Even as the middle class and politicians are gloating over US President Barack Obama’s remark that “India has emerged”, it comes as a rude shock that one of the fastest growing economies spends only 4.45 paise, on an average, per child every year. This is not a mere conjecture, but the finding of an analysis of the Union Budget and Budgets of six State Governments conducted over a five-year period. According to the ‘Budget for Children’ analysis, conducted by Haq: Centre for Child Rights, a non-profit organisation, of every Rs 100 allocated in the Union Budget, education programmes get Rs 2.90, while health and development programmes receive less than one rupee each — this after the Budget allocation for children went up by 40 per cent from Rs 21,033 crore in 2005-06 to Rs 29,518 crore in 2006-07 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the Integrated Child Development Scheme programmes. What is startling to note is that while the Budget allocation has increased, in actual spending, children’s share has come down to 4.12 paise per child — clearly bringing to the fore a wide chasm that exists between policy planning and capacity utilisation in India.
A pertinent question that could be asked is why do children get a raw deal. Guided by reapolitik, one would say because children do not constitute vote-banks. However, in reality the problem lies in the fact that there is a growing gap between public spending and its intended beneficieries. A case in point is the reaction of the Planning Commission to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s announcement regarding the opening of 6,000 Navodaya schools. The Planning Commission decided that 3,500 schools would be in the public sector and 2,500 in the private sector. It is common knowledge that education in the private sector has emerged as a profitable business with little room for philanthropy and hence the 2,500 schools would hardly serve the purpose envisaged in the Right to Education Act. Ideally, providing easy access to quality school education and healthcare should be a responsibility of the Union and State Governments, but the unobliging attitude of a section of politicians and bureaucrats, in effect, reduces the scope of the benefit. Sure, investing in children would augur well for a nation sprinting away to economic prosperity because they are the social capital. Lack of investment in social capital would result in negative outcomes such as early school drop-out, substance abuse, poor labour market entry, and crime and violence, which in turn would lead to substantial economic, social and political costs. In fact, in Latin America and the Caribbean, negative youth behaviours reduce economic growth by up to two per cent annually. If the Government wants to gloss over such facts, it would do so at the country’s peril. Definitely, children demand more commitment from policy-makers, in case the Government wants a stable, vibrant India.
A pertinent question that could be asked is why do children get a raw deal. Guided by reapolitik, one would say because children do not constitute vote-banks. However, in reality the problem lies in the fact that there is a growing gap between public spending and its intended beneficieries. A case in point is the reaction of the Planning Commission to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s announcement regarding the opening of 6,000 Navodaya schools. The Planning Commission decided that 3,500 schools would be in the public sector and 2,500 in the private sector. It is common knowledge that education in the private sector has emerged as a profitable business with little room for philanthropy and hence the 2,500 schools would hardly serve the purpose envisaged in the Right to Education Act. Ideally, providing easy access to quality school education and healthcare should be a responsibility of the Union and State Governments, but the unobliging attitude of a section of politicians and bureaucrats, in effect, reduces the scope of the benefit. Sure, investing in children would augur well for a nation sprinting away to economic prosperity because they are the social capital. Lack of investment in social capital would result in negative outcomes such as early school drop-out, substance abuse, poor labour market entry, and crime and violence, which in turn would lead to substantial economic, social and political costs. In fact, in Latin America and the Caribbean, negative youth behaviours reduce economic growth by up to two per cent annually. If the Government wants to gloss over such facts, it would do so at the country’s peril. Definitely, children demand more commitment from policy-makers, in case the Government wants a stable, vibrant India.
No comments:
Post a Comment