Public services and their providers !

It is so natural that we clean the house, when we are using it regularly. An abandoned one will attract our attention, only occasionally. Same is the case with our public services especially health and education.  It is not that no one is using these facilities. In fact, a majority is using them.  For example, in 2012, the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) found that 28% of children in the age group of 6-14 years have attended private schools. Though the private school enrolment has been on the rise since 2009, even in rural areas, around 70% still rely on public schools.

In the health sector, studies show that there is a massive shift from public to private sector. According to National Family Health Survey 2005-06, for 70% of urban households and 63% of rural households, the private medical sector is the main source of health care. This is not so good a sign, as the lower income category is spending huge amounts on healthcare by opting for relatively expensive private services. Also, the fact remains that many still rely only on public services for they cannot afford or private is inaccessibly far.

Keeping aside the quality of private services, which is equally questionable, the statistics show that private is comparatively preferable. A recent study by Michigan State University education researcher challenged the claim that private school students outperform their counterparts in public schools. There are many studies, which bring out the reasons for these dismal public services and how to mend them. The purpose of this article is not to get into any of those details but to raise only one question – “is it because the public services are not good that the government officials/politicians (say the elite class - supposing it includes lower, middle and upper elite) do not use them or that the services are bad because the elite class do not use them? In other words, are our public services dirty because the service providers themselves do not use them?

Ideally, policies cannot enforce compulsory use of the public service by the public officials themselves. Practically, that is impossible as elite themselves make laws and implement them. Yet the dismal public services and I-do-not-use-it-anyway syndrome force us to think of this perception. The possible consequences of this kind of an attitude in education and health sectors could be many.

As the author of an article ‘An official vote of no confidence’ (The hindu, opinion oped, September 16^th 2013) pointed out – ‘The fact is that the decline of government hospitals was in part associated with the decision of ministers and officials to give themselves the benefit of being monetarily compensated for private health care’. The recent order to reimburse approved expenditure on treatment abroad for IAS and IPS officers is manifestation of such lack of confidence.

This might also be the reason for increasing governmental affinity towards private health, for wrong reasons. In addition to the voluntary shift by people who can afford, to private services, there is a developing tendency to subsidize private services by government.  This precisely means that public money is pumped into private sector leaving no scope for developing public sector and the subsidies bill will further shoot up. Arogyasri scheme in Andhra Pradesh was PPP scheme introduced to provide quality health services upto 2 lakh per annum to BPL families free of cost through an identified network of public and private providers. Soon corporate interests, corruption etc have tainted its purpose. Private hospitals have boomed with this cash rich scheme and sidelined public hospitals. Also, studies conducted by many NGOs show that many surgeries and operations have been conducted, whether a patient actually needed it or not.

  

No special study is needed to say that a very few or none at all, of the government teachers send their children to government schools. Yet an enthusiast in Tamil Nadu has painstakingly collected an important information through RTI filings. It says that over 73% of the primary government school teachers in TN send their own children to private schools. The irony is that the same teachers association has been avidly promoting government schools, just to save their own jobs. This is just one instance.

To answer the main question, it is two way. Elite do not use government services for obvious reasons. But this definitely has had an impact on development of public services. If the elite use the services, the investment, maintenance, monitoring and overall working would have been better than what it is today in the public sector. After all, we are notorious for cleaning of roads or laying them over night before a VIP visit. If I never have to use the road I am building, why maintain it in good condition or for that matter why build it in the first place?

This brings us to the question – “Is it important to attract the elite to use the public services in education and health?” Whether this becomes a part of conscious policymaking or not, this is definitely something to work on. India is still not in a position to let the market decide the course of the ‘public goods’ health and education.  

More on this …. In a follow up article ! With views from experts

Not fair. Can be still lovely?

How important is the complexion of human skin? The eyes which recognize the color of it – dark, brown, fair are not fond of any one of them specifically. But the mind – be it in developed or developing world, rich or poor, rural or urban, young or elderly, man or woman is clearly biased towards a particular complexion, sometimes in absolute terms and sometimes in relative terms. A particular colour is preferred or it is never preferred over any other colour. A non-living thing of some colour preferred over other colours reflects one’s choice and that particular thing is blessed with inability to sense the feeling of rejection. Unfortunately, a human can do so.

Is this bias towards a complexion touched men and women equally? And is it spread them equally? Historically, women have been the epitome of beauty for poets and writers. And when beauty has come to be equated with complexion majorly, women were the ones to be impacted more directly by the idea of ‘fair is lovely’.  And men, who have had more opportunities to choose, were also major players in promoting a colour over another. Is this a natural preference by the majority or a culturally induced one? Whatever be the case, a discrimination based on a natural attribute needs to be widely debated and condemned.

By nature, we all might not be equal but are not unequal. Natural inequality is inevitable because of each one’s uniqueness in skin colour, height, weight, body shape, hair colour etc. But a social inequality which is prejudiced needs to be questioned. This fair-is-lovely prejudice is a comparatively latest one in explicit terms, though its roots are found in one form or the other since the ancient times. The flourishing fairness creams market asserts that it is more wide spread in India which is a society with a unique blend of cultural, religious and other social stigmas.

Indian mythological texts are the oldest culprits where fair skinned gods fight against dark skinned demons, references to Aryans (fair skinned foreigners) Vs Dravidians (indigenous dark skinned ones). These implicit references may have indirect impact on the readers which created certain stereotypes. But the most explicit mention was of the Varna system, where the society is divided into four classes – brahmins, kshatriyas, vyshas and sudras. Though many thinkers say it is a system based on qualities of each group, complexion of the skin as a major factor for discrimination cannot totally be ruled out.

This caste-colour correlation was further accentuated during the colonial rule. Fair skin was generally associated with superiority, power and dominance and the dark skin represents the inferiority and subordination. The concept of ‘white man’s burden’ justifies colonialism on the basis of supposed responsibility of white people to govern and impart their culture to non-whites.  And the fair skinned British women who were seen as symbols of beauty, became motivation for the Indian women to try and lighten their skin tone.

In the post-colonial times, the idea of fair-is-lovely continued with emerging fairness creams market. The famous advertisement of fair and lovely, where the ambitions of an aspiring airhostess or cricket commentator are hampered by her skin complexion, has two take away points. One, usage of such creams will increase skin’s fairness and two, such fairness will majorly help you achieve your goals in life. Both these appealed immediately to young women, especially those aspiring for careers in fashion and modelling. Bollywood has also been a compelling agent for the ‘fair’ cause (More of ‘gore gore mukhde pe’ and less of ‘hum kale hain to kya hua’). Indian cinema in many languages have always portrayed Lord Krishna as a fair skinned one, though the texts say otherwise. On-screen flashing of ‘beauty’ is adding more illusion in reality. Men are the new members to join the club with more fairness creams for men flooding the market.

Is it an ugly, deadly form of discrimination in the lines of racism, untouchability? Fortunately, except for certain latent consequences, which are coming to light gradually, fair-is-lovely is not institutionalized (as caste) yet to a greater non correctable degree. It percolated into both professional and private lives. Professionally – preference for fair skin people in tv shows, movies, news channels etc. In private – matrimonial advertisements often look for fair skin people, wishing for fair skinned children etc. The list goes on and the stories of agony of both those who care and those do not care about fairness are many. When talent is side lined for the want of something which people cannot actually change, (even after using so many fairness creams), is unacceptable. You can teach people etiquette, work culture, professionalism but how on earth can one change his or her natural attributes.

This needs to be questioned at every level, before the majority take it for granted and natural inequality so naturally becomes the cause of other forms of inequality. If imitation is the best form of flattery, fairness should not be emulated. And simultaneously one should try and assert more in other ways possible because how much ever one may condemn the fair-is-lovely principle, it is part of the reality. It should be fought at the individual, familial, organisational levels. It doesn’t need a revolution to bring in small changes. Like for instance, steps breaking the tradition have been already taken by many individuals (Like Nandita Das), tv channels in employing dusky skinned anchors, which is establishing the new thinking of ‘not-fair-but-lovely’.

Drawing an analogy with caste system – sanskritisation, a sociological concept refers to the imitation of upper caste ways and traditions by the lower castes in order to attain higher social status. But it is more or less obsolete now and replaced with assertion. The assertion of lower castes for their own dignity and equality is a challenge to the brahmanical system itself. The philosophy is simple, “love yourself for what you are and not to please someone else’s social bias“.

Keeping all the reasons aside people do aspire to look fairer as it appeals them. Though the creams do not actually change their colour, they might be psychologically happy about it or might be that they are just used to using the cream. There was a campaign recently asking SRK not to advertise for men’s fairness creams. Not sure how far this is a right approach. Are the people who have been using the creams for years fools? Don’t they understand that it is of less use? Also, the percentage of fair skinned people using such creams or any other cosmetic lotions would also be significant. What does this mean? There is something more people look for than fairness or it is purely psychological.

One more point to be thought of is that – preference for a natural attribute doesn’t end with fairer skin. Tall or average height, slim physique (for women), well-built body (for men) and the list goes on. The reason for fair skin preference to be more wide spread and more appealing among this list, is may be because of its cultural and historical roots. It could also be that it sounds easily accomplishable to attain a different colour of skin.

Nevertheless, this obsession for fairer skin and its spill over into public sphere from private sphere is definitely a cause for concern. All those who understand the issue should try to bring in changes from within, whichever be the sector they are in. Who knows, the sexy brownish look will be up for emulation over a period of time just the way westerners prefer a tanned skin.