Mothers and Daughters: A Million Silent Mutinies Yet to be Recorded. So Don’t Turn Us into the New MY

Mothers and youngsters are the new MY (Muslims and Yadavs) factor – a glorious combo whose collective votes shall bring a massive victory for the ruling party. The earlier version of MY pales before it.

As we know, in India, parivar or family is the living reality of which elections are the dream. Congratulations mothers and young daughters of India! You are now a major part of the dream in the 2024 elections.

Mothers and youngsters are the new MY (Muslims and Yadavs) factor – a glorious combo whose collective votes shall bring a massive victory for the ruling party.

The earlier version of MY pales before it.

Motherhood and youth have always been the subject of exquisite poems, sculptures, and paintings, mostly created by males. The impact of these timeless works of art is strong. Under slogans about women being ‘Shakti’ and the youth being our collective future, several unexamined assumptions have always gone undebated.

Firstly, why do images of young men predominate whenever the youth of India is being discussed? Why are young women projected as part of a total identity package labelled as mothers of the future, who will raise wonderful sons to serve Mother India? Is a young mother, who mostly spends all her days and nights caring for her children, isolated from the rest of the world and well-paid jobs, the most enviable soul upon the Earth? No one pauses to check this for a fact with MY-2?

Mrinal Pande

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

A mysterious assumption is that our young virtuous mothers by their very definition are selfless. So, raising children is its own reward.

However, men fall under another category . They provide the seed and move on to work leaving the mother to care for the progeny. If asked why it must be so. The standard answer is, ‘Shall I leave my job then? Who will put food on the table?’

Women are great because they set men free.

The underlying assumption is that a mother’s love is unconditional. She only gives, never demands anything in return.

Let us talk sense for once around MY as it really is.

The first memories we all have of warmth, security, sensual tenderness, and being nourished come indeed from our mothers. But what is equally true is that as children turn into youthful creatures, intense feelings and shows of affection peter out. Most youngsters, especially sons, at some point begin to find mothers’ love chokingly possessive. There are scores of jokes about whiny snooping mothers who rub your noses in guilt and need unstinted attention. This is also less visible but true in the case of young daughters. As they turn teenagers, mothers seem to them like gloomy prophets talking endlessly of male predators and the drudgery of a married woman’s life.

To daughters, whose thoughts are turning into thoughts of romantic love, mothers’ quips sound irritating to say the least. Frank talk between mothers and young daughters about love, sex, needs for privacy is carefully pared down. And mothers deem it fine for family males to chaperone young daughters and/or monitor their outings, mobiles, and reading material, which they consider totally acceptable.

The heterosexual version of motherhood in traditional Indian families is supported by the presently dominant political ideology, and demands that, as girls, we transfer our feelings of dependency, sensuality, and mutuality to the male authority in control of that particular area.

This, few realise, deepens the rift between young women and older ones further. It is not surprising, therefore, that eminent women who have come up in the world, mostly credit fathers for encouraging and mentoring them. Men get the credit when daughters top the merit lists, but mothers mostly appear as shy withdrawn figures feeding laddoos to toppers or smiling wordlessly on our TV screens.

This constant belittling of ageing mothers and the ambitions of young daughters automatically promotes notions of aggrandisement of men.

Their unquestioned supremacy within families and politics helps young men, on the other hand, and makes them idolise the father and lends them a positive assertive self image girls are denied. Male ambition is deemed admirable and assertiveness is valued as a virtue.

For young girls, when they seek to empower themselves, suddenly everything becomes a cautious “ask your brothers, fathers, or uncles for guidance.” ‘Sab kuch papa (or bhai or uncles) se pooch kar karna hai!  

So, before the ruling male cabals lump MY-2 as a faceless body of votes, and promise them free education, cheaper cooking gas, money in the bank and free laptops, they need to realise this alone cannot lead to empowerment. Young daughters know, as they grow, it is the mother who is sold to her as her role model. But how many of them wish to sacrifice their independence and free will to the men in their lives: father, husband, employers?

With the undeniable rise in crimes against working women in streets and offices, the word in the street is working women are paying for their ambitions. Young working wives risk constant social disapprobation and even ostracisation for being different to other compliant bahus: “Ladki ho ke bhi apne ko bahut bada samjhati hai!”

As a mother and daughter, my writer mother and I always exchanged unspoken knowledge about the impending erosion of a mother’s authority as a parent as career choices loomed. And I saw time and again how the family would stand by the father and elder men to decide young girls’ and mothers’ work choices through an old list of dos and don’ts created for daughters by traditional family men. But skilled manipulators that they were, the don’ts were transmitted through mothers and grandmothers.

Show me a woman in my generation who, when she obviously outshone other candidates for a good job, wasn’t asked the appalling question: “Is your family okay with you working?”

Still there has been progress and there is hope. Even decades ago, a subliminal, subversive, but preverbal knowledge passed between me and my mother that “this is so wrong!” It was almost as though I was still within her, floating in the amniotic fluid. Many of my family opted for peace but my mother stood by me worried but firmly supportive of my silent refusal to bend my will to others.

Today when I think of the impossible conditions under which my mother rose to be a literary figure in the 60s in India, despite the impossible societal expectations of homemakers, my father’s distaste for women performing on stage, his quiet rage at my mother occasionally travelling on her own to Lucknow and broadcasting her works on the AIR, my anger against her dissolves into sadness followed by a strange but ancient unexpurgated anger of a young daughter: Why was she so diffident? How could she make it sound to her children like a joke or just a prank? What would have happened if my mother had tried to be a “good mother” like her female relatives, accepting the near impossible demands made on women of her generation and turned into an anxious, worrying puritanical keeper of her daughters and their virginity until good boys had been found for all of them by the men in the family and they went off to their “own house”?

I want to laugh about those anxious days, but a part of me still refuses to forget a period when one felt unprotected, unmothered and alone in a male dominant media. I never forget before feminism formally entered working spaces, how transitory, fragmented, and wordless the world seemed to young women globally. The timeless stories of the mother and daughter bond and their forced separation, the price we paid for finding our own voice and vote. We have managed over time to claim our experience as underestimated paid workers and of mental and physical abuse as real and got many old laws revised and made more women-friendly. These are some of a million silent mutinies to be still recorded. So do not try to turn us into MY-2 good Sirs, we’ve come a long way!

Saakhi is a Sunday column from Mrinal Pande, in which she writes of what she sees and also participates in. That has been her burden to bear ever since she embarked on a life as a journalist, writer, editor, author and as chairperson of Prasar Bharti. Her journey of being a witness-participant continues.

Motherhood Recollected in Tranquility

To me, traditional sweet images of mothering handed down by older women always seemed somewhat fake and flaky. Primarily because they were based on a steady assumption that a husband’s career was more important for the family than a wive’s.

Saakhi is a Sunday column from Mrinal Pande, in which she writes of what she sees and also participates in. That has been her burden to bear ever since she embarked on a life as a journalist, writer, editor, author and as chairperson of Prasar Bharti. Her journey of being a witness-participant continues. 

Mothers’ Day is once again upon us. Do not forget that mothers, pure or lascivious, have not been given real autonomy or sense of selfhood in the entire act of procreation and mothering. The short-term celebration of their ability to create a new life is often the only advantage given to them, so they clutch at it and continue to play their part in the subversion of females.

Across the world one undeniable fact is, without women there can be no children on our planet. But even after India won freedom and elected its own political leaders, legally and societally, patriarchy’s creator Manu’s rulings stayed: man shall provide the sperm and his lawfully wedded wife the womb to bring forth socially and legally acceptable heirs in families.

Mrinal Pande

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

It is Amrit Kaal and a lot of water since has flown in Ganga, Jamuna, Saraswati, Sindhu, Kaveri, et al. – but the mindset traditional marriages have created is firmly in place. It has frequently been rearing its hoary head in the courts, when issues like divorce, paternity, property rights and (most recently) legalising same-sex marriages come up. As physical and psychic rites of passage go, after in vitro fertilisation and sanction for surrogacy, in the medical context ‘to father a child’ for the male has changed entirely since Manu. Fatherhood is now possible even if the man (in some cases other than an infertile husband) just provides a sperm, and a steady income to sustain the child born out of his wife or (in case of her inability) from a rented womb. But our familial and to a large extent legal expectations of working mothers remain unchanged. As child nurturers, their continuous presence for years, feeding, cleaning, cooking, punishing, rewarding, marking special occasions and chaperoning the child (mostly alone) is taken for granted.

From where I stand now, motherhood in our Constitution appears to have guaranteed true gender equality and a diverse socio-political system. But the System did nothing to desegregate women from home and single parenting. They were expected to be passive and modest and patient recipients of the State’s largesse. Lack of visibility as over burdened workers, or access to salaries and property shares like men, degraded working mothers’ potential both as a human beings and creative, mobile risk takers. It took especially gifted and vocal women half a century to start breaking several glass ceilings, but then Covid came and they were once again under house arrest. Post Covid, the job market has let in men first and many working mothers have lost vital jobs both in the formal and informal sectors. A startling fact all psychiatrists have recorded in the post Covid surveys is the rise in the number of cases of depression and post partum blues among jobless women with small children.

Also read: Breaking the Stigma, Non-Custodial Mothers in India Are on the Road To Redefining Parenting

An oft heard accusation is mothers today are not what mothers used to be: kind, patient and loving. They are restless, aggressive and work and earn money. Yes, so do the men. And the real reason for women to want to get the hell out of domesticity and mothering for a few hours each day, as all of us who have raised children know, is unrelenting and long term motherhood can be incredibly tiresome. While the innocence and beauty of a child may melt one’s heart, children’s need for constant attention, patience and endless jollity from mothers, especially during lock-ins during wars or pandemics, can often drive young mothers (who are expected also to be cooks and cleaners in many cases) over the edge. And with the shrinking job market, rising inflation and general rise in crimes against women everywhere, the hysterical melt downs and infamous post natal blues may now last years not days.

Most women in my generation became mothers in the late 1960s, when the family and clans were steadily moving towards consumerism. Yet husbands spoke of starting a family ASAP even if the wives were working. In-laws and parents supported them and awaited the birth of the first grandchild, preferably male. No one asked working women if they were ready to proceed on long leave (usually not granted) or just chuck up good jobs to be mothers. To be a mother was sold to us as young girls as a rite of passage for becoming a complete woman. This posed problems for those among us who had started working at good, enjoyable and salaried jobs before we were married. We had harboured complex dreams about a career much like our husbands’. But wives, not husbands, were expected to put them away and plunge headlong into preparing for motherhood.

To me, traditional sweet images of mothering handed down by older women always seemed somewhat fake and flaky. Primarily because they were based on a steady assumption that a husband’s career was more important for the family than a wive’s. Yes, we were well educated and had our families’ permission to look for salaried jobs, and the luxury of having hired help to care for our babies. But no sooner than the potential job agency noticed on your CV that you were married, they had a second thoughts about your viability as a serious long-term worker. At any job interview you appeared for, the inevitable first question was, does your husband know/agree to your working outside home?

Did the first flush of the women’s movement change things for middle class working mothers like us ? Well it did, to some extent. But what I now see is that we were integrated into the same system and structures that stood during the Independence struggle, and they were centred on males. Aruna Asaf Ali told me frankly in an interview that most women in her generation joined in the movement for political liberation, picketed and often went to jails, without thinking of women’s liberation but because their fathers, brothers or sons were in the struggle and facing duress at the hand of the colonial government.

Also read: The Varied Notions of Motherhood

In the last decade, as Indian women are increasing becoming visible in professions other than teaching and medicine, and rising to top positions globally, we are witnessing a new wave of conservatism: political, religious and deeply hostile to the gains made by women. But at the same time, showing women through filters of Hindu Sanatani religion as Mother goddesses. This makes the whole celebration of mothers, with their children as their symbolic divine credentials conferring an abstract divinity and super powers of Mata Rani upon them, dubious. The appeal for legalising same-sex marriages negates the view that only heterosexual couples with genetically produced children can have a real stake in the future of the country and humanity. This deification of mothers makes us forget our days and nights as realtime working mothers uprooted frequently from sleep to offer a warm consoling hand against nightmares, be (sneeringly) excused half way from important meetings for a PTA meeting or to accompany a child to the orthodontist, and the waves of brittle anger around us when our exhausted heads hit the pillow after a long day with petulant ‘again-you-were-not-there’ ringing in our ears.

How many of us have noticed obvious questions on motherhood that go unmentioned in histories of wars, treaties, exploration and expansion of empires? (How many children did Padmavati have? How many daughters died with her? Did Kunti love her co wife’s Nakul Sahdev like her own? Did Draupadi mourn the death of Bhim’s other abandoned wife Hidimba’s son Ghatotkach? Why couldn’t Jhansi ki Rani have children? Why did the British derecognise her adopted son legally as her heir?)

Motherhood, whatever its class or colour, when you start probing these questions, appears to have a history, replete with its laws and an ideology more fundamental than nationalism. Mother’s Day is as good as any to begin.

Mrinal Pande is a writer and veteran journalist.

Safoora Zargar Case Lays Bare How Superficial India’s Respect for Motherhood Is

The refusal to grant bail to Zargar has yet again reminded us that not all motherhoods are equal. Not in the eyes of the state, the political classes, or society.

Most societies place a high premium on motherhood. India is no exception.

Motherhood is represented as that saintly obligation pressed into the service of preserving the institution of family and celebrating marketed national values. We are reminded repeatedly – often in facile ways – of motherhood’s exalted status. Under such conditions, not belonging to the pantheon of Mothers is considered a dereliction of civic and national duty. But then again, the compulsion to not fail the duty of being a mother is hardly surprising in a culture not known for respecting individual choices, a culture known for stigmatising women who push boundaries of social and political conservatism.

More often than not, ideals of motherhood are woven into political messaging. Across the aisle, India’s misogynist politicians, while delivering crass sermons, habitually address women as ‘mothers and sisters’. Rather than being treated as individual human beings or citizens, women find their visibility and significance becomes contingent on the roles assigned to them within conventional families.

Such empty eulogies notwithstanding, ‘mothers and sisters’ in everyday India spend their lives as second-grade citizens in most, if not all, spheres of life. History bears testimony to the fact that mothers, and women on the threshold of motherhood,  are not spared sexual violence in any form of conflict. In fact, they become cherished victims of war for men to fight over.

The continued imprisonment of 27-year-old Safoora Zargar, an expectant mother, has once more laid bare the hypocrisy of the official as well as popular narrative built around motherhood. The refusal to grant bail to Zargar has yet again reminded us that not all motherhoods are equal. Not in the eyes of the state, the political classes, or society. Lest we forget, we must remember that like most celebratory and politically expedient euphemisms, motherhood too is selectively used to reward the obedient and punish the deviant.

Last week, Zargar, 21 weeks into her pregnancy, was refused bail, despite her lawyers telling the court she was suffering from Polycystic Ovarian Disorder. The lawyers also reminded the court of Zargar’s enhanced vulnerability in the midst of COVID-19, especially given that inmates in all three of Delhi’s jails have tested positive for the virus.

Watch: Why is Indian Society Silent Over the Jailing of Safoora Zargar?

Implicated in the violence that gripped Northeast Delhi in February, and charged under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA,) Zargar, a research scholar from Jamia Millia Islamia, was arrested by the police on April 10. Granted bail on April 13, she was arrested again the same day on the basis of a separate FIR.

Dismissing her bail plea, a Delhi court observed: “When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.” Commenting on the court’s observation, legal scholar Gautam Bhatia wrote that “when a court needs to rely upon metaphor instead of law to justify keeping an individual in prison, it is perhaps time for the justice system to take a long, hard look at itself”.

But the hypocrisy around the narrative of motherhood goes beyond any one institution. Today, more than at any time in recent memory, the lack of compassion evident in denying Zargar bail has become a prominent marker of Indian politics and society. Zargar’s case suggests religion has trumped concerns about her pregnancy, regardless of the paeans sung to mothers.

Right after the arrest, right-wing trolls went to town about Zargar being an unwed, expectant mother. With social media toxicity spiralling, Zargar’s husband told Alt News  that they were married in 2018. That Zargar’s marital status, which has no bearing on the case at hand, should be a matter of speculation, in itself is unacceptable. The choice of becoming a single mother or being a mother in relationships outside the institution of marriage is not the business of the state, or the public at large.

But, of course, the trolls were acting out a political script. They were well aware of what they were doing. The posts were an attempt to turn public opinion against Zargar. Their aim was to nudge a judgemental society to respond to its regressive instincts.

Around the same time the court refused Zargar bail, a pregnant elephant died a torturous death, standing in the middle of a river. Initial reports suggested the elephant was deliberately fed a firecracker-filled pineapple. People from all walks of life – from politicians to Bollywood celebrities – took to social media calling the perpetrators out, some even using the tragedy to attack political opponents. “Post after post lashed out at the supposed perpetrators, angrily wondering how human beings can be so cruel towards an innocent elephant, that too a pregnant one,” wrote Debabrata Pain in this space.

Also read: Human Cruelty and a Tale of Two Pregnancies

These contradictions in public and political response to the pregnancies of two different species of mothers are too stark to escape notice. Similar things can be said of the recent case when Hindu right-wingers  took up cudgels on behalf of protesters in the ongoing Black Lives Matter upsurge in the United States. Many among them, chafing at US police brutality, either supported or remained mum about Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders like Kapil Mishra, who delivered inflammatory speeches against protesters critical of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

It may be pertinent to remind such people, excited by the US’s anti-racism movement, of India’s own racism, and their own persistent failure to take note of it. Why not let this also be the moment to talk about homegrown racism? Why not use social media to condemn attacks on Nigerians in Delhi and the ritual hounding of people from the Northeast of India? Not to mention the blatant communalisation of COVID-19 in this country.

Refusing Zargar bail is part of the same retributive political culture – mothers be damned – that allowed human rights activist Sudha Bharadwaj’s daughter to visit her mother for barely five minutes in Pune’s Yerwada jail. “The conversation, on an intercom across a glass window, was chaotic and interrupted by a dozen other undertrials also trying to catch up with their families simultaneously,” said a report in The Wire.

It’s time to square up to a bald truth: we don’t really care about our ‘mothers and sisters’. After all, most common, popular references to mothers and sisters in the Hindi heartland don’t idealise and elevate women so much as denigrate them using words I am sure you are already recalling in your mind as you read this.

Why Do Kids Call Their Parents ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’?

You can say “Mom” in any country in the world and people would pretty much know who you meant.

Once, a long time ago, one of us, Bethany, fell behind at the grocery store and was trying to catch up. She called out her mom’s name, “Mom!,” and to her frustration, half the women there turned around and the other half ignored Bethany, assuming it was someone else’s child.

How was Bethany going to get her mom’s attention? She knew a secret trick that would work for sure: Her mom had another name. She called “Denise!” and magically, just her mom (the other one of us) turned around.

But why do almost all kids use the same name for their parents? This is the kind of question we enjoy investigating as scientists who study families and human development.

The sounds heard ‘round the world

All around the world, the words for “mom,” “dad,” “grandma” and “grandpa” are almost the same. Other words aren’t nearly as similar.

Take “dog,” for example. In French, “dog” is “chien”; in Dutch, it is “hond”; and in Hungarian, it is “kutya.” But if you needed to get your mother’s attention in France, the Netherlands or Hungary, you’d call “Maman,” “Mama” or “Mamma.”

You can say “Mom” in any country in the world and people would pretty much know who you meant. And did you notice that “Dad” is also similar across languages – “Papa,” “Baba,” “Tad” and “Dad”?

Scientists have noticed the same thing. George Peter Murdock was an anthropologist, which is a scientist who studies people and cultures. Pete, as his friends called him, traveled the globe back in the 1940s and collected information about families from all over. He discovered 1,072 similar words for “mom” and “dad.”

Pete handed this data over to linguists, the scientists who study language, and challenged them to figure out why these words sound the same. Roman Jakobson, a famous linguist and literary theorist, then wrote an entire chapter on “mama” and “papa.”

The first sounds infants make are those that are made with the lips and are easily seen: m, b and p. These sounds are quickly followed by other sounds that can be easily seen: t and d. It’s possible that as infants practice making these easy sounds (mamamamama) or produce these sounds while nursing or drinking from a bottle, the mother hears “mama.” She then smiles with joy and says, “Mama! You said Mama!”

Of course, the baby is happy to see the mother happy, so the baby says it again. Bingo, “Mama” is born. Similarly, the baby may practice “dadadadada” or “papapapa” and the parents’ reactions result in the baby repeating “dada” or “papa.”

These words refer to the two most important people in most babies’ lives, followed closely by similar words for grandparents – nana, tata, bobcia, nonno, opa, omo – who often play important roles, as well.

Reinforcing everyone’s roles

But there’s more to this story. Once children can say many sounds, why don’t they call their parents Ella, Zoheb, Dipankar or Denise?

It’s because we all have rules that most of us follow. These are rules related to our cultures, our societies and even our families. We have rules for how to greet people (shake hands, hug), how to use forks or chopsticks, what to call our teacher (“Mrs. Bell”) and even where to sit at the dinner table.

We don’t think of these things as “rules”; they’re just there. One of these kinds of rules in most families around the world is that parents are the heads of the household and children are supposed to listen to them. By calling parents “Mom” or “Dad,” it helps everyone stick to their roles.

Some parents feel that if you call them by their first name, you don’t think they are the boss anymore (and parents generally don’t like that). But every family is different, which is part of what makes life so interesting. Some families have their own rules that might differ from your family’s rules.

Most kids call their mom “Mom,” but some kids don’t and that’s OK. For example, for our family rules, our kids may occasionally call us “Denise” and “Mom Bethany.”

The next time you call out “Mom!” in the store, whether in New York, Paris, Hong Kong or Durban, watch how many mothers turn around. It’s all because of a mixture of biology (easy sounds to see and make), environment (parents being happy you said this and smiling) and culture (rules).

If you have children when you grow up, what do you want them to call you?

Featured image credit: Joshua Reddekopp/Unsplash

Bethany Van Vleet, Senior Lecturer in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University and Denise Bodman, Principal Lecturer in Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Latest Data on PMMVY Coverage Shows Only Marginal Improvement in All-India Figures

Activists insist that the Ministry of Women and Child Development delayed the release of information. The final figures only came last week, but are not much different from what they estimates based on earlier data.

New Delhi: Three civil rights activists, who had held a press conference last week to declare that the coverage of maternity benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) Scheme was not in tune with the claims, have accused the Ministry of Women and Child Development of false “refutation” of the figures revealed by them, despite these being released by the ministry itself.

They have now spoken out about a few media organisations are accusing them of “spreading lies”.

In a detailed statement on the issue, the activists, Jean Dreze, Reetika Khera and Anmot Somanchi, said that the “central Government is in denial on low coverage of maternity benefits”.

Bringing up their earlier media interaction on the subject, they stated that “last week, we released some estimates of the coverage of maternity benefits in India. Some confusion emerged after that, partly due to inaccurate media reports (later corrected in most cases), and partly due to the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s alleged ‘refutation’ of our figures”.

Estimates of PMMVY coverage in line with final figures revealed by ministry

The activists insisted that “there was nothing wrong with the estimates of PMMVY coverage” released by them at the press conference on November 18 and quoted in an article by Drèze that was published in the Hindu the following day. They stated that these estimates were based on the ministry’s response to an RTI query which was received by them in August 2019.

However, on the day of the press conference itself, November 18, the activists said they received a response to a follow-up RTI query with 12-month figures for the financial year 2018-19 that allowed them to update these estimates. However, they said, there was “little difference” between the earlier figures and the updated estimates.

Also read: How the Centre Can Ensure Women Receive Maternity Benefits

Some instances of little difference in data

Pointing to these differences, they said the PMMVY coverage (in terms of “at least one instalment”) in 2018-19 as a proportion of all births was estimated at 22% based on the first RTI, and became 25% on the basis of the follow-up RTI.

Similarly, they said “some reports claimed that the Ministry had ‘refuted’ our estimates, quoting a figure of 1 crore for PMMVY coverage from a recent speech by WCD minister Smriti Irani. That figure, however, seems to be a cumulative total of PMMVY beneficiaries since the scheme was launched, as an earlier statement of the Ministry makes clear.”

They also stated that the figures in the table should be read bearing in mind that a small proportion of pregnant women (perhaps 1 or 2 %) were already supposed to be covered under the Maternity Benefit Act and related legislations in the formal sector.

‘No proactive disclosure by MoWCD, delay in response led to confusion’

The activists said the root cause of this confusion was the MoWCD’s failure to display this information pro-actively on a regular basis, as required under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Moreover, the ministry took 12 months to respond to the first RTI. They said there was “deep lack of transparency in PMMVY, which has contributed to the scheme’s poor performance.”

How the all-India coverage of PMMVY for 2018-19 looks now

The activists have pointed out that the number of PMMVY beneficiaries for 2018-19 who were paid at least one instalment stands at 67.3 lakh as against 60.4 lakh as per earlier figure. As a percentage of first births the figure is now 55 lakh in place of 49 lakh earlier, and as a percentage of all births it is now 25 lakh instead of 22 lakh.

Likewise, beneficiaries who received the third instalment stand at 33.2 lakh as per revised figure in place of 38.3 lakh earlier. As a percentage of first births the revised figure is 27 lakh in place of 31 lakh and as a percentage of all births it is 12 lakh in place of 14 lakh earlier. So the number of these beneficiaries has gone down.

In the footnote to this data, the activists said the number of births is estimated at 270.5 lakh, based on 2017 data for India’s population (133.9 crore) and birth rate (20.2 per thousand). Of these, 123 lakh are counted as first births, based on a total fertility rate of 2.2 children per women (implying that 45.5% of all births are first births). They said this information on number of beneficiaries was received from MoWCD on November 18, 2019.

Also read: On Health and Nutrition, Budget 2019 is Lacklustre and Uninspiring

In response to the earlier RTI, MoWCD had provided figures for the 16-month period from April 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019, and these were put on a 12-month basis by assuming uniform distribution of beneficiaries over that 16-month period.

Second RTI reveals state-wise estimates of PMMVY coverage

The activists have released the state-wise estimates of PMMVY coverage, that have come through the second RTI.

As per this data, the PMMVY beneficiaries in 2018-19, as a proportion (in %) of all births and first births were 67.6 and 108.2 for Himachal Pradesh; 59.1 and 94.5 for Andhra Pradesh; 47.2 and 127.6 for Madhya Pradesh; 43.1 and 73.2 for Kerala; 39.3 and 86.4 for Haryana; 36.6 and 58.5 for Punjab; 33.6 and 53.8 for Jammu & Kashmir; 33.3 and 86.6 for Rajasthan; 32.9 and 55.9 for Karnataka; 31.6 and 53.7 for Maharashtra; 31.4 and 59.6 for Uttarakhand; 26.6 and 64.0 for Chhattisgarh; 25.5 and 56.2 for Gujarat; 21.9 and 54.7 for Jharkhand; 20.8 and 33.3 for West Bengal; 20.4 and 61.3 for Uttar Pradesh; 18.8 and 43.2 for Assam; and 7.8 and 24.8 for Bihar. The All India figure stood at 25% and 55% of all births and first births respectively.

The footnote to this data stated that “beneficiaries” refers to women who have received at least one instalment of PMMVY money. It also notes that states have been ranked in descending order of PMMVY coverage as a proportion of all births.

So as per this data while Himachal Pradesh performed the best, Bihar clearly lagged on this parameter. Also, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Telangana were not been included in this data as they have their own maternity benefit schemes.

Maternity Benefits Restricted to Handful of Urban Women in India, Finds Survey

The recent Jaccha-Baccha Survey 2019 was conducted in six states: Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh.

Jaipur: The recent Jaccha-Baccha Survey 2019 conducted in six states – Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh, is a picture of the hardships faced by pregnant and nursing women in rural India, who have to contend with frugal diet, lack of rest, weakness, dismal health services and insufficiently-supporting government schemes. The survey also reveals how maternity benefits are restricted to a handful of women in India. 

Background of maternity benefits in India 

In 2013, maternity benefits became a legal entitlement of all Indian women (except those already receiving similar benefits as regular government employees or under other laws) under the National Food Security Act. “Every pregnant and lactating mother shall be entitled to [nutritious food and] maternity benefit of not less than Rs 6,000, in such instalments as may be prescribed by the Central government,” a provision in the act read. 

At that point, a pilot scheme called Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY) that entitled women to receive a monetary benefit of Rs 4,000 per child [restricted to two live births], was being implemented in 53 districts. 

On October 30, 2015, the Ministry of Women and Child Development (WCD) filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, claiming that it was planning to extend IGMSY from 53 to 200 districts in 2015-16 and all districts in 2016-17.

Yet, the budget allocation for IGMSY in the 2016-17 Union Budget remained the same at Rs 400 crore, as it was in 2015-16 and 2014-15.

Also read: Modi Government’s Maternity Benefits Scheme Will Likely Exclude Women Who Need It the Most

On December 31, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that pregnant women  across India would get maternity benefits worth Rs 6,000. An allocation of Rs 2,700 crore was made in the Union Budget 2017-18. However, that too wasn’t adequate for effective coverage.

What’s wrong with PMMVY

In August 2017, ministry of WCD released the guidelines and draft Rules for Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) that provided for maternity benefits worth Rs 5,000, but restricted to the first live birth in a flagrant violation of NFSA.

An RTI query has revealed that only half of eligible women have received PMMVY benefits in 2018-19. “Since 55% or so of pregnant women are not even eligible (because of the ‘first living child’ condition), this means that the effective coverage of PMMVY is just 22%. In fact, in terms of disbursement of all three instalments of PMMVY women, coverage is just 14%,” reads the survey.

Apart from the statistics, the survey points to several other difficulties in implementation of the scheme in rural India.

To receive the benefit, eligible women need to fill a long form of about 23 pages for each of the three instalments. They are also required to produce various documentary proofs like a mother-child protection card, an Aadhaar card of their own, plus their husband’s Aadhaar card and bank passbook, aside from proof that their bank account has been linked with Aadhaar. 

One of the many challenges to rural mothers is the need for all applications to be submitted online. Photo: Reuters

All the applications are required to be submitted online, which poses yet another challenge as online applications are often rejected, delayed, or returned with error messages for a series of issues related to Aadhaar-enabled payments of welfare benefits. 

Signs of hope in Odisha

The survey noticed positive results in Odisha, that has its own maternity benefit scheme called Mamata. This scheme covers two births and seems to work relatively well. Not only do children aged between three to six years get an egg five times a week in their mid-day meal, it is also distributed as Take-Home-Ration (THR) for younger children as well as pregnant and nursing women. In fact, eggs are included in the menu in primary and upper-primary schools. 

Signs of active team work between anganwadi, ANM and ASHA workers in Odisha was also reported in the survey. Basic services like health check-up, tetanus injections, iron and folic acid tablets and food supplements are provided to pregnant and nursing women registered at the anganwadis

Odisha was the only survey state where a majority of the households were covered under some form of health insurance – Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana, Ayushman Bharat or the state’s own health insurance scheme (Biju Swasthya Kalyan Yojana that was launched in 2018). 

Also read: How the Centre Can Ensure Women Receive Maternity Benefits

Chhattisgarh was also found to have made sustained efforts to improve anganwadis and primary health care by initiating a joint health checkup and immunisation session, involving the ASHA, AWW and ANM forces. 

Maternity benefits for only a handful of women

India’s Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act in 2017 was widely celebrated as it raised the number of weeks of paid maternity benefits to 26 weeks. However, these provisions apply  only to a tiny fraction of women in the country – those working in formal employment. 

A legal recognition of universal maternity entitlements in India came with the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013 which made a provision of a benefit of Rs 6,000 per child. Even the PMMVY is in violation of the NFSA as it restricts the benefits to the first child and reduces the amount to be paid to Rs 5,000. 

In other words, some women are more equal than others as far as maternity benefits are concerned. The most privileged women get maternity benefits using the wages compensation principle (as they should), but the most disadvantaged are entitled to very low amounts. The existence of stark discrimination is not even acknowledged.