Dr Ashwani Mahajan
There was a time (before 1990s), when every family in the country used to have a ration card, based on which food grains sugar, kerosene and sometimes’ pulses, onion etc. used to be provided to the households through Public Distribution System (PDS). Ration Card was also a proof of identity in the country. Time changed and the system of ration cards changed. Now poor households were supposed to have BPL cards and other needy were issued non-BPL cards. Very poor were issued Antyodya cards. General households were pushed out of PDS. Though a large chunk of population was deprived of food-grains from ‘fair price shops’, food subsidy bill of the Central Government kept on rising in leaps and bowels. Food subsidy expenditure, which was only 2450 crores in 1990-91, increased to 85000 crores in 2012-13. Food subsidy bill was not rising because more and better food was being provided to people, but because of ever-rising operating cost of PDS. In this regards, without mincing words, Planning Commission chairman says that to reach one rupee of benefit in PDS, the Government has to shed rupees 3.65 on PDS.
Proposed New Food Security Bill
Congress Party, which is leading present UPA Government in the centre had promised in its manifesto that, a new Food Security would be enacted, according to which people will have the right to food. So for more than three and half years have passed, though many drafts of food security bill have come into public domain for discussion, no legislation could be enacted in this regard. At first instance, it was said that 90 per cent of population would be brought under the ambit of this law, but the bill, which has been accorded the approval of the cabinet and has been placed before the Parliament, seeks to cover merely 75 per cent of rural and 50 percent of urban population. It is believed that the proposed bill if legislated would benefit 63.5 per cent of population. Along with this, provision has also been made for free meal for pregnant and lactating mothers up to six months and children from six months to 14 years of age. Though this bill seems to be better than the present provision, but implementation of the proposed legislation seems to be dependent on the same rotten PDS, overwhelmed with inefficiencies, corruption and leakages; and no attempt has been made to bring any reform in the same. Nobody can deny the importance of eradication of malnutrition and hunger in the country, but at the same time the system through which the same is expected to be achieved, needs complete overhauling. The bill proposed in the parliament puts the responsibility of providing food grains to the state, on the Central Government, whereas the responsibility of distribution would be of the State Governments. In such circumstances, the rotten Public Distribution System in the states plagued with deep-rooted corruption and inefficiencies and without proper identification of the beneficiaries, is unfit to achieve the stated objective of food for all.
How to Identify the Beneficiaries
Parliamentary committee about identification of poor favoured a multidimensional and comprehensive definition of poverty; so that poor are appropriately identified for getting benefits of subsidised food and other necessities. Parliamentary committee had opined that the definition adopted at present has widened the gap between government’s assessment about the poverty and actual incidence of poverty. It found that assessment of poverty varies with different definitions, as suggested by different expert groups/ committees. For instance according to definition suggested by Expert Group headed by Prof. Tendulkar, based primarily on calorie intake (along with minimum expenditure on education and health), only 37.2 percent population was thought to be living below poverty line in 2004-05 and 29.7 percent in 2009-10, while Saxena Committee, constituted by Ministry of Rural Development, puts this figure at 50 percent. Arjun Sen Gupta Committee constituted for Unorganised sector was of the opinion that more than 77 percent people in our population were forced to live with less than 20 rupees a day, and they are actually poor, based on work conditions and livelihood. Analysing the findings of various committees, the Parliamentary Committee recommended that it is imperative to adopt a uniform and apt criterion for the assessment of poverty and identification of poor. Concerted and coordinated efforts of Central and State government and local authorities would be needed in their regard.
Let alone the identification of the beneficiaries, even the norms; have not been decided, for such an exercise. In the purposed bill, the central government has distanced itself from such responsibility and has given the same to the State Governments. The percentage of rural and urban population, who would be benefited from this legislation, is supposed to be decided by the Central Government, whereas the identification of the beneficiaries would be responsibility of the state governments. About the actual position regarding the issuance of BPL cards, the N.C. Sexena committee had reported that at present, half of the actual poor do not have BPL cards and 40 percent of the BPL cards holders are not actually not poor. In this situation, the purposed legislation may not only fail to achieve its stated objective, but may even further the problem of diversion and leakage of invaluable food grain.
Question of Financing by the States
Though the Central Government, for implementation of food security legislation would provide the food grains; it is expected from the states that they would ensure that the allocated food grains reach the targeted population. This implies that the State Governments will have to spend heavily on warehousing and transportation of food grains from their budget. Any failure on the part of the state governments in this regard would make them liable to pay food security allowance from their own budget. One of the basic objections of the State Governments is that the bill is silent with regard to resources to implement food security law. Bihar, Tamil Nadu and many other states have objected to the purposed legislation. States are unhappy also because they cannot make any changes in the list of the beneficiaries.
Need to Reform PDS
Committees constituted for this purpose and experts have suggested various measures to reform the Public Distribution System. However, silence of the bill regarding reforms in the PDS system raises doubts about the intention of the Government for truthful achievement of the stated objectives of the bill. Government has chosen to ignore the recommendations of the various committees in this regard, like issuance of food stamps, extended reach; efficient management, transparency etc. Instead of implementing the new law through this rotten PDS, it would be better that the Government adopts system of food stamps or coupons. In such a case, the beneficiaries could get food grains through market. This would reduce the problem of diversion and leakage and save the Government from the trouble of warehousing and distribution of the food grains.
Follow our WhatsApp channel