Balancing budget on the backs of the poor

The NDA government has indicated that the public health budget for the current financial year would be cut by 20 per cent, ostensibly for reasons of fiscal prudence. It is a wrong and retrograde step.

The cut amounts to about Rs 6,000 crore, and the government expects it to go some way in achieving the fiscal deficit target of 4.1 per cent of the GDP. In addition to the public health budget cut, there has also been a cut of about 30 per cent in the HIV/AIDS control budget to Rs 1,300 crore: a cruel Good Governance Day present on a day for gifts.

The decisions, while wrapped in the garb of fiscal prudence, reflect the wrong priorities of the government. The big 20 per cent cut in expenditure will badly affect public health and hit implementation of many programmes, while it will hardly make a dent on fiscal deficit which has already crossed Rs 5 lakh crore.

The eventual effect of this cut will be to reduce the fiscal deficit by just about 1 per cent. That raises the question whether the government is more committed to slashing welfare expenditure than containing the deficit.

It is already reaping the benefits of lower crude oil prices. It has also has raised taxes on petrol and diesel. Why is the government intent on balancing the budget on the backs of the poor? Private sector expenditure on health care is increasing, but ordinary people cannot afford it.

The high cost of private health care makes access to reasonable and effective public healthcare a dire necessity in a poor country like India. Indeed, in order to meet even the low health care standards of China, India would have to triple its spending on health as a percentage of GDP. The still higher standards of developed countries will remain ever remote.

India is at the bottom rung in the case of most health indicators. Ailments of children and women, malaria, TB, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and other diseases take a heavy toll of life and health. The government should have found other ways to reduce the fiscal deficit than one that adversely affects public health.

The move shows the low value it places on the lives and wellbeing of the poor. It is cynical to think that the voters intentionally voted for a government which places such little emphasis on social welfare. It is more likely that they were deceived by false promises. The BJP had promised better and more affordable healthcare in its manifesto.