SSS-Chauhan- Unemployment Among Marginalised Groups

7/27/2019 SSS-Chauhan- Unemployment Among Marginalised Groups

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sss-chauhan-unemployment-among-marginalised-groups 1/13

1

Unemployment Among Marginalised GroupsDr. Shyam Sunder Singh Chauhan

Dr. Deepa Rawat

Dr. Kusum Sharma

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes among social groups and Muslims

among religious communities are the most deprived and marginalized groups in India.

Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes are far behind their counterpart non-

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in almost all the socio-economic indicators. So is

the case with the Muslims who lag far behind their counterpart non-Muslims. These

marginalized groups are educationally backward, semi-skilled or unskilled and

professionally degraded so their employability in respectable professions of high

income generation is very limited. In the context of socio-economic deprivation of

marginalized groups, the present paper focuses on the nature of employment and

unemployment of these groups.

The paper is divided into five sections – namely, Introduction, Nature of

deprivation in terms of Socio-economic Indicators; Level of Employment of

Marginalised Groups, Causes of Unemployment of Marginalised Groups and

Conclusion.

Methodology :

The present analysis is based on secondary data received from Planning

Commission and National Sample Survey Organisation. Data of 66 th round NSS is

used extensively. Indicators such as literacy rate, educational level, enrolment ratio,

drop out ratio, IMR, MMR and nutritional status have been used to assess the level of

deprivation. The economic deprivation has been assessed by using the poverty head

count ratio, assets holdings, land ownership and incidence of indebtedness etc. As faras the employment is concerned Labour Force Participation Rates (LFPR) and Work

Force Participation rates (WFPR) by Principal and Subsidiary Status have been used.

INTRODUCTION

Indian society is traditionally divided into various social groups. Caste and

class system has been in vogue since times immemorial. The rigid caste system has

Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Government Girls P.G. College, Sirsaganj, Firozabad (U.P.)Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Agra College, Agra (U.P.)Associate Professor, Department of Education, Sant B.D. Jain P.G. College, Agra (U.P.)



2

divided the entire society into two classes i.e. the upper caste and the lower caste.

This system has further divided the occupational pattern of the labour force in so

called ‘white collared jobs’, earmarked for upper caste and the ‘ blue collared jobs ’ or

rather the unrespectable jobs, reserved for the so called lower strata of the society.

The caste system has finally resulted into a system of exploitation based on the power

of knowledge, money and force. The people of lower castes were exploited considerably

by the powerful sections of the society. They have been deprived of not only their

fundamental rights but also all sorts of necessities required for their survival and

development.

The employment pattern developed during the past was heavily tilted in favour

of ‘the haves’ ignoring the needs of the ‘have nots’. Majority of the people of the

deprived class were and are engaged in low paid works which are casual in nature,having no guarantee of the permanency and remuneration in wages. Virtually these

groups have not only been marginalized in socio-economic status but also in

occupational pattern. With the enactment of the Indian constitution a portion of the

public sector jobs was reserved for these marginalized groups such as Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Likewise the reservation facilities was also given in

educational institutions, during the early 1990s, other backward castes came into

prominence and were successful in obtaining the benefits of the reservation policy in

jobs as well as educational institutions. However, the Muslims have so far not been

given due weightage in the public sector jobs. Sachchar Committee Report very

emphatically exposed the ground realities of the under development of Muslims.

Among social groups, SCs, STs and OBCs accounted for 80 per cent of the

rural poor in 2004-05, considerably more than their share in the rural population

(GOI). In 2004-05, while the head count ratio of the poor in the total population was

28.3 per cent among the SCs, it was 38.8 per cent, in urban areas, the HCR overall

was 25.7 per cent but among SCs it was even higher than in rural areas at nearly 40per cent (Planning Commission, 2008). The proportion of ST population among the

rural population living in poverty, was about 15 per cent in 2004-05, double that of

their share in the total population in the country. What is peculiar is that in 2004-05

the incidence of poverty among the STs had barely fallen compared to a decade earlier

and it was 20 percentage points higher for the SCs for the rest of the population

(Planning Commission, 2008). It is pertinent to note that the poverty head count ratio

of the STs (47.3%) is higher than that of SCs (36.8%). The STs are more poor in rural

areas as compared to their counterpart SCs and non- SCs/STs while in urban areas



3

the SCs are worst placed as compared to their counterpart STs and non- SCs/STs.

The real cause of poverty among SCs and STs lies in the unequal distribution of

assets and occupational structure. In rural areas SCs do not have access to land and

other economic resources and are, therefore, forced to migrate to urban areas more

often. These migrated SC labourers get low quality jobs, casual in nature and poorly

paid, because of this, they are poor. Although the STs in rural areas have much better

access to land, especially in the forest areas, but the quality of land and its

productivity is low, which in turn yields low income. In terms of both income poverty

and other indicators of human development – such as education and health, the STs

are at the bottom. The increasing concentration of tribal’s among those who suffer

from multiple deprivations, is a matter of concern.

The occupational pattern of rural and urban areas shows the multipledeprivations of the poor mostly from SCs and STs. Among SCs, 47 per cent were

cultivators and more than 25 per cent were agricultural labourers. About 6 to 7 per

cent of the SCs were artisan households. Although SCs account for 21.6 per cent of

the rural households, they held only 9 per cent of the land. On average SCs barely

owned 0.3 per cent hectare of land in rural areas as compared to 1.003 per cent

hectare owned by others. The land distribution is even further skewed among SCs in

urban areas, because of paucity of funds and assets. The SCs and STs are not able to

acquire income generating assets likewise they are not able to borrow funds from

public sector financial institutions. Due to these age old problems the SCs and STs

are neither able to start no their own business or able to get a permanent job

(Planning Commission, 2008).

The vulnerability of marginalized groups on the front of health, education and

nutrition, reduces their capacity as well as capability to work efficiently. While infant

mortality rate was 49 for others, for SCs it was 66, for STs 62 and OBCs 57. Their

nutritional status is also worse; the Mean Body Mass Index (BMI) for SCs, STs andOBCs is 5 to 10 per cent below that of their counterparts (Planning Commission,

2008).

Although the gross enrolment ratio at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of

education has increased during the past 60 years for SCs, STs and Muslims, it is still

far below than that of their counterparts. The dropout rate is significantly higher

among SCs and STs. The higher dropout rate among marginalized groups is the result

of the high incidence of poverty amongst them which forces the people from these

groups to employ their children at tender age. The incidence of child labour is much



4

higher among SCs and STs as compared to their counterparts, OBCs and non

SC/ST/OBCs.

LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT OF MARGINALISED GROUPS

Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) and Workforce Participation Rates(WFPR) are the most commonly used indicators of employment. The incidence of

employment based on these two indicators is further assessed on the basis of usual

principal and subsidiary status, weekly status (CWS) and current daily basis. During

the 66 th round NSS the employment data has been vigorously used by usual principal

and subsidiary basis. The sub group on Creation of Employment opportunities

constitution under the chairmanship of Dr. Santosh Mehrotra analysed the

employment and unemployment scenario for marginalized groups. Using the data of

66 th NSS and found that the labour force participation by usual principal and

subsidiary status for SCs, STs and all groups decreased both in rural and urban

areas between 1993-94 to 2009-10. For SCs, LFPR by usual principal and subsidiary

status was 71.8 per cent in rural areas during 1993-94, for STs it was 81.9 per cent

and for all groups 68.6 per cent. These ratios came down to 62.4, 69.9 and 60.4 per

cent respectively during 2009-10. Likewise in urban areas the LFPR came down from

59.4 to 53.5 per cent for SCs, 59.3 to 51.5 per cent for STs and 53.5 to 48.8 per cent

for all groups. What is disturbing here is that the percentage point decrease between

1993-94 to 2009-10, was 9.4 percentage points in rural areas as compared to 5.9

percentage points in urban areas for SCs. For STs the percentage points decrease

during the same period in rural areas was 12.0 and 7.8 per cent in urban areas. For

all groups the percentage point decrease in LFPR between 1993-94 to 2009-10 is 8.2

per cent in rural areas and 4.5 per cent in urban areas (Planning Commission, 2011).

Thus, the decrease in labour force participation between 1993-94 to 2009-10 is

higher for SCs, STs and all groups in rural areas as compared to urban areas, but

among the group, the highest decrease is in the case of STs (Table 1).

The workforce participation rate by usual principal and subsidiary status for

SCs in 1993-94 was 71.1 per cent and for STs it was 81.4 per cent which was much

higher than the WFPR for all social groups (68.9 per cent in rural areas), similarly

they were higher in 2004-05 and 2009-10. Although urban WFPR is consistently

lower for all groups, SCs and STs have a much higher WFPR compared to all groups.

The higher WFPR for SCs and STs is the result of lower enrolment ratio of the working

age population (15 & above) in secondary schools than other social groups.



5

The adolescents of SCs and STs are forced to involve themselves in any type of

employment because of poor income of the households. The WFPR in 2009-10 is 61.4

per cent SCs, 68.9 per cent for STs and 59.9 per cent for all groups in rural areas. In

urban areas these figures are 51.8, 49.2 and 47.2 per cent respectively for SCs, STs

and all groups (Table 2). Higher LFPRs and WFPRs for SCs and STs as compared to

non- SCs/STs is the outcome of engagement of people of these groups in income

generating activation at lower age, dropping out from the schools. Labour force

participation rates by usual principal and subsidiary status by religious groups have

been presented in Table 3 and 4. Table 3 shows that LFPR is lowest for Muslims both

in rural and urban areas as compared to Hindus, Christians and Sikhs. Likewise the

WFPR for Muslims has remained lower than their counterparts. Hindus, Christians

and Sikhs during all three reference periods i.e. 1993-94, 2004-05, 2009-10, both forurban and rural areas. It shows that Muslims are worse placed so far as their

employment is concerned.

The workforce participation rate for the single largest minority groups,

Muslims, happens to be much lower than for any other religious community at 55.7

per cent in rural and 49.5 per cent in urban areas. This WFPR for Muslims is much

lower than that of SCs and STs, the other two major vulnerable groups in Indian

society. This significantly lower WFPR for Muslims appears puzzling at first sight

because enrolment rates of Muslims of working age in secondary or higher secondary

education is also known to be relatively low, a situation that prevails among SCs and

STs as well. But the latter two groups have, as we noted earlier, much higher WFPR

than other social groups in the Indian labour market. The probable explanation for

the simultaneous existence of low secondary enrolment rates and low WFPR among

Muslims lies in the rather low status of Muslim women, as compared to any other

social group or religious community in Indian society (Planning Commission, 2012,

p.90).

Unemployment rate by usual principal and subsidiary status for SCs, STs and

Muslims has been presented in Table 5. Data in this table reveals that unemployment

rate is highest among Christians both in rural and urban areas, but what is

significant is that unemployment rate among Christians in urban areas came down

from 8.5 per cent in 2004-05 to 2.9 per cent in 2009-10. This decrease is highest

amongst all the social and religious groups. Among the social groups, the

unemployment rate is higher for SCs/STs in rural areas, but in urban areas STs are

the worst sufferers. For Muslims the unemployment rate was 2.1 per cent in 1993-94



6

in rural areas which came down to 1.9 per cent in 2009-10. Unemployment rate of

Muslims in urban areas was 3.6 per cent in 1993-94 which came down to 3.1 per cent

in 2009-10 (Table 5).

The unemployment rate according to the current daily status is a far moresensitive indicator of unemployment situation in the country than the usual principal

status indicator. The trends in unemployment rate by current daily status have been

presented in Table 6 and 7 for various social groups and religious groups respectively.

Unemployment rate by current daily status increased for two largest religious groups-

the Hindus and the Muslims in rural areas in 2007-08 as compared to 2004-05,

before falling in 2009-10. For all other religious communities there was a continuous

decline in the unemployment between 2004-05 to 2009-10 (Table 7). In urban area,

however, the decline in unemployment rate was observed even in the case of Hindusand Muslims.

About 25 per cent of the Muslims of India live in West Bengal and Kerala, the

unemployment rate by current daily status among Muslims was as high as 18 per

cent in rural areas of Kerala and 25 per cent in urban Kerala against the all India

average of 9 per cent and 7 per cent (Planning Commission 2011, India Human

Development Report p 10.3). Similarly the unemployment rate by current daily status

was the highest for SCs in rural areas (9.4 per cent) and STs in urban areas (7 per

cent) as against this the unemployment rate for others in rural and urban areas were

5.3 per cent and 4.6 per cent respectively in 2009-10. The unemployment rate for STs

increased in both rural and urban areas between 2004-05 to 2007-08, thereafter the

unemployment rate for STs declined to 6.3 per cent in rural areas and 7.8 per cent in

urban areas in 2009-10. As far as the concentration of ST population is concerned 38

per cent of the population is residing in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkand and Madhya

Pradesh. Unfortunately the unemployment rate by current daily status among STs

was much higher than the national average in these states, in both rural and urbanareas (Planning Commission, 2011).

CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT OF MARGINALIZED GROUPS

People of marginalized groups are engaged in low paid works. They are facing

the brunt of disguised and seasonal unemployment. Causes of under employment or

unemployment among marginalized groups are easy to identify. Some of the factors

have been discussed as under





8

9.0 per cent and in urban Kerala (25.0 per cent) against on all India average of 7.0 per

cent (Planning Commission, 2012, p0.103). 300 districts of the country have Muslim

population in sizeable number. Traditionally Muslims are engaged in handloom, shoe

making, marble work, locks and knives, brasswares, automobile repair, carpet

weaving and other such labour industries which employ labour on contract basis.

Thus, as employees, Muslims generally work as casual labourers and they are poorly

represented in regular, salaried employment (GOI, 2012 : Report of Sub-Group P.92).

Thus, Muslims are even more disadvantaged than SCs and STs for whom, affirmative

action in the form of reservation have improved their occupation standard. Only about

27 per cent of Muslim workers in urban areas, where the concentration of Muslims is

higher, are engaged in regular work, against 40 per cent SCs, 36 per cent STs, 49 per

cent non- SCs/STs (Sachchar Committee Report : 93). In formal sector, Muslim ’ semployment is far less than the national average. Muslim men are over-represented in

street vending (their share is more than 12 per cent as opposed to the national

average of less than 8 per cent). 70 per cent Muslim women workers work in their

home as compared to 51 per cent of national average (GOI, 2012): Report of Sub-

Group P.92.

(ii) Educational level and skill: Educational level and skillness of a person not only

enhance his/her employability, but also improve his/her capability to work more

efficiently. Since the level of literacy among SCs/STs, and Muslims is far below than

their counter past non-SCs/STs and non-Muslim religious groups respectively, the

representation of these groups in regular jobs is limited. As per data of Census 2001,

nearly one third of SCs literate have not completed ‘Primary’ level of education while

over one-fourth have attai ned the ‘Primary Level’. One among ten SC literates has

completed Matriculation, only 3.1 per cent of the SCs are graduate and above. Sex

wise differentials are significant among the educational levels of Matriculation/

Secondary and Higher Secondary where percentage for males is higher than females

both in rural and urban areas (Census of India 2001; Social and Cultural Tables).

It is the STs that are most excluded, since they have lowest educational

indicators of all the three vulnerable groups. More than 40 per cent of literate STs

could not complete the ‘Primary Level’ and more than a -quarter could attain the

‘Primary Level’. But their share in higher education and technical educational is as

low as 2.4 per cent.

Literacy rate among the Muslims is the lowest among all religious groups.

Muslim women are worst sufferer on this account. Although the Muslims are not



9

technically qualified or highly educated, they attain skillness through their

involvement in family occupation from tender age.

(iii) Caste based Discrimination : Although the constitutional safeguards completely

prohibit any type of discrimination based on caste, religion, class, race, region etc.SCs/STs worker are discriminated against both in the public and the private sector,

but that the discrimination effect is much smaller in the public sector because of

constitutional safeguards. In unorganized sector, certain jobs-such as scavenging,

cloth washing, shoe making.

Conclusion :

The scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes along with the Muslims are said to

be marginalized by taking into consideration any indicator of socio-economic growth

and human development. The socio-economic deprivation and poor state of health

and education of the people of these groups has resulted into high unemployment rate

by usual principal and subsidiary status as well as current daily status. The high

order of GDP growth during the last decade or so has not been inclusive in the sense

that it could not create that much number of job-opportunities which were necessary

to absorb the unemployed people of these groups. The public work programmes like

MNREGA have certainly benefitted the rural poor creating employment through

unskilled manual work during the lean season. Due to the implementation of MNREGA there has been a considerable increase in the wage rales of the rural

labourers, however, the effectiveness of the public works programme is always at

question because of their ad-hocness. The challenge to provide gainful employment on

permanent basis is as severe as it was earlier. The solution lies in the educational and

skill development of the rural masses. There is a need to heavily invest in the

formation of human capital, only then India can reap the advantages of ‘Demographic

dividend ’ .



10

Table 1 : Labour force participation rate by usual principal and subsidiary statusamong various social group

(per cent)Social groups Rural Areas Urban areas

1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10

Scheduled castes 71.8 69.8 62.4 59.4 57.1 53.5Scheduled Tribes 81.9 79.8 69.9 59.3 56.7 51.5All groups 68.6 67.7 60.4 53.3 53.0 48.8Source : GOI (2012): Report of the sub-group on Creation of Employment opportunities in 12 th Plan, Planning Commission, New Delhi, p.89.

Table 2 : Workforce participation rates by usual principal and subsidiary statusamong various social groups

(per cent)Social groups Rural Areas Urban areas

1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10Scheduled castes 71.1 68.7 61.4 56.8 54.1 51.8Scheduled Tribes 81.9 79.1 68.9 57.0 54.9 49.2All groups 67.8 66.6 59.5 50.9 50.6 47.7Source : GOI (2012): Report of the sub-group on Creation of Employment opportunities in 12 th Plan, Planning Commission, New Delhi, p.89.

Table 3 : Labour force participation rates by usual principal and subsidiary statusby religious groups

(per cent)

Religious groups Rural Areas Urban areas1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10

Hindus 69.8 68.9 61.4 53.5 53.3 49.0Muslims 58.0 57.1 52.8 52.8 51.6 47.4Christians 67.8 67.8 62.3 55.6 54.9 51.1Sikhs 61.0 67.7 56.3 47.9 49.6 48.3Source : GOI (2012): Report of the sub-group on Creation of Employment opportunities in 12 th Plan, Planning Commission, New Delhi, p.90.

Table 4 : Work force participation rates by usual principal and subsidiary statusby religious groups

(per cent)Religious groups Rural Areas Urban areas

1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10Hindus 69.0 67.9 60.5 51.0 50.9 47.4Muslims 56.8 55.7 51.8 50.9 49.5 45.9Christians 65.2 64.9 59.9 50.8 50.2 49.6Sikhs 60.6 65.5 54.9 45.7 47.3 45.5Source : GOI (2012): Report of the sub-group on Creation of Employment opportunities in 12 th Plan, Planning Commission, New Delhi, p.91.



11

Table 5 : Unemployment rate by usual and subsidiary status by major social/religious groups

(per cent)Social/Religiousgroups

Rural Areas Urban areas1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10

Scheduled castes 1.0 1.6 1.6 4.4 5.3 3.2Scheduled tribes 0.6 0.8 1.4 3.9 3.1 4.4All groups 1.2 1.7 1.6 4.5 4.4 3.4Hindus 1.1 1.5 1.5 4.7 4.4 3.4Muslims 2.1 2.3 1.9 3.6 4.0 3.1Christians 3.8 4.3 3.9 8.6 8.5 2.9Sikhs 0.7 3.3 2.4 4.6 4.5 5.9Source : GOI (2012): Report of the sub-group on Creation of Employment opportunities in 12 th Plan, Planning Commission, New Delhi, p.90-91.

Table 6 : Unemployment rate by current daily status (2004-05 to 2009-10) forvarious social groups

(per cent)Year SCs STs OBCs Others All

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban2004-05 12 11.4 6.5 7.5 7.7 8.5 6.6 7.1 8.2 8.32007-08 12 10.1 7.5 10.0 7.9 7.7 6.4 6.0 8.4 7.42009-10 9.4 7.8 6.3 7.0 6.5 6.2 5.3 4.6 6.8 5.8Source: Planning Commission (2011): India Human Development Report 2011; Towards social

inclusion, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, p.6.

Table 7 : Unemployment rate by current daily status (2004-05 to 2009-10) forvarious religious groups

(per cent)Year Hindu Muslims Christians Sikhs

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

2004-05 8.0 8.1 8.4 8.1 12.0 12.6 10.3 8.72007-08 8.3 7.3 8.8 7.3 9.8 10.2 6.9 5.12009-10 6.8 7.0 6.4 7.8 9.2 6.2 5.1 4.6Source: Planning Commission (2011): India Human Development Report 2011; Towards socialinclusion, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, p.6.



12

Reference :

Census Commission of India (2006); Census of India 2001; Social and Cultural

Tables, Controller of Publications, New Delhi, p.L-LIV. Government of India (2006); Report on Working Group on Poverty. Planning

Commission, New Delhi.

Government of India (2011); Report of Working Group on Employment,

Planning & Policy for the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017). Labour,

Employment and Manpower Division, Planning Commission, New Delhi.

Government of India (2011); Employment and unemployment situation in India

2009-10, NSS 66 th Round National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of

Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi. Nov.

Government of India (2011); Report of Sub-Group on Creation of Employment

Opportunities, Labour, Employment and Manpower, Division, Planning

Commission, New Delhi.

Government of India (2006); Social, Economic and Educational Status of

Muslim Community of India, Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, Cabinet

Secretariat, New Delhi.

Planning Commission (2008); Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007-12, Vol. III, NewDelhi, p.81.

Planning Commission (2011); India Human Development Report 2011, Institute

of Applied Manpower Research, New Delhi.

Planning Commission (2006); Report of the XI Plan Working Group on Poverty

Elimination Programmes, New Delhi.



13

Unemployment Among Marginalised GroupsDr. Shyam Sunder Singh Chauhan

Dr. Deepa Rawat Dr. Kusum Sharma

ABSTRACT

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes among social groups and Muslims

among religious communities are the most deprived and marginalized groups in India.

Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes are far behind their counterpart non-

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in almost all the socio-economic indicators. So is

the case with the Muslims who lag far behind their counterpart non-Muslims. These

marginalized groups are educationally backward, semi-skilled or unskilled and

professionally degraded so their employability in respectable professions of highincome generation is very limited. In the context of socio-economic deprivation of

marginalized groups, the present paper focuses on the nature of employment and

unemployment of these groups.

The scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes along with the Muslims are said to

be marginalized by taking into consideration any indicator of socio-economic growth

and human development. The socio-economic deprivation and poor state of health

and education of the people of these groups has resulted into high unemployment rateby usual principal and subsidiary status as well as current daily status. The high

order of GDP growth during the last decade or so has not been inclusive in the sense

that it could not create that much number of job-opportunities which were necessary

to absorb the unemployed people of these groups. The public work programmes like

MNREGA have certainly benefitted the rural poor creating employment through

unskilled manual work during the lean season. Due to the implementation of

MNREGA there has been a considerable increase in the wage rales of the rural

labourers, however, the effectiveness of the public works programme is always atquestion because of their ad-hocness. The challenge to provide gainful employment on

permanent basis is as severe as it was earlier. The solution lies in the educational and

skill development of the rural masses. There is a need to heavily invest in the

formation of human capital, only then India can reap the advantages of ‘Demographic

dividend’.

Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Government Girls P.G. College, Sirsaganj, Firozabad (U.P.)Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Agra College, Agra (U.P.)Associate Professor, Department of Education, Sant B.D. Jain P.G. College, Agra (U.P.)

Documents

SSS-Chauhan- Unemployment Among Marginalised Groups