Old-age pension: Why must the well-off be beneficiaries too?

Rajesh Kumar

No nation can be said to be truthfully progressive in real terms if it fails to take care of its senior citizens. 

Himachal as a state has emerged as a leader in committing itself to strengthening the social fabric of society through various social security and welfare schemes it has launched over the last few decades; “old-age pension” being one of these.

The scheme entails providing a monthly pension of Rs 1,300 to all senior citizens above the age of 80, reduced to 70 sometime ago, irrespective of their annual income limit. Though a noble social endeavour on part of the government, two aspects inherent to the scheme seem somewhat unconvincing and to some extent flawed.

First pertains to the identification criterion the scheme adopts in ascertaining probable beneficiaries without any consideration of their source of income. The rationale is unjustified and reeks of populism on the part of the government because if one already has life-sustaining income or is living happily with his/her wards under full social security, as is the case with many of them, why would one require pension at all? 

Second, the amount of Rs 1,300, presently given as monthly pension, which is likely to be revised to Rs 1,500 from July onwards, is too less to sustain even a hand-to-mouth existence.

The scheme falls short of identifying deserving senior citizens, who really need social care, attendance and the financial support. Certain basic parameters, that should have ideally formed an intrinsic part of the identification criterion, seem to be eluding the scheme signifying that no diligent homework or painstaking exercise was discernibly undertaken by the government in carrying out pre-launch data collection surveys at the panchayat level.Ipso facto, two flaws apparently came to the fore. First, many undeserving claimants became the beneficiaries who, in a sense, ended up usurping, though inadvertently, the righteous claims of the real deserving ones. Since the lacuna lies in the laid out criterion itself, ward panches and village pradhans in panchayat blocks, who recommended their names, can’t either be accused of having played a mischief.

Second, too many recipients resulted in reduced individual share to each beneficiary. To keep them all in good humour was the political compulsion of the government, never mind even if it meant extending a paltry monthly benevolence of Rs 1,300 to each beneficiary despite the state’s economic constraints.

Has it met the objective

Though the scheme was a part of a larger social welfare programme, especially for the aged, the intended object, which was to ensure complete physical and psychological well-being of senior citizens, is far from being achieved. No amount of money can make up for the loss of affection, natural love and familial care they deserve otherwise as parents. The ‘Old Age Pension Scheme’ does provide financial help, but falls short of re-linking the lost out emotional disconnect between parents and their wards. The void that has come to exist in their lives at the stage is perhaps more cringing than the question of their daily bread and butter or for that matter, any monetary help.

That the scheme fails to fill in the void is a sad comment on the part of social thinkers of the powers that be. By simply providing monetary help if the government feels it has relieved itself of its larger responsibility of providing complete social care to them, it is probably mistaken. To do so, it ought to delineate the existing ambiguities between rightfully deserving and unjustifiably non- deserving beneficiaries in the first place.

Who all deserve social care

Those elderly who have no source of income to sustain their lives in the twilight years; those who have been deserted by their wards advertently with no financial support extended to them anymore; those who do not have children and thus have no one to take care of them at fag end of their lives; those who even though living with their wards have ceased to be owned by them and are living in a state of utter neglect or for that matter, those who though are poor yet hold self-respect in high esteem and have themselves opted to live separately away from their wards because of unsocial, intolerant and unaccommodating behaviour of their wards towards them, deserve to be eligible beneficiaries.

What they need

At the age what they need is not the monetary help alone, but also the company of their very own; love and compassion from whomsoever they interact with especially their children and grandchildren; homely warmth of staying together under one roof as a family; someone who may empathise with them and help them evolve from the trauma of living in solitude and sullenness; and most important of all, a purpose of living for the remaining life which most of them lack. We need to give it to them. With purpose comes the will to live on, move forward, perform and be of some productive use to the society of which they are still an important part, undeniably. It is time we give them something more than a few bucks.

Govt must revisit the scheme

The issue of providing social security to the aged must be seen imperatively and essentially as a policy matter and not as a liability purported to be met through benevolence in the form of monthly pension given to them. It is time the government revisited the scheme and carried out a social audit of the present beneficiaries. Let the largesse, be so distributed, percolate to the real aggrieved. Undeserving beneficiaries ‘give up’ the perks so availed by them out of their own volition and pave the way for the money to reach the real needy. After the desired retrenchment enough money will be available for the deserving few to help keeping their hearths burning.