Countries around the world may have distinct features, but there is one thing that unites them: their collective disdain for welfare programmes. What else could explain the sudden withdrawal of contributions made by developed countries, including the US, towards aid programmes run for the marginalised and poor. Now, the effects of such decisions have become more pronounced. As armed conflicts reach their highest levels in 80 years, organisations providing life-saving services to women and girls are running out of money. ‘Beyond the Breaking Point’, a new UN Women report published recently on the impact of aid cuts, finds that at least one million women and girls have lost access to critical support since January 2025. The report is based on responses from 855 women-led and women’s rights organisations across 52 crisis-and conflict-affected countries. Half of women’s organisations have introduced waiting lists or are turning away women and girls in need. Ninety-two per cent of organisations report increasing levels of poverty among the women they serve, while 82 per cent report seeing more girls dropping out of school.
For most countries, aid is a burden on the national exchequer. In a user-pay system, services should ideally be available to those who can afford them, and people should seek as many income opportunities as possible to meet their needs. This economic model looks great and fair on paper, but it excludes some crucial facts. People in several countries, especially those involved in active conflicts or where political unrest is the norm, are automatically excluded from a system that may help them generate wealth. In conflict or disaster-affected zones, people’s mobility remains restricted for weeks and months, stripping them of the ability to work and generate income. In poverty-stricken areas, women have to choose between buying essential vitamins during their pregnancies and paying their bills. Aid programmes would normally help such women to a considerable extent.
The truth is that this apathy has nothing to do with budget constraints. Those who rule the world on the basis of tech, chips, oil and gas, and automobiles, etc have all the means to finance the health and education of a few million. In a world where a trillionaire can multiply his wealth in a few hours, generating income is not that difficult. This apathy towards the marginalised is carefully curated. The rich believe they get to decide which civilisation or race should have access to wealth. For those who want to hoard rare gems, the child who helplessly goes down the mine to dig up minerals is, unfortunately, not oppressed but an object absolutely necessary to be where s/he is to help the rich grow their wealth. For those who want to build life on another planet, the marginalised do not deserve to have a decent living. Aid cuts then become a deliberate attempt by the rich to ensure that the oppressed do not rise above. That is a truth no one seems to wish to change.
