“Aai chaar ghar mein kaam karti thi, wahan pichle sola saal se kaam kia. April mein sab memsahib bol di kaam par nahi aaneko. Humlog theen bhai behen hain, abhi khaane ka paisa mushkil se aata hai, bolo didi school kaise jayegi?” (Mother has been working in four houses for 16 years. All the ‘memsahibs’ asked her to not come to work in April. We are three siblings, and money for food comes with difficulty. So tell me, how will I go to school?) said 13-year-old Vandana* from Juhu Gaon, Navi Mumbai.
History holds testament to the fact that adversities disproportionately impact women and other marginalized communities. The COVID-19 pandemic is no different. People say that this virus spares nobody—it has affected the rich and the poor, men and women. But, has it affected them alike? The answer is no.
It is true that the virus does not discriminate, but social infrastructure does.
Due to poverty, lower access to hygiene facilities, higher mortality rate, increased burden in the household, and for various other reasons, women from underprivileged socio-economic backgrounds are at higher risk of being impacted by the pandemic. The imposition of a stringent lockdown has drastically affected the livelihoods of people and has pushed millions further deep into poverty.
This is not to say that the lockdown should or should not have been imposed. The aim is to point out the differential impact it has on different groups of people. When families struggle to make ends meet, they are faced with several tough decisions to make in terms of what is to be cut down on. Unfortunately education, and more so, the education of girls is at the bottom of that priority list. With the stopping of free meals and other such perks, many rural poor families feel no incentive to send their girls to schools.
“Toh abhi mai aur Shanti school chod dia. Hum log yahin chota mota kam kar lete hain, aur sirf Som school jaata hai,” (Me and Shaanti have left school. We do odd jobs here-and-there, and only Som goes to school) added Vandana.
It is estimated that almost 10 million secondary school girls in India could drop out of school due to the pandemic. This puts them at risk of early marriage, early pregnancy, poverty, and violence. It also robs young girls of their aspirations and an opportunity to uplift themselves.
“When families can’t afford school and have to choose, they will often send boys. Financial hardships and cultural stereotypes about gender roles play a major part in keeping girls in less-developed countries from completing their education,” said John Wood, founder of Room to Read.
This is bound to worsen the education deficit for girls in poorer countries, where the rate of female secondary school enrolment was already low even prior to the pandemic. And it could set back almost 70 years of progress for girls’ education in India. The online mode of education makes the glaring gender inequality stand out even further.
According to a study by Young Lives, the University of Oxford, “Boys in India are much more likely than their female peers to use a computer and the Internet (as well as other forms of technology, such as a smartphone) regularly.
Meanwhile, four in five (80%) girls in the Indian sample (based in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) have never accessed the internet, and more than three in five (62%) have never used a computer. Gender also interacts with other forms of disadvantage in India. Our data show that the poorest girls and those living in rural areas have much less access to technology than boys and girls in wealthier or urban households.”
The problem does not end with vaccination. The post-COVID-19 era affects not only the present but also the future of lakhs of girls.
“It is estimated that about 20% of girls are not going to come back to school after lockdown. Most of the girls from families of migrant workers are in the vulnerable age where they are likely to get married,” said Professor Amita Rampal, Educationist, Delhi University.
Marriage, early pregnancy, high mortality rate, poverty; all these which often go hand in hand potentially imply that these girls will not return to their books and pens. So, how can we still say that the virus impacts everybody alike? And what can be done to lessen the blow for girls from rural India?
Gender-sensitive budgeting is the answer, it has always been. Gender-sensitive budgeting is a policy instrument which ensures that resources are allocated according to gender-specific needs, so as to bring about equality.
Government education institutes in India do provide fee concessions to girls and one meal to all its pupils. But that clearly is not enough- because this simply builds a system of desired behaviour-reward reinforcement and does nothing to instil equality in education.
If families are not sensitized consistently along with being given perks, the moment the perks are withdrawn, they reconsider sending their girls to school.
That is where we need extensive sensitization campaigns on female education and against early marriages. And the burden of these campaigns cannot be borne by NGOs alone. The central and state governments have to step up their effort. Further, resources must be allocated specifically to creating safe and hygienic toilets for pupils, particularly girls. Schools have to be more active participants in ensuring that their female students attend classes.
It is clear now that education can no longer lie at the bottom of the priority list post the pandemic. Unless pushed into poverty, boys will return to schools. However, young girls are often seen as a liability to be passed on, and therefore families have to be intensively sensitized and incentivized to do the bare minimum and send their girls to schools. By ignoring the gender dimension to education during and after the pandemic, we only help exacerbate the inequality already present.
Adopting gender-neutral policies is as good as following ones that are gender-blind. And we do not need education to be used as another instrument to discriminate.