Thanks to his 12-year experience on the kerbs of a New Delhi shopping complex, Tikam Singh knows how to dish out that mean, mouth-watering phuchka, north Indian style. But ask him about health insurance and he draws a complete blank. “I don’t know,” is his reaction. Then, upon gradually realising what it means, he puts across a rather pessimistic view. “It’s only for the rich, isn’t it? Who would ever think of giving us such things,” he asks.

Singh doesn’t know that if a Bill introduced sometime ago in the Rajya Sabha finally sees the light of day, he, along with some 40 crore of his fellow workers who comprise the unorganised sector in India, might finally be entitled to social security, something that their counterparts in the organised sector — big offices, large factories, etc — get.

It’s over 60 years since India gained sovereignty, but it wasn’t until September 10 this year that a concrete step to provide workers in the country’s unorganised sector — who comprise more than 90 per cent of the nation’s workforce — with basic social rights through legislation was taken. Introduced in Parliament by the ministry of labour and employment, the Unorganised Sector Workers’ Social Security Bill 2007 provides, in the government’s own words, “legislative backing to all the social security schemes”, and is an enactment of an announcement made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on August 15 this year.

The key points of the Bill, a copy of which is available with The Telegraph, are as follows.

Social security schemes as outlined in the draft include the National Old Age Pension Scheme, National Family Benefit Scheme, Aam Admi Bima Yojana, Swasthya Bima Yojana and National Maternity Benefit Scheme. Labour and employment minister Oscar Fernandes, at a press briefing in September, explained that the health insurance proposed in the Bill would cover 30 crore workers in the next five years, and each family would be entitled to healthcare worth Rs 30,000 annually. The National Old Age Pension Scheme — promising a monthly allowance of Rs 200 — would be extended to all people below the poverty line and above 65 years of age. Besides, the Aam Admi Bima Yojana would seek to provide life and disability insurance to all rural landless households in the country, with a maximum cover — among other things — of Rs 75,000 for death or permanent disability arising from an accident.

The Bill also provides for the setting up of national and state advisory boards, and talks of issuing smart cards with unique identification numbers which would be handed out to registered workers in the unorganised sector, and against which workers could avail of the proposed benefits.

Needless to say, the Bill is the first of its kind in India. Clearly, many are seeing this as a welcome development. “While attempts have earlier been made to provide the unorganised sector with legal cover, they have mostly been at piecemeal levels,” says Amita Baviskar, sociologist, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. “But an umbrella law such as this has previously never been thought of,” she adds.

But then, not everyone is happy. And ever since it was presented in Parliament, the Bill has been the target of severe criticism from those in political and labour circles. D. Raja, national secretary, Communist Party of India (CPI), is one of them. “The Bill cannot be accepted in its current form. It requires drastic changes before it can even be considered,” he says.

While Raja doesn’t explain the nature of the changes required, others point out a few supposed flaws with the Bill. One, some experts say, is the fact that it has not been fleshed out adequately. “While it is definitely a first step and a right step, the Bill is only a framework in many ways,” says G. Sanjeeva Reddy, president, Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). “It seems to lack a clear objective,” he notes.

Reddy supports his argument by pointing at proposals in the Bill such as pension and health cover. “While they have been mentioned in the Bill, and while it suggests setting up of national and state advisory boards, there are no pointers in the Bill as to who would be responsible for implementing these schemes. That could lead to the buck being passed among the central government, the state government and individual employers, as no one would be expressly held accountable for these benefits,” says Reddy.

Yet another aspect of the Bill which has come under attack is its umbrella coverage of the unorganised sector, with no specific attention to agriculture, which happens to be a major sector in the economy and sustains more than two-thirds of the country’s rural population. “Lawmakers should consider the fact that certain nuances, such as land rights and issues such as displacement or eviction, are unique to the agriculture sector and can’t be extended to others,” says W.R. Varadarajan, general secretary, Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). “Clubbing agriculture with other sectors would seriously undermine the interests of those in the agriculture sector, as their specific problems would no longer be addressed,” he says.

Incidentally, a report prepared earlier by the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) under the chairmanship of Arjun Sengupta, on the broad lines of which the legislation was drawn up, suggested having two separate laws for the agriculture and non-agriculture sectors. “Besides, it is something that the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) promises as well, and the government must realise that agriculture cannot be clubbed with the larger unorganised sector,” says Varadarajan. “Besides, with no clearly-defined funding obligations and time frames, the Bill stands to be reduced to a mere statute,” he adds.

And as with many other laws, some ask questions about the proper implementation of the Bill. “It’s just a statement of pious intentions,” says social activist Madhu Kishwar, founder editor of Manushi and member of the NCEUS. “While the main mandate of the commission was to remove hurdles and explore the full potential of the unorganised sector, the Bill preaches certain things without considering the fact that India lacks both the infrastructure and the political motive to implement such a law,” she says. “The legislation would fall flat unless attention was given to eliminating the root problems of the sector such as identifying the causes due to which workers are marginalised and exploited and chalking out a concrete plan of how the benefits would be meted out to the recipients, and focussing on adequate infrastructure, and that’s sadly not happening,” she adds.