The significance of a father’s role in child development (which is usually neglected), was realised when the Paternity Bill was first talked of in the Indian Parliament. Though a noble idea, if implemented, it would demand from us a revolution of our rotten mindsets and desensitised souls, while challenging the harsh reality of the poor.
The bill proposed, would provide a paternity leave of maximum 15 days to new fathers, covering both the formal and informal sectors (unlike Maternity Benefit Bill). It also mentions Parental Benefit Scheme Fund, in which all employees, employers and the Central government would chip in.
Paternity Benefit Bill would help heal the gap Maternity Benefit Bill would have created between women and jobs, as according to a report, 1.2 crore women would have had to leave their jobs. If the former is passed, the employers will have to dole out leaves to both men and women (though not equally) when the baby is on board. Still, there are many difficult questions in its face, that the bill does not seem to answer.
The bill does not consider that not every man would have the sensitivity and the luxury Mr Satav (the MP who introduced the bill) has to care for his wife and children. On top of it, would every man like to budge from the status quo, where the responsibility of childcare is mainly of his wife? Say he does, still the chances of effective childcare on his part would be bleak, if he happens to be a poor man belonging to the unorganised sector, probability of which is high, as according to labour force survey on employment and unemployment in 2011-12 by National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, the number of estimated employed persons in 2011-12 on usual status basis were 47.41 crore, of which 82.7% of workforce (39.14 crore persons) was in unorganized sector.
Then there are those in rural areas and those unemployed, for whom the Paternity bill is no more than a mirage. It would take more than a passed bill to practically reach out to these sections and meet the reality.
In other words, the challenge would definitely become more difficult as one goes down the class ladder. Poorer sections of people would always have greater concerns at hand than merely attending to children (that are often many). The bill is away from the ground reality to assume that leaves for the poor in the unorgansied sector can be paid leaves.
It has to accept that they are called daily wage workers as they earn their wages on daily basis. Even if paid leaves are somehow given (which won’t be, regardless of whichever law is enforced), men would rather utilise them, finding some other work and earning extra income to feed the family, rather than waste it away on infants at home, who are already looked after by their elder siblings.
Forget fathers, not even their mothers have time for them, as both are busy earning most of the time. With their staunch belief in direct proportion between the number of working hands and the number of children (forgetting the number of mouths to be fed) and lack of awareness, they become baby factories. This creates yet another gap in the bill: With numerous babies coming one after another, who will be willing to give them unlimited paternity leaves (if the provision ever applies to the poor)? The fact that this talk excludes the possible issues rural populations would face, make the bill seem a luxury that the economically weaker sections can’t afford to utilise.
To be a success, the creation of a provision for a support system to prepare people make the best of the bill (if it becomes a law) is a prerequisite. The bill has to deal with their (people from unorganised sector) more immediate concerns first by creating a complimentary set of welfare schemes for the poor, and harmonising with the existing ones: facilitation of Anganwadis and daycare facilities and awareness programmes on family planning, organising workshops, street plays on sensitising individuals (both from organised and unorganised sector) on the importance of active parenting (highlighting father’s role), counselling sessions for couples to work in sync, classes for fathers-to-be on baby problems they would face in the days to come.
The provision of 15 days’ leave for fathers is a good start, but won’t be sufficient for making an impact on child care. The bill drafters need to add a provision for occasional monthly leaves for father, which can be taken to fill in the mother’s scheduled absence, to watch over the baby.
The road to change people’s attitude towards the understanding which the Paternity Bill calls for, would be a difficult and slow one. Some might even have had a good laugh at the apparently unusual idea of the bill, but it is high time we make people realise how sensitising today’s parents (rich or poor alike) would help erase gender and class prejudices for the coming generations, to make a more equitable society and a better world tomorrow.