Answer

Maternity entitlements play a vital role in ensuring financial and nutritional security for women during pregnancy. Despite the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, which mandates maternity benefits, India ranks 111th out of 125 countries in the Global Hunger Index 2023. The NFHS-5 (2019-21) reveals that only 58% of mothers received full antenatal care (at least 4 antenatal care visits). Gaps in fund allocation, awareness, and implementation weaken the impact of such provisions.

Poor Implementation of Maternity Entitlements in India

• Legal Violation of NFSA 2013: The Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) contradicts NFSA 2013 by restricting benefits to only one child per family instead of universal coverage.
  For example: NFSA mandates ₹6,000 per birth, but PMKVY provides only ₹5,000, violating the law and reducing financial support for women.
• Inadequate Budget Allocation: The budgetary allocation for maternity benefits has been consistently low, preventing effective nationwide coverage.
  For example: PMMVY received only ₹870 crore in 2023-24, while ₹12,000 crore is required to cover 90% of births at NFSA-mandated levels.
• Digital Exclusion and Aadhaar-related Issues: Aadhaar-linked payments, technical glitches, and documentation hurdles exclude a large section of eligible women, particularly in rural areas.
• Limited Awareness and Accessibility: Many women, especially in marginalized communities, lack awareness about their maternity entitlements, reducing application rates.
  For example: Surveys in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh show that 40% of eligible women were unaware of PMMVY, resulting in underutilization of funds.
• Bureaucratic Red Tape and Corruption: Excessive paperwork, conditionalities, and middlemen hinder timely disbursal, leading to exclusion and leakages.
  For example: Studies found that in Madhya Pradesh, 30% of applicants faced document-related delays, with some being asked for bribes to process applications.

Challenges in Implementation and Center-State Disparities

Implementation Challenges

• Conditionalities and Complex Procedures: Strict eligibility conditions, like institutional deliveries and immunization records, disqualify women unable to meet them due to healthcare gaps.
  For example: In Jharkhand, 25% of women were denied benefits for home births, despite NFSA ensuring universal maternity entitlements.
• Lack of Transparency and Monitoring: The Ministry of Women and Child Development does not proactively disclose implementation data, making accountability difficult.
  For example: RTI queries revealed that PMMVY coverage dropped to 9% in 2023-24, but the government has not addressed the reasons publicly.
• Weak Coordination Between Departments: The fragmented approach between health, women and child development, and finance ministries leads to inefficiencies in execution.
  For example: PMMVY funds are often delayed due to procedural bottlenecks between the central finance ministry and state-level implementing agencies.

Center-State Disparities

• Unequal Financial Contributions: While PMMVY is centrally sponsored, states must co-fund it, leading to disparities where poorer states struggle to allocate funds.
  For example: Tamil Nadu provides ₹18,000 per child under its state scheme, whereas Bihar and UP struggle with delayed payments due to limited funds.
• Higher State Autonomy Leads to Better Models: Some states have introduced more generous and efficient maternity schemes, outperforming PMMVY.
  For example: Odisha’s Mamata Scheme (₹10,000 per child) covers 64% of births, whereas PMMVY covered only 9% nationwide in 2023-24.
• Digital and Infrastructure Divide: Some states face greater challenges due to weaker digital infrastructure, leading to delays in fund transfers.
  For example: Aadhaar authentication failures in rural Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh resulted in non-payment of benefits to thousands of eligible women.

Multidimensional Reforms Balancing Fiscal Constraints with Social Welfare

• Universal Coverage Without Parity Restrictions: Extend maternity entitlements to all births, not just the first child, as mandated by NFSA 2013.
  For example: Odisha’s Mamata scheme covers all children, ensuring better financial security for women in vulnerable households.
• Increased Budgetary Allocation and Indexation: The maternity benefit amount should be revised periodically to match inflation and rising living costs.
  For example: Tamil Nadu plans to increase benefits to ₹24,000, ensuring financial adequacy for maternal nutrition and healthcare.
• Simplifying Application and Digital Processes: Reduce documentation barriers and Aadhaar dependency to improve access, especially in rural areas.
  For example: Direct cash transfers through Jan Dhan accounts, without Aadhaar verification issues, can prevent delays and exclusions.
• Strengthening State-Centered Implementation: States should be given greater flexibility and funding autonomy to design efficient maternity benefit models.
  For example: A performance-linked central fund can reward states that effectively implement maternity schemes, ensuring accountability.
• Enhancing Awareness and Outreach: A massive awareness campaign through ASHA workers, Anganwadi centers, and digital platforms can boost enrollment rates.
  For example: Tamil Nadu’s Anganwadi-led awareness drive increased its maternity scheme coverage to 84% in 2023-24.

Bridging the implementation gaps in maternity entitlements requires a synergistic approach universal coverage, real-time monitoring, and direct benefit transfers to ensure timely support. Centre-state fiscal alignment, corporate participation, and community awareness can amplify impact. A rights-based, data-driven model, leveraging technology and social audits, will transform maternity benefits from policy intent to ground-level empowerment, promoting inclusive growth.

DOWNLOAD PDF