ACCORDING to the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA), in this year’s Budget the spending on education as a proportion of the gross domestic product (GDP) – 0.76 per cent – has remained almost the same as that of the Revised Estimates for 2008-09. In fact, the allocations for the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme and the mid-day meal scheme in schools have declined, it points out.

What was noted, more in the Economic Survey than in the Budget speech of the Finance Minister, was an obvious tilt towards public-private partnership at all levels in the education sector, particularly with reference to enacting a law to “regulate” the entry of foreign educational institutions into the country.

Technical education, the CBGA pointed out, received a boost with the Minister announcing allocations for the setting up of community polytechnics, a new Indian Institute of Information Technology and some new Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs).

Overall, the allocation for education remained low when compared with what was promised in the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) of the first United Progressive Alliance government.

In a statement, Child Rights and You (CRY), which has campaigned for a 10 per cent allocation for education and health, said the “aam aadmi budget bypasses India’s children”. Dipankar Majumdar, CRY director, noted: “It is strange that 40 per cent of the population gets an allocation of just 5.09 per cent. When we emulate first-world economic growth, we should realise that such growth is meaningless unless it reaches India’s poorest. For a country that is firmly on a growth path, a decrease in public spending on education and health from 1999-2000 to now is regressive.”

The All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), in a statement, said the Budget betrayed the trust of the “aam aadmi” and “aam aurat”.

“The exaggerated promises made in the President’s speech have not been backed by increased resource allocations in the Budget,” it said. Clearly, there was a mismatch between the grandiose plans for women outlined in the speech and the proposals in the Budget.

Insignificant increases had been made to the food security net despite the escalation of food prices; the allocation for mid-day meals was stagnant and the demand to universalise the public distribution system (PDS) was ignored, it said. “Without this,” it said, “the proposed National Food Security Act can only fail in its objective.”

The allocation of Rs.39,100 crore for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), up from Rs.36,750 crore, was just about enough to cover the proposed increase in wages to Rs.100, it said and added that the Budget and the economic survey hardly addressed the inadequacies in its implementation and coverage.

The AIDWA also noted that the debt relief for farmers had no special provision or guarantees for women farmers.

It expressed dismay at the reduced outlay for the nodal Ministry itself. In addition, institutional support to working women received a setback with the decrease in the allocation for government-supported hostels to Rs.10 crore from Rs.20 crore.

Even the much-touted National Mission for Empowerment of Women got a meagre allocation of Rs.1 crore only. Similarly, the allocation for the Rashtriya Mahila Kosh, which is supposed to facilitate and support women self-help groups (SHGs) had also been reduced by Rs.11 crore, the AIDWA said.

In fact, the AIDWA and eight other women’s organisations had addressed a memorandum to the Finance Minister before the Budget was presented. In it they noted, among other things, that more effort was needed on gender budgeting. They demanded sex-disaggregated data and suggested that child-related expenditure be placed under a different head.

The women’s organisations said that the lakhs of women who opted for work under the NREGS were often denied minimum wages owing to gender insensitive work norms.

They also demanded enhanced funds to enact the law on domestic violence, schemes for mentally and physically challenged women, hostels for Dalit and tribal girl students, easy accessibility to primary schools and scholarships for girls in secondary education.

Clearly, many of these concerns did not reflect either in the Budget speech or in the economic survey, leading many of them to term the Budget as targeted for the “khaas aadmi” (special people) rather than the “aam aadmi” (common people).

As a domestic help put it: “Have they reduced the prices of daal, cooking oil or gas? If they haven’t, then what use is this government or the Budget for people like us?”

T.K. Rajalakshmi