Email
Print
ShareWith the Senior Citizens Bill, the government is evading its responsibility towards old persons -- former tax-payers -- in the non-productive years of their lives, says G Sampath
Would you take your children to court for not loving you enough?
After all that you have done for them -- feeding them, educating them, getting them married -- now there is one more thing you can do before you bid farewell to them for good: take them to court.
You better think about this seriously, for it forms the basis of the government's brilliant new legislation for taking care of senior citizens.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Bill 2007, which was passed by the Lok Sabha this week, makes it obligatory for children to provide maintenance support to their parents.
If they don't, or if they turn them out on the street to fend for themselves, the parents can approach a Maintenance Tribunal, which will arm-twist the erring offspring into supporting the parent.
It also allows maltreated parents to take back the property they had willed away to their children.
And kids who don't love their mothers and fathers for whatever reason may now end up spending up to three months in jail, where they will, presumably, be taught a few lessons in filial love.
All this is very well. But the big question is: can a legal entitlement solve a social issue, namely, that of providing a safety net for senior citizens in their unproductive years?
We are a country in possession of a wonderful document. It is known as the Constitution, and has the nobility and power to make most governments we've had so far look venal and stupid.
It says clearly (in Article 41, Directive Principles of State Policy) that it is the state's responsibility to provide assistance to old persons in need so they can lead their lives in dignity.
But the Senior Citizens' Bill cleverly sidesteps this obligation, palming it off on the children instead. Of course, making a law has its own attractions for the government.
For one, it gives the illusion that it is doing something about a problem, while hiding the fact that nothing is being done. Secondly, it costs nothing to make a law.
What do senior citizens need? In the Indian context, it is, above all, to not be dependent on anyone, least of all their children, who may or may not be able or willing to support them.
What the Bill does is to address a niche group of senior citizens whose children are able but not willing to look after them properly.
What about those who don't have children? What about those whose children are unemployed and so cannot afford to support their parents?
The traditional joint family system had a clearly defined place for the elders. These days, the nuclear family is the norm.
Which means that the elderly more often than not end up living on their own. In today's economic reality, even a nuclear family where both the parents work struggles to cover all its expenses.
Incidentally, here too we find a disparity between what the Constitution says and what the government does. The former says the state should provide free and equal education for all.
But government spending on public schooling has been criminally inadequate, making it the parents' responsibility to pay for their children's education.
So, after having spent a major part of your working life devoting a major part of your income to your children's education, and after having paid taxes all through your productive years, at the age of 60 you retire and become anointed a senior citizen.
And what do you get in return? If you are lucky, (read: propertied, preferably upper-middle class), the state will help you to get back from your children all the love and money they owe you, courtesy the Senior Citizens Bill 2007. But then, if you are lucky, you probably won't need the Bill anyway.
However, the majority of India's 60-plus Indians -- especially those living in rural areas, and those who have worked in the unorganised sector, which doesn't offer perks such as provident fund and gratuity -- aren't lucky.
After 40 years of productive life, they may still not have savings or property to see them through the rest of their life. So they are going to need old age pension.
They are going to need special health insurance schemes that will take care of their medical expenses in case of critical illness. And there are going to be many who will need old age homes.
What the elderly need above all is social security -- and that is exactly what the Bill makes a lot of noise about, but does not provide.
Instead, it conveniently latches on to a moral imperative -- that children should take care of their parents -- and converts it into a legal obligation which it will then enforce.
By thus passing the buck to the children, it is evading its responsibility towards senior citizens -- former tax-payers -- in the non-productive years of their life.
Yet, setting up a welfare infrastructure for the elderly is not that difficult. If funding is a problem, the cash-rich corporate sector can be roped in, with suitable incentives, and investments generated under a framework of public-private partnership.
But here is where the legislation is woefully unimaginative. Hopefully, the debate of the Bill in the Rajya Sabha will throw up these issues, and lead to amendments that make it obligatory for the state to offer senior citizens something more than just laws and more laws.
What do you think of the Bill? Let us know at grandeur@dnaindia.net and at inbox@dnaindia.net
