tribal Art and Crafts Mela Aadishilp Begins in the Capital

If you are fond of our Tribal handicrafts it is an occasion to meet the Tribal artisans and buy their products. The National Tribal Crafts Mela popularly known as ‘Aadishilp’ has begun in the capital. The mela has been organised by Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. (TRIFED) and will continue up to 30th of this month at INA Delhi Hart. More than 100 tribal artisans from all over the country are showcasing the unique and exquisite tribal artefacts in 113 stalls in the Exhibition. Hand crafted items, handloom products, dry flowers, cane and bamboo products, tribal jewellery, Dhokra craft, tribal weaves and embroidery, tribal paintings and lot more are being presented by these artisans during this 11 daylong event. The main objective of organising Aadishilp is to give tribal artisans an opportunity to showcase and sell their traditional Art and Craft works directly to the customers and get their feedback which would help them in having valuable inputs. Aadishilp provides them a platform for direct interface with art and craft lovers, share their talent with the urban elite and know the customers taste and preferences for adapting their product designs and creations accordingly. TRIFED has been taking a number of promotional initiatives for marketing tribal products. From a single sales outlet set up in 1999 at New Delhi, today it has 36 outlets of its own and nine Consignment outlets across the country. TRIFED has also initiated the concept of sourcing tribal products by way of organizing Tribal Artisan Melas (TAMs) to identify new artisans and products from different regions where tribal artisans are invited to display their products for selection and inclusion in the range of products marketed by TRIFED. Design and quality inputs are given to the artisans wherever required for overall improvement and better marketing prospects of their products. TRIFED, under Ministry of Tribal Affairs, is the only apex body of Govt. of India which is engaged in the development and marketing of traditional tribal products including Metal craft, Paintings, Textiles, Jewellery, Natural/ Organic/ Herbal products etc. TRIFED’s main objective is to improve the livelihood of the tribal communities by creating a sustainable market and create business opportunities for them based on their cultural knowledge and traditional skills whilst ensuring fair and equitable remuneration for their products by organizing Tribal Crafts Mela. TRIFED also focuses on trainings for skill up gradation and capacity building of tribal artisans and Minor Forest Produce gatherers.

Indian Cinema offers vision to young minds to learn and nurture talent

Indian Cinema offers vision to young minds to learn and nurture talent – ArunJaitley Eminent Actor ShriRajinikanth conferred Centenary Award for the Indian Film Personality of the Year 45th International Film Festival of India inaugurated at Goa

ShriArunJaitley, Union Minister of Finance, Corporate Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting has said that the Indian Film industry had come of age in view of the diversity it offered as regards the number of films produced in different languages and themes. Cinema today acted as the alternate religion as it entertained, educated, gave a social perspective to issues, offered young growing minds the vision to learn and nurture talent. ShriJaitleystatedthis while delivering his address at inaugural ceremony of the 45th edition of International Film Festival of India which began in Goa today. Elaborating further, ShriJaitley said Cinema as medium in the country had matured, there was corporatization of the industry making it more professional and vibrant. The Minister reiterated the efforts being made by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to mainstream the National Film Heritage Mission as a policy initiative. This would ensure the preservation of the record of Indian cinema digitally. ShriJaitley also highlighted the importance of Goa being made the permanent venue of the International Film Festival of India in the context of its hospitality, growth, natural beauty and cultural diversity. ShriManoharParrikar, Union Defence Minister, who was present on the occasion, said that all efforts would be made to host the next edition of IFFI at the permanent venue. Also speaking on the occasion, Secretary I&B, ShriBimalJulka said that IFFI aimed to nurture, encourage and inspire Indian Cinema and introduce it to the world outside as well as many audiences within the country. Each edition of IFFI facilitated new strategies thereby ensuring enriched, enhanced and enlarged viewing experience. The vision of IFFI was to provide a common platform to project the excellence of the film art. With China being the focus country, ShriJulka said a special package on contemporary Chinese cinema had been created at the festival. In his address, the Chief Guest for the function, Shri Amitabh Bachchan traced the evolution of Indian Cinema through its various facets touching upon the iconic films in different periods and the dominant themes. ShriBachchan highlighted the role and relevance of Indian Cinema in the context of India’s diversity and plurality. ShriArunJaitley, Union Minister of Finance, Corporate Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting along with the Chief Guest Shri Amitabh Bachchan conferred the Centenary Award for Indian Film Personality of the Year on ShriRajnikanthfor his outstanding contribution to Indian Cinema. The prestigious award consisted of cash prize of Rs. 10,00000, Certificate and the Silver Peacock Medal. The award was instituted last year to commemorate 100 years of Indian Cinema The International Jury for the Festival was alsointroduced at the inaugural ceremony. ShriJaitley felicitated the Jury Members including the Chairman, Mr.SlawomirIdziak, noted film maker from Poland, eminent Chinese film director, Zhang Jianya, renowned Swiss film maker and Head of International Locarno Film Festival,Nadia Dresti, noted American film critic, Marie Brenner, and renowned Indian Actress, SeemaBiswas. The inaugural function also witnessed the screening of Swacch Bharat Promotion Film and the Signature Film of the festival. The Signature Film was directed by ShriShaji N Karun, one of the renowned film makers of India. The President directed by eminent Iranian film maker, Mohsen Makhmalbaf was the Opening Film of the festival. The 11 day festival would screen 178 films from 79 countries across different categories which include World Cinema (61 films), Master-strokes (11 films), Festival Kaleidoscope (20 films), Soul of Asia (7 films), Documentaries (6 films), Animated Films (6 films). Besides, Indian Panorama section would include 26 Feature and 15 Non-Feature Films. North-East being the focus region of the festival, IFFI 2014 would be showcasing 7 films from North Eastern part of India. Regional cinema would also be an integral part of the festival.Retrospective sections on Gulzar and JahnuBaruah, Special Homage films on Richard Attenborough, Robin Williams, ZohraSehgal, SuchitraSen, and special tribute to Farooq Sheikh would be other attractions this year. A special section of films that focus on dance, personality based retrospectives, and Masterclasses/workshopswould also form a part of IFFI 2014. The open air screening of Indian films for the general public free of cost on first come first basis would be a new attraction in IFFI 2014. Besides the world premieres, IFFI 2014 offered a repertoire of activities, such as the Film Bazar, 3D Film Shows, Dinners, Master classes, and Panel Discussions and Stalls and Open-Air Screenings for the delegates.

Integrated Power Development Scheme

The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, today gave its approval to launch "Integrated Power Development Scheme" (IPDS) with the objectives of: 1. Strengthening of sub-transmission and distribution network in the urban areas; 2. Metering of distribution transformers /feeders / consumers in the urban areas. 3. IT enablement of distribution sector and strengthening of distribution network as per CCEA approval dated 21.06.2013 for completion of targets laid down under Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme (RAPDRP) for 12th and 13th Plans by carrying forward the approved outlay for RAPDRP to IPDS. The scheme will help in reduction in AT&C losses, establishment of IT enabled energy accounting / auditing system, improvement in billed energy based on metered consumption and improvement in collection efficiency. The estimated cost of the present scheme with the components of strengthening of sub-transmission and distribution networks, including metering of consumers in the urban areas is Rs. 32,612 crore which includes the requirement of budgetary support from Government of India of Rs. 25,354 crore over the entire implementation period. The component of IT enablement of distribution sector and strengthening of distribution network approved by CCEA in June, 2013 in the form of RAPDRP for 12th and 13th Plans will get subsumed in this scheme and CCEA-approved scheme outlay of Rs.44,011 crore including a budgetary support of Rs. 22,727 crore will be carried over to the new scheme of IPDS.

Why India needs a robust national opposition

It is abundantly clear after the Lok Sabha and subsequent state Assembly elections this year that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is by far the dominant national party. By contrast, the Congress party's national footprint is shrinking with each election. India's experience of single-party majority Congress governments after 1971 and 1984 indicates that governance turns arbitrary, disingenuous or worse if there are no credible alternatives. Consequently, India needs at least one all-India opposition party.

The Congress can no longer legitimately claim to be a party with a nationwide presence even though it has the second highest tally of 44 members of Parliament (MPs) in the current Lok Sabha. In the latest Lok Sabha elections, the Congress drew a blank in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand and Delhi. It came in fourth or lower in the large states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra, and was third in Punjab, Haryana and Assam. It won just two seats each in Madhya Pradesh and Telangana, and four in West Bengal. The two states that the Congress had somewhat higher tallies were eight out of 20 in Kerala and nine out of 28 in Karnataka.

According to media reports it is a foregone conclusion, as preparations are afoot for Assembly elections in Delhi, that the Congress will come in third. The Congress embarrasses itself when it explains that it is anti-incumbency that is impacting its electoral fortunes negatively. In the 1977 post-Emergency debacle, the Congress was facing 30 years of anti-incumbency and yet it won 164 Lok Sabha seats, remained dominant in the south, and did reasonably well in Maharashtra and Gujarat. In 2004, the Congress formed a coalition government at the centre with just 159 seats.

The Congress is taking false comfort that it will automatically bounce back as it did in 1980 when it won 353 seats. The country is much better informed and the BJP under the unchallenged leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is more cohesive than the tenuous Janata Party coalition that won 302 seats in 1977. The Congress is refusing to acknowledge a welcome change, namely, that caste and religion although important are no longer that crucial for those below 30 years of age. Further, those who are 13 today will be eligible to vote in 2019. Average voters, whether young and aspirational or not, want governance that pays effective attention to increasing employment opportunities, and improving availability of water and housing.

The Nehru-Gandhi hyphenation suggesting uninterrupted family succession since the era of our first prime minister is factually incorrect. After Jawaharlal Nehru but for the sudden passing away of Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966 another Nehru family member may have never become prime minister. In the first decade after independence, India was riven with communal, linguistic and social differences and inequities. A few of Nehru's policies related to primary education, the economy and defence preparedness, formulated in this difficult environment, can be second-guessed with the benefit of hindsight. Overall, Nehru was key to holding the nation together while building institutions and laying the lasting foundations for higher education, heavy industry and an enduring constitutional democracy.

Subsequently, in the 1970s, this grand old party of our freedom struggle was over-centralised by Indira Gandhi. Elections within the Congress party were stage-managed and independent thinking was discouraged. Indira Gandhi's cynical errors of commission in shackling the country, camouflaged in socialist rhetoric, set the economy back by two decades. By contrast, her decisive role in the war with Pakistan in the run-up to the birth of Bangladesh was highly impressive. However, whatever she ever achieved was washed away by her action of imposing an unjustified Emergency that led to all manner of excesses. Her open endorsement of a brash and insensitive Sanjay Gandhi was inexplicable except on the grounds of progeny before all else.

It is with Indira Gandhi that family succession became a Congress hallmark and now this weakness afflicts several regional parties. The hollowing out of leadership in the Congress was caused by Indira Gandhi sidelining those who had a political base of their own. The resulting lack of contact at the ground level was sought to be compensated by stoking resentment, at times legitimate, against majority communities or higher castes. This strategy does not work that well any longer, and the Congress cannot rebuild party cadres without appealing to idealism, which needs to begin transparently at the top.

A disproportionately large number of current Congress leaders have never won a state Assembly or parliamentary election. Those in the Congress who have the longer-term interests of the country in mind and have the determination to stay the course need to disassociate themselves from those who benefit from coterie politics. Such individuals could play a constructive national role in an India, which is increasingly less impressed by identity-based politics. The proposed coming together of Nitish Kumar's Janata Dal (United), Samajwadi party, Rashtriya Janata Dal led by Lalu Prasad (currently out on bail) and others will not work as a national alternative. Their binding ideology is to look backwards in time and take advantage of community and caste insecurities.

Rahul Gandhi with his episodic outbursts was projected as a champion of probity in public life and the downtrodden. However, the Congress governments of 2004 and 2009 had some ministers with established reputations for sleaze, and officials with dubious records were appointed to head executive, regulatory and crime investigation bodies. The Congress vice-president's lack of work experience in government or the private sector and limited understanding of the harsh realities that confront the nation was starkly evident in his January 2014 interview on the Times Now television channel. Additionally, his apparent lack of appetite for the continuous grind of Indian politics means that the Congress needs to look for alternative leadership.

To sum up, the Congress needs to reform not just in its own interest but more importantly in national interest. Ideally, a national alternative could be made up of the non-cynical in the Congress who do not balk at contesting elections, constructive Aam Aadmi Party constituents who do not subscribe to sweeping anti-establishment views and forward-looking elements in Nitish Kumar's party. Of course, this suggestion will be condescendingly derided as naïve and wishful thinking by exponents of realpolitik. However, the fear of stumbling or failing should not stand in the way of building an inspired national opposition.

From equity to intensity

India must now match the offers from China, the US and Europe with an emissions-reduction plan that goes beyond what it has already offered

In a few weeks, the parties to the United Nations Climate Convention will meet in Lima, Peru, to prepare for their Paris meeting in 2015. This is the culmination of a process that began in Durban in 2011 with the aim of securing agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level at which there is a two in three chance of restricting the average global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

The meeting will take place just about a month after theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its synthesis report, which summarised the outcome of its fifth assessment drafted by over 800 authors and reviewers from 85 countries. This assessment report is more categorical in asserting that the observed changes are not just a natural fluctuation but a consequence of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. It is also more insistent on the need for immediate action.

The risks of climate change depend on cumulative emissions. The IPCC synthesis report presents a global carbon budget for containing the likely temperature increase to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To meet this goal, cumulative emissions would have to be limited to 790gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) - of which we have used up 515 GtC, leaving us with 275 GtC. To stay within this budget, global emissions will have to come down by 40-70 per cent of the 2010 level by 2050 and to zero by the end of the century. The negotiations are about how what remains should be shared.

In 1992, when the convention was signed, the confrontation was not between North and South but between those who were sceptical about the reality of anthropogenic impact on climate change and those who were convinced that it was sufficiently proven. There was also a United States-Europeconfrontation on burden-sharing. The developing countries were not under any sort of pressure and their demand for common but differentiated responsibility was accepted.

Today, 20 years later, the situation is very different. Rapid growth and the heavy dependence on coal has pushed China into the number one position of emitters in the aggregate. Its per capita emissions are also now at 7.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide, comparable to Europe. They are now under pressure to join in the mitigation effort, and the first concrete result of this is the recently announced United States-China deal where the United States has committed to an absolute reduction in emissions of 26-28 per cent relative to 2005 level before 2025 and China has committed to peaking its emissions not later than 2030 and raising the contribution of non-carbon energy sources from the current 10 per cent to 20 per cent of primary energy supply.

The United States commitment does involve some additional effort on their side. But China got away easily. Its peaking commitment does not stop it from continuing to increase its emissions to 2030 when they may reach 10-12 tonnes per capita, more or less comparable to the United States. The doubling of non-carbon energy is a more serious commitment but readily achievable given the way China is pushing solar and wind energy.

In some ways, the most significant element in the deal is that the United States has accepted differentiation in the nature of the commitment between the two countries. Differentiation on the basis of capacity or developmental need maybe acceptable to the United States. Their problem is with differentiation based on culpability for past emissions.

The fact that the two countries that are quite prepared to be in a minority of one in multilateral negotiations have come up with something positive that they can put forward as the "intended nationally determined contributions" (INDC) will put pressure on others to come up with something credible. Europe has already raised its commitment to a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 relative to 1990 levels and raising the share of renewables to 27 per cent. Japan, no doubt, will also announce something soon.

This puts India in the cross hairs. We will have to come up with our offer on the mitigation front. Now that China has broken ranks, and South Africa and Brazil have always been more willing to accept some obligation, India will be under pressure to offer a credible contribution to the global effort to manage climate risks.

We need not fear this. We cannot make an offer on a peaking year. Our per capita emissions at 1.7 tonnes are way below China and there is no reason to equate us with them. However, we have a reasonable story to tell on energy efficiency. We can also offer commitments on renewables that are at least as substantial as China's or Europe's promise. The metric that we should push for is of carbon efficiency per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). The report of the Expert Group on Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth has outlined a path that could give a 42 per cent improvement in carbon efficiency by 2030 at a cost of a little over $800 billion of investment. The merit of this offer is that it gives a basis for demanding equally precise commitments from the developed countries on finance and technology.

An offer to contribute to carbon emission mitigation through carbon efficiency gains need not involve a substantial growth penalty. In the medium term, it will rely on energy efficiency, which is desirable in any case, and renewables, which are fast becoming an attractive proposition in terms of costs. It will also strengthen the case for effective international action on adaptation support, which would be welcome given the substantial adaptation measures we will have to take even if the temperature increase is contained at two degrees Celsius.

Uncontrolled climate change will be hugely harmful to India, and it is in our national interest to do what it takes to get an effective climate agreement. A failure in Paris in 2015 is not in our national interest. We are justified in emphasising equity, and we should insist that it should be a factor in the assessment of the adequacy of the national offers that are put on the table, an assessment that should also take into account developmental needs and capacity. But we must now match the offers from China, the United States and Europe with an offer that looks beyond the 2020 carbon intensity goals that we promised at Copenhagen.

Deendayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, today approved the launch of Deendayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY) with components (i) to separate agriculture and non agriculture feeders facilitating judicious rostering of supply to agricultural and non-agricultural consumers in rural areas and (ii) strengthening and augmentation of sub transmission and distribution infrastructure in rural areas, including metering of distribution transformers/feeders/consumers. The estimated cost of the scheme for above two components is Rs.43,033 crore which includes the requirement of budgetary support of Rs.33,453 crore from Government of India over the entire implementation period. The Cabinet further approved, that the balance work relating to rural electrification as per CCEA’s approval in August, 2013 with the norms of the ongoing scheme of RGGVY in 12th and 13th Plans will get subsumed in DDUGJY as a distinct component for rural electrification, for which CCEA has already approved the scheme cost of Rs.39,275 crore including budgetary support of Rs.35,447 crore. This outlay will be carried forward to the new scheme of DDUGJY in addition to the outlay of Rs.43,033 crore. The scheme would help in: (i) Improvement in hours of power supply in rural areas, (ii) Reduction in peak load, (iii) Improvement in billed energy based on metered consumption and (iv) Providing access to electricity to rural households. The process of sanction of projects shall commence immediately. After sanction of projects, contracts for execution of projects will be awarded by States Discoms / Power Departments. The projects shall be completed within 24 months from date of award.

Missing links in universal health care

Over 95 per cent of patients coming to super-speciality hospitals are at the wrong place and have incurred hardships when they could have been treated at their neighbourhood primary care centre.

A number of announcements have been made by the Central and State governments on their intent to offer Universal Health Care (UHC). These welcome developments are timely as India is now rapidly becoming one of the few countries that do not seem to have a concrete plan for UHC in place. Even poorer countries such as Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda, and Vietnam have now started to make significant progress in this area.

A fact often overlooked in these discussions, however, is that UHC is a complex idea and contains several prerequisites that need to be carefully incorporated into its conceptualisation, design and implementation. This article attempts to outline four of these essential elements.

Providing integrated care

The first, and perhaps the most important, element is the need to distinguish UHC from universally available health insurance. UHC seeks to ensure financial protection with the provision of appropriately priced, high quality, and integrated health care (combining primary, secondary, and tertiary care into a single, patient-centred health-care system). Ideally, financial protection and comprehensive health care are bundled together into an integrated ‘managed care’ proposition where the financial-protector (or the risk-manager) and the provider are a single entity. One of the key benefits of this model is the significant shift in incentives for the health provider — from the current focus on promoting hospitalisation and needless care-procedures, to incentives for promoting health and prevention of illness. Since the provider receives only a fixed amount per year, irrespective of the actual treatment provided, ‘managed care’ places rational treatment and cost-effectiveness at the centre of the model. Because of their very nature, health-care systems owned and financed by ministries of health are ideally suited for offering this type of ‘managed care’. And, if, but only if, there is very strong confidence in the ability of the system to regulate and monitor both patient and provider behaviours as well as population level outcomes, it is possible — as Thailand has done successfully — to invite large non-government players to also bid to provide such ‘managed care’ services. And, while the regulatory challenge in outsourcing ‘managed care’ to the private sector is quite considerable, it is very clear that fragmented health systems with different providers taking care of different parts of the health system, such as the private sector providing hospital-based care and the government focussing on primary care, with patients free to bypass it, is the worst of all possible choices. This fragmentation is the principal reason why a country like the United States finds itself in a situation where insurance premiums and costs of health care are both rising rapidly but population level health indicators are well below those of other comparable countries.

Primary care with gatekeeping

The second element is the need to shift the focus of attention from hospital-based care, to primary care — in terms of financing, development of infrastructure and usage. In order for India to achieve UHC, both in terms of financial feasibility as well as its well-being goals, it is clear that fewer than 2.50 per cent of patients in any given year should need hospital-based care. This implies that 97.5 per cent of all conditions would need to be dealt with at the primary-care level. UHC would therefore need substantial investments at the primary level combined with a strong gatekeeping framework that does not allow patients to seek hospital-based care unless they have been referred by a primary-care provider. It is believed that over 95 per cent of patients who visit tertiary care facilities such as JIPMER in Puducherry and AIIMS in Delhi are at the wrong place and have incurred all the hardship and costs that they did needlessly when they could easily have been cared for locally if good primary care was available. Evidence from Andhra Pradesh also shows that under ‘Arogyasri’, people are overwhelmingly seeking care at hospitals even for conditions which are patently treatable at primary-care facilities. While India undoubtedly needs additional hospital beds to provide adequate coverage even at the 2.50 per cent level mentioned earlier, it is imperative that the focus of immediate attention should not be hospitals or more AIIMS-like centres but well-designed and capable primary-care facilities so that patients can go there directly. Should they inadvertently end up at hospitals for seeking such care, they must be directed back. Only this combination of improved-availability and mandatory-gatekeeping will start to reduce the excess demand for hospital beds even as we gradually seek to address the unmet needs for hospital beds in deficient regions. Otherwise, we run the serious risk of this turning into a vicious cycle of ever increasing demand for hospital beds, further fuelled by an in-patient, insurance-led financial protection strategy, leading eventually to continual and rapid increases in health insurance premiums with no resultant improvements in health outcomes.

Covering everybody

The third key element relates to coverage — any universal health programme would need to include the entire population and not just be targeted at the poor. This is because India has a very steep poverty gradient and single health shocks have the potential to draw entire households back into poverty for all but the very top sliver of the population. For this very reason, globally, citizens of the most developed and several developing nations, who have significantly higher per capita incomes than do even the top percentiles of our population, have also been provided with full access to health care and financial protection. Engagement of the middle class also allows additional resources to be pooled along with tax resources since the amounts that they are currently expending on health care could be included as well. It is clear that development of integrated risk pools and their investment into an integrated UHC framework of the type discussed earlier (as would be implied by grouping the rich and poor together) would allow a significantly higher level of expenditure-volatility compression and the delivery of rational care. This would benefit both segments, with only the resultant net savings to the middle class being used to cross-subsidise the poor. Another benefit of including the middle class is in ensuring accountability of the health system. Being more conscious of its rights and with more resources to participate in the political process, the middle class is better placed to hold the public system accountable to higher quality of care, and perhaps, place health care centrally on political agendas — a feat that the Below Poverty Line (BPL)-targeted Indian health system has not been able to accomplish.

Separating out social determinants

The fourth key element is the urgent need for separation of core health care from extended health care, in a focussed discussion on UHC. While broader social determinants of health (or extended health care) such as provision of clean drinking water, improved sanitation and improved education of girls, have the potential to produce a very big impact on health outcomes, UHC is much more narrowly focussed on what the health-care system itself can provide directly in terms of primary, secondary, and tertiary care (or core health care). The reasons for the desirability of this separation are many and have to do principally with the appropriate allocation of responsibilities and resources. First, these broader determinants, for the most part, fall outside the domain of the ministries of health. Second, in India, the resources currently allocated for health care by the government have to go up three times, from 1 per cent to 3 per cent of GDP even to provide the essential elements of core health care at a reasonable level of quality and availability. Provision of extended health care would need a much larger level of resource allocation and would perforce have to be included in the domain of other ministries. And, finally, the benefits that accrue from extended health care go well beyond health (for example, time savings account for over 70 per cent of the benefits of home-delivered, clean drinking water and are not necessarily the most cost-effective interventions if viewed only from the narrow lens of health care.

There are a number of very important challenges that we face as a country. It is important to ensure that we are focussed on solving those using strong evidence-based strategies and with a very sharp sense of focus. Offering UHC to all our citizens is one such challenge. Here we need to be careful that we use the limited resources we have at our disposal in the most effective way, even if it means that some very important ideas need to be revisited or deferred for the time being.