By Tanim Ahmed

The results of last year’s Secondary School Certificate examinations came out on June 12 this year. Some 7.92 lakh had taken the exams and about 4.54 lakh passed with almost 26,000 scoring the highest grade-point average of five. The results, as they often are, were cause for joyous celebrations at the renowned schools around the country and the following day newspapers, including New Age, published the routine stories and pictures of successful candidates celebrating their first achievement at public examinations.
   Five days later, New Age published a story of one Abdur Rouf getting a ‘golden GPA 5’ — scoring over 80 per cent in all his subjects in the exams. This Abdur Rouf, from Jaldhaka of Nilphamari, and born to a poor family, was away in Comilla working in a field as a farm labourer when he received the news on June 12. His headmaster had called him and then went to Rouf’s village home to tell his parents about their son’s feat. Every year, there are a handful of such stories from across the country that are published in newspapers, of students who are barely able to live, often earning their own livelihoods, attaining excellent grades in the board exams.
   At the other end of the spectrum, let us consider the case of a few people who had long ago passed their board exams and would be considered at the height of their careers. The president, Iajuddin Ahmed, was flown to Singapore for heart treatment. Sheikh Hasina, president of the Awami League and a former prime minister, expressed publicly only weeks before her arrest by the joint forces, that she needed to go abroad to receive treatment for her ear which has been suffering since the grenade attack of August 21, 2004. Her counterpart, Khaleda Zia, chairperson of the BNP and also a former prime minister, is also known to have travelled abroad for medical treatment. Other top leaders of the both the parties, considered the top echelon of the party leadership, are often abroad for medical treatment. But such items of news hardly receive the treatment in newspapers that Abdur Rouf’s story would.
   The trend indicates several points, but the most obvious is that while stories of the first kind are exceptions, the second type is more the norm. Put it simply, it is not expected that the downtrodden and poor can excel in education compared to richer and more affluent students. On the other hand it is quite expected that top level politicians, as well as the elites, seek medical attention abroad rather than at home, implying that they either do not trust the local hospitals, especially the public ones, or that the treatment they require is not available in the country.
   If the first case holds, then one must wonder about the state of the public medical college hospitals where notable citizens of the country would fail to receive satisfactory medical care, although they are apparently the best hospitals of the public system that are expected to cater to the needs of even the poorest of the poor. If the second case holds — the required treatment being unavailable — one would be wont to ask whether in a country of about 140 million there are not others with such ailments and the means of their treatment. As would be agreed, it is not so much the unavailability of facilities but more of a mistrust of the public hospitals that the politicians and bigwigs do not seek treatment there.
   In the case of Abdur Rouf it is also established that the poorer sections of the people will not have equal access and exposure to education as would his counterparts in any of the metropolitan cities, that teachers and education material would of inferior quality and almost surely the poor children would not be able to afford the obligatory string of private tutors apparently required for good results in the board exams.
   Both the scenarios, relating to education or health services, are indicative of the stark inequalities that not only prevail but are in fact perpetuated by the system. It is this state of disparity between the rich and poor, between the urban and rural areas, between ethnic minorities and the mainstream populace, between the hill people and those from the plain lands that is not just unethical to simply let be but also politically unsustainable.
   
   The realm of choices
   The discussion at this point illustrates examples from the health and education sectors since they are the two proven sectors where the state can effectively intervene to bring about human development, which eventually increases the domain of choices or opportunities raising the potential for employment and eventually reduces disparity.
   Indeed two of the three components of the global human development index used by the United Nations — which is in sharp contrast to the Millennium Development Goals — happens to be education and health, besides per capita income. Understandably, the longer a person lives and the more educated one becomes the realm of choices available increases exponentially. When the realm of choices increases, so does the number of opportunities and potential for earning, which would in the end, although gradually but surely, reduce the stark inequality of wealth and income distribution.
   East Asian countries that used to be called newly industrialised economies and have since emerged as economic giants had invested heavily on the education and health sectors for years before their emergence. It has been documented as one of the reasons behind their path to their development and economic prosperity.
   Bangladesh has made immense advances in terms of economic growth and yearly per capita income that has crossed the $500-mark currently and looks set to rise further. The country’s growth rate has stabilised at over 6 per cent over the last two years — rather remarkable given the pervading corruption, mismanagement and general inefficiency — from an average of just about four per cent in the early 1990s. Bangladesh’s current gross domestic product amounts to almost $68 billion, according to the Economic Survey of Bangladesh 2007, published by the finance ministry. The country’s exports have grown almost 30 times from a paltry $348.42 million in 1972-73 to over $10 billion currently. Foreign investment has begun to flow steadily and in larger volumes since the turn of the century and proposals now speak in billion-dollar figures instead of millions.
   With economic growth and gradually increasing industrialisation, and with gradual accumulation of business capital which would surely turn into industrial capital, Bangladesh is surely on the verge of emerging as a strong economy. Indeed, Goldman Sachs, in one of its studies picked Bangladesh as one of the ‘next 11’ economies that would emerge in the next few decades, by which time China, India, Brazil will have made their place among the five largest economies of the world. The proponents of neoliberal economics often advocate and propagate that economic growth is the ultimate tool to development, but they do not stop for a moment to mention that this growth and prosperity must be equitable. Even the much-hyped and glorified UN Millennium Development Goals that have of late become the ultimate measure for development and apparently require the economy to grow at a stable seven per cent, do not address equity.
   Halving the proportion of poor people, as the first target stipulates, also implies that while countries strive to reach there, governments might allow the other half to become worse off. It is exclusionary and implicitly fuels further disparity. Economic indicators of the government seldom highlight the state and extent of inequity across the populace. Nor do those brought out by the international organisations proclaiming to work towards development.
   Despite its advances and although the Bangladesh economy appears poised on the verge of a take off, none of the governments since the time of the country’s independence have effectively strived to put in place institutions, policies or tools that would gradually remove inequality through a redistributive system, which should have been among their major responsibilities. A few more figures would perhaps clarify rather than merely stating that the poor have become poorer and the rich richer since the year of independence or that disparity in the distribution of services and wealth has become increasingly skewed towards the richer sections of the populace.
   In the 27 years between 1981 and 2007, the population of the country increased from about 90 million to 140 million officially. During this time, the number of registered nurses has increased from 3,014 to 20,129 and doctors from 10,081 to 44,632 — that is, while in 1981 there was a nurse for every 30,000 people and one doctor for every 8,900 people, now there is a nurse for every 7,000 people and a doctor for every 3,140 people. The number of hospital beds have increased from 15,845 (one per 5,680 people) to 38,211 (one per 3,670). The number of dispensaries however, has decreased from 1,399 to 1,362, while the number upazila health complexes have increased from 306 to 419.
   There is no doubt that the availability of doctors and nurses have increased, perhaps not to a level that might be reasonably expected but the situation is certainly improving, or at least that is the indication these numbers provide. The number of beds in public hospitals has also increased, but not in a similar proportion to that of doctors and nurses. The numbers of dispensaries and upazila health complexes on the other hand have not increased at all or the increase has been insignificant. These are thus having to care for a much larger number of people. What it means is that people’s access to health services has not increased although the number of doctors and nurses has risen.
   By implication then, the thousands of medical personnel are concentrated at urban centres serving at private clinics and hospitals and not in the rural areas where they are much needed. That beds, hospitals or dispensaries have not increased significantly means that the governments have not taken any initiative to build health care facilities, probably because infrastructure development requires much time and more often than not the fruits are enjoyed not during the tenure of the implementing regime but the next one.
   It would not be surprising if education has suffered a similar fate as well. While the number of perfect grade-point averages rises to a phenomenal high every year, breaking the preceding record, most of the students hail from cities and have parents who may afford some sort of private tuition in the least. There are also tens of schools and colleges that fire blanks in each public exam, although anyone who has gone though the process would readily agree that passing these two exams is not at all a tall order. One must then question the quality of schooling and naturally the quality of teachers at those institutions, which again people would readily agree is pathetic.
   The numbers do not tell much of a different story either. During the 17 years between 1985 and 2002, the number of primary school students went from a little over 10 million to 17 million. During this time the number of teachers increased from about 1.83 lakh to 2.64 lakh meaning that the teacher-student ratio had actually worsened from one teacher for 54 students to one for 64. The number of schools increased from about 43,600 to 63,150, again in a worsening trend going from one school for 231 students to one for 269.
   It was reported widely in the media during a movement of all primary school teachers of Bangladesh, demanding higher pay, that their wage structure was similar to that of class V government employees. Quite naturally, the quality of teachers and the logistics available at the schools are pathetically inadequate. But nothing concrete has yet been done either to improve the facilities of the schools or the standard of teachers through training and better remuneration. The inequality of distribution however remains. New Age has published several reports of the poor state of school in remote rural areas that lay ignored and neglected for years and have editorially spoken up against it criticising the disparity that the system perpetuates.
   Currently, according to the latest household income expenditure survey, which still remains unofficial, about 40 per cent of Bangladesh’s 140 million people are below the poverty line according to the ‘cost of basic needs’ method. That amounts to some 31 million people. It is often stated that although the proportion of poor is decreasing the absolute number of poor are on the rise across the world. About a fourth of the population of Bangladesh is considered hard-core poor as their entire expenditure barely makes up for their food demand. The most recent global yardstick — another example of the classic ‘one size fits all’ outlook of the self-proclaimed development partners — of ‘a dollar a day’ is misleading since the percentage of population below the national poverty line is taken to be in that category. The World Development Report 2007, published annually by the World Bank however, states that the percentage of population earning less than a dollar (at Purchasing Power Parity, amounting to less than Tk 20) every day was 36 per cent in 2000.
   But poverty cannot be expressed in numbers. Nor could it be calculated by an exhaustive survey of households that provides a sum total of their expenditure against the required amount to satisfy their basic needs. Poverty, as has been repeated many a time before, derives from the lack of access to resources, employment, education, healthcare or justice. It derives from the lack of representation in the political arena as well.
   The scenario of the two crucial social sectors is only indicative of a system that has consistently promoted disparity and worsened poverty. This system that subsequent governments have run during their tenures was not developed or modified in order to effectively install institutions, policies or mechanisms that would address inequity and at the same time poverty.
   
   Hiding behind the ‘market’ smokescreen
   In the current context, food prices have emerged as the most crucial issue fuelling discontent among the people, and especially among low income groups. That inflation is spiralling at unbearable rates with food inflation at a double digit level. Even in this case, the price of coarse rice, which is the one consumed by the poorer section, has increased markedly more than that of fine rice. Prices of essentials have been, to use a cliché, a burning issue for quite some time now. The last elected government led by the BNP sacked two commerce ministers for failing to contain prices.
   Subsequent regimes — there have been two since — have also failed miserably. In fact inflation has worsened during the tenure of the apparently apolitical military-driven interim regime the currently rules. The elected government’s first stance regarding the price hike had been that it was ‘hyped’ by the media, followed by the dismissals of two ministers held responsible for the job. Near the end of her government’s tenure, Khaleda Zia, the former prime minister proclaimed that the prices had risen but so had people’s income and thus it was tolerable. Such a stance was also adopted by Mirza Aziz, an adviser to the current regime in charge of commerce and finance.
   He had previously said that there was nothing for the government to do to contain the prices of food essentials since it was a ‘free market economy’. He chose not to mention his abject failure in regulating the market which is also a hallmark of a market economy. It is this failure to regulate, for years, that has turned it into a predatory market economy. Of late, there have frantic efforts to contain inflation, especially food prices, by trying to increase market supply, establishing ‘fair price’ markets without much effect. The efforts have also included discussions with importers, to apparently cajole them into running ‘non-profit’ businesses for the sake of the nation. The suggestion of not making profits in a business is ridiculous since that is the base motive and without profits the business enterprise ceases to exist. A section of the importers, even more surprisingly, agreed to the proposal. But quite predictably the prices have not fallen.
   According to reports, both by non-government research organisations and by government agencies, an overwhelming proportion of the essentials market is controlled by a handful of businessmen. When a potential market of at least 140 million people is captive to the whims of a few businessmen, rational commercial logic dictates that they reap the most premium from the market. In the process these importers are bound to form loose groups and act in a concerted manner for their individual interest. The government’s relevant wing, the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh, has long been rendered dysfunctional and does not have the manpower or the resources to intervene in the market in such a situation.
   What the government has not done so far is bring into effect a comprehensive law that addresses these issues. There is one draft consumer rights protection act, which has been doing the rounds in the bureaucratic circles for years now, which might address some of the issues. Ideally, however, there should be adequate laws regarding profit regulation on certain essential items as there are in many free market economies. They also have anti-trust laws that prevent collusion or cartels, anti-hoarding laws to prevent stockpiling. There are competition laws and consumer rights laws. Together these laws and policies uphold the interest of the common man who also happens to be a consumer. Such laws, presuming that they would take some time to be implemented fully, would at least begin to address the common woes of the people. Be it a surgeon or a cell phone company, there is no means to seek redress for an individual in case one feels cheated. Such laws would also provide the government with a definitive tool by which it could ensure that prices remain stable and affordable.
   The laws would render pointless ineffective discussions with the traders needless, as all that would be required is rigorous implementation of those laws. Now when the government requests for limiting profits the margin of profits is not defined, and neither can it be, since the margin must also be reasonable enough for the importers to be interested in their commercial endeavour.
   The chronic urea crisis is another point to note in this regard where the state has a regulatory mechanism but routinely fails in implementing it. Although the government provides some subsidies for urea at the manufacturing level or import level, the benefits hardly go to the farmers. Such observations were also made by ruling party lawmakers during the tenure of the BNP and have been a long established fact. There have been parliamentary investigations with little to show. In the meantime during every agricultural peak season farmers are held hostage faced with a crisis and end up spending several times higher price than the one stipulated by the government. The governments on their part, including the current one, have failed to ensure timely and proper distribution either due to shortage or due lack of coordination.
   
   Ownership, but no entitlement
   Another crucial agricultural input, water, or rather irrigation, remains a matter of grave problem for the agricultural community. In a country teeming with millions of people, access to natural resources that are naturally owned by the community at large should be deemed vital for their development. It should be a policy of the government to gradually increase the extent and coverage of public assets while it allows accumulation of private assets on the other front. Common water bodies, especially those on public lands that traditionally provided for the livelihoods of thousands of fisherfolk or ethnic minorities living off the land are being leased out to private quarters for fish cultivation. Consequently these groups become further marginalised as not only their means of livelihood is destroyed but also because water usage from such bodies is prohibited by the lessee. Such moves also typically favour quarters with adequate capital to lease out the water bodies.
   But even more important than water, since it is still more or less available across the country, is the question of access to land. Agriculture being the main driver of the economy, land ownership is perhaps the most important factor in the rural economy. While there are no ceilings enforced on ownership of arable land, small and marginal farmers increasingly quashed by middlemen and vulnerable to natural disasters often fall prey to fate and become further marginalised. This only means that the number of landless will increase while land holdings of small farmers will surely fall.
   Reportedly, in 2000, the percentage of the landless people in the rural areas was 69.7 per cent which fell to 66.6 per cent in 2005, which means that the absolute number of the rural landless had increased. The phenomenon is not as debilitating to the urban populace most of which is engaged in non-farm employment anyway. That the number of landless people in the countryside is on the rise means that those people are gradually but surely sliding further down towards complete misery.
   Another natural resource, although not yet significant to the rural economy only due to negligence, is fossil fuel in the form coal and natural gas. The people of Bangladesh are the rightful owners of all resources found under the territory of Bangladesh. Given the market rates, it could be estimated that every Bangladeshi owns at least Tk 47,000 worth of coal alone. While coal is not yet being extracted extensively, natural gas is.
   But the people in general have hardly been provided with the benefits of these natural resources, either by way of piped gas or access to electricity, except for some regions where the government runs electricity-powered irrigation. The benefits accrued to the entire nation from the extraction and utilisation of natural resources is exclusively enjoyed by the urban elite while the rural areas are deprived of it. What is worse, the government has hardly ever divulged the terms of contract that it entered with the foreign oil companies for gas extraction. Their negotiations are kept strictly confidential and rumours of massive corruption abound regarding ministers and secretaries who have been in charge of the relevant ministries.
   But more importantly the governments have never indicated that they felt accountable to the people to inform them about the fate of the people’s property. Only when the Asia Energy project in Phulbari got embroiled in controversy was it clear that the country did not even have a comprehensive mining policy that would govern mineral extraction in general. It is after advancing in negotiations with Asia Energy and Tata that the government decided to draw up a coal policy, which is still being debated upon and quite naturally susceptible to the interest of the foreign investors.
   Both natural gas and coal might have been used to build institutions by importing technology and providing the personnel with training. Had the government been sincere, the petroleum exploration wing of Petrobangla, which is Bapex, could have turned out to be a small but efficient unit compared to the foreign oil companies. Examples of the Indian Oil and Natural Gas Company or the Malaysian Petronas have been cited numerous times. Instead the government has allowed both Petrobangla and Bapex to wane and wither to the verge of complete extinction. The government allowed foreign oil companies to hire skilled and experienced personnel from Petrobanngla and Bapex, but hardly enforced ‘transfer of technology’, which is incidentally stipulated in the investment policy.
   As far as extending the benefits of gas-generated electricity or natural gas supply is concerned, the governments have hardly bothered and thus deprived the comparatively poorer sections while the richer urban sections enjoy subsidised power and gas. While the diminishing access to natural resources and the resultant inequality among the people is somewhat implicit, successive governments have consistently perpetuated mechanisms that explicitly increase disparity and are abjectly unfair to the masses.
   
   Robin Hood turned on his head
   The so called social safety net as introduced in the budget is perhaps a good place to start discussing about the budget. This social safety net is expected to care for the worst off in the society and the social safety net programmes rightly target widows, elderly and the disabled. Beginning with stipends of Tk 100 per month, it has now reached Tk 220 while the coverage has also increased substantially. But essentially these programmes are not designed so much to lift these marginalised groups out of their misery but rather only to keep them in their misery for a longer period. The paltry stipends, in the context of high inflation, do not really amount to much. Such programmes only ensure that marginalised groups remain so and remain dependent even on this slight assistance that the governments shell out to them.
   The motive however, is rather clear. The regime can then boast of having expanded the social safety net to ever larger proportions that none of the previous regimes had and gain cheap popularity. Once started any regime would consider this political suicide and would not even consider abolishing these programmes. The idea of a safety net cannot be to ensure that those requiring this programme now remain dependent forever. The end goal must be that the lives of these people become more meaningful and that they can gradually become integrated into the mainstream presumably through gainful employment. The programmes must be designed to provide widows, or the disabled with adequate training of whatever nature maybe deemed appropriate so that these people may live with some sort of dignity and self-respect. These programmes, although with limited access and coverage could be run with the same amount of money that the government spends every year on the safety net.
   The budget itself has never been a truly participatory tool of the government with the finance ministers being overbearing and dictatorial. Although the budget should be considered one of the main indicators of a certain government’s political agenda, it has never been treated as such, either by the ruling party or by the opposition, both of which resort to mindless rhetoric after presentation of the budget. As a matter of routine, the opposition would burn a symbolic copy of the budget while the treasury bench would eulogise to epic proportions. But there have seldom been objective discussion regarding the budget either at the parliament or within the political circles.
   As for the budget preparation, the ministers and advisers habitually sit with stakeholders and different interest groups. But such consultations do not extend to the farmers’ level. There are seldom any such discussions with labour leaders or garment workers. These are often limited to the more privileged sections of the society and that too from the urban locale. But even the suggestions of these sections are often not taken into cognizance during budget preparation. The only effective space for manipulation is actually provided to the multilateral lending agencies — the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund — whose ‘suggestions’ are considered with respect and befitting subservience.
   A recent example has been the sweeping tariff measures proposed by Mirza Aziz, which according to business circles privy to the budget preparing process, had been a complete surprise and absolutely contrary to what had been suggested by the private quarters. Apparently the high tariff measures that would surely harm local industry had come at the recommendation of the lending agencies. Open public participation in budget-making remains a far fetched dream and pending that this tool will continue to fail in realising the aspirations of the marginalised as it has thus far.
   At the same time that the budget is proposed, the finance ministry also reviews its tax measures. This is a direct tool by which the government may strive towards effective redistribution of resources among the people. Decidedly, income tax collection has increased and improved significantly, but even at its current levels, value added taxes account for 36 per cent of the expected tax revenue. In fact this year Mirza Aziz has increased the coverage of the value added tax to include among others, Water Supply and Sewerage Authority services. But water supply must be considered one of the basic responsibilities of the government, which any citizen, regardless of the ability to pay taxes, should get. On the other hand, direct taxes, comprising of personal income and corporate profit, are only expected to finance about 24 per cent of the tax revenue.
   Indirect taxes are actually paid by the people in general and by being uniform actually favours the rich and persecutes the poor. The obvious point to make here is that even those who fall in the category of hardcore poor would be liable to pay indirect taxes. But more than that, the value added tax does not differentiate between the rich and the poor. Regardless of the restaurant, whether it is inside Sonargaon Hotel and charges far higher than one at Moghbazar crossing, the rate of value added tax is the same. Hospital beds, whether in the general ward or in an air-conditioned luxury cabin, also have the same tax rate, although the costs are almost poles apart and two distinctly different classes of people avail them.
   Recent times have seen widespread destruction of livelihoods and shelters of thousands, which has once again, affected the poorer sections of the people. The current military-driven interim government decided to evict hawkers from the pavements, demolish slums and shut down jute mills. Each of these acts will affect the lower income groups more than the richer sections. Another certain effect of scared businessmen and antagonised bankers is that investment will continue to remain pathetically low and is rather unlikely to revive to the extent that it would make up for the sudden unemployment that the incumbents have created.
   Even in the destruction of Rangs Bhaban, as opposed to the demolition of slums, there is a lesson to be learnt. There has been High Court orders prohibiting the demolition of slums and mass arrest of people, as there was regarding the demolition of Rangs Bhaban. While the Rangs Bhaban was ‘allowed’ to run its full course of due legal process, the slums were not. They were summarily demolished with no compensation or rehabilitation measures. Even this instance during the tenure of a government that proclaims to uphold the rule of law, has been partial in dispensation of the justice.
   
   Inequity is politically unsustainable
   Equity is not just a moral issue. It is also economically inefficient since inequity in access to services or rights results in a large portion of the population failing to realise their innate abilities and thus the entire nation would surely be performing far below its potential. There could be thousands of more Abdur Roufs in Bangladesh if education was ensured for all in a uniform standard.
   But more worryingly the effects of inequity, which are necessarily adverse, unequal opportunities and political power hampers development since the inequality reproduces by itself through generations. The distribution of wealth is almost always directly indicative of the groups of people or communities that either dominated or are dominated. This pattern — the plain-land Bengali over the tribesman of the hill tracts, or industrialist over the garment worker, the urban elite over the rural farmer — will continue to persist because the privileged will continue to manipulate the establishment overtly and covertly with the power they hold. The elites are bound to protect their interest for their survival and convenience sometimes by subtle manipulation and sometimes aggressively by influencing politicians or outright violence.
   Thus it becomes the responsibility of the state to set it right, to gradually work towards installing a comprehensive system that is redistributive by nature. But presumably such efforts will be uphill battles from the very beginning and therefore require due sincerity of the political establishment, which in Bangladesh has never been so. It is of course a gradual process of short and long term trade offs. The effort, however, must be consistent and determined towards its end goal. Such a task is all the harder for a regime that is not representative or elected as is the current one. Since it does not have the people’s mandate, it cannot assume upon itself the moral authority to disturb the status quo of the establishment and the moneyed class either since that is where such regimes draw their initial support from. It would be political suicide, so to speak, for an apolitical and unelected government to undertake efforts that disturb the status quo of its own power base.
   Poverty itself is surely a grave problem and remains like a scourge on communities and nations. But contrasting disparity and inequity is far more devastating for any regime or government, and especially disastrous when several regimes combined have perpetuated the same policies made the poor poorer. The sense of deprivation is aggravated by the visibly unequal distribution of power, influence and access to services. The state subsidises power, gas, water and telephone services to a certain extent but these subsidies are hardly enjoyed by the rural populace since they seem to be ‘reserved’ for the urbanites, often considered the political power base of any government. It is the radically unequal distribution of income, wealth and opportunities that heighten the frustration and sense of deprivation. Even with the limited political awareness of the people in Bangladesh, they realise that the vast fortunes that have accumulated into a few hands have been the result of an unfair process and at the cost of their deprivation. This sense of deprivation and frustration is unsustainable politically and is bound to backfire sooner or later whenever there is a culmination of factors.
   
   Tanim Ahmed is assistant editor, New Age

From the constitution
Article 14: It shall be a fundamental responsibility of the State to emancipate the toiling masses—the peasants and workers—and backward sections of the people from all forms of exploitation.
   Article 15: It shall be the fundamental responsibility of the State to attain through planned economic growth, a constant increase of productive forces and a steady improvement in the material and cultural standard of living of the people , with a view of securing to its citizens —
   * the provision of the basic necessities of life, including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care;
   * the right to work, that is the right to guaranteed employment at a reasonable wage having regard to the quantity and quality of work;
   * the right to reasonable rest, recreation and leisure; and
   * the right to social security, that is to say, to public assistance in cases of undeserved want arising from unemployment, illness or disablement or suffered by widows or orphans or in old age, or in other such cases.
   Article 16: The State shall adopt effective measures to bring about a radical transformation in the rural areas through the promotion of an agricultural revolution, the provision of rural electrification, the development cottage and other industries, and the improvement of education, communications and public health, in those areas, so as progressively to remove the disparity in the standards of living between the urban and the rural areas.
   Article 17: The State shall adopt effective measures for the purpose of —
   * establishing a uniform, mass-oriented and universal system of education and extending free and compulsory education to all children to such stage as may be determined by law;
   * relating education to the needs of society and producing properly trained and motivated citizens to serve those needs;
   * removing illiteracy within such time as may be determined by law
   Article 19: i. The State shall endeavour to ensure equality of opportunity to all citizens.
   ii. The State shall adopt effective measures to remove social and economic inequality between man and man and to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth among citizens, and of opportunities in order to attain a uniform level of economic development throughout the republic.