Of Contributory Futures

Of Contributory Futures

In Kerala, a part of the government staff and teachers were on strike. Among the various other concerns, the prime bone of contention between the striking staff and the Government was the issue of retirement benefits. The states consciousness was split into statutory versus Contributory pension. The government is planning a switch from the current statutory pension into a contributory pension for the new recruits. The new contributory pension will be in effect for those who are recruited into the government service after April 2013. In the new contributory scheme both the government and the employee will contribute equally to the pension. Though the striking workers were up in arms for a number of other reasons too, the major cause for discord was this switch in the nature of pension. 

One question which was repeatedly aired by the representatives of the government and those on the other side of the political bargain is, ‘why strike when you will not be affected by the switch from statutory pension to the contributory one’? As the government has repeatedly affirmed that no current employee will be affected by the decision, why should the current government staff revolt? The Chief Minister has stated that the switch to new pension scheme is a result of his worry for the generations to come. And sticking to the old kind of pension will be doing a grave injustice to the very young ones of today. Proceeding at this rate, the money needed to meet the salary cum pension expenses will eat away a huge chunk of the total revenue of the state, making developmental activities starved of funds. The striking workers too argued that they were doing it for the generations to come. The Union leaders want to block a future in which tried and tired government staff are left to their own devices in the old age. Were they both taking cudgels for the same line of thought? If so, why do they stand so wide apart from each other?

Let’s get back to the first query: Why should the government employees and company strike work against a move which will not affect them at all? How meritorious is this query? Especially when it comes from the leader of a political outfit? Does it imply that one should react only when the personal is at stake? Are we turning a blind eye towards the potential worries of the generations to come? If each of us will further shrink inwards, (because this inwards shrinking has steadily progressed with the upward mobility of the middle class!) then why should we have something called politics? Is not politics about groups? Is it not about community? If one can’t rise to protect the one around, even when those are not your near and dear ones, then why talk about politics? Don’t we have to be contributory to the well being of the future government employees? A generation which strikes only when the personal comforts are in peril is in peril of an implosion which is triggered by self lust.

Sure when the Chief Minister and his friends speak of the well being of the future generations, they are talking of the economic stability of the years to come. They imply that unless we (they, i e ) reign in the expenses caused to the e exchequer through the salaries and pension, the picture looks bleak. The CM’s concern is for a future state where there will be insufficient funds for the developments, with the statutory pension burning a hole in the government’s pocket.  Are the pension benefits the sole cause for the bad shape the economy is in? Have populist, political decisions contributed to the expenses of the government? The siren-honking, crisscrossing of the ministers’ vehicles across the state on inauguration sprees, causing traffic disruptions and public misery - does it erode the exchequer? The crores left wayward in advertisement campaigns to ‘educate’ the public on the gains of governance by successive governments, does it fill the coffers of the government? Most importantly, how come the MLAs and Ministers are not in the ambit of the contributory pension scheme? An MLA with a mere 2 years MLA-ship can claim a life time of pension! Does it bring money into the future generations? The perks that an MLA or MP takes home are not just good names and service-ship, but quite a handsome money packet. Can a CM like ours conveniently ignore this? Will the future MLAs be part of the contributory pension scheme? Won’t the CM allow the MLAs to be to be part of the welfare plans for the future Kerala?

Pension is not a government favor. As one Supreme Court ruling has stated in one of its judgments, it is the right of the worker to receive pension from the state for having ‘contributed’ to the state during his/ her healthy years. Hence even in the statutory scheme the worker has already ‘contributed’ in terms of his service. What the government can demand is certainly better services, more devotion from the side of the government staff, considering the pension-wise support the government provides to them. The huge social security that the statutory pension provides should not be ignored. The retired staff has the moral responsibility to assist the government in many possible ways. It need not be stated that a good percentage of the government staff do not work serious enough to justify the pay they take home. But to remedy the situation, one can’t deny them the benefits outright. Again, do the MLAs and ministers always do their bit, justifying the pay, perks and the position they enjoy? Does the mainstream media, which kind of pooh-poohed the strike, always perform the media dharma ?

If future is the destination of both the striking workers and the pension cutting CM, then both have to introspect and to listen to each other. They both have much to learn from each other. A CM who hesitates to talk to the striking group, pleading that he has nothing new to offer (blissfully oblivious of the statutory pension which his ilk -  MLAs draw- is less that being completely honest). The striking group too has a rationale too because of the inability of the government to give precise answer to simple questions like, how much will, for instance, a future clerk, on a particular scale of pay, receive as pension in the new scheme. Again, the kind of fund managers spoken about to manage the pension fund too makes one feel uneasy about the future. Moreover there is plenty of uncertainty in the scheme of things spoken about. 

The striking group has reason enough even if the situation doesn’t affect them. Because organizations and movements are as much about the future as they are about the present. If we plan to work for a better world for the generations to come by preparing better roads, faster trains, greener environments and more educated politicians , it is alright if we lose pay to so that a future generation of workers will be ensured of minimal social security in the sunset of their lives.