If children are a nation's future, India is actively engaged in messing up its tomorrow. For, India's budgets are anything but child-friendly. The gap between policy rhetoric and reality of performance is large. There are few imaginative and innovative programmes designed to benefit the child, financial allocations are meagre, and commitment to implementation even poorer. Some 55 years after independence, half of our children remain out of school, malnourished and likely to die before they turn five, and even those who have received full elementary education are unable to read and write properly.
What's the best way to gauge a government's commitment towards its children? More than what it says, by what it does for them. And budgets are the most solid expression of its priorities, performance, decisions and intents. In the rich countries, where welfare is high on the political agenda, children's budget reviews are routine. Most US states, for instance, have their programmes for low-income children microscoped by independent agencies and opponents. In the third world, South Africa's IDASA (the Institute for Democracy in South Africa) has blazed a trail in formulating norms for children and women's budgets.
In India, a pioneering effort has been made by Delhi-based NGO HAQ: Centre for Child Rights. A first step, it studies only the Union Budget, keeping the state budgets for next year, and children-specific schemes. A five-volume 250-page reader-friendly spending review for the last decade, akin to what North Block must be doing every year, and bereft of judgement or grand advice. Yet, its findings are dismal enough to undermine our belief in India as a welfare state.
Says Dr Biswajit Dhar of the RIS, who acted as economic advisor for the study: "We did not follow any model, the idea was to just have an assessment of the government's commitment towards children. A lot of the fields are either in the state or concurrent lists. We'll take up the states later, which will give us a more complete picture."
The study evaluates the spending from three angles. One, despite several constitutional promises, programmes and policies—about 122 programmes run by 13 ministries and departments—why is there so little change in children's lives? Two, do the budgets reflect a matching commitment towards the programmes announced? Three, are budgetary allocations and actual spending enough to set up services and institutions that can ensure children their rights and protect them from violation of those rights?
Why only the '90s? Because, one, India ratified the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) in '92. Two, about the same time, she embarked on a programme of economic liberalisation—policies that sought to bring major upheavals in traditional industries and job situation, and would thus consciously aim at increased social sector allocations to alleviate the adverse impact of the structural changes. None of these goals seem to have been met in the '90s, for budget expenditure on children rose only marginally, from 0.6 per cent of the total spending in '90-91 to 1.6 per cent in '98-99.
Most of this increase actually came in education, while the expenditure on health, child development and children in difficult circumstances have remained virtually stagnant over 10 years! Also, education spending went up dramatically in the mid-'90s, raising the uncomfortable question that an increased stress on non-formal education (the figures match, too) and increase in teachers' salaries may have been the only factors responsible! Is this then the bottomline of India's policies towards children?
Apart from the meagre spending—often underspending—there are many schemes launched with substantial allocations, but not sustained.The '90s were the SAARC Decade of the Girl Child. One of the many programmes for girls, Free Education for Girls, was launched in 1998-99. In three years, a total of Rs 420 crore was allotted but till date, there is no estimate for actual spending. In 2000-01, along with many other insubstantial schemes, this too was merged with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.
There's more. Another scheme, the Balika Samriddhi Yojana, was launched in '97-98. A first of its kind, it sought to compensate for the general woe that accompanies the birth of a girl child in most of India by making an initial payment of Rs 500 for diet and also undertaking the expense for her education and marriage. The scheme fully utilised its budgetary allocation of Rs 50 crore only in the first year. The next year, the expenditure was less than 30 per cent of the outlay. Then it died a quiet death. As do so many schemes announced by politicians. One fine fiscal, they just drop out of the expenditure budget. Meanwhile, the girl child wastes a few precious years of her meagre life!
And of course, there are categories of children who haven't been targeted at all. While the government has consistently paid lip service to special groups like children affected by conflict (like in Kashmir) and children of prostitutes or those engaged in prostitution or are victims of trafficking, there are no specific programmes for them. These are the children in difficult circumstances, protection of whom is one of CRC's goals, but India recognises only child labour in this group. But according to another NGO, Vidhayak Sansad, not even 1.5 per cent of the total number of the child labour force is covered by government projects. The money under these programmes remains mostly under-utilised and poorly targeted. The main scheme in the area, ominously called Improvement of Working Conditions of Child/Women Labour, has got a decent hike in allocation this year (from Rs 67 crore to Rs 80.56 crore) but, as the name suggests, includes women and could even benefit factory owners!
Even education programmes are not spared such neglect. In '96-97, three major schemes were started: Special Assistance to States for making education a fundamental right, National Elementary Education Mission and Media Advocacy programme. So far, no spending at all, despite erratic allocations. The same fate befell the World Bank-aided education projects for UP, Bihar and Orissa. Started in '91, they were all stopped in four to six years, with virtually no spend!
Underuse or poor use of funds meant for children is a heinous crime not only due to the quality and helplessness of the target group, but also because a lot of it is external aid: soft loans, not outright grant. "We, the citizens and taxpayers, actually pay interest on an amount which may be just accumulating. Why take the aid at all?" asks Dhar.
About a fifth of the spending on children in the '90s came from foreign sources. About half of the health spending was externally funded, the World Bank-aided ICDS (Integrated Child Development Services) being the biggest contributor. The Bank itself is desperately seeking to increase India's poor aid utilisation rate. This high dependence on external aid for ensuring children their basic rights is of deep concern because it leads to dependence on the whims of the donors and a diarchy of administration. The latter problem plagues even the centrally-sponsored schemes and the CAG has recently suggested cutting them down to half to improve implementation.
Sums up Enakshi Ganguly Thukral, executive secretary, HAQ: "The government is not only not committing the money, it's not even putting the systems in place. We just want it to put its money where its mouth is. We want it to think not about children's welfare, but their rights—their due.Forget the future, we want investment in children today." Is that too much to ask of a nation made up one-third by children?