Context:
- Budget 2025 has promised higher allocations for education compared to last year’s revised estimates.
Higher Education:
- Increased Allocation: A 7% increase in higher education funding compared to last year’s revised estimates.
- Actual Expenditure Gap: The 2023-24 expenditure was 10% higher than the 2025-26 Budget estimates.
- UGC Reforms & Funding Challenge:
- Implementation of four-year degrees, multi-institutional courses, and bi-annual admissions require significant funding.
- State governments will bear most of the financial burden, but Budget 2025 does not adequately address this concern.
- Key Announcements:
- ₹500 crore allocated for an AI Centre of Excellence in education.
- Broadband connectivity for schools.
- Expansion of five third-generation IITs.
- Increased funding for Indian knowledge systems.
School Education:
- Budget Increase:
- ₹11,000 crore (16%) increase from 2024-25 revised estimates.
- However, as a percentage of the total Budget, the increase is only 0.12 percentage points, reaching 1.55%.
- Higher education remains unchanged at 0.99% of the total Budget.
- NEP Implementation:
- The 5+3+3+4 education structure prioritizes early education.
- Foundational Literacy & Numeracy (FLN) is crucial for long-term workforce development.
- Key gap: Anganwadi workers, responsible for pre-Class 1 education, are underpaid, overburdened, and lack training.
ASER 2024 Report Findings:
- Recovery from COVID-19: Learning losses have been recovered.
- FLN Progress: Levels are at their highest but still short of the NIPUN Bharat 2026-27 target.
Future Challenges & Recommendations
- More investment needed to fully achieve FLN goals.
- Strengthening early education systems and supporting anganwadi workers is critical.
- The government must prioritize school education funding to leverage India’s demographic dividend.
- Time is crucial—delays may impact long-term educational and economic growth.
The U.S.’s exit from WHO, a chance to reshape global health
Context
- On January 20, 2025, the United States government issued an executive order to withdraw from membership of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Impact on WHO Funding
- WHO Funding Structure:
- Assessed Contributions (AC): Fixed annual membership fees from countries, ensuring basic operational continuity.
- Voluntary Contributions (VC): Additional funds from member states & donors, used for specific projects but unpredictable.
- U.S. Withdrawal Concerns:
- Loss of significant VC funding from U.S.-based donors and USAID.
- Could impact WHO’s major health programs (e.g., polio elimination, primary healthcare).
- Raises concerns about WHO’s financial stability and functionality.
Criticism & Need for WHO Reforms
- The U.S. cited WHO’s bureaucratic inefficiency and slow response times as reasons for withdrawal.
- WHO, like any global institution, requires structural reforms but remains crucial for addressing global health challenges.
- Emerging issues like antimicrobial resistance, climate change, and re-emerging diseases demand a stronger WHO.
Global Institutions & Rising Nationalism
- Hyper-nationalism in high-income countries is weakening global institutions like WHO.
- Without U.S. support, alliances like G-7 & G-20 are unlikely to fill the funding gap.
- Global south nations (India, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, etc.) must step up to sustain WHO.
Health Inequities & Global South’s Role
- Funding gaps in Asia & Africa: Health challenges in these regions receive inadequate global attention & funding.
- Example: mPox vaccines were prioritized for the U.S. but remain scarce in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
- Over-reliance on U.S. experts for WHO programs highlights the need for a diverse pool of global health experts.
Steps for the Global South
- Supplement WHO Funding:
- BRICS and other alliances should step in to compensate for U.S. funding withdrawal.
- Develop Global Health Expertise:
- Countries like India, Ethiopia, and Ghana should train specialists in global health, not just public health.
- Cross-training experts in diseases affecting different regions would be beneficial.
- Establish Global Health Institutions:
- Regional institutions should be set up in Asia & Africa to train and second experts to WHO.
- WHO Reforms & Headquarters Relocation:
- Reduce staff & operational costs by shifting WHO HQ to a regional office (e.g., Brazzaville, Cairo, Manila, or New Delhi).
- Relocating to Africa or Asia would focus WHO’s work on regions needing the most attention.
Long-Term Outlook
- A future U.S. administration may rejoin WHO, but until then, this is an opportunity for low- and middle-income countries to reshape the global health agenda.
- Global health must not be dictated by high-income nations—it should be a collective effort led by the global south.