Image courtesy: First Post
Letter to mfc about Dr. Srinath Reddy who played a key role in bringing out the 12th 5 year plan for health – response was silence.
Firstly I think Dr. Srinath Reddy has a conflict of interest because of his affiliations to World Bank. Many individuals and organisations are similarly available all over the country who seem to represent civil society, but this representation is highly questionable.
At the end of the day the organization is a BANK looking for profit. Its venture into public decision making of vulnerable countries has been opposed on several fora. Much of the ‘research’ in India is funded by them and the results are used by them to further push their own agenda.
The World Bank is pushing for increased political accountability, strengthening civil society participation, creating a competitive private sector, instituting restraints on power and improving public sector management. All these are just ways to control governments. Where is the accountability from these bodies that are arm twisting our governments? It is also suggested that the Jan Lokpal bill is being insidiously supported by the WB and Ford foundation to basically WEAKEN public systems.
Is there no way to counter this?
It is clear that the MFC is the largest and most significant body that can take a stand on such issues, at least for the health sector. This can then be used as a landmark for other public services and other countries similarly affected.
I attended a conference funded by the ADB and there was a presentation there which said that “private water supply is associated with lesser morbidity than public water supply’. A public health person said that the difference was between stored water (as seen with public supply) compared to running water (as seen with private supply). He said that WB pilots are usually done very well, so the pilot reports seem to show good success. However, it is not possible to ensure running water supply for 24 hours to all districts of Karnataka because of the shortage of water. This kind of research seems to be a dime a dozen with very skewed results that benefit the research funder.