most other industries and institutions saved loads of money, some of which was shared to the intermediate contractors. This change in the relationship of workers with the establishment also significantly reduced the ability of workers to negotiate as they could be arbitrarily fired, which also held them back from unionizing for fear of individual targeting and retaliation.

Within IITs, as the campus area is large, the work allotted to contractors is broken into smaller geographical areas targeting particular kind(s) of work. For instance, tender for housekeeping work in the academic area is called for separately than with the residential area. Depending on the floor area, the number of workers and the material for the work are estimated, and the quotation is given. However, as noted, IITs continued to allot the work to these contracts, which was much beyond their area of work under the said tender specification of the contractor.

So, for instance, Raman Garase, along with many other workers, was asked to remove the hutments of the Adivasis living in the Peru Baug where today’s building of Research Park stands, calling them ‘illegal’. In this way, the IIT administration comprising of savarna and corporate lobby pitted the workers who themselves belong to marginalized communities against the indigenous people living in the area who were/are being forced to leave their land with their sources of livelihood also destroyed. Also, on a regular basis workers are shifted to different locations within campus to attend to specific works.

There is also a culture of treating workers as suspect criminals. Workers in IIT Kanpur have to open and show their bags when they leave the campus area. Workers in IIT Bombay were made to deposit utensils in a centralised location by the contractors as the latter claimed that they could not trust the workers not to steal them. Such practices which are employed under the guise of security are actually casteist practices of terming certain communities as criminals. Similarly, a practice of housekeeping workers having to obtain signatures from students as proof of work in the respective area every day!

 

Wage Theft: Violation of Labour laws in IITs

The Criteria for Prohibition under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA) clearly states that if the work is perennial in nature (i.e., it is not seasonal or temporary but lasts throughout the year), it needs to be performed by regular workers rather than contract labour. Perennial work includes works such as cleaning building floors, and roads, mess work, janitorial work, plumbing, electrical maintenance, gardening, and fumigation, which are essential parts of the campus. CLRA also states that any work requiring significant control and supervision by the principal employer is unsuitable for contract labour. Despite the law being there for over 50 years, these clauses of CLRA are being violated all over India, with premier higher education institutes such as IITs being no exception. Even though regulations stipulate that these jobs should be handled by permanent workers and not by contractual labour, IITs bypass these rules, opting to employ contract workers to avoid the obligations and costs associated with permanent employment.

There are various rights that are guaranteed for contract workers under the various labour laws. All contractual employees are eligible for the Employee Provident Fund (EPF popularly known as PF), a retirement benefit scheme, and the Employee State Insurance (ESI), a social security and health insurance scheme. These worker protection schemes provide an array of benefits, which includes medical treatment, maternity benefits, disability benefits, dependent benefits, and unemployment allowance under certain conditions. Both schemes are crucial in the socio-economic architecture of India, providing financial security and healthcare benefits to a substantial portion of the Indian workforce.

However, in practice, multiple mechanisms are in place to avoid providing the majority of such benefits. Contractors do several tricks to steal the benefits from the workers, whereas IIT officials, even in full knowledge of such practices, pay no heed to those violations. Many contractors deliberately do not create bank accounts for workers, sometimes even deliberately delaying their creation or even creating with mistaken names and paying the workers in cash for the entire time period. These workers are not paid EPF even though the contractor deducts EPF contributions from their wages. When workers demand their EPF, a small amount is given, much lower than the worker’s contribution over the years, and without employer contribution. Workers are forced to accept the lower amount as any legal route for redressal will only further delay the payment for years. Multiple instances of a contractor’s cheque given against PF and bonus bouncing were reported to the IIT Bombay administration but no action has been taken against them.

In 2022, more than 50 mess workers did not receive any PF amount, even though (Rs.1800) was deducted from their wages every month. The same caterer was found to violate the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Sometimes, money is deducted from wages for uniforms, while no new uniforms are provided. Despite complaints raised by student groups, the contractor was not blacklisted by the administration, moreover received few new tenders.

Those working from before the 2000s have also noted that IIT Bombay was not paying EPF and ESI to the majority of its workers. It was after several demands from workers that IIT Bombay finally conceded to provide them with these benefits. However, for many other workers, such as mess workers and canteen workers, even today, even minimum wages are not paid, no proper accommodation facilities are given, and they are always made to work overtime without being paid. Most construction workers lack systematic EPF/ESI accounts and other basic labour entitlements.

The arbitrary firing of workers is another perverse phenomenon employed by the IITs to control and exploit workers. IIT Kanpur fired 72 workers from its Visitor’s Hostel in 2017. On August 1, 2022, 18 workers from the water supply and sewage department of IIT Kanpur were fired without prior notice, owing to a change in the contractor. IIT BHU fired around 200 workers without prior notice claiming a change of contractors in 2019. On January 27, 2024, Jagdish Pal, a Hall 2 mess worker of IIT Kanpur with 13 years of service, was unfairly dismissed without reason after protesting strict attendance policies that led to pay deductions and unpaid work. His suspension and subsequent dismissal underscore the severe exploitation and mistreatment of mess workers at IITs. In one of our next segment, we will also discuss a detailed case of 59 female mess workers who were removed by IIT Bombay.

Even the workers who are employed often face months long delays in receiving their wage payments. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, specifies the timing for the payment of wages and mandates that wages should be paid before the tenth day after the last wage period. IITs letting contractors violate these laws and withholding the wages of workers has become commonplace now. 4 men were killed when a contractor in IIT Mandi fired on workers protesting the non-payment of their monthly wages and EPF. Protests have been organised by workers in IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, over post-retirement medical schemes, pension, promotions, regularization of dependents of deceased/disabled employees.

Multiple construction workers have died in IIT Bombay due to a lack of proper safety gear and unsafe working environments. Similar deaths have occurred in IIT Kanpur where a gardener in the academic area tragically died within hours of reporting for work on a severely cold winter morning. In 2019, the collapse of the Earth Science building wall in IIT Kanpur resulted in death of three workers and in 2022, a worker at the Type-III apartment construction site behind the director’s residence died from excessive bleeding after a hand-held grinder slipped and severely injured his leg. The living conditions of construction workers at IITs are also deplorable, as they are compelled to reside in cramped, overcrowded cabins that lack basic hygiene and proper sanitation facilities.

Prestige and precarity

These violations of workers’ rights are not just limited to the IITs and happen all over the country. These “eminent” institutions are no different than any other institutions in the country, when it comes to respecting the rights of workers. They are as exploitative as the others. However, the overwhelmingly Savarna nature of these institutions does add a new layer to the exploitation of contract workers. The tag of an “eminent” institution also adds a structural angle to such exploitation. Many contract workers who started working here some decades back, had this hope in their mind that they will be accepted as “permanent” employees, some day or the other. Such acceptance would mean better living conditions. But for most of them, that day never arrived.

Even after multiple complaints about denial of workers’ rights, and even judgements from labour court ordering to comply with labour laws, IITs have been ignoring them just the way they ignore the constitutional mandate of implementing reservation for SC ST OBCs. They continue to give contracts to the same contractors who were violating these laws. This alludes to a collusion between the contractors and the administration of IITs to exploit these workers.

The workers of IITs face issues in getting their minimum wages, EPF, ESI, gratuity, healthcare, lack of safe working environment, arbitrary firing, and lack of strong unions that can claim their demands by negotiating with the administration. It is paralleled with the violation of reservation norms, stiffing voices of descent with imposing stringent code of conduct for students, workers and faculties, and rapidly expanding privatization of education.

The death of Raman Garase highlights significant issues within labour rights and the struggle for justice by contractual workers. It is a sombre reminder of the impact that prolonged legal disputes and denied rights can have on individuals.

Workers like Raman Garase, Dadarao Ingale, and Tanaji Lad, who have served institutions for decades, often face uphill battles for their rightful benefits, reflecting broader systemic issues that need addressing.

The decision of the IIT Bombay administration to appeal the labour court’s order, thereby extending the legal process, underscores the challenges faced by workers in securing what is legally theirs. Such situations also bring to light the need for stronger safeguards and more efficient legal mechanisms to protect workers’ rights and ensure timely justice.

Raman Garase’s tragic death, particularly on Labour Day—a day meant to celebrate workers and their contributions—adds a layer of poignancy to the story and calls for a reflection on how societies and institutions treat their labour forces. It is a call to action for not just ensuring legal compliance but also fostering a culture of respect and dignity for all workers.

(The authors are students at IIT Bombay and members of Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC))


Related:

Gujarat: Three years, 714 workers died in industrial accidents admits Minister

29% increase in daily wage workers suicides in 2 years: Labour Ministry

Over 42,000 workers from informal sector allegedly die by suicide

The post Raman Garase’s suicide on May Day, 2024 is a sombre reminder of how badly IITs treat their labour appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Segregation of Eating Spaces: Modern Untouchability in IITs https://sabrangindia.in/segregation-of-eating-spaces-modern-untouchability-in-iits/ Mon, 06 Nov 2023 07:02:07 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=30854 IITs have been following food segregation by demarcating a space where students who eat egg or meat are not allowed to enter, both officially and unofficially for years. APPSC (Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle) IIT Bombay had filed an RTI on November 2022 asking the IIT Bombay administration for the details of this segregation in hostel messes. In […]

The post Segregation of Eating Spaces: Modern Untouchability in IITs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
IITs have been following food segregation by demarcating a space where students who eat egg or meat are not allowed to enter, both officially and unofficially for years. APPSC (Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle) IIT Bombay had filed an RTI on November 2022 asking the IIT Bombay administration for the details of this segregation in hostel messes. In the reply to the RTI, IIT Bombay declared that there is no such segregation permitted or endorsed by the administration. On July 2022, a mail was sent to the students of Hostel 12 of IIT Bombay by their General Secretary reiterating the institute position that there are no separate eating spaces designated for vegetarians. He also mentioned about ‘reports of individuals forcefully designating certain areas in mess as “Jain sitting space” and removing individuals who bring non-vegetarian food to sit in those areas’. From the next day onwards, “Vegetarian only” posters came up in the combined mess of Hostels 12, 13 and 14 demarcating an area of mess as exclusive to them and where meat/egg eating students were denied entry. When the administration was asked to remove the ‘unauthorised posters’ and uphold the non-segregation policy which they have been claiming on paper, they removed the posters only after weeks of complaints. But two months later, a mail was sent to students of Hostel 12, 13 and 14 where they officially sanctioned food segregation by demarcating an area of mess not to be crossed by students eating egg/meat, because sight of meat caused ‘nausea’ and ‘vomiting’ among some students. The mail warned strict punishment for meat eating students who would violate this food segregation rule.

IITs have been infamous for trying to ensure ‘purity’ of vegetarian spaces by forced segregation and penalizing ‘contamination’ by meat eaters for years. In 2018, IIT Madras had designated separate entrances, utensils and even wash basins for vegetarian and non-vegetarian students. In the same year, IIT Bombay also tried to enforce segregation by separation of plates for vegetarian and non-vegetarians, where non-vegetarians are not allowed to use the circular plates. In September 2022, mess caterers of Hostel 10 in IIT Bombay were fined Rs.50,000 for cooking vegetarian food in the stove designated for non-vegetarian food. In 2014, the HRD ministry  had asked the IITs and IIMs to examine demand for a separate canteen for vegetarian students on their campuses, as a response to a letter that claimed “non-vegetarian food leaves an adverse impact on person consuming it” and “leads the development of ‘Tamas’ (dark and unrighteous) nature”. Even before the ministry directed the IITs, IIT Delhi decided to go full vegetarian, where students claimed the prime reason was that many vegetarian students had expressed their displeasure at eating on the same table with non-vegetarians. Recently, Laxmidhar Behera, the director of IIT Mandi, had sparked controversy by urging students to pledge not to eat meat, claiming that non-stop butchering of animals is causing landslides and cloudbursts and this will lead to a “significant downfall” of Himachal Pradesh. In IIT Hyderabad too, the segregation of eating spaces was formalized this year.

In India, the relationship between people and their food habits is majorly determined by the hierarchical caste system. Historically, caste has played an important role in determining who gets access to ‘pure’ food and who are to consume ‘impure’ food. Members of the highest caste are said to be mostly vegetarians and does not eat meat which is considered impure (though there are numerous exceptions within the communities). If they were to eat or even touch meat, they would be declared to be corrupted and would have to go through numerous purifying rituals. Thus, associating meat as ‘impure’ and ‘polluting’ and those who does not eat meat as ‘pure’ becomes a symbolic way of reinforcing the superiority of savarnas over the others in the caste hierarchy. These concepts of ‘purity and pollution’ have influenced practices of food cooking, serving, eating and even of cleaning utensils.

Food has always been used by savarnas as a tool to show the marginalised their inferior place in the social hierarchy. Cultural hegemony using food has become more aggressive in schools, colleges, and offices in recent years. IITs have been historically dominated by savarnas, even now more than 95 % of faculties in IITs are savarnas, demonstrating their impunity in the brutal violation of reservation. But due to implementation of reservation, especially after OBC reservations in the past decade, the caste demography of a once majorly savarna student population of IITs started changing and is becoming more diverse. The demand for segregation and militant vegetarianism that we see emerging in the past decade is a way to protect and reinforce the cultural superiority of savarnas over the others. The savarnas (privileged castes) see the influx of Dalit-Bahujan-Adivasi (DBA) students into these spaces which they had been dominating for decades as a threat to their power. The administration of IITs, which are completely dominated by savarnas, fulfils this demand, and enforces this segregation with stringent penalties on the meat eaters, as seen from the imposition of Rs. 10,000 on the student protesting the segregation in IIT Bombay. Such a hefty fine for violating the rules of segregation is a modern form of untouchability, where mere presence of the Dalit Bahujans could ‘contaminate’ the ‘purity’ of savarna spaces. The food apartheid imposed on these campuses is a means to remind the DBA students that these academic spaces does not belong to them, that they are ‘dirty’ and ‘impure’, and they will be punished if they violate the rules of savarnas or question their casteist superiority.

In India, food is a marker of class, caste, religion, and even region. The hefty fine for a petty violation points the deep rooted casteism that is being enforced by the administration of these institutes as food apartheid. This strict segregation demanded by savarna students and enforced by the savarna administration seeks to reinforce prejudice against marginalized groups, by formally recognizing certain food as ‘pure’ and other ‘impure’.It is the casteist politics of pollution that seeks this institutionalization of untouchability.

In IIT Bombay messes, meat is not served as a part of regular mess food and students who want to eat meat must pay extra for it. In a country with more than 70% meat eaters, it is outrageous that the regular mess menu is fully devoid of meat. This is done to normalize the cultural dominance of vegetarians, despite them being a numerical minority. Special Jain counters are available in IIT messes to cater to their specific dietary requirements without any additional costs, but students who regularly eat meat, who comprises majority of the DBA students, do not get meat in their regular diet and are required to pay more. The savarna vegetarian food has become the norm even in canteens across institutes of higher learning and university dining spaces across the country. DBA students are sometimes forced to cook their food inside their room, away from the dining spaces out of fear of humiliation and abuse.

During a recent talk in IIT Bombay, Dr Sukhdeo Thorat, former chairman of UGC, clearly opined that educational institutions should not devise policy for segregation of eating spaces. Students can sit separately on their own, but institutions enforcing such segregation is promoting the casteist ideas of purity and pollution. Prof. Thorat emphasises that the decision of IIT Bombay to segregate eating spaces will further strengthen the idea of caste and pollution with food habits. “It must be recognized that what food to eat is the individual right of a person, but to treat vegetarians as pure and good and non-vegetarians as bad and impure and therefore both should be segregated from each other while sitting, is a wrong practice.”

The demand for segregation has not been raised by all vegetarians. They do not seek separate utensils, separate dining spaces and living spaces. Not all express disgust at the sight and smell of meat. Mixed dining is changing the ethics and aesthetics of food consumption in urban spaces. The caste-based superiority of Indian vegetarianism is facing a crisis and the rise of militant vegetarianism which feels disgust and anger at the very sight of meat shows this insecurity. Militant vegetarians seek to continually sustain this traditional (exclusivist) ethics and aesthetics of segregation and hierarchy in food consumption. There is also hidden anxiety among many vegetarian parents that their children might be attracted to meat, which leads to aggressive demands for the abolition of meat from all public and even private spaces. Casteist vegetarianism where savarna children are indoctrinated to hate the sight and smell of meat can be a subtle way of ensuring endogamy.

In an IIT Bombay survey conducted in 2021, even though more than half of savarna students responded that they do not want separate eating spaces or utensils, almost half (41%) demanded that they be provided separate spaces away from people who consume meat.

There is no end to this absurd segregation once sub-categorization begins where students are separated for eating garlic or no-garlic, sattvic, or egg-vegetarian. Such distinctions can multiply endlessly, fragmenting the community and undermining the very essence of unity and diversity. It can also extend to separate hostel rooms and other separation of spaces within educational institutes, which is not conducive to the inclusive ethos of an educational institution.

Dr Veena Shatrugna, former Deputy Director at the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, also questioned why people consuming milk, which is also derived from animals, has never been a source of contention. This reinforces the fact that the issue extends beyond the simple matter of dietary impositions but has to do with the larger context of caste prejudice. Such policies based on the casteist notions of purity is incompatible with the core values of scientific education. Segregation based on dietary choices sends a disturbing message to students that their food preferences define their purity and worth. This notion contradicts the essence of scientific inquiry and rational thinking, which should be central to any academic institution, particularly one that is supposed to teach science and technology like IITs.

Educational institutions should be transformative multi-cultural spaces where students have an opportunity to interact with peers from diverse backgrounds. These interactions lead to personal growth and intellectual expansion, recognizing personal privileges and unlearning prejudices. Food can be a unifying factor that fosters cultural appreciation and help people come together. Imposing segregation would impede this process of cultural exploration and hinder opportunities to utilize the diversity and unlearn biases. Instead, these practices contribute to further dehumanization and harassment of marginalized communities. Students belonging to DBA communities have been facing abuses and discrimination based on their food choices in these institutes.

A couple of months ago, a video clip of entrepreneur Sudha Murthy declaring herself a “pure vegetarian” and sharing her anxieties about sharing spoons with non-vegetarians when travelling abroad, went viral. Her comments led to outrage about ‘Brahmanical’ food segregation practices that have historically been used by savarnas to discriminate against oppressed sections of the population. Prof Ravikant Kisana, a professor of Cultural Studies, points out that her anxiety is not merely a food issue but a symptom of casteist prejudice and this mindset is not restricted to her alone.

In September 2017, a scientist from Indian Meteorological Department in Pune, filed a police complaint against her cook for violating her ritual purity because the cook did not ‘declare’ her ‘true’ caste at the time of appointment. She vehemently accused the cook of violating her hygiene standards and filling her kitchen with filth. This preference for savarna cooks and perception of brahmin or upper caste food as clean and edible is the manifestation of a deeply engrained hatred towards DBA and the persistence of untouchability.

Power dynamics of caste creates and perpetuates the belief of superior and inferior food cultures. Smell is used a means to ostracize and demonize DBA communities as causing a civic nuisance. The food consumed by DBA communities is portrayed as ‘dirty’ or ‘smelly’ to reinforce the dominant narrative of ‘pure’ vegetarian food.

This is visible in exclusive housing associations restricted strictly to vegetarians and the savarnas. Here, cooking and eating meat are presented as a civic nuisance that disturbs the peace and aesthetics of the place. This justifies the exclusion of people who cook and eat meat to maintain the savarna status quo and food culture.

Food intolerance is prevalent when searching for places to live. For instance, even landlords, neighbors and housing associations find the food cooked by DBA and religious minorities in the privacy of their homes, “stinky and revolting”. Savarna landlords uses the dietary habits to turn down residence to people belonging to DBA communities. Neighbors often raise complaints about cooking meat and such fights often become regional.

Three Jain trusts and one individual moved the Bombay High Court to demand a ban on meat advertisements, on the grounds that such advertising was a violation of their right to life, to live in peace, and to their privacy. In the earlier case, the high court had stated that being vegetarian or non-vegetarian was a personal choice and no meat shop could be ordered to close for the comfort of vegetarians. In this instance, the high court stated to the petitioner, religious trusts that there was no law in the land that could be evoked to ban meat ads.

Dr Sylvia Karpagam, a public health doctor and researcher, talks about Exaggerated Vegetarian Fragility Syndrome becoming associated with the constant promotion of vegetarianism in India, which reinforces the perceived superiority of those who consume vegetarian food. It also has long reaching impact in public health policies in a country like India, which has a high malnourished population. The demand for removal of meat and egg from noon meal programmes of government schools can adversely impact the lives of millions of children, especially those belonging to DBA communities and stunt their physical and intellectual growth.

Demonising meat and meat eaters plays an important role in maintaining the savarna hegemony in these institutional spaces. Assertions from DBA communities are necessary to challenge this dominant narrative of savarna superiority. Academic spaces should not succumb to militant vegetarianism and try reinforcing caste superiority. These spaces should instead encourage mixed dining where people can come together shedding their prejudices and learn about different cultures. These educational spaces should invest in scientific temper and higher learning that celebrates diversity, not hierarchy.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabranginia

Also Read

Indian Institutes of Savarnas: Graveyards for Marginalised Students


Related:

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

Even after paying, no provision stands for providing health insurance to IIT Bombay students: APPSC

Systematic Entrenched Caste Discrimination in IITs is depriving young students right to dignity and life: PUCL

The post Segregation of Eating Spaces: Modern Untouchability in IITs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Indian Institutes of Savarnas: Graveyards for Marginalised Students https://sabrangindia.in/indian-institutes-of-savarnas-graveyards-for-marginalised-students/ Mon, 04 Sep 2023 05:20:29 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=29604 Data collected by the APPSC IIT Bombay shows that in 2023 IIT Bombay has denied 80 seats, rightfully for the SC/ST/OBC communities and, despite claims by government, in fact, admitted more savarna[1] students.

The post Indian Institutes of Savarnas: Graveyards for Marginalised Students appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Anil Kumar is the latest name to be added to the list of Institutional Murders of students from marginalised communities this year by the premier IITs along with Darshan Solanki, Ayush Ashna and Mamita Naik. Both Anil and Ayush belong to the same batch and same department in IIT Delhi (Department of Mathematics), and both were staying in hostel due to degree extension. After the loss of Ayush barely 2 months ago, the institute neither reached out the students who were going through similar problems nor did they create any support systems to help them. This criminal neglect of marginalised students by the administration points to the structural discrimination that is embedded within these institutes.

A deeper look into the departments these students belonged shows that there was no faculty who belonged to these communities present there. RTI data collected by the APPSC (Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle) IIT Bombay clearly shows that there was no faculty in the mathematics department of IIT Delhi who belonged to SC/ST community. The same is true for department of chemical engineering of IIT Bombay which Darshan Solanki belonged to. RTI Data collected by APPSC also shows that reservation is violated in faculty composition of all IITs. In IIT Delhi, only 2% of faculty are SC, 1% ST, and 7% OBC. The remaining 90% positions are filled by savarnas. Same is the case for IIT Bombay where 94% are savarnas, with just 2% OBC, 3% SC, and 1% ST. With these institutions blatantly violating constitutional provisions and neither the government nor the courts are holding them accountable, how can we ensure safe, diverse, and inclusive spaces for our students?

On July 10, 2023, the honourable President of India, Droupadi Murmu stated that students’ suicides are a matter of concern and educational institutions should make it their priority to protect and support students against stress, humiliation, or neglect in their campuses. On February 25, the honourable Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud also lamented the lack of recognition of discrimination and harassment present in these institutions by the administration and pointed to their lack of empathy.

We cannot expect “empathy” for marginalised students in these institutions where even faculty from these communities are not allowed to work without hindrance, in peace. Professor Vipin Veetil who belongs to OBC community was humiliated and had to resign because he raised his voice against the administration of IIT Madras dominated by savarnas for their discriminatory attitudes and continuing elevation of only savarnas to administrative positions such as deans and heads of department. Despite calls by the government to fill the backlog vacancies for SC/ST/OBC faculties in all IITs, in “mission mode recruitment”, none of these institutes have filled these vacancies despite getting more than 100 applicants for each post.

Most IITs demand post-doctoral (Post-Doc) research experience as a necessary qualification for faculty recruitment. But none of the IITs implement reservation in Post-Doc appointments. In an RTI response to APPSC, IIT Bombay admitted that they do not implement reservation in Post-Doc admissions, and also accepted that there was no rule that exempted Post-Doc appointments from reservation. Post-Doc admissions happen mostly through academic networks dominated by faculty from among the savarna caste, where they recommend that their students to other faculty in different institutes. Students coming from Dalit Bahujan Adivasi (DBA) communities without any cultural and social capital find themselves outside these networks and lose the chance to avail of these positions entirely.

In such institutions dominated by savarnas, the entire culture is designed to ensure that students coming from marginalised communities find it difficult to grow, to survive. The discrimination starts from the process of admission where the savarna faculty ensure that seats reserved for SC ST OBC students remain unfilled, after which they bring more savarna students in their place.

PhD Admission data collected by APPSC IIT Bombay from 2016-2023 shows that despite having thousands of applicants from among the SC/ST/OBC categories, none of the IITs have taken the required number of students mandated by reservation norms. Even after raising these issues for the past three years, in 2023, IIT Bombay denied 80 seats that rightfully belonged to SC/ST/OBC students despite having 3079 applicants and admitted 95 more savarna students, more than the allowed limit for PhD. One department in IIT Bombay, Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA) has not admitted a single ST student in last 9 years. If we comb through the PhD data from among all the IITs, we will find same pattern everywhere.

Even when students from DBA (Dalit-Bahujan-Adivasi (communities somehow get admission inside these campuses, the dominant savarna culture and anti-reservation sentiment that is prevalent will work in tandem to ostracise and alienate them. The savarna students, staff and faculty openly taunt the DBA students and harass them on a day-to-day basis makes their lives a living hell throughout their course.

In a survey conducted by the SC/ST Cell at IIT Bombay, in February 2022 — a year before the death of Darshan Solanki, students had shared accounts of the constant harassment and discrimination they face daily. Students are marked by asking their ranks when they step into the campus which discloses their category. The survey revealed that one in three students was asked his/her rank by fellow students in a bid to know their caste identity. The savarna students exclude SC/ST students from their groups and even when clubbed together, deliberately avoid, or discards their ideas and opinions in group discussions. Casteist slurs are often hurled at students, and even cases of untouchability, where students avoid touching water bottles belonging to them were reported. Even after having this data on the ways and practices of how students are facing casteism, the administration of IIT Bombay did nothing to protect the students and sensitize the savarnas. They did not just ignore the issues, the Director of IIT Bombay shamelessly claimed that there is no caste discrimination on campus, just the day after Darshan’s death.

When an anti-reservation Facebook post by the head counsellor of IIT Bombay was reported to the administration in June 2022, they ignored it and took no action. Further enquiry by APPSC showed that there were no SC ST Counsellors. The counsellors were not caste aware and discarded the casteist harassment faced by SC ST students as “just inside their head” further worsening students’ mental health and denied the presence of caste discrimination in campus.

APPSC filed a case against the administration’s inaction to the National SC/ ST commission who called out the director, IIT Bombay and ordered them to remove the counsellor and appoint new counsellors from SC ST communities. Even now, the administration of IIT Bombay has not complied with these orders and they have not removed the counsellor who harbours anti-reservation sentiments. These actions by the administration shows their disregard to the mental health of DBA students in campus.

None of the IITs have a proper functioning SC/ST cell. According to the RTI filed by APPSC IIT Bombay, only two IITs out of 23 allocate funds for these cells, only three have allotted rooms and only five have conducted any events. The existence of these cells has only been mentioned by 12 IITs on their websites. These cells exist as just namesakes and does not address the issues of SC/ST students, does not oversee the proper implementation of reservation, not does it conduct any sensitization process for their students.

Unless we hold these institutes accountable and force them to take in more faculty and students from within the DBA communities, enforce democratic decision-making and break the dominance of savarnas, these spaces will never be either safe, peaceful or productive for marginalised students.

Views and opinions expressed in this article is solely that of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of SabrangIndia and this site.


[1] Privileged castes


Related:

IITs unable to create safe spaces for students

MP: Dalit boy dies by suicide, blames teacher’s casteist remarks

REPLUG: Rohith Vemula, Your Sacrifice was Not in Vain

Student groups clash in Lucknow University on Rohith Vemula’s death anniversary

The post Indian Institutes of Savarnas: Graveyards for Marginalised Students appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>