Pandemic worsened unemployment problem in India

The sixteenth edition of E-Dialogues was on the topic “COVID-19 and Unemployment- Cause and Effect”. The panel for the webinar consisted of N Sai Balaji, National President, All India Students’ Association (AISA); Prof Surajit Mazumdar, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University(JNU); Tikender Panwar, Former Deputy Mayor of Shimla; and Abhishek Pandey, Editor, Urban Update. The webinar was mediated by Kumar Dhananjay, Consulting Editor, Urban Update.
Dhananjay introduced the topic siting a record by National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) which reveals that almost 3000 people killed themselves because of unemployment in India whereas independent agencies show this figure at around 14,000. He argued that even before the pandemic, the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was ever low at 3.1 per cent and the unemployment at a 45 year high. He added, “In the context of the pandemic, more than 2 crore salaried class people lost their job. And after involving the job losses in the unorganised sector, the figure is in the range of 14 crores.” He congratulated the youth of the country for taking a step forward in demanding their right, that is employment, and collectively announcing September 17th as National Unemployment Day.
In order to give a direction to the discussion, Dhananjay asked N Sai Balaji to address how grave the situation of unemployment he has found to be among the youth. Balaji started by citing data on students who have died by suicide in different years in the country. He adduced to the gradual increase in number over the past three years. In 2016, students’ suicides were 9,400; in 2017, it was 9,900; and in 2018, it was found to be 10,154. He drew attention to the fact that these cases were highest in number in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, which happen to be the industrial states.
Balaji mentioned the three things that the youth has been demanding from the government during the pandemic-a fee waiver, postponement of exams and employment opportunities. All three of these are related to the problem of job losses. He also referred to the irresponsibility on the part of the government concerning public jobsand said that a lot can be done if the authorities are willing to.
Prof Mazumdar was the next speaker who said that one doesn’t get the idea of unemployment by looking at just data on those who are officially deemed to be unemployed. He proposed a comparison system, where the population in India which is employed is put in proportion with the population which is in the working-age group. India only has 35 per cent of the population employed, where over 55 per cent of the population is in the working-age group. He argued that the government is unable to channel the potential of the nation’s workforce which may contribute to the
country’s economy.
He referred to the fact that India is currently witnessing a demand-supply gap in job opportunities, tipping the balance towards an excess of demand. This is why most jobs pay less and may or may not have proper working conditions. Moreover, in the past two decades, farmers’ income have remained inadequate which forces them to move to the industrial/service sector, where the job situation is no better. He added, “Unemployment problem is not the only an effect of this but also the cause.”
Tikender presented a new perspective stating cities have shifted from a managerial aspect of ruling to more of an entrepreneur approach. He referred to the treatment of migrant workers as second or third class citizens which acts as acatalyst for reverse migration, that is, from cities to villages. He argued that cities are getting developed, but it has nothing to do with creating a viable environment for employment growth. Urban centres are now shifting from being labour intensive to capital intensive. He quoted the development of Smart City Command Centres under the Smart City Mission of the Government of India as an example. It aims at integrating a number of civic services under one roof, which is likely to increase productivity per worker while considerably decreasing job postings. He described how the profit mindedness in the government and growth in machine investment is leading to a state of “irreversible unemployment”.
Abhishek started by referring to data released by the Chennai Mathematical Institute (CMI) on state-wise unemployment in India. The vast difference in the condition of unemployment in different states was cited. Unemployment rates in states like Tripura and Haryana is as high as 27.9 and 33.5 per cent respectively, whereas in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, it drops down to 0.5 and 2.6 per cent. He compared how Himachal Pradesh and Odisha introduced similar ‘urban employment’ schemes in the pandemic, but Odisha recorded unemployment rates of 1.4 per cent while Himachal Pradesh recorded 15.8 per cent unemployment. He argued that the gap is the result of the difference in implementation of the schemes in the two states.
Panwar added that the crux of a city has to be how the government intends to develop the city apropos giving equal emphasis on employment and productivity growth.Kumaremphasised on the issue of policy paralysis, lack of vision, and ways to generate employment in the rural and urban sector. He argued that somewhere, the whole thought process is going helter-skelter at the government level. Abhishek mentioned the improvements that have taken place like double accounting reformsin municipal accounting and the construction of toilets. He said that around 60-65 per cent of those employed in the countrysurvive on 15 per cent of the GDP and added that this is a sign of the gross inequality prevalent in the employment sector. He was of the opinion that we will have to look, discuss and work on a solution to unemployment in urban and rural areas at the same time.