Context

• In recent years, several Indian states have prioritised direct cash transfers to women as a form of social security.
• However, one of the most vulnerable groups, pregnant women, continues to be deprived of their legal right to maternity benefits.
• While the National Food Security Act (NFSA) of 2013 mandates a minimum financial aid of ₹6,000 per child, the implementation of this provision has been inadequate.
• Therefore, it is imperative to explore the shortcomings of maternity benefit schemes in India, the challenges in their implementation, and the need for policy reform.

The Undermining of the NFSA Mandate

• The NFSA explicitly states that all pregnant women, except those in the formal sector, are entitled to maternity benefits.
• Adjusted for inflation, this amount should be at least ₹12,000 today, yet even the original ₹6,000 has not been fully implemented.
• Instead, the central government introduced the PM Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), which limits benefits to ₹5,000 for the first child and recently extended coverage to a second child only if it is a girl.
• This restriction violates the universal nature of maternity entitlements outlined in the NFSA and significantly weakens the program’s potential impact.

Shortcomings of PMMVY

• Implementation Failures and Lack of Transparency
  • The PMMVY has been marred by serious implementation challenges. Many eligible women are unable to access even the reduced benefits due to bureaucratic hurdles and digital inefficiencies.
  • The Ministry of Women and Child Development provides little information on the program’s performance, undermining transparency.
  • Although Right to Information (RTI) queries have provided some insight, they reveal a dismal picture.
  • Effective coverage of the PMMVY, defined as the proportion of pregnant women receiving at least one instalment, peaked at only 36% in 2019-20 and plummeted to just 9% in 2023-24.
  • The primary reason for this decline appears to be disruptions caused by software changes and overly complex implementation processes.
• Structural Barriers and Digital Exclusion
  • One of the significant hurdles in accessing PMMVY benefits is the over-reliance on Aadhaar-based payments and digital verification.
  • Many women, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds, struggle to navigate these systems, leading to their exclusion.
  • Technical glitches and procedural complications have further discouraged participation.
  • Instead of simplifying access, the government has introduced additional barriers, raising concerns about whether the administrative inefficiencies are deliberate cost-cutting measures rather than mere oversight.

A Comparison of State-Level Success Stories and Lessons for the Central Government

• Tamil Nadu: A Model for Comprehensive Maternity Benefits
  • Tamil Nadu has been a frontrunner in social welfare programs, particularly in maternal and child healthcare.
  • The state’s maternity benefit scheme, originally introduced in 1987, has undergone several enhancements over the years.
  • Under its current version, pregnant women receive financial assistance of ₹18,000 per child, a significantly higher amount than the ₹5,000 provided under the PMMVY.
  • The benefits are disbursed in instalments to ensure continuous support throughout pregnancy and after childbirth.
  • Additionally, Tamil Nadu’s program has been designed with a strong emphasis on accessibility and ease of implementation.
  • The state government has ensured that documentation requirements are minimal, reducing bureaucratic hurdles.
  • As a result, Tamil Nadu achieved 84% coverage of all births in 2023-24, a stark contrast to the PMMVY’s nationwide coverage of less than 10%.
• Odisha: Expanding Benefits with Political Commitment
  • Odisha’s Mamata Scheme, launched in 2009, is another example of a well-functioning maternity benefit program.
  • Unlike the PMMVY, which restricts benefits to only the first child (with a recent conditional extension to second-child girls), Odisha’s program provides ₹10,000 per child, covering a broader base of beneficiaries.
  • Ahead of the 2024 general election, the state government decided to double this amount, demonstrating a clear political commitment to maternal welfare.
  • Odisha’s Economic Survey data suggests that the Mamata Scheme achieved 64% coverage of all births in 2021-22, significantly higher than the PMMVY’s national figures.
  • One reason for this success is the state government’s focus on simplified procedures and direct beneficiary outreach.
  • Unlike the PMMVY, which has suffered from digital payment failures and bureaucratic inefficiencies, Odisha’s scheme ensures that funds reach eligible women in a timely manner.
• Lessons for the Central Government
  • Expand Coverage: The PMMVY should extend benefits beyond just the first child, as seen in Odisha and Tamil Nadu, to provide comprehensive support for maternal health.
  • Increase Benefit Amounts
    • The financial support offered by the PMMVY is insufficient to meet basic nutritional and healthcare needs during pregnancy.
    • The central government should follow Tamil Nadu’s model and increase benefits in line with inflation.
  • Simplify Implementation
    • The PMMVY is plagued by digital verification failures and bureaucratic red tape.
    • Tamil Nadu and Odisha have shown that streamlined procedures lead to higher coverage and better accessibility.
  • Ensure Political Commitment
    • The PMMVY has remained stagnant since its launch in 2017, whereas Tamil Nadu and Odisha have actively improved their schemes over time.
    • A commitment to periodic evaluation and enhancement of maternity benefits is essential.

The Way Forward: The Need for Policy Reform

• The stark contrast between state-level programs and the PMMVY highlights the urgent need for policy reform at the national level.
• The central government must revamp the maternity benefit system to align with the NFSA’s original intent. Key reforms should include:
  • Universal Coverage: Removing restrictions on the number of children covered under the scheme.
  • Adequate Financial Support: Increasing the maternity benefit to at least ₹12,000 and indexing it to inflation.
  • Simplified Access: Reducing bureaucratic hurdles and eliminating excessive digital dependencies that exclude the most vulnerable women.
  • Transparency and Accountability: Ensuring proactive disclosure of data on fund allocations and disbursement rates to allow public scrutiny.

Conclusion

• While India offers 26 weeks of paid maternity leave in the formal sector, women in the unorganised sector receive a meagre ₹5,000, if they manage to overcome the hurdles of the PMMVY.
• The program’s failures highlight a deeper issue: a lack of political will to support maternal and child health comprehensively.
• A well-designed and adequately funded maternity benefit program would not only uphold the rights of pregnant women but also contribute to broader social and economic benefits.
• The time has come for the government to acknowledge the shortcomings of the PMMVY and ensure that maternity entitlements are delivered in both letter and spirit.

Q1. What is the main issue with the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY)?
Ans. It provides inadequate benefits, restricts coverage to the first child, and suffers from poor implementation.

Q2. How does Tamil Nadu’s maternity benefit scheme compare to PMMVY?
Ans. Tamil Nadu offers ₹18,000 per child (proposed ₹24,000) and has 84% coverage, while PMMVY provides only ₹5,000 with <10% coverage.

Q3. What is a key advantage of Odisha’s Mamata Scheme over PMMVY?
Ans. Odisha provides ₹10,000 per child (recently doubled), covering more women with fewer bureaucratic hurdles.

Q4. Why has PMMVY coverage declined drastically?
Ans. Digital payment failures, software glitches, and complex application processes have excluded many eligible women.

Q5. What lesson can the central government learn from Tamil Nadu and Odisha?
Ans. It should expand coverage, increase benefit amounts, simplify procedures, and show greater political commitment to maternal welfare. 

Source:The Hindu

Context

• The recent stampede at New Delhi railway station on February 15 serves as a grim reminder of the persistent inadequacies in passenger safety and crowd management within Indian Railways.
• Despite the rapid modernisation of railway infrastructure and an ever-expanding network, the core issue of ensuring basic safety remains alarmingly overlooked.
• The tragedy underscores deeper systemic failures; failures not rooted in resource constraints but in institutional inertia, mismanagement, and a lack of accountability.

The Primary Cause of New Delhi Stampede: Systemic Lapses and Negligence

• Systematic Lapses
  • The fundamental principle of crowd control is to ensure smooth and unidirectional movement, eliminate bottlenecks, and deploy sufficient security personnel.
  • However, these measures were evidently ignored at New Delhi railway station.
  • The sudden announcement of a special unreserved train to Prayagraj on platform 12, despite an existing massive crowd on platform 14, led to confusion and panic.
  • This decision, though not officially categorised as a platform change, created an uncontrolled surge of movement, resulting in chaos and ultimately, disaster.
• Failure to Implement Proactive Measures
  • Preliminary reports suggest that the control room, despite having access to CCTV surveillance, failed to take proactive measures such as stopping escalators to prevent congestion.
  • This negligence highlights an alarming lack of situational awareness and preparedness among railway authorities.
  • The inadequate deployment of Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel and poor barricading further exacerbated the situation, exposing passengers to grave risks.
  • The claim that authorities were caught off-guard by the influx of ticket sales is implausible, as festival seasons have historically drawn large crowds, necessitating robust crowd management strategies.

Broader Disconcerting Aspects of the Tragedy

• Half-Truths and Shifting Blame
  • In the aftermath of the tragedy, Indian Railways has attempted to shift responsibility onto passengers, citing their numbers, last-minute ticket purchases, and failure to heed announcements.
  • However, such defences fail to acknowledge that mass gatherings during religious events like the Kumbh Mela are not unprecedented.
  • Indian Railways itself had announced the movement of over 15 lakh passengers across 350 trains to Prayagraj in February, making it evident that authorities had prior knowledge of the expected footfall.
  • The failure to replicate effective crowd management strategies, such as those successfully implemented during Chhath Puja, further questions the Railways' preparedness.
  • The crisis response after the tragedy, including the abrupt deployment of additional security personnel, creation of holding areas, and suspension of platform ticket sales, indicates that these measures were always within reach but were simply neglected.
  • Had these protocols been in place beforehand, the stampede could have been prevented.
• Contradictory Statements and Lack of Accountability
  • One of the most disconcerting aspects of this tragedy is the Railways’ inconsistent and insensitive response.
  • Official narratives have shifted from outright denial to ambiguous explanations, culminating in ex gratia payments to victims' families before the actual death toll was confirmed.
  • Such actions reflect a lack of empathy and transparency, exacerbating public distrust in railway authorities.
• Attempt to Attribute the Stampede to Fake News
  • Attempts to attribute the stampede to ‘fake news’ and conspiracies rather than acknowledging lapses in planning mirror a larger pattern within Indian Railways—where every mishap is prematurely blamed on sabotage rather than internal failures.
  • The Railways' history is replete with similar disasters, such as the Elphinstone Road station stampede in Mumbai (2017) and the Allahabad station stampede during the 2013 Kumbh Mela.
  • The recurrence of such incidents suggests that lessons from past tragedies have not been internalised, raising serious concerns about institutional learning and reform.
• Flawed Inquiry Process
  • The Railways' decision to conduct a ‘high-level’ inquiry through its own senior executives raises fundamental concerns about impartiality.
  • Unlike train accidents, which are independently investigated by the Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS), the current probe is being led by railway officials who may themselves be accountable for lapses.
  • This self-regulation undermines public confidence and hinders the pursuit of justice.

The Way Forward: Need for Reform

• A truly transparent and independent investigation, whether by the CRS or another external agency, would have signalled the Railways’ commitment to accountability.
• However, the decision to oversee its own inquiry reinforces the perception that the institution is resistant to genuine reform.
• Until Indian Railways confronts its entrenched bureaucratic inertia and prioritises passenger safety over institutional complacency, such tragedies will continue to be dismissed as unfortunate inevitabilities rather than preventable failures.

Conclusion

• The New Delhi railway station stampede is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeper malaise within Indian Railways.
• The failure to implement basic crowd control measures, the reluctance to accept responsibility, and the flawed investigation process all point to a system in urgent need of reform.
• Moving forward, Indian Railways must abandon its reactive approach to crises and proactively address safety concerns through improved planning, greater accountability, and independent oversight.

Q1. What was the main cause of the stampede at New Delhi railway station?
Ans.The sudden announcement of a special unreserved train on platform 12, leading to chaotic and conflicting passenger movements.

Q2. How did Indian Railways fail in managing the crowd?

Ans. By ignoring fundamental crowd control measures such as unidirectional movement, proper barricading, and adequate security personnel deployment.

Q3. Why is the Railways' claim of being caught off-guard weak?
Ans. Because festival crowds are predictable, and past events like Chhath Puja have demonstrated effective crowd management strategies.

Q4. What issue arises with the inquiry into the incident?
Ans. The investigation is being conducted by railway officials, raising concerns about bias and lack of transparency.

Q5. What is needed to prevent such tragedies in the future?
Ans. Proactive safety measures, independent oversight, better crisis management, and institutional reforms within Indian Railways. 

Source:The Hindu

Context:

Tamil Nadu's opposition to the three-language formula has caused friction with the Centre. The state has adhered to a two-language policy for decades and remains firm in its stance.

The three-language policy has had a mixed record in implementation across India.

The Language Debate in India:

• Historical perspective:
  • Post-Independence, language policies have remained controversial.
  • Language has been perceived as a medium of instruction rather than a cognitive tool.
  • Colonial influence shaped the education system’s focus on instruction rather than exploration.
• Constituent assembly and language policy:
  • The issue of a national language was debated extensively during Constitution drafting.
  • Hindi’s adoption as an official language was fraught with complexities due to its multiple varieties.
  • English retained prominence, despite expectations of its gradual decline. 

Evolution of the Three-Language Formula:

• The three-language formula:
  • It is a language learning policy introduced in the 1968 National Policy on Education.
  • It mandated that students across India learn three languages: their regional language (mother tongue), Hindi, and English.
  • Hindi-speaking states must study a modern Indian language (preferably from the south) instead of Hindi as their third language.
• NEP 2020 and the three-language formula:
  • The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has retained the three-language formula albeit with a key difference that it doesn't impose any language on any State.
  • It specifies that the languages to be learnt will be the choice of States, regions and the students, so long as at least two of the three languages are native to India.
• Implementation challenges across India:
  • In the Hindi-speaking states, the third language rarely includes contemporary languages from other Indian states.
  • Private schools in northern states do not prioritize regional languages like Tamil or Punjabi.
  • Political concerns over language education have remained divisive and often counterproductive.
• Role played by the CABE:
  • The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), a remarkable forum that had served India since the 1920s, has played a crucial role in shaping language policies.
  • CABE helped navigate federal governance challenges in education but has been inactive in recent years.

The Real Issue - Language Standards in Education:

• Declining teaching standards:
  • Science and mathematics have been dominated by coaching institutions, while language teaching remains neglected.
  • English is now compulsory in many government schools, but proficiency remains low.
  • Teachers' limited command over English affects learning outcomes, as seen in Andhra Pradesh’s transition to English-medium education.
• Impact on regional languages and reading habits:
  • Not just English, the standards of teaching in Hindi are no better.
  • Hindi and other regional languages are being treated as cultural artifacts rather than active learning tools.
  • The decline in reading habits signifies deeper issues in language education.
  • Schools fail to cultivate habitual readers, undermining long-term language proficiency.

Conclusion:

The debate over language education in India remains unresolved. Tamil Nadu’s steadfast opposition to the three-language formula reflects deeper concerns over linguistic identity and federal policies.

Improving language teaching standards is crucial for meaningful educational reform rather than focusing solely on policy formulas.

Q1. Examine the historical debates in the Constituent Assembly regarding the national language of India.

Ans. The Constituent Assembly debates led to a compromise allowing English as an associate official language while promoting Hindi and regional languages.

Q2. Critically analyze the impact of the 3-language formula on national integration and linguistic diversity in India.

Ans. Its uneven implementation, particularly in Hindi-speaking states, has led to concerns over linguistic dominance and resistance from states like Tamil Nadu.

Q3. Discuss the role of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) in shaping India's language policy.

Ans. CABE played a key role in consensus-building on language education policies, and its decline has led to challenges in implementing inclusive language reforms.

Q4. Assess the challenges faced by language education in India.

Ans. Declining teaching standards in both English and regional languages, lack of teacher training, etc., have negatively impacted language education in India.

Q5. Analyze the role of federalism in shaping language policies in India.

Ans. The federal nature of India’s governance, where states exercise autonomy in educational policies, often leads to conflicts with centrally proposed language frameworks. 

Source:IE