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: 150
 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: 151
 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]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PM’s panel splits hairs, misses the elephants on food security by Biraj Patnaik

PM’s panel splits hairs, misses the elephants on food security by Biraj Patnaik

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Feb 4, 2011   modified Modified on Feb 4, 2011

The report of the Rangarajan Committee scrutinizing proposals of the National Advisory Council for the National Food Security Bill makes for a very instructive read. It's official now: UPA II is on a death wish, and it could not have been articulated better. The alacrity with which the prime minister set up this committee (remember, he could not find time in three years to convene the nutrition council he chairs) was an early indicator of what was to follow. What is surprising though is that the committee does not allow any evidence from the field to come in the way of its conclusions.

Take the reforms in the public distribution system. It belittles the success of states like Chhattisgarh and Tamil Nadu with a single sweeping assertion: "these initiatives target a part of the system and are not comprehensive and replicable at the all India level". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Not only are the reforms comprehensive in these states, they are also continuously evolving. The committee also completely ignores the experience of Kerala which for years had one of the most efficiently run PDS in the country. Instead of trying to learn from these experiences, the Rangarajan panel goes ahead and suggests an entirely untested system of smart cards modelled on the Entitlement Benefit Transfer system in the US.

Similarly, the NAC proposals show a grain requirement between 57-64 million metric tonne. The committee claims the projected requirement is more likely to be around 64-74 million MTs. This is a faulty assumption for two reasons. First, it flies against the face of evidence from states like Tamil Nadu which show a much lower offtake by households above poverty line.

Second, the committee looked at offtake of foodgrains by those living above the poverty line and used the average of 85% over the last three years in its calculations. The Rangarajan Committee betrayed its innocence of the fact that this number is a percentage of the grains offered to states for APL. Since these allocations have been drastically reduced since 2005, the offtake percentage was bound to be high.

Even if these assumptions were true, the conclusion the panel draws on increase of market prices of foodgrain that this is likely to cause is purely hypothetical. If this were true, we would have seen a rise in market prices of rice in Orissa and Chhattisgarh and for wheat in Madhya Pradesh – states which have seen a dramatic increase in procurement in recent years.

Similarly, the apprehensions raised by the panel on the ability of the government to procure foodgrain run counter to the agriculture ministry's assertion to the NAC that "arranging for 60-70 million MT for the vulnerable section does not appear to be a constraint". By choosing to fight false demons, the panel actually misses out on some crucial errors that the NAC has made in its formulation of the NFSB.

By all counts, the NAC has made a dog's breakfast of the proposed bill by creating a regime of differentiated pricing and entitlements for the "priority" and "general" categories. This can be easily addressed by having a universal pricing for all households at Rs 3, Rs 2 and Re 1 (for rice, wheat and millets respectively).

The one thing that it has got right is in articulation of the only "real" concern of the government. The likely increase in the food subsidy budget. The ultimate dream of UPA II economists of having a "fiscal-neutral" food security bill may yet go unrealized.

(The author is principal adviser to commissioners of the Supreme Court in the right to food case)


The Times of India, 4 February, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/PMs-panel-splits-hairs-misses-the-elephants-on-food-security/articleshow/7421263.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close