SEVERAL important pronouncements provide a benchmark against which to assess India’s progress with regard to its children. The Constitution of India clearly embodies in it significant pledges to promote the rights of children. In December 1992, India ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In September 2000, India joined 191 other states participating in the United Nations Millennium Summit in accepting the challenge of meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), many of which have a direct implication for the well-being of children. The Government of India’s National Plan of Action for Children 2005 comprehensively commits itself to ‘ensure all rights to all children upto the age of 18 years.’

It is also clear that the present, not just the future of India, belongs to children. Children below the age of 18 years – 449 million in 2001 – account for nearly 44 per cent of India’s population. Of these, close to 158 million are extremely vulnerable – between 0-6 years. Few nations in the world have such a young and youthful population. The average Indian in 2001 was just 23 years old.

How seriously has India taken its commitment to children?

India has been experiencing an unprecedented vibrancy along many fronts especially after the initiation of economic reforms in the early 1990s. Incomes are rapidly rising. The average income of an Indian is 60% higher today than what it was in 1991. Parents are better educated and have greater access to information, technology and facilities. Infant mortality has fallen and an Indian child born today can expect to live four years longer than one born in 1991. Primary school enrolment and attendance rates have been steadily rising for both boys and girls. Access to drinking water has improved. Unprecedented changes are taking place in media and information technology. Women too have gained along many fronts, mostly notably in terms of their increased participation in the political process following the enactment of constitutional amendments in the early 1990s, reserving one-third of seats in local elections for women.

Rapid transformation has occurred – and continues to occur – in centre-state relations with the states enjoying greater fiscal autonomy and political decision-making authority. Decentralization has been further accelerated by panchayats gradually assuming power in most states. Vibrant women’s groups and non-governmental organizations are leading yet another transformation of Indian society. The emergence of community level groups that are articulate, demanding and active, is gradually transforming power relations – within the household and in the public domain. Despite these developments, large gaps exist between commitments and outcomes for children. Four features stand out.

 

Despite the changes taking place, India’s children continue to face a huge backlog of deprivations. For instance, India in 2005 reported an IMR of 58 deaths per 1000 live births. In contrast, China reported in 2005 an IMR of 23 and Bangladesh of 54. Neonatal deaths that account for 65% of infant mortality remain exceptionally high. In 2005-06, some 46% of children under three years were moderately or severely underweight – an insignificant decline from 47% in 1998-99. Close to 79% of children between 6 to 35 months of age were found to be anaemic in 2005-06 – up from 74% in 1998-99. In basic education too, there are large gaps to fill. Several millions of children can barely read and write even after spending 5-8 years in school; and many girls in particular still lack equal opportunities to access good quality basic education.

Many forms of inequalities are evident. Some disparities have even increased in recent years. For instance, as against India’s IMR of 58 per 1,000 live births in 2005, Kerala reported an IMR of 14 and Madhya Pradesh 76 per 1,000 live births. The IMR among girls was 61 whereas it was 56 per 1,000 live births among boys. Again, while both urban and rural IMR have come down over the years, the differentials have widened. In 2005, urban IMR was 40 and rural IMR was 60% higher – 64 per 1000 live births. The death rate among girls 1-4 years exceeds that of boys in the same age group by nearly 30%. And according to the National Family Health Survey-2 (1998-99), the IMR among Scheduled Castes was 83, and among Scheduled Tribes, 84 – almost 30% higher than in the rest of society.

Progress in advancing the well-being of children has been uneven. While some states and regions have tended to do better, others have lagged behind. On the whole, at the national level, progress has been slow. Between 1980-90, for instance, IMR declined from 114 to 80, by 30%. However, between 1990-2000, reduction in IMR has been much less – from 80 to 68 – only 15%. In 1993, India’s NMR was 47. It fell to 44 in 2000 and to 40 in 2002. The proportion of fully immunized children – 42% in 1998-99 – went up marginally to 44% in 2005-06. And as noted earlier, progress in terms of reducing child malnutrition has been negligible.

 

Not easily captured in conventional statistics is the plight of several million children needing special protection – those needing early childhood care, adolescent girls, child labourers, and children facing the threat of sexual exploitation, violence, HIV/AIDS, trafficking and those affected by conflict and disasters. Adequate attention has not been paid, for instance, to care for girls and women during pregnancy and lactation; their physical health and nutritional status, autonomy and respect in the family and considerations of workload and time; birth spacing and delayed age at first birth; and equal access to education are essential components of care practices. Similarly, inadequate attention has been paid to children with various disabilities – a concern that has failed to catch the attention of policy-makers.

Four observations on India’s performance and development experience vis-à-vis children are worth noting. First, India’s performance on several fronts lags behind many countries. Take the case of child survival. In 1990, the IMR in Bangladesh (114) was 43% higher than India’s IMR of 80. By 2003, the situation was reversed. India’s IMR was 25% higher than the IMR reported by Bangladesh. Interestingly, even in 2003, the per capita income in Bangladesh (US$ 376) was over 50% lower than India’s per capita income (US$ 564) And more strikingly, during the decade of the 1990s when Bangladesh overtook India in reducing IMR, India’s GDP per capita grew by 4% per annum and by 3.1% in Bangladesh.

 

Second, the economic expansion, especially after the initiation of economic reforms, has not translated adequately into accelerated improvements for children.

Third, poverty reduction has not translated into corresponding improvements in nutrition for children. Income poverty has fallen sharply in India. In 1973-74, more than half (55%) of India’s population lived below the poverty line. By 2000, the proportion had fallen to 26% – one out of every four from one out of every two. According to more recent estimates, whereas the proportion of population living below the poverty line fell to 22% in 2004-05,¹ close to 46% of children under three are still underweight

Fourth, economic progress and improved literacy haven’t necessarily resulted in better conditions for girls. The close association between greater freedoms and women’s empowerment for the well-being of children is well recognized. For instance, there is strong evidence to suggest the beneficial impact of education and literacy on infant mortality, nutrition and health-seeking behaviour. Nevertheless, more rapid economic expansion and improved literacy have not necessarily had a favourable impact on the girl child. This is most strikingly captured in the declining sex ratio among children 0-6 years. The decline in sex ratios in the more affluent states of Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat is indeed disturbing.

Why are there such large gaps between commitments and outcomes for children? Partial explanations can be found in six features of public action – or inaction. The emphasis on the term ‘public’ is deliberate. ‘Public’ should not be interpreted narrowly to mean only the government sector. Nor is it meant to signal the importance of people’s actions alone. The term ‘public’ is used here in the broadest sense of partnerships in society for children. The term would include efforts by government, non-governmental organizations, community-based groups, international agencies, trade unions, private corporate sector and citizens, including particularly the influential middle class. Failing to live up to commitments made to India’s children is a collective failure.

 

Despite the considerable expansion in physical provisioning, large gaps exist in both the reach and quality of basic social services. For example, according to NFHS-3, in 2005-06, some 59% of births were not attended to by a trained health professional. Similarly, in basic education, the 10th plan target of enrolling all children in schools by 2003 has not been met. Even in 2005, by government’s own admission, there were about eight million children who were not in school. Equally distressing are the high drop-out rates and the low levels of learning achievements among children. Again, relatively high and impressive statistics on rural water coverage mask, to a large extent, the ground realities confronting the lives of millions of Indians. The sustainability of this success is, however, under threat due to environmental degradation because of over exploitation of ground water, arsenic, fluoride, iron and saltwater intrusion into aquifers. India’s sanitation coverage is low – 8% in rural areas and 63% in urban areas.

 

Inadequate public investments are a major factor accounting for the poor reach and quality of basic social services. This is true of health, education, nutrition, water and sanitation. For instance, in 2000, India’s public expenditure on health was 0.9% of GDP – among the lowest in the world.² Similarly, though the proportion of public spending on education went up from 0.6% of GNP in 1951-52 to 3.5% in 2004-05, it is still grossly inadequate.³

The mid-term appraisal (MTA) of the 10th five year plan identifies weak public management as a major reason for the poor outcomes in human development. The situation in primary health care described in the MTA, for example, is common to most sectors: ‘There are exceptions but by and large, the quality of care across the rural public health infrastructure is abysmal and marked by high rates of absenteeism, poor availability of skilled medical and paramedical professionals, callous attitudes, unavailable medicines and inadequate supervision and monitoring… The poor continue to avail of the costlier services provided by the private practitioner even when they have access to subsidized or free public health care, due to reasons of distance, but more significantly, on account of the unpredictable availability and very low quality of health services provided by the public sector.’

 

Broad-based consultations and involvement of non-governmental organizations and the public in policy formulation and implementation have been limited and patchy. Many forms of community based organizations have emerged at the village level. Only some have been instrumental in effecting change for children. Others haven’t. The relationship of such organizations to the panchayat is not yet clear in many places. Local governments and panchayats lack adequate capacity for resource mobilization and governance. There is, however, a move by the state to more pro-actively involve public experts and NGOs in public decision-making. Broad-based consultations, for instance, have formed the basis for the strategies outlined by the National Rural Health Mission. Similarly, some state governments have been actively soliciting the support of NGOs to tackle child labour and trafficking. Such cooperation and partnerships, however, are few.

 

There are several areas where poor public education, inadequate information, awareness gaps and absence of a supportive environment prevent families from acting in the best interest of the child. As a result, gaps in public actions are large. For instance, failure to introduce supplementary foods at the end of 6-9 months is a major factor accounting for child malnutrition. Breastmilk provides vital nutrients throughout the first year of life, but breastmilk alone is not sufficient. The energy and calories needed for healthy growth can come only from additional food. Beyond four to six months, infants must be given solid foods to supplement breastmilk. Only 56% of children 6-9 months receive solid and mushy foods to supplement breastfeeding.

It is, therefore, not surprising that a child typically becomes malnourished between six months and 18 months of age, and remains so thereafter. Many households, especially in urban areas, continue to hire children as domestic servants. There has been little public protest against this practice. Similarly, public support for improving the quality of government schools and health centres remains weak, even though many recognize that the poor have few options but to access publicly provided services.

Finally, there has been little progress in strengthening systems of information collection, reporting and monitoring of targets and goals for children. Reliable and specialized data on maternal mortality, child malnutrition, and morbidity, for instance, are rarely available. Similarly, little is known about the learning achievements of children across the country. Even less is known about the functioning of health centres, schools and other district level and local level institutions. This is the outcome of a rather weak system of public vigilance and monitoring. The media, in recent years, has helped to draw attention to many neglected concerns of children as well as to violation of child rights. But there is much more that needs to be done to encourage independent and public systems of evaluation, monitoring and reporting.

 

The Approach Paper to the 11th five year plan brought out in December 2006 takes cognizance of several shortcomings and calls for faster and more inclusive growth. It also identifies several monitorable socioeconomic goals relevant to children that include the following:

* Reduce infant mortality rate to 28 and maternal mortality ratio to 1 per 1000 live births.

* Reduce malnutrition among children of age group 0-3 to half its present level.

* Reduce anaemia among women and girls by 50% by the end of the 11th plan.

* Provide clean drinking water for all by 2009.

* Reduce dropout rates of children from elementary schools from 52.2% in 2003-04 to 20% by 2011-12.

* Raise the sex ratio for age group 0-6 to 935 by 2011-12 and to 950 by 2016-17.

* Ensure that all children enjoy a safe childhood without any compulsion of work.

Is there reason to share the optimism of the 11th plan’s approach paper in terms of its commitment to India’s children?⁴ Yes, provided there is a shift in the way India prioritizes for children and addresses the failings of the past. Actions are needed along many critical areas.

It is true that growth has generated additional resources. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that these additional resources have not been adequately channelled into social sectors or for advancing child rights. It is important to both protect and increase expenditures to promote child rights. Norms for allocation of funds by the central government to states, and by the states to districts and panchayats need to be revisited. The allocations must be linked to both the number of children as well as to their condition in the different states, and should take note of the different contexts in which children live. It is equally important to have in place adequate systems of checks and balances to ensure proper utilization of funds.

 

The National Plan of Action for Children 2005 rightly acknowledges the principle of universalism and emphasizes assuring all children their due rights. This will require special initiatives that focus on equity and result in accelerated progress for less privileged children. Apart from children requiring special protection and care, there are also large segments of children who need to be supported and brought under the purview of effective policies. These include, for instance, children in their early childhood (0-6 years), adolescents, working children and young girls who are regularly denied opportunities for leading healthy and creative lives.

Strengthening local institutions and community action are extremely important for accelerating progress for children. Different social sector workers need to be backed by effective and well-functioning local institutions – including panchayats, block and district level resource centres, etc. Integrated into such a system should also be the effective use of the right to information and appropriate community-based monitoring systems. Capacity at the community level needs to be augmented so that people can get adequate information, monitor progress and act in the best interests of the child. This also requires that successful interventions by NGOs and others be assessed and adopted to suit local conditions. In other words, flexibility and innovation should be built into all programming initiatives.

 

As indicated earlier, it is necessary to put in place an effective system of data collection on child rights. For a number of parameters, data gathering and reporting systems are faulty, inadequate, unreliable or even nonexistent. At the same time, it is important to establish accountability in public management and reinforce systems of public monitoring and evaluation. Public vigilance must be encouraged by government, and not subverted. Only by honest reporting and greater public dialogue can the practice of democracy be improved to ensure maximum gains for children.

Several progressive steps taken by the judiciary have boosted child rights in India. However, more rapid progress in assuring child rights will depend critically on effectively plugging loopholes in law and strengthening implementation of existing laws. It is particularly important to review both central and state legislation to ensure that they are fully compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. More effective legislative efforts are needed to tackle many violations of child rights resulting from disability, natural disasters, trafficking, domestic violence, riots, displacements and disturbances. There is need to reassess legal protection for children requiring special care such as street children, those in conflict with the law, juveniles, orphans and children of prisoners and children living in hazardous surroundings.

 

To conclude, both the economic and political climate are conducive today for universalizing child rights. Conditions and capacity also exist for making investments in children a national priority. Preparations for the 11th five year plan offer a useful opportunity to take advantage of the emerging opportunities, utilize the wide experience and knowledge base and act radically to advance child rights in India. Prioritizing for children offers India a unique opportunity to accelerate human development. Missing this opportunity could prove costly.

 

References:

Government of India (2007), Economic Survey 2006-07, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.

International Institute for Population Studies and ORC Macro (2000), National Family Health Survey (NFHS 2): 1998-99, Mumbai.

International Institute for Population Studies (2007), NFHS-3 Fact Sheets: India and 29 States, accessible at http://www.nfhsindia.org/factsheet.html

Office of Registrar General of India (2006), Sample Registration System Bulletin, October 2006, accessible at http://www. censusindia.net/vs/srs/bulletins/index.html

Planning Commission (2006), Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach Paper to the 11th Five Year Plan, Government of India, New Delhi.

UNICEF (2006), The State of the World’s Children 2007, Unicef House, Unicef, New York.

 

Footnotes:

1. According to the Planning Commission (2006), ‘…the percentage of population below the poverty line in 2004-05 is provisionally estimated at 27.8% in 2004-05… However, although this estimate is higher than the earlier official estimate for 1999-2000, this should not be interpreted to mean that poverty has increased between 1999-2000 and 20004-05. It means only that the 1999-2000 official estimates had underestimated comparable poverty.’

2. Only five countries in the world spent less than this proportion on health – Democratic Republic of the Congo (0.3%), Myanmar (0.4%), Nigeria (0.5%), Indonesia (0.6%) and Georgia (0.7%).

3. For instance, Tilak (November 2005) as a member of the Committee on the National Common Minimum Programme’s Commitment of six percent of GDP to Education notes that ‘the current proportion is also less than (a) the requirements of the education system to provide reasonable levels of quality education to all the students enrolled presently; (b) the requirements of the system to provide free and compulsory elementary education of good quality of eight years for every child of the age-group 6-14, as a fundamental right, as proclaimed in the 86th amendment to the Constitution of India in 2002 and the consequent growth in secondary and higher education; and (c) the proportion of GNP invested in education in many other developing, leave alone developed, countries of the world, including Africa. According to the latest statistics, India ranks 80th among 130 countries of the world on which such data are available, in the proportion of GDP spent on education in 2000-02.’

4. It is interesting to note that another report released by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, also in December 2006, does not share the same optimism. Estimates of population projections for India reveal that the infant mortality rate (IMR) is expected to decline to 40 per 1000 live births (not 28) by 2025; and the sex ratio among children 0-6 years will fall (and not improve) from 934 in 2001 to 889 in 2011.