Livelihood scheme for women deserves better

The Centre’s decision to let its flagship urban livelihoods scheme lapse without a successor is injudicious and perplexing. This is particularly so given the positive impact that the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM) has had on the social and financial empowerment of women. Since its launch in 2014, the scheme has helped create 10.02 lakh self-help groups (SHGs), covering more than one crore women across cities. To risk leaving these beneficiaries adrift for want of continued support would be to betray the promise contained in slogans about women-led development invoked by parties across the spectrum.

Significantly, concerns over funding and the policy vacuum created by the end of NULM in October 2024, cut across party lines. Of the five states that have flagged the issue — Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Tripura — only the first two are Opposition-ruled. All five have sought funding to ensure continued support to SHGs and prevent disruption to their access to institutional credit and bank linkages. Addressing these concerns is critical to the larger goals of poverty alleviation and support to women’s entrepreneurship. There is ample evidence of SHGs’ capacity to advance women’s social and economic empowerment — by improving access to credit and skills, building financial literacy and leadership, and increasing self-confidence and mobility. The impact of initiatives such as Didi ki Rasoi and Bank Sakhis under Bihar’s JEEViKA scheme shows how such programmes can put money in women’s hands while shifting them from dependent household roles to decision-makers. Kerala’s Kudumbashree offers an even more expansive model, evolving from credit groups into a network involved in community kitchens, waste collection and training SHGs in other states.

Overall Analysis

The editorial criticises the Centre’s decision to allow the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana–National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM) to lapse without a successor scheme. Its central argument is that programmes supporting women’s livelihoods, financial independence and collective empowerment require continuity rather than an abrupt withdrawal of institutional support. By combining figures on the scheme’s reach with examples from different states, the writer argues that self-help groups are not merely mechanisms for providing credit; they can also transform women’s social roles and economic opportunities.

The title, “Livelihood scheme for women deserves better,” uses a restrained but distinctly critical tone. The phrase “deserves better” is an evaluative expression that conveys dissatisfaction without resorting to aggressive language. It implies that a programme with a substantial record of supporting women should receive more considered treatment from policymakers. The title also personifies the scheme to some extent: although a scheme cannot literally deserve anything, the phrase directs attention to the value of the programme and the women who depend on it.

The opening sentence reinforces this criticism through the words “injudicious and perplexing.” Injudicious suggests poor judgement, while perplexing conveys that a decision is difficult to understand. Using both adjectives creates a measured but forceful opening. The writer then supports this assessment by referring to the scheme’s positive impact on women’s social and financial empowerment. This movement from criticism to evidence gives the argument a reasoned foundation rather than leaving it as a mere expression of disapproval.

The figures — 10.02 lakh self-help groups and more than one crore women — serve as persuasive evidence of the scheme’s scale. These numbers make the potential consequences of discontinuation tangible. The phrase “beneficiaries adrift” introduces a metaphor drawn from the image of a boat left without direction or support. It suggests that women who have built livelihoods and financial relationships through the scheme could be left uncertain about how to sustain their progress if institutional assistance disappears.

The sentence ending with “to betray the promise” intensifies the moral dimension of the argument. The editorial connects the decision not merely to administrative planning but to the credibility of political commitments. Its reference to slogans about “women-led development” highlights a contrast between public promises and policy implementation. The phrase “across the spectrum” indicates that such political rhetoric is not confined to one party or ideological group. This creates a standard against which policymakers from different political backgrounds can be assessed.

The second paragraph shifts from the scheme’s overall impact to the political and administrative response. The phrase “cut across party lines” is an idiom meaning that an issue extends beyond party divisions. By noting that only two of the five states raising concerns are governed by Opposition parties, the editorial seeks to show that the demand for continued funding is not simply an expression of partisan disagreement. The list of five states also adds specificity and supports the argument that the funding concern has a wider geographical reach.

The reference to the end of NULM and the resulting “policy vacuum” is another important expression. A policy vacuum is a situation in which an existing policy or programme ends without an adequate replacement to address the same needs. The word “vacuum” metaphorically suggests an empty space where a support structure once existed. It communicates the concern that women’s groups may lose access to assistance even when their need for it continues.

The editorial then broadens its argument from funding to the larger goals of poverty alleviation and women’s entrepreneurship. The enumeration of benefits — access to credit and skills, financial literacy, leadership, self-confidence and mobility — shows that self-help groups can contribute to empowerment in several interconnected ways. This list is rhetorically effective because it presents empowerment as multidimensional: it involves financial resources, practical capabilities, social participation and personal agency.

The examples of Bihar’s JEEViKA scheme and Kerala’s Kudumbashree give the argument a practical dimension. Initiatives such as Didi ki Rasoi and Bank Sakhis illustrate how women’s groups can connect economic activity with decision-making and community participation. Kudumbashree is presented as an even broader model, extending from credit groups into community kitchens, waste collection and training. The contrast between a narrow financial role and a wider community role reinforces the editorial’s claim that these programmes can develop into platforms for local leadership and social change.

The structure is therefore cumulative: the decision to discontinue the scheme → evidence of its reach → concerns across political boundaries → the wider benefits of self-help groups → examples of successful initiatives. This progression allows the writer to move from a specific policy decision to a broader argument about women’s economic agency.

The language is formal and policy-oriented, but it remains accessible through vivid expressions such as “beneficiaries adrift” and “policy vacuum.” The editorial combines statistical evidence, evaluative vocabulary, political contrast and concrete examples to persuade readers that continuity of support matters. Its focus is not only on the amount of funding available but also on the institutional relationships and capabilities that women’s groups may have developed over time.

Important Vocabulary – 5

1. Injudicious — Showing poor judgement; not carefully considered.
2. Perplexing — Confusing or difficult to understand.
3. Adrift — Without direction, support or a secure position; literally, floating without control.
4. Vacuum — An empty space; figuratively, a gap left by the absence of a policy or support system.
5. Alleviation — The act of reducing the severity of a problem, such as poverty or suffering.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that discontinuing DAY-NULM without a successor risks undermining the progress made by women’s self-help groups. Its examples suggest that these groups can do more than facilitate borrowing: they can strengthen financial independence, leadership and participation in community life. The broader message is that women-led development requires sustained institutional support, not merely political slogans.