In March this year, women in Mumbai’s SHGs organised a SJSRY Bachav Mahasabha in Mumbai. Thousands of women participated. What were the reasons for these agitations?
The main reason for the agitation was that major and important components of SJSRY are missing from its new avatar the NULM. There is no mention or efforts to include components which strengthen and emancipate women from BPL (below poverty line) families, and it will in turn stop all the progress made to fight poverty through various important provisions of SJSRY. For instance, under SJSRY, the government would give a revolving fund of Rs. 2,000 direct to the bank account of each member after the incubation period of six months. But under NULM, an SHG of 10 to 20 women will be given a maximum revolving fund of Rs. 10,000 only, irrespective of the number of members in a group. It is demoralising for the urban poor when the quantum of revolving funds is reduced, especially since inflation is a reality and in fact, the number of urban poor has increased. Further, no lumpsum capital subsidy is given under the NULM scheme for loans taken to start micro enterprises, unlike in SJSRY. In its place is an interest subsidy. Interest rate charged will be at the rate of 7%. But the group will be reimbursed the market interest paid by them against the lower interest applicable to them, after repayment of the loan completely. There is also one condition, that if the group misses even one monthly installment they will not be reimbursed. The likelihood of such default is often very high as these groups (belonging to BPL families) are often faced with dire situations which break them, like floods or unforeseen loss in business. These new rules have made banks reluctant to take the risk of lending to SHGs.
Again, the community-based federations and organisations called Community Development Society (CDS) will be given only Rs. 50,000 one time, in place of Rs. 100/- per family per year as in SJSRY. This was a fund meant to facilitate awareness programmes, training and meetings of these CDS federations of SHG members. This is a serious setback since the earlier grant itself was becoming inadequate to undertake serious training activity in urban areas. The CDS was the strongest structure and the backbone of SJSRY. They are the extended hands of local urban bodies, and the main support system of BPL families. But under the new scheme, it will be reduced to a weak body.
If you see, there is no clear mention of vocational training for individual employment and self-employment in NULM. There is only a mention of capacity development training to be given to community institutions, SHGs, and their federations through a community pool. For all these reasons, NULM is a threat to what we have achieved with SJSRY over the past decade in Mumbai.
What were the main events and actions during this unique agitation by women?
The meetings of Suvarnjyot Mumbai Zilha, a federation of 32 CDSs formed under SJSRY, were conducted under the guidance of knowledgeable persons and some likeminded NGOs. A line of action was decided and an appeal letter was prepared. A day-long dharna was arranged at Azad Maidan where around 3,000 women participated. Their representatives also met the Mayor to hand over the appeal letter. The appeal included the list of important components of SJSRY which are not part of NULM. The Mayor in turn gave the letter to the Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department. In a follow up, the newly elected MPs were also contacted. They assured the women that they would take up these important issues at the level of the Centre.
How many families will be adversely affected by the change over from SJSRY to NULM?
In the present MCGM survey, the number of BPL families is estimated to be 493,855 in the city of Mumbai. This BPL survey was declared officially in July 2011.
In a city of Mumbai’s size, spread, and density, and due to its unique problems, it took very long to identify the real BPL families. Thereafter, SHGs were formed under SJSRY, which could be given revolving funds only after six months. Subsequently, the benefits of training and loan with subsidy could also be given. This entire process took two to three years. Due to this, most of the 493,855 BPL families were on the verge of benefitting immensely from SJSRY, when NULM was announced. The most important issue is that the field staff had promised the BPL families all the benefits under SJSRY, revolving funds as well as capital subsidy while forming their SHGs. Now the field staff is unable to fulfil this promise due to the change in the scheme. They have lost all their hard earned credibility achieved after years of ground level work. This is a dedicated field level staff, and by this one decision of the central government, they have lost face in the community. It is indeed the misfortune of our country that important decisions about the content and design of a poverty alleviation policy are taken at the top level, without any involvement or without even taking into consideration the opinion of concerned BPL families or ground level workers/officers.
What were the particular benefits that these women wanted to protect?
The SJSRY changed their economic, family and social structure. It gave them self confidence, empowered and emancipated them. It also brought them together and strengthened their bond by formation of SHGs, entrepreneur groups, neighbourhood groups, neighbourhood committees and CDSs. This gave them formal structures through which they could support each other, enhance their information and knowledge networks. All this has resulted in a change in their attitude, they view themselves differently. SJSRY also changed their position in their own family and community. Their agitation and movement today to protect their gains are a result of the real change brought in them by the implementation of SJSRY.
Why do you think so many women participated this time?
In my more than two decades of work, this was the first large scale agitation and movement without involvement of any outside body that I have seen. It was an action of the poor, for the poor. This was the last cry of the BPL families.