Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/case-for-a-food-security-programme-22050.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Case for a Food Security Programme | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Case for a Food Security Programme
-Economic and Political Weekly


The Chhapra tragedy must ask us how we can improve public services, not scrap them altogether.

In the aftermath of the ghastly tragedy in Chhapra, Bihar, where 22 children lost their lives after they consumed a government-provided school meal containing organophosphate pesticides, we must demand of the State a far greater commitment to administering large-scale welfare programmes that are meant to improve, not destroy the life of citizens. What we, however, cannot do is cynically use such tragedies to question the very need for such services. But this is precisely what has already begun to happen. Under the National Food Security Ordinance (NFSO) issued earlier this month, the national mid-day meal scheme (MDMS) will become part of the larger national food security programme and self-serving critics have already started using Chhapra as a weapon with which to beat back this new initiative.

Six decades since the commencement of planned growth and after a quarter of a century of being one of the fastest growing economies in the world, India still bears the shame of seeing close to half its children suffering from under-nutrition. If "growth" by itself has had such a limited impact on malnourishment then it surely is time for a national emergency programme to frontally attack such a fundamental deprivation. Now, food intake is not the only determinant of nutrition but inadequate food certainly does have an impact on nutritional status; and that is why it is unquestionable that we need a massive programme that ensures and operationalises the citizen's very basic right to food. The legislation ensuring this right has been four years in the making and over time it has been watered down bit by bit so that what the NFSO provides for is not a universal right to food but a very modest movement in that direction which may yet bring down calorie deficiency and the horrendously high levels of under-nutrition.

Under the NFSO, the central and state governments' commitment to food security will cover four broad areas: provision of (i) monetary benefits to pregnant mothers, (ii) cooked meals to children under six, (iii) cooked meals to school-going children, and (iv) subsidised grain of 5 kg per capita per month through the public distribution system (PDS) to 75% of the rural and 50% of the urban populations. This supply of rice/wheat/millets could meet up to half of total monthly cereal consumption. The second and third components of the new programme incorporate the MDMS and a part of the Integrated Child Development Services. It is the supply of grain through the PDS that has attracted the most attention, and criticism, from the proponents of what can be called a "growth-not-subsidy" approach.

Three major criticisms are levelled against the food security programme. The first, obvious given who the critics are, is that it will lead to a fiscal disaster. The more carefully prepared estimates of costs point out that as against the Rs 1,20,000 crore now being spent every year on the ongoing schemes, the new costs will be Rs 1,50,000 crore a year. This is no more than 1.5% of gross domestic product and much lower than the scare-mongering which throws up costs in the range of Rs 4,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 crore a year. The argument that this is a massive hand-out conveniently ignores the much larger volume of concessions (called "incentives") now being given to industry and finance, not to mention the state-sponsored loot of public resources.

The second criticism is of colossal waste since it is based on the PDS which has been shown to be ineffective and wasteful. The PDS has in the past indeed been a byword for corruption and leakage. But it is not sufficiently acknowledged that states which have overhauled their system - Tamil Nadu is one but not the only example - have made a remarkable achievement in delivering grain where it is needed and reducing leakages. There is indeed much that remains to be done to reform the PDS but condemning it when it has shown the potential to work is irresponsible and motivated criticism.

The third and most bizarre criticism is that the new PDS is "anti-farmer". In 2011-12, total cereal procurement was 63 million tonnes (mt), in 2012-13 it was 71 mt. Total distribution was 55 mt and 56 mt in the two years, respectively. The new PDS is expected to see distribution go up to 62 mt. So how is the demand of the new PDS going to take procurement to impossible levels and turn agriculture upside down by pushing aside all non-cereal crops?

The more substantive criticism against the NFSO is that after dragging its feet for four years the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government took the ordinance route with an obvious eye on deriving electoral benefits in the next Lok Sabha polls. The UPA mistakenly thinks that Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) won it the 2009 elections, and that the direct benefit transfer scheme and the new food security programme will help it win 2014. If it thinks it has found the tickets to electoral success, the UPA is more likely to be chasing a chimera. A rushed roll-out is also likely to damage the NFSO implementation. As it is, the states have not been sufficiently consulted; the NFSO makes no mention of the guidelines to be followed for selection of beneficiaries; the shift from household to per capita entitlement is fraught with administrative risks and other than in select states a major reform of the PDS has not been undertaken. Is the very worthwhile national food security programme going to be short-changed then at the altar of the Congress Party's electoral ambitions?

Chhapra asks if we have to be careless in administering public services and if we cannot show more commitment in providing services for the needy and the most vulnerable. The food security programme asks us to acknowledge the scale of one major and basic social problem around us and demonstrate a willingness to address it head-on, even if belatedly.