PM Vishwakarma: Not what the artisans really want

The boon, a quid pro quo, that the Modi government seems to seek from this god are abundant votes from the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), who constitute about 52% of the population.

On Vishwakarma Jayanthi this year, September 17, coinciding with Prime Minister Modi’s 73rd birthday, the PM launched PM Vishwakarma, seemingly to gain favour with this divine architect and craftsman deity during the pre-election season.

The boon, a quid pro quo, that the Modi government seems to seek from this god are abundant votes from the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), who constitute about 52 per cent of the population.

The realisation of this desire hinges on the extent to which the target groups will receive, or at least perceive to receive, the benefits from the scheme, which will be implemented over a five-year span from 2023–24 to 2027–28.

In reality, the scheme doesn’t look promising, neither in quantity, examined through aggregate figures, nor in quality, when scrutinised at a micro level. It falls short of being significant enough to sway voters from the target groups.

First, the macro factors: the five-year outlay of this totally Centre-funded scheme is only Rs 13,000 crore, which translates to a meagre Rs 2,600 crore per year for both rural and urban areas of India. This allocation is woefully inadequate considering the OBC’s share of the population!

The scheme encompasses eighteen trades: carpenters (Suthar); boat makers; armourers; blacksmiths (Lohar); hammer and tool kit makers; locksmiths; goldsmiths (Sonar); potters (Kumhaar); sculptors (moortikar, stone carver); stonebreakers; cobblers, shoesmiths/footwear artisans; masons (rajmistri); basket/mat/broom makers/coir weavers; doll and toy makers (traditional); barbers (Naai); garland makers (Malakaar); washermen (Dhobi); tailors (Darzi); and fishing net makers.

More traditional trades are expected to be added to this initial list later. The Prime Minister announced in his Independence Day speech, shortly before the cabinet’s approval of the scheme, that “In the days to come, we will launch a scheme on Vishwakarma Jayanti, benefiting individuals skilled in traditional craftsmanship, particularly from the OBC community. Weavers, goldsmiths, blacksmiths, laundry workers, barbers, and such families will be empowered through the Vishwakarma Yojana, which will begin with an allocation of around Rs 13–15 thousand crore.”

Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw claims that the scheme is going to benefit 30 lakh families in all and five lakh families in the first year, which means the outlay is thinly spread. After all, poor spending cannot generate rich dividends for the targeted poor in large numbers.

The proposed number of people to be covered is less than half the official estimate of 70 lakh artisan families in the country. If we consider the unofficial figure of 20 crore, the scheme’s coverage would be a mere 3.5 per cent of the artisans. Consequently, only a small fraction (3.5 per cent), if any, will be happy with the scheme, leaving the vast majority of 96.5 per cent discontented.

Now, the micro-details: Looking at the finer details, the identified will get skill development training for a few days with a stipend of Rs 500 per day and another Rs 15,000 for the purchase of contemporary tools. They will get a PM Vishwakarma certificate and an ID card. They get a total subsidised loan of Rs 3 lakh at a cheap interest rate of 5 per cent, with Rs 1 lakh first and another Rs 2 lakh after 18 months, depending on the successful performance, regular repayment, etc., of the first tranche.

The beneficiaries are also assured of getting marketing support and incentives for digital transactions.

Wrong diagnosis, poor prognosis

The government has rightly identified the importance of the sector and the need to support the large section of the people depending on it for their livelihoods. However, it grossly failed to identify and provide the right solution to the challenges the sector faces. India’s handlooms and handicrafts sectors are the second-largest employment providers after agriculture in the country. The handloom industry is the largest cottage industry in the country, with 23.77 lakh looms. 

Undoubtedly, a large number of people are in the handloom sector, with a total of handloom worker households of 31,44,839 as per the fourth handloom census (2019-20). Their incomes are too meagre for sustenance; 67.1% of the weaver households get less than Rs 5,000 a month, another 26.2% get incomes between Rs 5,000 and Rs 10,000, and only 1.2% get above Rs 20,000.

Yet, handlooms and handicraft are fetching good foreign exchange for the nation. For instance, the man-made textile exports in 2021–22 were worth $6.3 billion, and the handicraft were worth $2.1 billion.

The government, which is overwhelmed with the need to perpetuate the guru-shishya tradition, a good idea on its face, is unable to accept its impracticality for the simple reason that the products from artisans and cottage industries cannot compete in price and quality with those coming from modern industry. If a large number of people are continuing and depending on these traditional occupations, it is not because of their love for them or the lure of income the trade generates, but just because they are not able to find alternative employment, they are continuing in the trade. 

Every parent in these occupations wants their children to have a modern education and skills, be part of the modern economy, and earn decent incomes. They do not want their children to feel it is their destiny
(karma) to lead a life with low incomes; they want higher incomes. 

The peripheral supports through the Vishwakarma-like schemes without getting into root causes are unlikely to meet these expectations. If such schemes worked, the earlier schemes and initiatives like handlooms and handicrafts development programmes, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, the National Rural Livelihood Mission, the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihoods Mission, the Skill India Mission, and the like would have worked well and would have obviated the need for another programme like
PM Vishwakarma.

(The writer is a development economist and commentator on economic and social affairs)