top of page

By:

C.S. Krishnamurthy

21 June 2025 at 2:15:51 pm

The Homemaker’s Worth

AI generated image One Sunday morning, I watched a neighbour rushing around his apartment in mild panic. His wife had gone to attend a family function for just three days. Suddenly, breakfast had become a challenge, medicines for his ageing mother were forgotten, school assignments remained unsigned, and the laundry basket resembled a small mountain. With a sheepish smile, he confessed, “I never realised how many things she handles.” His experience is hardly unique. Most families function so...

The Homemaker’s Worth

AI generated image One Sunday morning, I watched a neighbour rushing around his apartment in mild panic. His wife had gone to attend a family function for just three days. Suddenly, breakfast had become a challenge, medicines for his ageing mother were forgotten, school assignments remained unsigned, and the laundry basket resembled a small mountain. With a sheepish smile, he confessed, “I never realised how many things she handles.” His experience is hardly unique. Most families function so smoothly that we rarely pause to ask a few uncomfortable questions. Who keeps the invisible wheels turning? Who would manage the meals, schedules, emotional crises, school meetings, medical appointments, budgeting, caregiving, and countless unnoticed tasks that stitch together the fabric of family life? More importantly, what would be the economic cost of replacing every one of those functions? Nation Builders It is in this context, the recent verdict of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh, is more than a legal pronouncement, and invites a larger conversation. Describing homemakers as “nation builders,” the Court has directed that the loss of domestic care in motor accident compensation cases be assigned a minimum value of Rs.30,000 per month, subject to revision every three years. Significantly, this amount is separate from other heads of compensation and recognises the distinct value of unpaid caregiving. Why is work considered valuable only when a salary slip accompanies it? Why do national accounts meticulously record the production of goods but often ignore the production of human capability? Can an economy truly measure its wealth while overlooking the labour that nurtures its future workforce? Modern economies resemble magnificent skyscrapers. People admire the shining exterior, but seldom notice the foundation veiled beneath the earth. Homemakers are those foundations. For generations, domestic work has occupied a strange blind spot, and have been viewed merely as family obligations rather than productive activity. Yet the household itself depends on this labour. The Supreme Court rightly observed the irony of describing a homemaker as a “dependent” when the entire family is often dependent upon the homemaker. Drawing upon earlier judgments and even the Supreme Court’s 2023 Handbook on combating gender stereotypes, the Bench preferred the term “homemaker” over “housewife” as the latter often carries the outdated assumption that women who remain at home contribute little economically. “Homemaker” recognises the enormous unpaid labour and monetary savings generated within households. Economists have long recognised this truth. Nobel laureate Gary Becker described households as productive units that create human capital. Doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs and public servants do not emerge fully formed. They are moulded over years through discipline, affection, sacrifice and care. The first classroom is usually the home, and the homemaker its chief educator. Studies estimate that women's unpaid caregiving contributes between 15 and 17 per cent of India's GDP. Yet much of this labour remains absent from conventional economic statistics. It is rather like admiring the fruit of a tree while refusing to acknowledge its roots. Beyond Numbers Of course, the contribution of a homemaker cannot truly be measured in rupees and paise. Can affection be monetised? Can emotional support during illness be assigned a market price? Can the countless acts of kindness that sustain family life be translated into accounting entries? Probably not. Yet courts dealing with compensation claims must assign some pecuniary value. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged that no figure can adequately compensate for the loss of domestic care. The prescribed amount of Rs.30,000 per month is therefore a symbolic minimum, a stand-in rather than a perfect valuation. The judgment arose from a tragic accident in Haryana dating back to 2001, but its implications stretch far beyond one family. It marks another milestone in the evolving judicial recognition of unpaid labour, building upon earlier decisions such as Lata Wadhwa, Arun Kumar Agrawal, Kirti, and the 2024 ruling which held that a homemaker's deemed income should not be lower than minimum wages. Perhaps the greatest contribution of this judgment lies in its symbolism. Nation-building does not occur only in Parliament, corporate boardrooms or laboratories. It also unfolds in kitchens, at dining tables and during late-night conversations between anxious parents and growing children. A family resembles an orchestra. The audience applauds the performers under the spotlight, but someone must tune the instruments and coordinate the music. Homemakers have long performed this role quietly, without applause and often without acknowledgement. After all, nations are built not merely by those who earn a living, but equally by those who shape the lives of those who do. (The writer is a retired banker and author. Views personal.)

A decade and a half of farm loan waivers in Maharashtra

AI generated image
AI generated image

Mumbai: In the heartlands of the state, where erratic monsoons and price crashes routinely threaten agrarian livelihoods, farm loan waivers have transformed from emergency financial lifelines into anticipated political rituals. Over the last decade and a half, successive state governments have announced massive debt relief packages to alleviate farmer distress. But how effective have these multi-billion-rupee interventions been? A closer examination of the waivers implemented since 2009 reveals a complex narrative of fiscal strain, implementation bottlenecks, and a heavily debated impact on the state’s agricultural credit culture.


Following the substantial relief provided to the state under the UPA government’s nationwide 2008 Agricultural Debt Waiver scheme, the state progressively shifted towards localised, state-funded bailouts. The first major modern wave came in 2017 with the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Shetkari Sanman Yojana (CSMSSY). Announced by the Devendra Fadnavis-led government, this ambitious Rs 34,022 crore package aimed to clear the slates for approximately 89 lakh distressed farmers, offering relief up to Rs 1.5 lakh per farmer.


However, the 2017 scheme’s success was highly mixed. Driven by a desire to weed out bogus beneficiaries and ensure precise targeting, the state mandated strict online applications and mandatory Aadhaar linkages. This bureaucratic friction severely bottlenecked the rollout. Ultimately, about 44 lakh farmers successfully navigated the red tape to receive the waiver. Consequently, the actual financial outgo was roughly Rs 18,500 crore – barely over half the announced package size.


New Scheme

Two years later, agrarian distress persisted, compounded by unseasonal rains and shifting political tides. In December 2019, the newly formed Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government under Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray announced the Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Shetkari Karjmukti Yojana (MJPKY). Learning directly from the administrative nightmares of 2017, the MVA designed a highly streamlined, almost frictionless scheme.


With an initial outlay estimated around Rs 22,000 crore, it offered unconditional waivers of up to Rs 2 lakh for short-term crop loans. Crucially, it required no application forms from the farmers; the government directly accessed bank records and credited farmer accounts. This efficiency paid immense dividends. The scheme successfully reached nearly 31.8 lakh of its 32 lakh targeted beneficiaries, with actual spending settling near Rs 20,250 crore. It was widely hailed as a logistical success, providing swift psychological and financial relief with minimal hurdles.


Third Scheme

On this backdrop comes the Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Farmers Loan Waiver Scheme, which the state cabinet cleared on Tuesday and details of which are expected to be announced once the Legislative council elections are over. With recurring rural distress and repeated demands raised from various quarters, the Mahayuti government, once again spearheaded by Devendra Fadnavis, has cleared the state’s largest package yet, valued at an unprecedented Rs 36,585 crore, this scheme promises to waive agricultural loans up to Rs two lakh, targeting an estimated 56 lakh farmers. In an attempt to address long-standing criticisms regarding moral hazard, the cabinet also introduced a Rs 50,000 incentive for farmers who regularly repay their crop loans, aiming to reward credit discipline.


Criticism Begins

However, as expected, the farmers’ bodies and the political adversaries have criticized the feat. While Raju Shetty described it as “hollow”, Harshwardhan Sapkal of Congress termed it as a “white wash”, adding that the money won’t reach the real needy.


Despite their undeniable political popularity and immediate localized relief, these massive waivers generally draw sharp, consistent criticism from agricultural economists and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The core of the expert contention lies in the destruction of the agricultural “credit culture.”


When waivers become predictable, historically honest farmers are incentivized to strategically default on loans, anticipating a future bailout. According to historical RBI data, following the 2017 and 2019 waivers, agricultural Gross Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) in the state saw concerning spikes, reaching 8.44 per cent by 2019. Banks, burned by these sudden spikes in bad loans, often become highly risk-averse. This paradoxically shrinks the pool of fresh formal credit available to farmers for the next sowing season, pushing vulnerable populations back toward exploitative informal moneylenders.


Furthermore, prominent economists, including former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, have repeatedly cautioned that repeated waivers crowd out essential private and public investment. When a state government absorbs Rs 30,000 crore in private liabilities, it severely squeezes its own capital expenditure budget. Funds that could have been invested in permanent infrastructure—such as robust irrigation networks, decentralized cold storage chains, or significantly strengthening the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (crop insurance framework)—are instead diverted to clearing bad loans.


As Maharashtra embarks on rolling out the sprawling 2026 Ahilyadevi Holkar scheme, the central policy debate remains unresolved. While these multi-crore relief packages undoubtedly offer vital, short-term survival mechanisms for millions of vulnerable farmers caught in a debt trap, experts unanimously agree that long-term agricultural sustainability is impossible without structural reform. Moving beyond cyclical debt waivers to address the systemic root causes of farming unprofitability—through resilient market access and climate adaptation—remains the state’s most pressing, unfulfilled mandate.


Comments

bottom of page