Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai announced in his Budget Speech that private schools would have to pay five per cent educational-service tax. The idea behind it is to utilise the money thus collected for the improvement of the government schools, particularly in remoter areas. The only sticking point is: Who will foot the bill? The owners of the schools seem unwilling to bear the burden, whereas many think it will be unfair to tax the parents. The government has constituted a committee to look into the matter and come up with suggestions for sorting out the issue. If the tax holds, there are three scenarios — the school owners pay the tax, the parents do, or both share the burden. Minister Bhattarai, replying to a question at a Nepal Television programme on Sunday, was non-committal on exactly who will, and he sounded a little evasive when he said that if the schools are financially sound, they could pick up the tab, or if they are not, the tax liability could be shared with or shifted on to the parents. Those who may not like this tax have, Bhattarai added, the option of sending their wards to government schools.

Judging by the tenor of the finance minister’s reply, one is led to believe that it is the parents who will have to pay, at least partly. Here, one needs to differentiate between the government’s intentions and the ways of finding the means for putting them into practice. The government deserves all the cooperation from the people in boosting the capacity and quality of government schools, because it has showed a degree of concern for imparting quality education to poorer children across the country not shown by predecessor governments. But it would be unfair to put the tax burden on the parents. If other possible sources of revenue had been tapped first, then it would make some sense in asking the parents of the pupils at private schools to contribute their mite. The government would do well to take into account the hefty fee hikes, ranging from one-third to one-half of the existing rates, made this year by the private schools on a cue from their umbrella organisations. A form of syndicate exists in the education sector too.

While there are the laws and rules and regulations that bind the private schools to certain norms of behaviour, those rules are often easily ignored when they come between the owners and their interests. The lack of equal application of the rules indicates the existence of unfairness. And any government worth its salt must show the mettle to ensure that it is fair to all sides, including the owners. But the consumers of educational service have almost always been at the receiving end, with the government looking on helplessly. This must end. The Maoist-led government needs to show that it can make change happen visibly in this area. There exists an anomaly — the private schools receive from the government the kind of treatment befitting charities whereas they do operate purely on commercial principles. In consequence, the benefits have not passed on to the consumers. The status of private schools should be defined, and they should be treated accordingly. The dualism must end. Why not impose, say, a tax on profit of the schools pursuing commercialism?