Benefits to Unemployed Youth under PMEGP

PMEGP was launched in the year 2008 by merging the then Prime Minister’s Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) and Rural Employment Generation Programme (REGP) schemes with a higher level of subsidy than PMRY and REGP. Under PMEGP, the beneficiary can directly approach Bank/Financial Institution along with his/her project proposal or it can be sponsored by KVIC/KVIBs/ DIC/Panchayat Karyalayas etc. The applications received directly by the Banks are referred to the Task Force Committee, constituted at district level under the chairmanship of District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner/Collector to scrutinize the applications based on the experience, technical qualification, skill, viability of the project etc. and hold quarterly meeting with the Banks at district level to review the status of the project proposals.

          During the last three years, since the launch of Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), the estimated number of employment opportunities created is 10.98 lakh persons.

State/Union Territory (UT) – wise details of estimated employment opportunities created under PMEGP        

                                                                                        (No. of persons)

S. No.	States/UTs	Estimated employment opportunities created under PMEGP
		2008-09	2009-10	2010-11
1	Chandigarh	160	500	34
2	Delhi	10	348	140
3	Haryana	4840	4283	9748
4	Himachal Pradesh	3090	1963	4569
5	Jammu and Kashmir	6800	17820	15953
6	Punjab	2660	8764	7280
7	Rajasthan	5400	13299	25606
8	Andaman & Nicobar Islands	400	264	447
9	Bihar	58730	5112	7980
10	Jharkhand	4980	3250	15576
11	Orissa	16540	17812	6611
12	West Bengal	40020	69203	44440
13	Arunachal Pradesh	1140	1380	2510
14	Assam	12260	15280	28656
15	Manipur	0	1166	1626
16	Meghalaya	0	2167	1782
17	Mizoram	0	1705	3800
18	Nagaland	50	286	1924
19	Tripura	250	1710	1513
20	Sikkim	100	266	284
21	Andhra Pradesh	8650	73417	53515
22	Karnataka	12200	17198	13730
23	Kerala	3650	15970	16620
24	Lakshadweep	0	120	200
25	Puducherry	480	396	817
26	Tamil Nadu	11970	45511	31895
27	Goa	10	1409	1583
28	Gujarat	2680	7892	16905
29	Maharashtra	16920	21961	26745
30	Chhattishgarh	5840	7410	10178
31	Madhya Pradesh	4160	12294	19692
32	Uttarakhand	3840	8345	6746
33	Uttar Pradesh	27240	41536	44128

Urban Unemployment Gurantee Scheme

As per Government of India (Allocation of Business Rules), 1961, Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Rural Development is the Nodal Ministry for (a) All matters pertaining to rural employment or unemployment such as working out of strategies and programmes for rural employment including special works, wages or income generation and training related thereto. (b) Implementation of the specific programmes of rural employment evolved from time to time (c) Micro level planning related to rural employment or unemployment and administrative infrastructure. Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation is the Nodal Ministry for implementation of the specific programmes of Urban Employment and Urban Poverty Alleviation including other programmes evolved from time to time.

Government of India has no proposal under consideration to launch any Urban Employment Guarantee Scheme on the lines of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in the country. However, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation has been implementing an employment oriented Centrally Sponsored Scheme for urban areas, namely, Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) on all India basis with effect from 1st December, 1997. The Scheme has been comprehensively revamped in February, 2009 to address various issues arising from implementation.

Migration of Labourers

Under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, both Central and State Governments are appropriate Governments to fix , review and revise the minimum wages for workers employed in scheduled employments under their respective jurisdiction. Information in respect of firm wages is not maintained. However, the National Floor Level Minimum Wages has been increased from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 115/- per day with effect from 01.04.2011. The State Governments are persuaded to fix/revise minimum wages in such a way that in none of the scheduled employments the minimum wages is less than National Floor Level Minimum Wages.

Bonded Labourers System (Abolition) Act, 1976

The data relating to bonded labourers is not maintained sex-wise. According to the reports received from the State Governments, the number of bonded labourers identified, released and rehabilitated under the Centrally Sponsored Plan Scheme is as under:-

Name of the State	Number of Bonded Labourers
	Identified and Released	Rehabilitated
Andhra Pradesh	37,988	31,534
Arunachal Pradesh	3,526	2,992
Bihar	14,615	13,797
Chhattisgarh	812	812
Gujarat	64	64
Haryana	591	89
Jharkhand	196	196
Karnataka	63,437	57,185
Kerala	823	710
Madhya Pradesh	13,317	12,392
Maharashtra	1,404	1,325
Orissa	50,029	46,901
Punjab	69	69
Rajasthan	7,488	6,331
Tamil Nadu	65,573	65,573
Uttar Pradesh	29,046	29,046
Uttaranchal	5	5
West Bengal	344	344
Total	2,89,327	2,69,365

               

                The Supreme Court has directed that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) should be involved in dealing with the issue of bonded labour. The court has also issued directions from time to time for compliance by the state governments regarding identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers. In pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court, NHRC is monitoring and reviewing the efforts made by the state governments towards implementing the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, through regular interaction with the concerned authorities. NHRC also conducts familiarization-cum-sensitization workshops on the elimination of bonded labour and child labour at the state level.

The Constitution of India under Article 23(1) prohibits ‘begar’ and other similar forms of forced labour. The bonded labour system was abolished by law throughout the country w.e.f. from 25^th October, 1975 under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Ordinance which was replaced by Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. It extends to the whole of India. As per the Act, no person is allowed to make an advance under or in pursuance of the bonded labour system and no one can compel any person to render any bonded labour or other form of forced labour.

                No checks have been imposed on the funds sanctioned for utilization of identifying bonded and child labour.

Contract Workers

The employers in the mines/industries both in public as well as private sectors can engage contract workers in their establishments as per their requirements if the contract work has not been prohibited under Section 10(1) of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. In the establishments falling under Central Sphere, regular inspections are conducted and appropriate action is taken including filing of prosecutions by Central Industrial Relations Machinery (CIRM) headed by Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 so as to safeguard the interest of workers.

Apart from action under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, short or non payment of wages, if reported under Minimum Wages Act and/or Payment of Wages Act, action is also taken by way of filing claim cases before the Authorities concerned.

Registered Unemployed

The Minister of Labour and Employment  Mallikarjun Kharge August 08  informed the Lok Sabha that Government of India is fully aware of magnitude of problem of unemployment among the educated youth in the country. Basic problem in the country is not of unemployment but of under employment. The poor cannot afford to remain unemployed and therefore, unemployment rate among the poor is very low as compared to educated youth who are from the relatively better of economic family background. Higher the level of education attainment, higher is the rate of unemployment. This is because of the fact that they can afford to remain unemployed to search for better employment opportunities. In order to bridge the employment gap to harness the benefit of demographic dividend, Government of India has undertaken Skilled Development Mission to make them more employable for engaging them in more productive employment.

Replying to a written question in the Lok Sabha today th e Minister said that the total number of youth job seekers in the age group of 15-29 year, all of whom may not necessarily be unemployed , registered with employment exchanges as on 31-12-2008 combined for rural and urban areas was 2.70 crore.

Government have taken several steps to reduce unemployment in the country. The focus is on creation of productive employment at a faster pace in order to raise incomes of masses to bring about a general improvement in their living conditions. The job opportunities are created on account of growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), investment in infrastructure development, growth in exports etc.

UNICEF’S Report on the State of the World’s Children-2011 has reported that with 81 million young people out of work, youth unemployment is now a concern in almost every country. Adolescents struggle to find decent work guaranteeing them a foot hold above the poverty line. In many developing countries, the paucity of opportunities for productive full-time employment means that the first experience of work for young people is too often one of waste talent, disillusionment, under employment and continued poverty. However, the observation does not hold good for Indian Labour Market. Recent NSSO survey reveals a major trend of the past five years has been a decline in labour force participation rate. The decline in labour force participation rate could mainly be due to the increase in participation of the young population in education and increase in wages of principal status workers over the years.

Government of India has also been implementing various employment generation programmes, and important ones are: Swarana Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY); Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP); Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) besides entrepreneurial development programmes run by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises.

Development and Promotion of MSMEs

The report submitted by the Task Force on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) has made recommendations on policy / programme support, institutional matters and legal / regulatory measures for the growth of MSMEs in the country. The recommendations made cover the thematic areas of credit, taxation, labour issues, infrastructure / technology / skill development, marketing, rehabilitation and exit policy and special measures for North-Eastern Region and Jammu and Kashmir. On the thematic area of credit, the Task Force has made various recommendations for enhancing its flow to the sector which, inter alia, include: (i) 20 per cent year-on-year growth in credit to micro and small enterprises (MSEs); (ii) strict adherence to allocation of 60 per cent of MSE credit to micro enterprises and (iii) 15 per cent annual growth in number of micro enterprise accounts by scheduled commercial banks.

. Based on the recommendations of the Working Group constituted to review the Credit Guarantee Scheme (CGS), Reserve Bank of India has issued instructions in May, 2010 making it mandatory for banks not to accept collateral security in the case of loans upto Rs.10 lakh extended to units in the MSE sector. RBI has informed that whenever any specific complaint against a bank is received, the matter is taken up with the Head Office of the concerned banks to resolve the issue. Banks have also set up MSME Care Centres to facilitate entrepreneurs for quick redressal of their grievances.

Further downgrades may lie ahead

A day after Standard & Poor's took the unprecedented step of downgrading the creditworthiness of the U.S. government to AA(PLUS) from AAA, the ratings agency offered a full-throated defence of its decision, calling the bitter standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress over raising the debt ceiling a “debacle” and warning that further downgrades may lie ahead.

In an unusual August 06 conference call with reporters, senior S&P officials insisted the ratings firm hadn't overstepped its bounds by focusing on the political paralysis in Washington as much as fiscal policy in determining the new rating.

“The debacle over the debt ceiling continued until almost the midnight hour,” said John B. Chambers, chairman of S&P's sovereign ratings committee. Another S&P official, David Beers, added that “fiscal policy, like other government policy, is fundamentally a political process.”

Administration officials at the White House and Treasury angrily criticised S&P's action as based on faulty budget accounting that discounted the just-enacted deal for increasing the debt limit.

The agreement set spending caps in the fiscal year that begins October 1 and calls for a bipartisan congressional “super committee” to propose more deficit reduction for up to $2.5 trillion in combined savings over a decade.

“The bipartisan compromise on deficit reduction was an important step in the right direction,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney in a statement on Saturday. “Yet, the path to getting there took too long and was at times too divisive. We must do better to make clear our nation's will, capacity and commitment to work together to tackle our major fiscal and economic challenges.”

In August 06 conference call, Mr. Chambers said the $2 trillion difference, in one scenario for 2021, equals only about 2 per cent of gross domestic product and doesn't alter the fundamental reality that the debt burden would continue to rise.

Speculative

Randy Neugebauer, Republican, who heads the House Financial Services' subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said while it was appropriate for S&P to consider the political situation in its analysis, it was speculative of it to use predictions of what Congress will likely do in the future as a rationale for a downgrade.

India faces Rs 1.83 lakh crore exposure to U.S. debt

As one of the 15-largest foreign creditors to the U.S., India’s exposure to the United States’ ballooning debts is estimated at USD 41 billion — higher than the money America owes to countries like France and Australia.

The overall national debt of the U.S. is moving nearer to USD 15 trillion, out of which it owes over USD 4.5 trillion to foreign countries holding the U.S. government debt securities.

While China is the single-largest holder of the U.S. treasury securities with USD 1.15 trillion, India stands at 14th position with USD 41 billion (about Rs 1.83 lakh crore), as per the US Treasury Department.

The unprecedented debt downgrade of the U.S. from the top-notch ‘AAA’ level by Standard and Poor’s might also lead to an immediate action by Reserve Bank of India, which allows holding of government debt securities of countries with mostly a ‘Triple-A’ rating.

While a vast majority of the USD 41 billion portfolio is owned by RBI itself, some Indian banks also might have some exposure, sources said.

They said that the RBI was most likely to allow holding of the US securities even with a notch-lower rating, as it has been itself amassing the US treasury securities over the past one year despite a deepening debt crisis there.

The Indian holding has grown by about USD 10 billion in the past one year, the U.S. Treasury data shows.

The RBI holds the US treasury securities as part of its foreign exchange reserves and the dollar holdings account for about 10 per cent of its total portfolio.

Some experts pointed out that India has been increasing its exposure on the pretext that the US debt bonds were one of the most secure from default risks.

However, the U.S., which was on the brink of defaulting on its debt obligations last week, was saved by way of a last-minute deal reached by President Barack Obama to raise the country’s USD 14.3 trillion borrowing ceiling.

Rating agency S&P, which has based its downgrade of the country’s rating on the political opposition to the government plans to fight the debt problems, has termed the rescue plan as inadequate to tackle the U.S. debt situation.

While an exposure of USD 41 billion is a substantial figure from Indian context, this accounts for less than 0.3 per cent of the U.S.’ total debt and just about 1 per cent of its total foreign debts.

In fact, the Indian exposure is equivalent to an estimated USD 40 billion worth treasury bonds held by one single entity, Warren Buffett-led Berkshire Hathaway.

The overall foreign holding of the US government securities has grown by about USD 500 billion in past one year, while China has increased its exposure by about USD 300 billion during this period.

Among top foreign creditors, China is followed by Japan (USD 912 billion), the UK (USD 346 billion), Brazil (USD 211 billion), Taiwan (USD 153 billion), Hong Kong (122 billion), Russia (USD 115 billion), Switzerland (USD 108 billion), Canada (USD 91 billion), Luxembourg (USD 68 billion), Germany (USD 61 billion), Thailand (USD 60 billion), Singapore (USD 57 billion) and India (USD 51 billion).

Countries with lower exposure than India include Turkey, Ireland, South Korea, Belgium, Poland, Mexico, Italy, Netherlands, France, Philippines, Norway, Sweden, Colombia, Israel, Chile, Egypt, Malaysia and Australia in the respective order.