As it is drafted, the Bill actually deprives people, and the State governments, of existing rights on multiple counts.
The Food Security Bill finalised by a Group of Ministers should not be accepted by Parliament in its present form. The overriding negative features of the proposed legislation far outweigh its positive initiatives. The framework itself is questionable since the Central government usurps all powers to decide the numbers, criteria and schemes while imposing a substantial level of expenditure on the State governments. Far from meeting the basic requirements for a universalised system of public distribution, it actually deprives people and also State governments of existing rights on several counts — in spite of the opportunity created through huge buffer stocks.
First, it cuts down on the number of eligible households. At the Chief Ministers' Conference in February 2010, the government's agenda paper gave the total number of APL (above poverty line) and BPL (below poverty line) households covered by the Targeted Public Distribution System as 18.03 crore. This works out to over 90 per cent of the population, calculated on the basis of the population projections used by the Central government. But the Bill sets a cap of 75 per cent households in rural India and just 50 per cent in urban India. This means that lakhs of families holding APL cards will be excluded from the PDS.
Second, the Bill ignores the State government estimations of BPL families. As opposed to 6.52 crore families recognised by the Central government as being poor, State governments, based on their own estimation, have extended BPL coverage to 11.03 crore households, comprising 56 per cent of the population. But the Bill puts a cap on BPL households at 46 per cent in the rural areas and just 28 per cent in the urban areas.
At the heart of the differences between the Centre and many States on this issue is the utterly inhuman poverty line determined by the Planning Commission, which was Rs. 13 for an adult in rural India and Rs. 18 in urban India. And it was fraudulently linked with poverty “quotas” or “caps.” The Bill legalises this anti-poor framework through Section 13(1), which states: “The Central Government shall, for each State determine the number of persons belonging to the priority (BPL) households.” In this, the Bill prepared by the National Advisory Council (NAC) provides the government an alibi. Section 21 of the NAC draft states that the identification of priority households will “be based on the criteria notified by the Central Government.” It is unfortunate that the NAC members who lead the right-to-food campaign should have accepted such a flawed policy. It surely undermines their own campaign.
Third, it cuts down on allocations. The Bill shifts from the present quota of 35 kg per family to an individual-based system fixed at a monthly quota of 7 kg per person for a BPL family. While individual-based quotas may appear to be reasonable, it will end up punishing poor families that have fewer children. For example, in a State like Kerala where the average family size is smaller than elsewhere in the country, the present quota of 35 kg will be cut, say for a BPL family with four members, to 28 kg. It would have been fairer to have kept the minimum allocation at 35 kg for a family and increased it by a certain amount per additional person over an average of five members per family. For APL sections it is even worse, with just a 3-kg quota per individual. Can 3 kg a month provide food security? This is an affront to human dignity and shows an utter lack of social conscience. Also, it needs to be clarified whether a child would have the same entitlement as an adult has.
The fourth issue is that of prices. Around 10 State governments have established a system where BPL families get rice at Rs. 2 a kg. In Tamil Nadu, rice is being provided at Re. 1 a kg and to some sections free of cost. The Bill ignores these existing price benefits. In the Bill, the price of rice for BPL families is Rs. 3, not Rs. 2 a kg. However, the price of wheat has been kept at Rs. 2 a kg and that of millets at Rs. 1 a kg. But the Central government has the right to change these prices at any time. For APL cardholders, Schedule 1 of the Bill pegs the price of foodgrains at 50 per cent of the minimum support price (MSP) given to farmers for wheat and rice. Instead of a fixed price as at present, APL prices are bound to move upwards given the farmers' genuine demand to raise the MSP every year to cover higher input costs. Thus the Bill creates a division and a possible conflict between consumers and farmers. While the farmers demand a higher MSP, the APL cardholders' interests will come to lie in lower MSPs.
The Bill has a section on reforms that takes forward the government's neo-liberal agenda. Chapter 13, Section 3(g), of the Bill states: “Introducing scheme for cash transfer to the targeted beneficiaries in lieu of their foodgrain entitlements… in areas and manner to be prescribed by the Central Government.” This is in tune with the recommendation made by the World Bank in its recent analysis of social protection schemes in India. Thus the cash transfer scheme opposed by a large number of food experts is made mandatory. The State governments are given no choice.
It also links the right to food with the questionable Aadhar, or unique identification system based on biometric information. Clause 3 of the same chapter mentions “leveraging aadhaar for unique identification with biometric information of entitled beneficiaries for proper targeting under this Act.” The main problem of corruption in the PDS is not impersonation — which is what the UID seeks to address — but diversion and leakages to private traders. The technology is admittedly prone to serious errors. In India, a country with a large number of manual labourers, it has been estimated that the error could go up to 15 to 20 per cent. To make food security rights conditional on biometric proof would be to use another instrument of exclusion.
Positive features
There are some positive features in the Bill including the inclusion of the mid-day meal scheme in its ambit. There are good provisions for nutritional guarantees in the form of a cooked meal for pregnant and lactating women, including for mothers for six months after childbirth. These are universal free-of-cost benefits. There are other schemes proposed for community kitchens for destitute persons, for migrant workers and special provisions for groups or communities identified as victims of starvation. However, disabled persons are once again left out.
But where will the funds come from? According to the Bill, the entire payment for all these free schemes proposed by the Central government will have to be made by the State government. Since the largest number of poor people reside in precisely those States where there are very limited resources, expecting the State governments to bear the huge expenditures is unjust and unfair. Already the Right to Education legislation is facing serious hurdles, one of these being the lack of resources at the State level. The Food Bill will become a victim of the same lack of resources syndrome if the present framework for expenses is not drastically changed.
The government's desire to get out of public provisioning and the fiscal conservatism underlying the rejection of a universal PDS, and on the contrary the urge to cut entitlements and beneficiaries, are the Bill's key macroeconomic foundations. This was the experience with the Rural Employment Guarantee and the Forest Rights Bills also, but those were quite radically improved because of the intervention of the Left parties. With their parliamentary strength reduced and with the NAC seemingly willing to compromise on fundamental issues, clearly a hard struggle lies ahead to ensure any pro-people amendments in the Bill.
(Brinda Karat is a member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India – Marxist.)
Keywords: Food Security Bill, cash transfers, PDS, subsidies, state allocation
The argument that 35Kg for family is better than 7kg per individual is flawed. A household which has more children are more likely to be poor than a smaller household. Those household which is larger will now get more rice for example a household of 6 people will now get 42Kg, and can free up some fund for education of these kids insteadThe agricultural sector,employing the largest number of people in India produces the least output.A law is a law in real sense only if actually provides benefit to the common people.The food security act must cover a wider range of society with some scope of transitions in it along with time.Yes, I agree that National Food Security Bill requires drastic changes. According to this Bill in order to provide subsidised food grain, population say in rural India will have to be divided into three categories - priority, general and excluded. Even the drafters of the Bill are unable to identify in their native villages who will come in the priority.....
i stromgly feel we should stop pampering ppl and follow chinese model of helping an individual stand on his own feet and contribute to the nation by providing oppurtunities rather than give them everything and make them lazy.plz note that labour cost has increased and labor shortage is created after introducing these schemes and farmer it the one loosing on both ways
Brinda ji,
1. I see no logic why cash-transfers should not be done. Also, your mention that UID Adhar can only control 'impersonation' but not 'leakages and the diversions ', is not logical.
2. I think we need some structural changes in the PDS (eg. instead of the dealer, SHGs should be roped in for end distribution, coupled with RFIDs and UID should be able to handle the siphoning to a reasonable extent. Restructuring the decaying PDS system is more important before pushing more funds through the leaky system.
3. As we struggle to reduce the fertility rate, I think it would be appropriate to link the benefits to the number of children in the family too. We should not incentivize high fertility rate.
4. However, I agree that the issue of cutoffs for the poverty lines is insensitive.
Distribution Dry Rations through PDS has been a disaster. The same man/women who were seen crowding Ramlila maidan and shouting slogan against corruption are the one who are in the forefront of leakage and diversion of PDS rations into the open market. The blame game between the centre and the states have made those thieves to flourish. I see no reason as to why govt should not revert to cash transfer directly into the bank or post office accounts of the women heads of the family based on the UID.Biometric identtification is the only way to curb corrupt practices to stop leakages in PDS. What ever the short comings let the bill be passed in this session only. Amendments as applicable can be brought later.
Why do we have a single below poverty line. What will happen to someone who falls above poverty line, just because he earns one rupee more then the limit? We should have multiple poverty lines like the slabs for taxation. So that the PDS quota would also apply to the people who fall above the poverty line, but are still poor.
Introducing cash transfer scheme to the targeted beneficiaries in lieu of their foodgrain entitlements will make looting more easier for our politicians.I think it is not a prudent decision asking the State Governments to bear all these huge expenditures,sharing between central and state governments may be better.
The agricultural sector,employing the largest number of people in India produces the least output.A law is a law in real sense only if actually provides benefit to the common people.The food security act must cover a wider range of society with some scope of transitions in it along with time. Each and every law needs transition along with the passage of time.However,it is the prime responsibility of the govt. to see that the transition is constructive and innovative.
i would think giving cash subsidies instead of providing grains is a great step forward. it will avoid uneeligible persons from getting state benefits. The argument that giving more grains to large families is like punishing the people with small families especialy in place like kerala, is extremely weird. Grain subsidy is to ensure that people do not starve and so it should be based on the number of mouths to feed.
The argument that 35Kg for family is better than 7kg per individual is flawed. A household which has more children are more likely to be poor than a smaller household. Those household which is larger will now get more rice for example a household of 6 people will now get 42Kg, and can free up some fund for education of these kids instead.
The second flaw of unnecessary bloating the poverty with no commensurate capacity built up based on the agriculture production levels in India also does not do any good. Instead the qty should be linked to the buffer stock divided by the total number of BPL households. Govt should be duty bound to increase the buffer stock over years and hence improve the qty of rice available per BPL household.
Poverty has to be linked to the cost of living and revenue earned per household and has no implication on state. Hence a uniform and universal calculation methodology should be adopted and should not be left to the states to tamper it with eye on election.
There are two important clauses of interests in the present context In the National Food Security Bill, 2011, namely: br/> Under Right to food security - Right to access of food security -- 4. Every person shall have physical, economic and social access, at all times, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, sufficient and safe food, which ensures an active and healthy life.
Rate for priority households -- 24. The state government shall provide priority households whether rural or urban a minimum of 7kg of food grains per person per month, at a price not exceeding Rs. 3 per kg for rice, Rs. 2 per kg of wheat and Rs. 1 per kg for millet at 2010-11 rates . The two clauses are rarely achieved under the present agriculture scenario but serve as superlative words to catch the eye of the readers. In the first clause, firstly, food produced under chemical inputs and/or under genetically modified seeds is not 'safe food'. They are highly health hazard foods as discussed in the above section. Secondly, with a fixed quota per person, we cannot call it as 'adequate'. Thus, thirdly, there is no way to achieve 'active and healthy life'. In the second clause, there was no criterion to limit the purchase of rice or wheat or millets. Unless it is specified like two kg of millet, two kg of wheat and two kg of rice minimum, no body go for healthy millets but everybody choose unhealthy wheat or/and rice produced under chemical input technology. The recent UN report coincidently the Dr. Manmohan Singh's speech indicates future is in this direction.
I think cash transfer is better option than that of providing foodgrains at low cost because in some area foodgrains are directly sold to private market.Also there is no case of pretention food shortage in case of cash transfer
Yes, I agree that National Food Security Bill requires drastic changes. According to this Bill in order to provide subsidised food grain, population say in rural India will have to be divided into three categories - priority, general and excluded. Even the drafters of the Bill are unable to identify in their native villages (forget India) who will come in the priority category and who will come in the general category? According to the Bill, there is no provision to identify who will be excluded from the third category?
This article place nicely and objective view of the author. I thank Brinda jee to make us aware about bills advantages and loopholes in constructive way. I appreciate this approach from our political leadership.
Brinda,in Hindu lead article,has mentioned anamolies in proposed Food security bill, to be placed in the Parliament.It is horrible that centre is yet to determine list of BPL\APL in the country.Firstly,the centre, with cooperation of states, should prepare actual list of BPL\APL people in country through a fact-finding mission with teams of dedicated employees.Thereafter, centre should provide modalities for facilities to people, who are yet to get required minimum foodgrains, resulting in starvation, hunger, malnutritions deaths etc!Surprisingly, bill has given overiding power to centre for implementing proposed Food security Act while the states have all responsibilities to feed their people to save them!If list of BPL\APL people are prepared, the country will have more than 70 to 80 percent families, who are suffering lack of adequate food.Once in 1950s, Pundit Nehru had said death of even a single person of starvation is direct responsibility of centre!www.kksingh1.blogspot.com
In an atmosphere of rising inflation pressure the idea of food security provides a relief to poor. but the burden of such huge project completely over state government can put the continuation of project under question, particularly for poor states. union government should take necessary steps for cost sharing of the project.
Ms. Karat should have taken the anomalies to the notice of the government. Why was not the opinion of the opposition parties sought before drafting the bill? Being a poverty alleviation aimed programme, necessary amendments can be made consulting all the opposition parties.
mainly this bill concerned with those BPL famlies. So are they consulted intensely? Government should consider public opinions and consent,the bill should be widely delineated to public,then only they should introduce it in parliament
You didn't explain what is wrong with cash-transfers apart from calling it 'neo-liberal'. The fact that The World Bank has recommended something does not automatically mean it is bad. More than 50% of the money spent on PDS is wasted. What is the point of spending money on this huge administrative apparatus and corruption/leakage when this money could be directly transferred to poor people through cash transfers?
I appreciate the deficiencies in the bill and hope parliament will pass it with the intention to pass on the real benefits to poor without any discrimination in what ever form. The important thing to be noted is that the welfare state has become a media to pass on only residual economic benefits to poor instead of taking the economic policies towards making the state without poor. All policies particularly economic policies after so called liberalization are supporting rich to become rich and just to avoid any rebelliousness among the poor such measures are being taken.Thus such policies should not be praised but need to be opposed. Just taking a plea that we cannot avoid the rich becoming rich and poor need to be protected some how, will not help or harm in long run as the criteria and reaching actual benefits will always be in disputes.
Please Email the Editor