Vision 2020: the meaning and the spirit of the right to sight initiative.

VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, the global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness, has become the fulcrum of all programs for control of blindness worldwide. Just like the five blind men who perceived an elephant differently, policy makers, program planners, eye care professionals and the general population (the main stake holder) have different interpretations for what VISION 2020 stands for. For many, it has replaced the national programs for control of blindness that have been in existence for over two decades. For some, it is the panacea of all that ails eye care services. For others it is the new mantra (formula) to get rid of unwanted blindness. There are also those who presume that after 2020, there is no need of any focus on avoidable blindness. With such a plethora of views, VISION 2020 unfortunately is being marketed by many as the new strategy for eye care services. Instead of using VISION 2020 as a step to successfully climb the ladder for prevention of blindness; many countries have fallen into the trap of using VISION 2020 as jargon. The laudable effort of the global alliance between the countries of the world (represented by the WHO) and the international eye NGOs (represented by IAPB) to use VISION 2020 as the plank to 'demystify' eye care and emphasize the rights of all individuals to seek appropriate eye care and sound the bugle for those unnecessarily blind despite available technology will stand defeated if the basic premise for the clarion call goes unheeded. VISION 2020 became a reality because of the realization that problems abound while resources are limited. A significant difference would be palpable if the available resources were to be used optimally. Therefore, it was necessary to set priorities in both the relation to the diseases primarily responsible for blindness as well as to populations which had remained marginalized and beyond the 'service net'. At a global level, it was possible to chart out a course of action with some benchmarks for individual countries to plan their strategies and activities. For planning at country level, an evidence base was essential. There is a need for evidence on prevalence and causes of blindness, availability and functionality of human resources and eye care infrastructure, integration of eye care with general health services, community perceptions on eye care, utilization patterns of existing eye care services, provider perceptions and needs and the …