Analysis of The Hindu Editorial – November 30, 2024

Analysis of The Hindu Editorial 1: Indians need to share contraceptive responsibility

Context

India’s family planning initiatives, launched in 1952, initially prioritized male sterilisation (vasectomy) as a key contraceptive method. However, over the decades, societal norms, misconceptions, and policy shifts have drastically reduced vasectomy rates, leaving women to bear the brunt of sterilisation responsibilities. This imbalance challenges gender equality goals and highlights the urgent need for increased awareness, systemic reforms, and shared responsibility in contraception.

RRB NTPC Mock Test Free –Without Registration Practice Set: Click Here

Introduction

India has long been at the forefront of family planning initiatives, beginning as early as 1952 with the launch of its national program. This ambitious effort aimed to manage population growth while improving maternal and child health. Over time, the program’s focus evolved, and so did the methods it promoted.

In the late 1960s, male sterilisation, or vasectomy, was a prominent feature, accounting for 80.5% of all sterilisation procedures. However, this figure steadily declined as policy priorities shifted and societal attitudes hardened. Today, data from the National Family Health Surveys (NFHS-4 and NFHS-5) show that vasectomy rates stagnate at a dismal 0.3%, far overshadowed by female sterilisation procedures, which account for 37.9% of the total. This alarming disparity highlights not just policy failures but also entrenched gender norms that disproportionately burden women in family planning.

The Gender Disparity in Sterilisation Practices

Policy Target and the Current Gap

India’s National Health Policy of 2017 set an ambitious target: to raise the share of male sterilisation to at least 30%. Yet, we are far from this goal. The stark contrast between the 0.3% vasectomy rate and the 37.9% female sterilisation rate underscores the lack of progress. While policies may emphasize equality, societal norms continue to view contraception as a woman’s responsibility.

eBook: Clike Here

Implications of the Disparity

This imbalance has far-reaching consequences. It challenges India’s ability to meet Sustainable Development Goal 5, which champions gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. When women bear the brunt of sterilisation procedures, it often comes at the cost of their physical health and autonomy. Achieving true gender equality in family planning requires redistributing this responsibility.

Efforts to Promote Male Sterilisation

Awareness Campaigns

Recognizing this issue, advocacy groups and governments worldwide observe Vasectomy Day annually on the third Friday of November. India, too, has made attempts, such as the 2017 “vasectomy fortnight.” These initiatives aim to raise awareness, debunk myths, and encourage men to participate actively in contraception.

Objectives of Advocacy

The ultimate goal of such campaigns is twofold: to educate men about the safety and simplicity of vasectomies and to reduce the burden on women. By promoting vasectomies as a viable and equitable option, these efforts can help reshape societal perceptions.

Challenges in Adoption

Societal and Cultural Barriers

A recent field survey in rural Maharashtra reveals deep-seated resistance to male sterilisation. Women in the surveyed village unanimously considered sterilisation their responsibility, with some citing men’s financial contribution to the household as a reason they should not “be burdened” by vasectomies. Many feared that the procedure would interfere with their partners’ ability to work, even if only temporarily.

Lack of Awareness and Healthcare Infrastructure

Adding to these challenges is a lack of knowledge about vasectomies, particularly the no-scalpel variant. Many men harbor misconceptions about its impact on libido or masculinity. Compounding the issue is a healthcare system ill-equipped to address these misconceptions. Community health workers, often the first point of contact in rural areas, are themselves insufficiently trained in educating men about the procedure.

The Path to Normalising Male Sterilisation

Sensitising Adolescents

The change must begin early. Introducing family planning concepts during adolescence, through school programs and monitored discussions, can dismantle harmful myths. Open dialogues at a young age can help normalize vasectomies as a shared responsibility.

Indian Express Editorial: Click Here

Enhancing Financial Incentives

Financial incentives have proven effective in encouraging male sterilisation. Studies in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh demonstrate that increased cash rewards lead to higher vasectomy adoption rates. Scaling these incentives nationwide could bridge the gap further.

Lessons from International Success Stories

Countries like South Korea, Bhutan, and Brazil offer valuable lessons. South Korea’s cultural emphasis on gender equality has made vasectomy a norm, while Bhutan’s vasectomy camps have made the procedure widely accessible. Brazil, on the other hand, leveraged mass media campaigns to educate the public, resulting in a fivefold increase in vasectomy rates over the past few decades.

A Call for Systemic Change

To meet its family planning goals, India must invest in strengthening its healthcare infrastructure. This includes training more professionals in non-scalpel vasectomies, ensuring accessible services, and fostering a culture of equality in contraception decision-making. Public awareness campaigns must be coupled with actionable steps to achieve meaningful change.

Conclusion

A society that shares contraceptive responsibilities is one that values equality. Promoting male sterilisation not only lightens the burden on women but also empowers couples to make informed decisions together. Through systemic reforms, education, and targeted incentives, India can work toward this equitable vision.

FAQs

Analysis of The Hindu Editorial 2 : ONOS bitten

Context

Access to research papers has long been a thorny issue in India, with exorbitant journal subscription fees restricting access for scholars and the general public alike. The “One Nation, One Subscription” (ONOS) plan, proposed as part of India’s National Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy (2020), aims to bridge this gap. While the plan promises to lower costs and democratize access, its broader implications and limitations demand a closer look.

Introduction

The ONOS initiative represents a bold effort to address one of academia’s most persistent challenges: the steep costs associated with accessing research. By centralizing subscriptions to academic journals under a single government-negotiated fee, the plan seeks to replace the fragmented library consortia system with a unified approach. This promises to make otherwise expensive journals accessible to underfunded institutions, particularly those in the public sector.

However, the plan has also sparked debate. While it could make a significant difference for researchers in government-funded institutions, critics argue that it fails to tackle larger systemic issues like the dominance of commercial publishers, transparency concerns, and the lack of stakeholder consultation. Is ONOS the game-changer Indian academia needs, or just a stopgap measure? Let’s break it down.

The Centralisation of Research Access

Why Centralisation Matters

For decades, researchers and institutions have struggled with the high costs of journal subscriptions. This was particularly challenging for smaller institutions and independent scholars, who were often priced out of accessing essential resources. The ONOS plan, first outlined in 2020, seeks to address this inequity by centralizing research access under the government’s purview.

Impact of Centralisation

Replacing library consortia with a government-negotiated subscription model simplifies access for publicly funded institutions. This shift promises to extend the reach of high-cost journals to financially constrained research centers, potentially fostering greater equity in academic resources.

How Research Journals Generate Revenue

Traditional Revenue Models

Most research journals operate on a subscription-based revenue model. Libraries subscribe to these journals to make them available to scholars, while individuals can also pay to access specific articles. Over time, subscription fees have steadily risen, prompting libraries to form consortia to negotiate better deals.

Rising Costs and the Need for Reform

Despite these efforts, the cost of accessing research continues to escalate, often placing cutting-edge knowledge out of reach for many. This growing disparity underscores the urgency for intervention at a national level, which ONOS seeks to address.

Implementation of ONOS

Ground-Level Execution

Approved by the Union Cabinet in November 2023, ONOS allocates ₹6,000 crore over three years to negotiate access with 30 major publishers. This approach ensures that journals previously unaffordable for many public institutions are now within their reach.

Accessibility Benefits

For underfunded government institutes, ONOS could be transformative. By alleviating financial barriers, the plan paves the way for researchers in resource-strapped institutions to engage with the latest global scholarship.

Limitations of ONOS

Restricted Scope

One major drawback of ONOS is its limited scope. The plan is restricted to publicly funded institutions, leaving private universities and independent researchers without support. Additionally, it perpetuates the reliance on commercial publishers, many of which profit from publicly funded research while charging exorbitant fees for access.

Financial Concerns

The ₹6,000 crore earmarked for ONOS highlights a broader issue: India’s stagnant expenditure on research and development as a percentage of GDP. Critics argue that these funds could have been better allocated to support home-grown research initiatives and open-access models.

Exploring Alternative Approaches

Open-Access Models

Green and diamond open-access systems, which guarantee free public access to research without relying on paywalls, present a compelling alternative. Promoting these models could democratize knowledge without the need for hefty subscription fees.

Support for Local Journals

Investing in Indian journals could not only amplify local research but also reduce dependency on foreign publishers. By enhancing the discoverability of domestic scholarship, India could position itself as a leader in equitable research access.

Concerns with ONOS

Transparency Issues

A lack of transparency in ONOS’s implementation raises red flags. Will the government continuously monitor the relevance of subscribed journals? What safeguards exist to prevent funding of predatory or outdated publications? These questions remain unanswered.

Challenges in Adapting to Modern Research Practices

As global publishing trends shift toward gold open-access models and preprints, ONOS’s reliance on traditional subscription-based systems feels outdated. Critics argue that the plan fails to account for these evolving practices.

Limited Stakeholder Consultation

Perhaps most concerning is the absence of meaningful input from research institutions. Without understanding their specific needs, ONOS risks being out of sync with the realities of Indian academia.

Conclusion

The “One Nation, One Subscription” plan represents a significant effort to reduce research access costs, but its limitations cannot be ignored. From its restricted scope to its reliance on commercial publishers, ONOS addresses symptoms rather than root causes. A more comprehensive approach—embracing open-access models, supporting local journals, and ensuring transparency—is essential for lasting impact. The promise of ONOS is real, but so are the challenges it must overcome.

FAQs