A RECENT study on the status of caring for the elderly people that the Asian Development Bank and Ayat Education Ltd, a non-governmental organisation, carried out shows that by 2050, one in five Bangladeshis will be aged 60 or above, underpinning the inevitable demographic shift to an ageing society the country has started already.
The findings projected the older people to make up more than 20 per cent of the population by 2050, which was 9.3 per cent in 2022. Aged people, especially women outnumbering men, indicative of the feminisation of aging, both in rural and urban areas, were mostly left uncared for except irregular formal care facilities provided by the government. This, too, was beyond reach for some as the sense of social stigma and psychological stress kept them behind the doors. Based on empirical data, the research advocated building up a sustained, long-term care system for the old.
Factors responsible were pointed out as insolvency, small family size, the absence of male in the family, migration of female members, especially the daughter or spouse et cetera. A public-led care system suggests intervention in policy and governance, human resources development, community-based, decentralized services delivery, innovation and research to tap on technology. All sounds so far so good with an 鈥榠f鈥� added though, which is to recognise and consider the uniqueness of the whole old care ecosystem proposed, the number of people involved, the resources required, and the preparations needed.
But, could there be any lapses in the whole passage in finding out the bleak picture of the old care? Is there any missing link between the traditional, value-guided family care environment of the past and resource-intensive, business model-based care system proposed above? Yes. For many, the problem lies not with resource constraints, lack of policy and governance. It, rather, lies with some deep, often unnoticed maladies: the economic and cultural pavement that the state has developed. In other words, economic policy and cultural orientation are two major drivers in this regard that has shaped our individual responses to the old age care system.
The economic policy, market economy, patronises an individual鈥檚 education, career, attainment in public spheres, ignoring the philosophy of advancing the collective good. And, thus, incentivising ever-growing, all-pervasive competition between individualism versus collectivism coupled with society鈥檚 glorification of personal attainment irrespective of means and methods applied to attaining such feat. Nowadays, self-sufficiency with moderate income through integrity is not labelled better than the riches amassed in crooked manners. Socially-accepted owners of ill-gotten wealth are less caring for the aged and they often come with ventures like setting up old homes, devoid of empathetic, family care-based conventional system, which justifies the 鈥榩hilosophy鈥� of their crooked manners adopted in amassing personal wealth.
The mercenary formula to equip elderly care facilities with professional care-givers and technological support recommended within the scope of the study is another glaring example of belittling humane role in giving care to the aged in the family while the cost is ignored. Hints of preferring small family by people, especially the new generations, are there in findings, but the extent of negligence to the once-vitalising, now-dependent members of the family is not mentioned. Here comes the question of values which, for many sociologists and social thinkers had been the beauty of oriental families and society. This beauty is disappearing day by day. A girl of marriageable age does not want to marry a young man coming of a family that requires financial supports from him. Tendency to choose and pick only the groom, not the family, especially the parents who worked hard throughout their entire life to groom the groom, or vice versa, is the order of the day.
So, who wins of this self-gratifying attitude and practice is now an issue that warrants serious thought. It is also urgent to sort out ways and means that do not support 鈥榦ld homes culture鈥� because the responsibility of the children cannot be substituted by old or safe homes. It is simply because the parents did not shift their responsibility to raise us like we are.
The state as well as people and organisations working on the old care issue needs to focus more on pointing out root causes of traditional family-centric care system, including the erosion of values, and expose the futility of our efforts whatsoever: resources mobilisation, capacity building, the use of technology, to build on a sustainable system of caring for our senior citizens, without hiding the stumbling blocks under the carpet.
听
Md Mukhlesur Rahman Akand is a joint secretary to the expatriates鈥� welfare and overseas employment ministry.
