When the recent amendment to the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 became law, Women and Child Development Minister Mrs. Maneka Gandhi proudly claimed, "We have made history." It is debatable whether this is the kind of history we need. This refers to a clause in the Amendment which raises the period of maternity leave from 12 to 26 weeks with another month added for complications. The additional month makes sense; the 26 weeks does not.
As a nation, we have little to be proud of when it comes to our legacy of treating women in years gone by.
Among other things, we had left the matter of women’s education untouched. Our grandmothers somehow learnt to write their names in the vernacular and that was it. None other than the great Swami Vivekananda, after his first visit to America and Europe, admonished us about this and proclaimed that without women’s upliftment no society can prosper. Let it be said that we have certainly improved since our independence. The best colleges and institutions have produced outstanding women and they have more than held their own in the workplace in a hitherto totally male-dominated society. In HR, we have seen employers shift from point blank refusal to reluctant acceptance of women employees, and that reluctance is waning as returns are becoming apparent. With this enactment, it is very likely that we will be going back to square one. This time the reluctance is no longer prejudicial but eminently practical. It promises to get worse in days to come.
This time around, as just mentioned, the reluctance will not stem from a mental block.
We must remember that an employer is not a social crusader. He runs a business and he owes it to his stakeholders to run it well, with optimum efficiency and cost effectiveness. Asking him to try out a woman employee with the knowledge that she may get married, have a family and be away from the workplace on paid leave for 26 weeks twice over is going to be a very tough ask.
Working from home and itinerant options do not always work out. Women already employed may benefit, but what about the future? Even those employed at present may well feel that their careers have taken a beating as they are quietly side-lined for promotions and greater responsibilities. The typical Indian solution to fix a problem is to allocate a quota. If that happens then meritocracy goes for a toss. Surely our objective must be a "fair" and not a "skewed' employment opportunity for women.
It is extremely difficult to fathom out logic for this particular clause in the amendment which critically harms women’s employability in the future. Is it a case of misplaced concern or knee-jerk populism?
The Hon'ble Minister has stated that this change will produce healthy children. Laudable thinking. However, when women of the future do not get jobs in an age where double income is a must and not a fad, it is debatable whether the health of children will derive benefit from tightened budgetary constraints at home. It is no secret that the job market is not growing sufficiently anywhere in the world including India and now with this legislation the employer will naturally look at the male species as a first choice, given the requirement to give prolonged leave to the other gender. The new generation of potential working women, growing up to be more educated, more mobile and more spirited, will be severely hit by this change. Moreover, we have, over the last 7 decades, moved away from a paternalistic society and it is increasingly understood that parenthood today is a joint responsibility. Paternity Leave is also talked about. In one fell swoop, this enactment brutally shifts the onus of child rearing straight back onto the lap of the mother alone. Is this desirable? Arguably not.
In going back to the figure of 26, one cannot but wonder how this came about. Let it be said that nobody would suggest that this is an arbitrary figure but the logic needs to be understood. The International Labour Organization has recommended 14 and we were only two short. How the number 26 was arrived at is baffling. Given that half of 52 weeks in a year is 26, was it a case of divide and rule or a play of divisive forces? It is pointless to argue that one or two countries are even more liberal. They do not have our legacy of keeping women away from the workplace with the sole responsibility of minding hearth and home. We were just coming out of this legacy and now this! I am reluctant to give too much credit to the social awareness of our elected representatives since I have been given to understand only about 53 MPs including 11 women were in the Lok Sabha when this Bill was being discussed. One may feel justified in wondering how many would have been present if some scam was under the spotlight.
All in all, it needs reiteration that whenever such measures are contemplated, a hard look is necessary at all the future ramifications. Nations are not run by lofty intentions and ideals alone. Ground realities, past legacies and future pitfalls must be considered. It is not intended to infer that the powers that be did not have the common good in mind, but as mentioned in the very first line, the result may well be that we have scored an own-goal. Worse still, an immediate rectification is not likely to be politically feasible. By the time it may be, alas, the damage would have been done.