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/the-right-side-of-the-food-security-debate-by-yk-alagh-2849.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The right side of the food security debate by YK Alagh | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

The right side of the food security debate by YK Alagh

There is an interesting debate on food security and we should get the Planning Commission’s perspective on this. But as I write this, the Planning Commission Web site still does not have the mid-term appraisal, so Yojana Bhavan must still be polishing it. This column has, over time, taken the position that the food security programme is really important and a country growing as fast as India simply cannot ignore malnutrition on a large scale. In any case, India has the competence and resources to solve this problem. The column has also argued that despite all its failings, the Tendulkar Committee allows the mapping of malnutrition on poverty, which can be a tool of operational significance. Also the official poverty line is based originally on complete demand systems for the rich and poor separately and, therefore, provides a base for the dual pricing systems currently being advocated, including by the NAC. But the consensus ends there. There are at least two widely diverging mindsets and many variants of them.

One view is increasingly influential and as political pressure increases many agricultural and economic policy experts, who know better, fall in line with it. The view is that India is the ‘Republic of Hunger’, its agriculture is stagnating, there is large scale land alienation and with the casualisation of the labour force, hunger-driven hordes of workers throng the cities. The situation is severe in eastern India because it is not growing and inequality is increasing. In a recent meeting, when it was pointed out that two numbers from different definitions showed hunger had decreased but comparing the narrow definition in the base with the wider one at the end made it look as if it had increased, the influential policy maker behind the argument said that we should be liberal in discussing poverty numbers, whatever that means.

In the other view, the problem of extreme malnutrition, chronic poverty and deprivation is very severe in a relatively small percentage of the population and has decreased, between 10% to a sixth of the population should be targeted for free food. Beyond that the ‘poor’ could pay a subsidised price. In some regions, the 150 hunger districts were described in a stylised manner in an Express column, which has become a ‘fact’ since. But whichever measure of nutrition and poverty you take, as Radhakrishna’s classic Presidential address to the Indian Econometric Society showed, malnutrition and poverty has gone down. Agricultural growth declined in the 1990s but has picked up in the last quinquennium. It may not be 4.5% as officials claim but is decidedly above 3%. Terms of trade are moving in favour of agriculture, profitability has improved and so has agricultural investment. With a 21% rate of investment with respect to agricultural GDP, the challenge is to see that we get higher growth. Sustainable land and water management, pricing and technological efficiency are important. The republic of hunger sidesteps all this.

Falling grain consumption exists. The half century of British rule up to 1947 saw falling per capita grain consumption every five years, from 200 kg per person in 1901-05 to 144 kg in 1941-45. However, calories from non-grains are rising for the poor. Surya Narayana was the first scholar to show that non-grain calories consumed by the poor, ignored by the hunger argument, are not trivial. But calorie consumption is still not going up. This was a puzzle and Pranob Sen argued that this could be on account of a taste effect. As per capita income standards improve, even the lower deciles of the population start consuming lower calorie food. You may feel richer by substituting bajra by wheat or fruit, but calorie consumption decreases.

Land alienation exists and very small farmers prefer to lease out their land and work elsewhere. Agricultural wages have been rising in real terms and most projections are showing a shift away from agriculture. In fact, employment is not rising in agriculture, but is rising in non-farm jobs. Not allowing tenancy under the law means that reverse tenancy is illegal and the poor man who leases out his land has no legal status. This leads to immense corruption as a lot of land is given to contractors by corrupt politicians. A legal market for land would stop all this and give the small farmer a legal face.

The worst part of the republic of hunger argument is that it does not recognise that diversifying agriculture creates more income for the poor. Low agricultural prices are a favourite refrain of Indian economists but these sustain poverty. We saw a long time ago that ‘two rupee rice’ makes the poor worse off. Later, an IFPRI/ADB model proved that a non-reforming agriculture would sustain poverty. Some mind sets don’t change.