ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Thomas GeorgeSubscribe to Thomas George

Distorted Perspective on Health Care

The only solution to the many problems of providing health care for all would be a nationalised health system. DESPITE all the rhetoric about "adjustment with a human face" that the Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh and the pro- government Media Cabal have been dishing out, there is absolutely no doubt that the government of India's structural adjustment programme (SAP) is having deleterious effects on social welfare. Confirmation for this fact comes from no less a source than the World Bank itself, the prime motivator of the programme. In its India Health Financing Study (May 1993) a country- specific document complementary to the better known World Development Report 1993, it says, "In the face of budgetary pressure and the start of the adjustment process, the health sector faces a critical decision point today" (p 88). The Bank was acutely concerned because the very first budget under the SAP drastically reduced the already meagre allocation for health. In the 1992-93 budget, central allocation to health was Rs 303 crore the same as the previous year. However, this included Rs 58 crore, for AIDS control committed by the World Bank. So in fact, the actual allocation was Rs 245 crore, a cut of 20 per cent. The ministry of health and family welfare absorbed this fierce reduction by simply slashing allocations for various important programmes. Thus, for example, the National Malaria Eradication Programme got Rs 50 crore compared to Rs 83 crore the previous year, allocation for tuberculosis was cut from Rs 16 crore to Rs 13.5 crore and some ongoing programmes like the control of encephalitis, filaria and guinea-worm received no funds at all. The World Bank was worried that too much and too sudden a reduction in social welfare activities would provoke widespread unrest. Subsequent budgets have reflected the Bank 's concern and there has been some rise in allocations for health although even today it remains a miserable 0.58 per cent of the budget.

Prescription for Disaster

which election expenses undertaken by a political party are not considered as election expenses of the party's candidate for the purposes of the ceiling on election expenses.) The 'common symbol' is therefore a substantial privilege given to a recognised party and its candidates. The granting of any privilege must be conditional upon the party concerned observing a certain code of ethics in its election campaign and upon the party functioning in a manner that it does not spread fanatical intolerance and hate among the people, It follows that the recognition granted to a party, or the fruits of that recognition, in the form of a common symbol for its candidates, should be withdrawn when a party, in the opinion of an independent authority, say. a high court, oversteps the bounds of such a code. The measure suggested here would not go so far as deregistration but would nevertheless result in withdrawal of a crucial privilege from the party. This can be provided for through appropriate amendments, made in consultation with the Election Commission, to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and to the Symbols Older, The matter can be approached in another way. In the US, a matter arose concerning the eviction of Blacks from a private park, At the time of the eviction, the manager of the park, who happened to be a city deputy sheriff, was wearing a sheriff's badge. The US Supreme Court held (378 US 130) that the wearing of the badge at the time of the eviction had involved the state machinery in the eviction and as such the eviction had been made by 'stale action' As 'state action' could not contravene the constitutional protection against racial discrimination, the manager's act was held bad in law.
Back to Top