Comments on National Policy for Senior Citizens, 2011.

National Policy for Senior Citizens, 2011-Comments on final Draft submitted to Minister on 31-3-11.

1.    1.    Continuous para number is desirable for easy reference. Draft still appears at places like points and not a coherent whole. Many important aspects of existing policy are just omitted.

2.       2. Preface: In view of non-coherency and omissions, a sentence may be added that NPOP, 99 shall remain effective as a base for this National Policy for Senior Citizens, 2011 (NPSC,11).

3.      3.  Focus of New Policy: Good points are brought out but nothing is mentioned as to how this Focus shall be achieved:-

i) i) Promotion & establishment of senior citizens associations is the first item of focus but provisions in the existing policy about NAOP are completely omitted. ii) The thrust of Ageing in place policy is proposed to be preventive rather than cure. Emphasis in the policy has to be more on providing facilities for cure, as diseases in old age will prevail even after all the preventive efforts. iii)  Provision of institutional care is proposed to be as a last resort and states are expected to provide assisted living facilities for only abandoned Senior Citizens (10). Whatever be the efforts to survive/revive the joint family system, institutional care facilities will be necessary for all categories and can not be for abandoned category only. Idea of adoption of grand parents by families having no parents and both, husband & wife going for earning may provide good relief and reduce necessity of assisted institutional care facilities. iv) Some steps to encourage Elder-friendly Society are required to be laid down. v) Some avenues for providing equal opportunities for participation are required to be provided in policy. Linking BPL Senior Citizens here may not be proper, as they would be struggling for survival and can not be expected to participate in society! 

4.       4. Areas of intervention: i) Income Security: Provision is made for BPL only and not for APL. Policy must clearly lay down that IGNOAP is to be paid to all poor senior citizens below poverty line and not to those belonging to BPL families only. Classifying a family as BPL is a complicated method adopted by Ministry of R.D. and has resulted in depriving large number of poor senior citizens, especially in urban areas and this work should be transferred to Ministry of SJ & E.

 ii) Public Distribution system also must provide for APL.  

5.      5.  Health Care: ix) Why Public- Private Partnership for Rural areas only? xii) Health Care Fund: In addition to contributions of citizens, let there be mention of contribution by Central & state Governments. xx) Appears vague. Have clear provision for subsidy recommended by Shastri Committee & IRDA.

6.     6.   IV-Housing: Please, add all Housing Boards after `other schemes of the government` in the concluding sentence.

7.     7.   Para 27: Please, provide for separate coach like handicapped coach in suburban trains justifying that elders are more handicapped in entering & detraining in crowded trains, permitting elders to travel in Ladies Specials by earmarking one coach in such trains, proving at least 3 seats in Ist Class coaches of all suburban trains etc. Provide concessions in fares in trains, buses, taxies, rickshaws, entertainment places, holiday homes of governments etc.

8.     8.   Para 28: Keeping in view of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), PPP etc, provide concessions in rates of residential buildings on purchases as well as on rental from private builders, housing boards etc.

9.      9.  Productive Ageing:  Please have proper provision for participation in various Advisory Committees of Government & Local Bodies and various promotional programmes with or without honorarium.

10.10.   Important Provisions of existing Policy,99 appear to have been  omitted.

i)Paras 47 to 62. ii)Paras 70 & 71. iii)Paras 73, 77 & 78. iv)Paras 90 & 91. V) Paras 95, 97, 99