Poverty manifests itself similarly all over the world. Whether it means the killing off of children or spawning child mafias in Brazil or the using of children for vile sexual perversions, or having the poor beg on the streets of New Delhi or Nairobi, poverty is poverty. The only difference is in the regional perception of the problem by those not afflicted by it. For people who are afflicted by poverty, the struggles are virtually the same irrespective of geographical placement. For those who are not, the perception changes. Just as is in India, the vast majority of the those who aren't poor simply see poverty as the scourge of their respective nations. Rarely do such people (and by this I mean the vast majority of those that are reasonably making ends meet) even stop to think and examine the reasons for the poverty. One of the reasons for is that they probably have got so used to seeing poor people and, as Mark Tully the BBC journalist who has covered India since her independence says, they learn to live with it. For others it might be because thinking about it causes them pangs of guilt. After all, some of the things that all of us do, directly or indirectly contribute to the plight of these people and to their exploitation.
As a simple example, I will talk about people in the West. Many amongst the general population in these nations are always looking for a good deal or for the cheapest item when they purchase something while shopping for day-to-day items. But where do such products come from? More often than not, these are produced under inhuman conditions in some factory in China or India or one of the poorer nations of the world, where children and adults are often put to work under cruel and unacceptable working conditions, toiling without rests, bathroom breaks, food and putting in, more often than not, more than 10 hours of work daily. Of course, all this exploitation is carried out under the justification that they are being gainfully employed and are bringing back earning for their families back in the villages or wherever they come from. But the people who purchase the end products do not see what goes into the creating of these cheaps goods that they so covet. They just assume cheap goods turn up magically on the store shelves.
No one thinks of the child labourer's lost childhood and lost opportunities. By not going to school, or more appropriately, by ensuring (through our collective silence) that he does not get to go to school, we have forever condemned him to a life of virtual slavery. And again this is justified by highlighting the accomplishments of the very few people who have successfully pulled themselves out of their miserable predicaments by going to school after work hours and working their way to college and up the social ranks. But the sheer minuteness of the size of such groups of people should be an indicator that this is no mean feat.
This is where governments can play a part. It is not simply enough to provide free education as Indian government policy purports to do. It is also necessary to ensure that the intended public (the poor and indigent) actually reach these centres of free education. That means examining the underlying reasons why children are not sent to school. In most cases, you can be sure that it is because they cannot afford to have children in school because that removes a source of income for the family. So, what is the solution to the problem? Providing two meals a day in schools is one solution. At least that becomes an incentive to send children to school. Once food uncertainty is removed, it becomes easier to concentrate on study.
Social services programs to help low income families keep their children in school should also be considered and adopted. That might mean supplementing the child's earnings. This will have to be coupled with a mandatory family planning program, or else you will find people producing children simply to collect social services hand outs. The more politically correct option would be to limit such earnings supplementation to two children. After all, who are we or the government to tell people not to procreate? All of this requires money and where does government get money from? Usually taxes. That means all of us who are slightly better off have to play our part paying taxes. In the United States, there is a constant effort, especially under Republican leadership, to relieve the tax obligations of the richest in society and transfer that burden over to the lower rungs of society (the reasoning being that they are the ones that require the services more, whereas the rich are constantly creating jobs for the lower levels of society). These come in the form of repealing estate taxes, or trying to impose a flat tax structure, etc. The problem with lower flat tax structure is that the poorer sections of society, who currently pay little or no taxes, find paying even this flat tax difficult. They are just about barely making ends meet. Taking out even a 10 to 15% chunk out of that is practically impossible. Whereas for the wealthy, one or two percent off their huge incomes is not going to send them spiralling into poverty. After all they too, when the need arises, have no qualms about using government-provided services.
As a simple example, I will talk about people in the West. Many amongst the general population in these nations are always looking for a good deal or for the cheapest item when they purchase something while shopping for day-to-day items. But where do such products come from? More often than not, these are produced under inhuman conditions in some factory in China or India or one of the poorer nations of the world, where children and adults are often put to work under cruel and unacceptable working conditions, toiling without rests, bathroom breaks, food and putting in, more often than not, more than 10 hours of work daily. Of course, all this exploitation is carried out under the justification that they are being gainfully employed and are bringing back earning for their families back in the villages or wherever they come from. But the people who purchase the end products do not see what goes into the creating of these cheaps goods that they so covet. They just assume cheap goods turn up magically on the store shelves.
No one thinks of the child labourer's lost childhood and lost opportunities. By not going to school, or more appropriately, by ensuring (through our collective silence) that he does not get to go to school, we have forever condemned him to a life of virtual slavery. And again this is justified by highlighting the accomplishments of the very few people who have successfully pulled themselves out of their miserable predicaments by going to school after work hours and working their way to college and up the social ranks. But the sheer minuteness of the size of such groups of people should be an indicator that this is no mean feat.
This is where governments can play a part. It is not simply enough to provide free education as Indian government policy purports to do. It is also necessary to ensure that the intended public (the poor and indigent) actually reach these centres of free education. That means examining the underlying reasons why children are not sent to school. In most cases, you can be sure that it is because they cannot afford to have children in school because that removes a source of income for the family. So, what is the solution to the problem? Providing two meals a day in schools is one solution. At least that becomes an incentive to send children to school. Once food uncertainty is removed, it becomes easier to concentrate on study.
Social services programs to help low income families keep their children in school should also be considered and adopted. That might mean supplementing the child's earnings. This will have to be coupled with a mandatory family planning program, or else you will find people producing children simply to collect social services hand outs. The more politically correct option would be to limit such earnings supplementation to two children. After all, who are we or the government to tell people not to procreate? All of this requires money and where does government get money from? Usually taxes. That means all of us who are slightly better off have to play our part paying taxes. In the United States, there is a constant effort, especially under Republican leadership, to relieve the tax obligations of the richest in society and transfer that burden over to the lower rungs of society (the reasoning being that they are the ones that require the services more, whereas the rich are constantly creating jobs for the lower levels of society). These come in the form of repealing estate taxes, or trying to impose a flat tax structure, etc. The problem with lower flat tax structure is that the poorer sections of society, who currently pay little or no taxes, find paying even this flat tax difficult. They are just about barely making ends meet. Taking out even a 10 to 15% chunk out of that is practically impossible. Whereas for the wealthy, one or two percent off their huge incomes is not going to send them spiralling into poverty. After all they too, when the need arises, have no qualms about using government-provided services.
No comments:
Post a Comment