With the Epstein files once again rattling public trust in elite power structures, it’s an uncomfortable—but necessary—moment to revisit a question india largely avoided during COVID: how much influence should private foundations have over public health and education policy?

During the pandemic, the indian government openly partnered with global philanthropies for guidance and support. That collaboration was public. What wasn’t public enough was the extent of influence, the guardrails, and the accountability. Because when private money meets public policy, transparency isn’t optional—it’s foundational.

1. Let’s Get the Facts Straight—No ‘Handover,’ But Deep Partnerships.
India did not hand over healthcare or education to Bill Gates or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. However, the government entered formal partnerships with the Foundation for technical support across areas like maternal health, nutrition, disease surveillance, and education outcomes. Influence without ownership can still shape outcomes—and that’s where scrutiny belongs.

2. COVID Made Private Guidance Central—By Design.
During the crisis, governments worldwide leaned on external expertise. india was no exception. The Gates Foundation’s role in advising on health systems and post-pandemic priorities was acknowledged. The issue isn’t collaboration; it’s how decisions are influenced when private actors sit close to the policy table.

3. Covishield Funding: Follow the Money, Not the Myths.
Covishield received over $150 million in funding routed via Gavi to support manufacturing at the Serum Institute of India. This funding supported scale-up and access. It did not mean ownership—but it did embed a private philanthropic stake in a public immunization effort.

4. Covaxin Is a Different Story—And That Matters.
Covaxin was developed by Bharat Biotech in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research. There was no direct Gates funding here. This distinction is critical—and often blurred. Precision matters when trust is at stake.

5. Private capital in Public health Isn’t New—But Power Concentration Is.
Philanthropic funding has long supported global health. The concern today is scale and proximity. When a handful of ultra-wealthy foundations wield outdata-sized influence across vaccines, education reforms, and health metrics, democratic oversight struggles to keep pace.

6. Influence Without Transparency Breeds Distrust.
Even well-intentioned partnerships demand sunlight. What advice was given? What alternatives were considered? Who decided—and on what evidence? Public policy cannot run on private influence without public accountability.

7. Scrutiny Is Not Conspiracy—It’s Citizenship.
Questioning the role of powerful private actors isn’t anti-science or anti-philanthropy. It’s pro-democracy. Trust grows when facts are clear, boundaries are explicit, and decision-making is accountable to citizens—not donors.

Final Word

india didn’t outsource its state to a foundation. But it did invite private influence into the core of public policy during an emergency—and never fully explained the guardrails.

As the world reckons with elite power and opaque networks, the lesson is simple: collaboration needs transparency, and influence needs limits. Public health must remain public—decided in the open, accountable to voters, and grounded in democratic scrutiny.