SOCIAL DEFENCE By Poulomi Pavini

Social Defense, a term coined in our Constitution to aptly describe the “defense” i.e. protection of all edges of society that are most vulnerable, orphans, addicts, the abandoned elderly. Central Government was made the guardian of these sections, because the weakest fringes of society are essentially the responsibility of the nation as a whole. Sunil K. Bhattacharya in his book “Social Defence: An Indian Perspective” states “It was widely felt that Social Defense programmes should find due place in the overall planning of the country’s social and economic policies so that any disruptive effects might be neutralised and mitigated in implementing these schemes”. Initially schemes under Social Defense were Centrally sponsored and the Central Government remained primarily responsible for the “dregs of society”, specially orphans and destitute children.

However, as time passed, things changed. In 1969 the subject ‘Social Defence’ was transferred to the State sector. The Tenth Five Year Plan stated “State Governments have the responsibility of setting up mandatory institutions under the various Acts like Juvenile Homes, Children’s Homes, Children’s Boards, Observation Homes, Correctional Institutions, Shelter Homes, Nari Niketans, Beggar Homes etc. The States are also to set up institutions under various welfare programmes like orphanages, old age homes etc. For this, they receive support from the Centre in the form of funding, technical guidance, manpower support etc. In fact, States were given full responsibility for implementing Social Defense programmes, as the subject ‘Social Defense’ was transferred to the State sector as early as in 1969.”

Subsequently the topics of “orphans” and “Child Protection” have been removed from ‘Social Defense’ which now has old age and drug addicts in its ambit but all these welfare topics still remain in State’s area of responsibility.

This is where the main problems reside relating to a meaningful intervention by the Government in matters of providing for “orphans”, “child protection”, “destitute old age” and “substance abusers”. India is a fast growing large socialist economy which does a lot for below-poverty-line, weaker caste groups and handicapped etc but it does very little for those sections which are covered in “Social Defense”. There is not even an orphanage in each district, the existing ones have poor living conditions, there is no support for any higher education for orphans, schemes for Children in Need of Care and Protection are woefully inadequate, “old age” and “beggar” homes are practically non-existent and substance abuse is a neglected and often unacknowledged area.

The prime reason is that after 1969, as the Tenth Plan Document smugly says - State Governments have been given the responsibility of setting up mandatory institutions under the various Acts like Juvenile Homes, Correctional Institutions, Shelter Homes, Beggar Homes etc. and the States just do not have the resources to ensure this. In India the Centre controls the purse strings. It is the keeper of the money and the true treasury. The States have very little financial capability compared to the Centre. Their ability to bring a paradigm shift for persons at the fringes of society is miniscule. Even for schemes with 50% contribution by the Centre, poorer states like Uttar Pradesh, with large populations, hence a large area of ‘Social Defense’ have limited capability to match the contribution in a big way.

That the States have a limited capacity to contribute to social welfare programs is acknowledged by Government of India in the National Health Policy 2002 (relating to Health, another social welfare area which is also a State Subject) as follows: “Under the constitutional structure, Public Health is the responsibility of the States. In this framework, it has been the expectation that the principal contribution for the funding of Public Health services will be from the resources of the States, with some supplementary input from Central resources. In this backdrop, the contribution of Central resources to the overall public health funding has been limited to about 15 percent. The fiscal resources of the State Governments are known to be very inelastic. This is reflected in the declining percentage of State resources allocated to the Health sector out of the State Budgets.”

The position for Child Protection and other erstwhile and current items in ‘Social Defence’ is identical.

This has resulted in very little progress being made in addressing issues of the weakest of the weak citizens of India. The number of children the Country has been able to provide for in its flagship scheme ICPS for Children in Need for Care and Protection, which are orphan, street children and all vulnerable children, is less than one lakh. 1 lakh children in a population of 130 crores in which 60 crore are children. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) states in its publication “Child Welfare Committees In India” that “the current poor functioning of the child protection system that is reeling due to inadequate funds and lack of State support.”

The number of Old Age Homes in the country is 728. India Today carried an item on how the demographic dividend in India is leading to a rapid increase in the ageing population. Times of India carried an item that India would require 9 lakh beds for the elderly by 2027 against 97000 now.

So the issue of Government of India support for orphans and disadvantaged children and other vulnerable groups like old beggars which was placed on a slow burner in 1969 when ‘Social Defense” was transferred to the States has to be re-addressed. The States just did not have the resources to provide the budgets needed for enabling the weakest and most disadvantaged members of Indian society to live and die with dignity and post-1969 the progress in the erstwhile and present sections included in ‘Social defense’ is abysmal.

It is time that Government of India undoes the mistake made in the 1969 policy of shifting ‘Social Defence’ to the States. While States can be implementers of schemes of child protection and ‘Social Defense’ the prime responsibility of ensuring progress that is uniform across all States has to be that of the Central Government.