STUDENTS SELLING THEIR BLOOD TO PAY COACHING FEES: A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF THE YOGI GOVERNMENT AND THE MODI GOVERNMENT

There is something profoundly disturbing about a country that celebrates its demographic dividend, advertises itself as a global powerhouse, speaks endlessly about becoming a developed economy and boasts about its educational ambitions, while students from economically disadvantaged families are reportedly negotiating the price of their own blood to pay coaching fees, hostel rent and mess bills.

An undercover investigation by Dainik Bhaskar in Prayagraj has brought to the surface a disturbing reality that deserves far more than a few television debates, political statements and routine administrative assurances. According to the investigation, students preparing for competitive examinations such as NEET and Staff Selection Commission examinations have reportedly resorted to selling their blood to meet their educational and living expenses.

These are not individuals who have abandoned education. They are young aspirants who are desperately trying to secure a future through education. Some come from farming families. Some have lost parents. Some are dependent on families already struggling with agricultural debt. Some have parents who have mortgaged their limited landholdings to finance their children’s preparation.

And yet, instead of receiving adequate institutional support, these students are reportedly finding themselves negotiating with intermediaries, accepting cash in exchange for blood and, in at least one account, returning for another transaction after an interval of just ten days.

This is not a story of extraordinary determination. It is a story of extraordinary institutional failure.

The question confronting the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh Government and the Narendra Modi-led Union Government is brutally simple:

How has a country that claims to be investing in its youth reached a situation where a poor student may have to sell a part of his own body to remain enrolled in a coaching institute?

1. THE PRAYAGRAJ INVESTIGATION: WHEN EDUCATION BECOMES SO EXPENSIVE THAT STUDENTS BEGIN SELLING THEIR BLOOD

Dainik Bhaskar’s undercover investigation, conducted around the Allahabad Medical Association (AMA) Blood Bank near Rajapur Crossing in Prayagraj, describes an alleged arrangement in which economically distressed students are connected with people seeking blood.

The reporters approached the location posing as relatives of patients requiring blood and spoke to students and intermediaries.

The accounts recorded during the investigation are deeply troubling.

One SSC aspirant reportedly explained that his father was a farmer, his mother had died, and his family had limited financial resources. He had reportedly accumulated two months of unpaid hostel fees and was struggling to continue his preparation.

Another student, identified by the name Anand in the report, reportedly disclosed that he had sold his blood at another blood bank just ten days earlier to meet his mess expenses. He had returned because he needed money for his coaching fees.

A NEET aspirant identified as Vivek reportedly explained that his father had mortgaged two bighas of agricultural land and incurred debt to finance his preparation. With only one examination attempt remaining, he was struggling to manage his educational expenses.

Another aspirant, identified as Ashish, reportedly described the financial difficulties faced by students who travel from smaller towns and villages to Prayagraj in pursuit of competitive examinations.

These accounts expose an uncomfortable reality about India’s education economy.

The children of wealthy families can purchase the best coaching, accommodation, study materials, personal guidance and examination support. Their parents can absorb expensive fees without placing the family’s financial survival at risk.

For children from agricultural and economically weaker backgrounds, however, pursuing the same dream can mean mortgaging family land, borrowing money, accumulating unpaid hostel bills and, according to this investigation, selling blood.

The examination is ostensibly the same. The competition is ostensibly equal. But the financial capacity to participate in that competition is anything but equal.

What exactly is the meaning of equal opportunity when one student enters an examination centre after years of expensive preparation financed by family wealth, while another arrives after struggling to arrange even the money for his food?

2. THE ALLEGED BLOOD-SELLING NETWORK: A BUSINESS BUILT AROUND FINANCIAL DESPERATION

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the investigation is the alleged involvement of intermediaries who reportedly connect students willing to provide blood for payment with people searching for donors.

One intermediary, identified as Sonu, allegedly offered the undercover reporter ₹4,000 for a unit of blood before negotiating the amount up to ₹5,000.

The intermediary reportedly demanded an additional processing charge of ₹1,500, meaning that a student agreeing to receive ₹5,000 would retain only ₹3,500.

More seriously, the intermediary allegedly claimed that he and his associates arranged more than 12 units of blood daily.

He also reportedly offered to arrange hospital stamps, prescriptions, doctors’ details and blood demand letters, including fabricated documents, to facilitate the transactions.

These are allegations recorded during an undercover investigation. They warrant a comprehensive criminal and regulatory inquiry rather than being treated as independently established findings.

But even at the level of allegations, the questions are explosive.

Who are these intermediaries?

How are they identifying financially distressed students?

How are they contacting patients and their families?

Are they operating around multiple blood centres?

Are they collecting commissions from patients, donors or both?

Who is verifying the medical documentation used in these transactions?

Are donor identities, previous donation histories and medical fitness records being properly examined?

If someone is allegedly arranging fabricated hospital documents and medical prescriptions, what safeguards are actually operating in the blood transfusion system?

And most importantly, why should an intermediary have the confidence to claim that he can arrange more than a dozen units of blood every day?

The authorities must establish whether this was exaggeration intended to impress an undercover reporter or an accurate description of a wider operation.

Either way, the allegation cannot be dismissed.

The investigation does not establish that the AMA Blood Bank’s management or employees participated in the alleged arrangements. Their role, if any, must be established independently. But the proximity of alleged transactions to a functioning blood centre makes it essential to investigate what happened outside its premises and whether the authorities had previously received complaints.

A blood bank is not an ordinary commercial establishment. It is a critical medical institution entrusted with a resource that can determine whether another human being survives.

Allowing a parallel market of intermediaries to operate around such facilities would represent a serious failure of public health oversight.

3. A NATIONAL PROHIBITION THAT EXISTS ON PAPER: WHERE IS THE ENFORCEMENT?

India has not left this issue legally unaddressed.

Commercial and professional blood donation has been prohibited in India since 1 January 1998, following the Supreme Court’s intervention in Common Cause v. Union of India.

The national blood donation framework is explicitly based on voluntary, non-remunerated blood donation. The objective is to ensure that donors are medically fit, properly screened and motivated by voluntary participation rather than financial necessity.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Guidelines for Voluntary Blood Donation, reviewed and published in 2024, expressly define a paid or professional blood donor as someone who provides blood in exchange for monetary or other consideration.

The guidelines also caution against monetary incentives that influence the decision to donate blood.

Yet, if the transactions described by Dainik Bhaskar are substantiated, what we are witnessing is precisely the kind of commercial arrangement that India’s regulatory framework was designed to eliminate.

The contradiction is extraordinary.

On one side, the Government of India publishes policy documents advocating a voluntary and non-remunerated blood donation system. On the other, students are reportedly negotiating financial payments for blood through intermediaries.

What is the value of an elaborate regulatory framework if economically vulnerable individuals can allegedly be recruited into paid blood donation networks?

A government cannot simply announce that professional blood donation is prohibited and consider its responsibility discharged.

Prohibition is not enforcement. Policy is not implementation. A government notification is not a substitute for inspection, surveillance, investigation and prosecution wherever violations are established.

4. TEN DAYS BETWEEN DONATIONS: A PUBLIC HEALTH QUESTION THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED

The investigation becomes even more alarming when viewed from the perspective of donor safety.

Anand reportedly told the undercover reporters that he had sold blood at another blood bank just ten days before approaching them again.

The national voluntary blood donation guidelines prescribe an interval of 90 days between whole-blood donations for male donors and 120 days for female donors.

The rules for platelet and plasma apheresis are different. Therefore, the exact nature of the collection and the relevant medical records must be examined before determining whether a particular donation violated the applicable interval.

Nevertheless, the reported ten-day interval raises an extremely serious question.

Was the earlier collection whole blood?

Was the student’s previous donation history disclosed?

Was the donor questionnaire completed honestly?

Were haemoglobin levels, weight, medical history and other eligibility conditions properly checked?

Did the blood centre have access to the donor’s previous collection records?

Could a financially desperate student have concealed an earlier donation because he urgently needed money?

The national e-RaktKosh system was developed, among other objectives, to improve blood bank management, maintain donor records and help restrict professional donors.

The Government’s own blood donation framework recognises the importance of tracking donor histories and protecting individuals from unsafe or excessive collection.

A system that permits a financially desperate student to approach multiple facilities without adequate scrutiny would defeat the very purpose of these safeguards.

The recipient’s safety matters. But the donor’s safety matters equally.

A poor student does not become a disposable medical resource merely because he is desperate for ₹3,500.

5. THE YOGI GOVERNMENT MUST ANSWER: WHERE ARE THE DRUG INSPECTORS AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES?

The most immediate responsibility for investigating the Prayagraj allegations rests with the Uttar Pradesh Government.

This is not simply a matter of political criticism. The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has itself clarified in a parliamentary statement dated 2 August 2022 that the primary responsibility for preventing illegal activities in blood banks and during blood transfusion rests with State and Union Territory governments.

The Centre has also made clear that implementation and monitoring of the relevant Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules fall within the States’ jurisdiction.

The Uttar Pradesh Food and Drug Administration therefore cannot treat the issue as a minor local complaint.

The alleged presence of intermediaries, the reported financial transactions, the claims about fabricated medical documents and the possibility of repeated donations require immediate scrutiny.

The administration must establish:

• Whether the intermediaries named in the investigation are operating in Prayagraj.
• Whether any of the alleged transactions involved licensed blood centres.
• Whether medical records and donor histories were properly maintained.
• Whether any patient demand letters, prescriptions or hospital documents were fabricated.
• Whether blood was collected in violation of the prescribed medical standards.
• Whether any licensed facility, employee or other intermediary knowingly facilitated prohibited paid donations.
• Whether previous complaints had been received and what action was taken.

A particularly important development has emerged in the days following the original investigation.

According to a separate report published by Hindustan on 31 October 2026, a drug inspection team inspected four private blood banks in Prayagraj. One blood bank in the Bai Ka Bagh area was sealed over reported deficiencies in standards and testing reports. The report also described alleged irregularities at other inspected centres, including blood being issued without proper testing, cold-chain deficiencies, shortages of technical personnel and overcharging.

These inspections are not, by themselves, proof of the blood-selling allegations recorded by Dainik Bhaskar, nor do they establish that the same facilities or individuals were involved.

But they reinforce the urgency of a comprehensive examination of the district’s blood transfusion infrastructure.

Why should it take disturbing media investigations and reports of serious irregularities to bring the functioning of blood centres into public focus?

Were routine inspections being conducted?

Were the authorities checking the operations of licensed centres and the activities around their premises?

How many drug inspectors are deployed for blood-centre supervision?

How frequently are inspections conducted?

How many violations have been identified, and how many resulted in prosecutions or licence cancellations?

The Uttar Pradesh Government must publish answers rather than offer another round of administrative assurances.

A sealed blood bank is not a substitute for a complete investigation. Nor should a few inspections become an opportunity for officials to announce that the problem has been solved.

6. THE MODI GOVERNMENT CANNOT ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY BY PASSING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE STATES

The Union Government may argue that health is a State subject and that day-to-day enforcement belongs to State administrations.

That argument has a legal and administrative basis. It is not, however, a complete answer.

The Union Government formulates national policy, establishes regulatory standards, provides guidance, supports blood transfusion infrastructure, facilitates national data systems and allocates assistance through central health programmes.

Its own 2024 guidelines acknowledge the necessity of voluntary, non-remunerated blood donation and the dangers associated with professional blood donation.

Its own parliamentary statements recognise the continuing problem of black marketing of blood.

Its own policy architecture recognises that safe blood requires proper donor recruitment, screening, monitoring and institutional accountability.

The Centre therefore cannot celebrate the creation of national systems when they function, yet shift all responsibility to State governments when disturbing enforcement failures emerge.

There is a difference between delegating implementation and abandoning accountability.

If e-RaktKosh is intended to restrict professional donors, how effective is it in identifying individuals who allegedly move between multiple blood centres?

How frequently is the data audited?

Are blood centres using the system consistently?

Are unusual donation patterns flagged?

Is there any mechanism to identify potential professional donor networks operating outside the formal premises of licensed facilities?

These are questions the Union Health Ministry should answer.

The Centre must also explain what monitoring it conducts to ensure that the national policy on voluntary blood donation is implemented in practice rather than merely reproduced in government publications.

7. THE COACHING INDUSTRY: WHEN THE PRICE OF A DREAM BECOMES AN ECONOMIC BURDEN

The blood-selling allegations cannot be examined in isolation from the economics of India’s competitive examination system.

According to the Dainik Bhaskar investigation, coaching fees for certain NEET and competitive examination programmes can range from approximately ₹1.20 lakh to ₹1.80 lakh annually.

Hostel and room expenses were reported to be around ₹3,500 to ₹5,000 per month, excluding food, books, transport and other expenses.

These are figures reported by the investigation and should not be taken as a universal fee schedule for every institution.

Nevertheless, the broader problem is unmistakable.

Competitive examination preparation has become an expensive ecosystem.

Families often pay for coaching, accommodation, test series, study materials, transport and repeated examination attempts. For students travelling from villages and smaller towns, the financial burden extends far beyond tuition fees.

A farmer with limited landholdings cannot necessarily compete financially with a businessman’s son, even when both children possess comparable academic potential.

The result is a deeply unequal educational marketplace.

The wealthy buy access to preparation and guidance. The poor are frequently left to improvise, borrow, depend on relatives and sacrifice basic necessities.

When students are pushed into extreme financial distress, the question cannot be confined to whether they are sufficiently hardworking or determined.

The question must also be whether the State has created an educational environment in which merit has a realistic chance of competing against money.

There should be no objection to private coaching institutions charging legitimate fees for educational services. Nor should every expensive coaching programme automatically be labelled exploitative.

But when a system becomes so financially demanding that economically disadvantaged students resort to dangerous or prohibited means of earning money, governments must examine the structural conditions enabling that outcome.

8. THE YOGI GOVERNMENT’S ABHYUDAYA SCHEME: A PROMISE IS NOT THE SAME AS ACCESS

The Uttar Pradesh Government has promoted the Mukhyamantri Abhyudaya Yojana as a free coaching initiative for students preparing for competitive examinations, including NEET.

On paper, this is a welcome initiative.

It recognises that talented students from weaker financial backgrounds should not be excluded merely because they cannot afford private coaching.

But the existence of a scheme does not establish that it is reaching every eligible student who needs it.

The Bhaskar investigation specifically raises the question of whether eligibility conditions and access barriers prevent some financially distressed aspirants from benefiting from government-supported coaching.

That deserves serious scrutiny.

How many students are enrolled under Abhyudaya in Prayagraj?

How many NEET aspirants receive actual classroom instruction?

How many receive free study materials and examination support?

How many students are placed in government-supported hostel or accommodation facilities?

How many eligible students are rejected, and on what grounds?

Are coaching facilities available at locations accessible to students from rural and economically weaker communities?

Does the State provide assistance for food, accommodation, books, transport and examination fees, or is its intervention limited largely to coaching?

Most importantly, how many students who begin preparation through the scheme ultimately receive admission to their intended institutions?

Free coaching without adequate accommodation, food, study resources and financial assistance may solve only one part of a much larger problem.

A student cannot prepare effectively for a demanding examination while worrying about unpaid hostel fees and his next meal.

The government cannot advertise free coaching as an answer to educational inequality while ignoring the other costs that make preparation possible.

A scheme should be judged not by the number of advertisements issued in its name but by the number of financially vulnerable students whose circumstances it actually improves.

9. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S OWN EDUCATION POLICY ACKNOWLEDGES THE PROBLEM. WHAT HAS CHANGED?

The Union Ministry of Education is not unaware of the harmful consequences of India’s coaching culture.

The Ministry’s January 2024 Guidelines for Regulation of Coaching Centres explicitly acknowledged several concerns:

• Unregulated private coaching institutions.
• Exorbitant fees charged to students.
• Undue academic stress.
• Student suicides.
• Fire incidents and unsafe facilities.
• Malpractices adopted by coaching centres.

The guidelines also referred to the National Education Policy 2020, which recognises the harmful impact of the coaching culture and calls for examination reforms that reduce dependence on private coaching.

The Ministry circulated these guidelines to State governments for consideration through appropriate legal frameworks.

The guidelines also refer to the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002.

In other words, Uttar Pradesh already has a coaching regulation law, and the Centre has itself acknowledged that coaching-related problems demand regulatory attention.

So the question is no longer whether the governments know that the system has problems.

They do.

The question is what they have actually done to address them.

The Union Government must explain whether the regulatory and educational reforms it has announced have made meaningful progress in reducing the financial burden on students.

The Uttar Pradesh Government must explain how its existing coaching regulation framework is being implemented, what oversight is exercised over institutions and how financially weaker students are protected.

A government cannot keep issuing guidelines acknowledging an existing problem and then act surprised when the consequences of that problem appear in an investigative report.

10. THE NATIONAL QUESTION: IS INDIA’S DEMOGRAPHIC DIVIDEND BECOMING A DEMOGRAPHIC LIABILITY?

India’s young population is frequently described as its greatest economic advantage.

Political leaders speak about innovation, entrepreneurship, employability, skill development, startups, technology and global competitiveness.

But a demographic dividend is not created merely because a country has millions of young people.

It depends on whether those young people have access to education, healthcare, nutrition, employment opportunities and a fair chance to participate in economic growth.

A young person who must choose between buying a meal and paying a hostel bill is already operating at a disadvantage.

A student who must mortgage family land to pay for coaching is carrying a burden that wealthier competitors may never understand.

A student who allegedly sells blood because he cannot afford examination preparation is confronting a failure far beyond his individual financial circumstances.

India cannot meaningfully claim to be building an inclusive education system if the ability to prepare for competitive examinations increasingly depends on the financial strength of one’s family.

The problem is particularly acute for rural households.

Agriculture often involves uncertain income, fluctuating prices, unpredictable weather and limited access to credit. A small landholding may support an entire family, finance children’s education and serve as its only meaningful financial security.

When the family mortgages that land to finance a child’s preparation, it is not making a routine educational investment. It is placing a substantial part of its economic future on the outcome of a highly competitive examination.

And when that sacrifice is still insufficient, what options remain?

Borrow more?

Leave education?

Return to the village?

Or, as the investigation alleges, find someone willing to pay for a unit of blood?

This is the reality that governments must confront.

11. THE MOST DISTURBING ASPECT: THE VULNERABLE STUDENT BECOMES BOTH THE VICTIM AND THE RISK-BEARER

A particularly cynical feature of the alleged arrangement is the possibility that intermediaries profit from the financial desperation of students.

The student bears the physical risk of donating blood.

The student may be unaware of the complete medical implications of repeated collection.

The student accepts a comparatively small payment.

The intermediary allegedly negotiates the arrangement and retains or collects a processing charge.

And the wider system is left to answer questions only after the transaction becomes a matter of public interest.

This is precisely why an investigation must not stop at identifying the students.

The students must be protected.

Their educational prospects and privacy must not be destroyed because they were financially desperate. Names disclosed during the investigation should remain protected unless disclosure is legally necessary and properly justified.

The principal focus must be on identifying those who knowingly arrange, facilitate or profit from prohibited commercial blood transactions, where evidence supports such action.

The authorities must also examine whether any blood-centre personnel, medical practitioners, document intermediaries or other persons were involved. No individual or institution should be declared guilty without evidence, but nobody should receive immunity from scrutiny merely because of their institutional position.

The issue is not to punish poverty.

The issue is to prevent the exploitation of poverty.

12. WHAT BOTH GOVERNMENTS MUST DO IMMEDIATELY

This investigation should trigger a coordinated response rather than another publicity exercise.

First, a comprehensive investigation into the alleged blood-selling network.

The Uttar Pradesh Government should order an investigation into the intermediaries identified by the reporters, their alleged associates, the claims of daily transactions and the purported supply arrangements across Prayagraj and neighbouring districts.

Second, a district-wide inspection of blood centres.

Every licensed blood centre should undergo a targeted inspection covering donor records, medical screening, collection histories, documentation, staffing, testing, cold-chain maintenance and compliance with applicable licensing conditions.

Third, an audit of donor histories.

The authorities should examine whether individuals are approaching multiple blood centres within prohibited intervals, whether donor records are properly maintained and whether e-RaktKosh is being used effectively.

Fourth, an investigation into alleged document fabrication.

The alleged offer to arrange hospital stamps, prescriptions, doctors’ details and blood demand letters must be examined. Any established fabrication or criminal facilitation should result in action under the applicable laws.

Fifth, an independent inquiry into the functioning of the district’s regulatory machinery.

The Uttar Pradesh Government must disclose the inspection history of blood banks in Prayagraj, the number of complaints received, action taken, violations detected and cases prosecuted.

Sixth, an educational support programme for economically weaker aspirants.

Students from farming families and economically vulnerable backgrounds need more than a free coaching advertisement. They require financial assistance for accommodation, food, books, examination fees and transport.

Seventh, meaningful monitoring of private coaching institutions.

The existing regulatory framework must be enforced. Fees, refund policies, misleading advertisements, student grievance mechanisms and the accessibility of educational support require transparent oversight.

Eighth, a national review of blood safety enforcement.

The Union Health Ministry and National Blood Transfusion Council should work with State authorities to identify gaps in donor tracking, enforcement and voluntary blood donation programmes.

The objective must be to ensure that no student is driven into paid blood donation because the education system has failed to provide affordable alternatives.

13. QUESTIONS THAT THE YOGI GOVERNMENT AND THE MODI GOVERNMENT MUST ANSWER

The Prayagraj investigation raises questions that cannot be buried under administrative terminology.

Questions for the Uttar Pradesh Government:

1. How many inspections of licensed blood centres were conducted in Prayagraj during the previous two years?
2. How many violations were detected, and what action was taken?
3. Has the administration identified the intermediaries mentioned in the investigation?
4. Has the alleged network operating through multiple blood centres been investigated?
5. What action has been taken regarding alleged fabricated medical documents?
6. How many students in Prayagraj benefit from the Abhyudaya scheme?
7. What financial support is available to students who cannot afford accommodation, food and educational expenses?
8. How is the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002 being implemented?
9. How many drug inspectors are deployed to supervise blood centres in the district?
10. Will the government commission an independent investigation and publish its findings?

Questions for the Union Government:

1. How effectively is the national prohibition on professional blood donation being enforced?
2. How many cases of paid or professional blood donation have been identified and acted upon nationally?
3. What systems exist to identify donors who approach multiple blood centres within short intervals?
4. How frequently are blood-centre records and e-RaktKosh data audited?
5. What monitoring does the National Blood Transfusion Council undertake to ensure State compliance?
6. What financial assistance is available to economically weaker students preparing for NEET and other competitive examinations?
7. What measurable progress has been achieved in reducing dependence on expensive coaching?
8. How are the Union Government’s 2024 coaching-centre guidelines being monitored?
9. What is being done to make competitive examination preparation affordable for rural and low-income families?
10. Will the Union Health and Education Ministries jointly examine the circumstances that reportedly pushed students towards paid blood donation?

These are not unreasonable questions. They concern public health, education, the protection of vulnerable students and the credibility of government institutions.

CONCLUSION: A COUNTRY THAT CANNOT PROTECT ITS STUDENTS FROM SELLING THEIR BLOOD HAS NO RIGHT TO CELEBRATE ITS EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS WITHOUT ANSWERING HARD QUESTIONS

There is an uncomfortable political reality here.

Governments love the photograph of a successful student.

They love celebrating examination toppers, rank holders, successful candidates, medal winners and young entrepreneurs.

They love announcing educational schemes, opening institutions, releasing advertisements and claiming that the youth are the foundation of the country’s future.

But what happens to the thousands of young aspirants who do not have wealthy parents, expensive accommodation, private tutors or access to elite coaching?

Who is responsible for them?

Who pays attention when they cannot pay their hostel fees?

Who intervenes when their parents mortgage agricultural land?

Who ensures that they have enough money to eat properly while preparing for competitive examinations?

Who protects them when intermediaries allegedly begin treating their blood as a purchasable commodity?

The Prayagraj investigation is a warning that cannot be dismissed as an isolated story of individual hardship without a proper inquiry.

The Uttar Pradesh Government must answer for the effectiveness of its enforcement machinery and the accessibility of its educational support programmes.

The Union Government must answer for the effectiveness of its national regulatory framework, the implementation of its blood safety policies and its inability to sufficiently reduce the economic barriers surrounding competitive education.

Neither government can hide behind a division of administrative responsibilities when the consequences are being borne by the same vulnerable citizen.

One government may regulate blood centres. Another may formulate national policy. Both governments have responsibilities towards the young people whose health, education and future are at stake.

And perhaps the most humiliating question of all is this:

In a country that routinely talks about becoming a global superpower, why is a poor student’s blood apparently easier to arrange than affordable coaching, secure accommodation and a dignified opportunity to pursue an education?

The young aspirants of Prayagraj are not asking for luxury. They are asking for an opportunity.

They are not asking the government to guarantee them a NEET rank or an SSC appointment. They are asking for a system in which their economic circumstances do not force them to put their own health at risk merely to compete.

If the allegations recorded by Dainik Bhaskar are substantiated, this is not merely a failure of blood bank supervision. It is a failure of a much larger social contract.

A government that cannot ensure that an impoverished student can pursue an education without allegedly selling his blood must introspect before congratulating itself on the country’s demographic dividend.

The blood of India’s youth should be a symbol of voluntary generosity, not the currency of educational desperation.