K A L E I D O S C O P E

prime concern
UPA-II ORDINANCE
Will food security gamble work?
The govt has finally taken the plunge on food security. It may be a step in the right direction, but there are concerns it comes at a time when the country is struggling for resources. Political opposition, identification of beneficiaries, and disbursal through a porous PDS will not make it any easier.
By Vibha Sharma
National food security, the much-anticipated “game changer” of the UPA-II for the general election, is on the roll. Riding roughshod over objections aired by the Left and the Right, the Congress-led UPA this week concluded that it had to be now or never if the ruling coalition wanted to reap the benefits of the 2009 poll sop in 2014.

prime concern
UPA-II ORDINANCE
Will food security gamble work?
The govt has finally taken the plunge on food security. It may be a step in the right direction, but there are concerns it comes at a time when the country is struggling for resources. Political opposition, identification of beneficiaries, and disbursal through a porous PDS will not make it any easier.
By Vibha Sharma

National food security, the much-anticipated “game changer” of the UPA-II for the general election, is on the roll. Riding roughshod over objections aired by the Left and the Right, the Congress-led UPA this week concluded that it had to be now or never if the ruling coalition wanted to reap the benefits of the 2009 poll sop in 2014.

Significantly, while the propaganda machinery of the government is working overtime to create the necessary buzz about the measure which offers grains at Rs 3, Rs 2 and Re 1 for rice, wheat and coarse grain, respectively, its financial managers have very smartly ensured a three-year cap on these rates. This means these rates would be valid for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the Act and thereafter “suitably linked to the minimum support price”. According to official sources, this very important clause has been introduced to offset extra burden on the exchequer, expected with subsequent increases in the support prices.

Political calculations

About two weeks ago, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had asked his senior ministers to hold consultations with the Opposition to “evolve wider consensus” on Congress president Sonia Gandhi's dream project and clear it through a special session. However, to counter any further stalling of the Bill by the Opposition in Parliament through further amendments, Congress managers decided that the ordinance path was the best route, especially with just a few months to go for the elections. Normally, an ordinance is a power used in an emergency or exigency.

Senior Congress leader Ajay Maken says his party waited for four years for the Bill. “The Bill is still alive (in Parliament). We are not running away from a discussion,” he contends.

In a country where starvation deaths are common, children in the age group of six months to 14 years will be entitled to meals.

On why the appointed government functionaries did not even bother to hold a single meeting with Opposition leaders, as promised, he remarked: “Brinda Karat (CPM) and Prakash Javadekar (BJP) are not the only two Opposition parties.” Clearly, the PM-appointed consensus-building committee made no effort in this direction. Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde had already concluded that in the given circumstances it would not be feasible.

Moreover, the Congress is riding high on the warm vibes from NDA's estranged ally, the JD (U), and friend-turned-foe-turned-friend DMK, and has its numbers all worked out. Keeping in mind the political compulsions, the dissenting allies — the NCP, RLD and NC — have also fallen in line. This is the reason why the grand old party is not much concerned about rumblings from the Samajwadi Party, which provides it support from the outside and calls the Bill “anti-farmer”.

Maken, who insists on its social benefits and slams the Opposition for stalling discussion on the Bill in the monsoon session, is clear: “For any political party it is important that it fulfils its poll promise. Our credibility will increase. People will judge us on our performance.” Clearly, the Congress needed a big bang idea like MGNREGA and farmers' loan waiver scheme to resurrect its sagging image.

The BJP, which hopes to make big gains in the next general election, finds itself in the proverbial Catch-22 situation. Party leaders know that the only way they can counter the Congress' sharp political move is on technicalities. If they stall its movement in Parliament, the message would be disastrous.

The first test of the ambitious measure will be in the Assembly elections in five states scheduled later this year, where the Congress can claim it as a demonstration of its commitment to fulfil its promise. The BJP-ruled Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh have already implemented subsidised grains scheme. The highly-acclaimed Chhattisgarh Food Security Bill will come in handy for the BJP, which is also working on a counter-strategy to reduce the damage.

In any case, states that have to implement the measure are bound to raise objections, citing lack of preparedness and poor infrastructure facilities as reasons. Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha are expected to oppose it vehemently. Following their own more ostentatious PDS programmes, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka distribute rice free of cost or at Re 1 a kg.

The logistics

The Centre allocates food grain to states at subsidised rates of Rs 5.65 per kg for rice and Rs 4.15 per kg for wheat. The states supplying them at prices lower, or free of cost, are meeting this expenditure out of their own budgets. They can continue with their programmes and also benefit from the new subsidised rates of the Centre, says Food Minister KV Thomas.

The ordinance will be in force for six months, after which the government will have to introduce a Bill to replace it within six weeks of the commencement of a Parliament session. Failure to convene a session would mean the move lapses in six months.

A lot of preparatory work is required before the ordinance can be implemented. Since the socio-economic caste census is yet to be completed, it is not clear who the main beneficiaries of the programme will be.

Thomas says states are free to follow the BPL figures provided by the Planning Commission, or its individual methodology based on socio-economic norms. “Keeping in view the wide inter-state variations in the socio-economic conditions, it was felt that any criteria evolved by the Central Government for the country as a whole may not properly reflect these diversities, and therefore invite criticism. It was also difficult to evolve a consensus with state governments over the issue of criteria to be adopted. Therefore, the work of identification is now proposed to be left to the states,” he says.

But the government is aware of the hue and cry that will emerge even from Congress-ruled states. While in the loan waiver, state-owned banks directly controlled by the Union Finance Ministry were the implementing agencies, in this case, states will be directly controlling the implementation. The Centre has left the implementation deadline with the states.

While the ordinance provides that the states complete the identification of beneficiaries within 180 days after commencement, the period may “differ from state to state”, a government statement concedes. It says the actual identification of the households within the coverage has to be carried out by the states in accordance with the guidelines to be evolved or specified by them.

The states will, therefore, be required to first evolve suitable criteria for identification and then undertake the actual work. Allocation and distribution of food grain under the Act can take place only after the identification is complete. Political parties and a vast landscape are only going to make it tougher.

Besides concerns of effective distribution, there are fears that the ambitious plan to deliver grains at throw-away prices will lead to more corruption in the already porous PDS. The grain will be procured by state agencies, but if the leakages are not plugged, it will find its way to the open market. An assured procurement may also affect the choice of crops grown by farmers.

Another concern is that the beneficiaries will get 25 kg food grain every month whereas in the existing PDS, a family already gets 35 kg a month. Thomas explains that only one-fourth of the total estimated households at present have fixed entitlement of 35 kg per family per month, while the Bill will give legal entitlement to receive 5 kg of food grain per month to about 67 per cent of the population. Within this coverage, entitlement of Antodaya Anna Yojana households, which constitute the poorest of the poor, is being protected at 35 kg per household per month.

The civil society is upset that the programme does not address nutritional needs and does not include pulses and edible oil. The government says the procurement infrastructure is not as strong for pulses and oilseed. Besides, in the absence of an assured overall domestic availability of these commodities and weak procurement operations, it is not possible to confer a legal right for their supply.

The Left wants the provision to be universal, but the government says it is impossible. If the entire population is given the benefits, 72.6 million tonnes will have to be procured, which is not feasible to meet with the current levels of production and procurement.

More burden

In all, 75 per cent of the rural population and up to 50 per cent of the urban population will have uniform entitlement of 5 kg food grain per month at highly subsidised prices. The question is whether the apparatus of the country is geared up to take the challenge of increasing population and stress on financial and natural resources vis-à-vis depleting levels of groundwater in food-growing states like Punjab and Haryana. The clause on rate revision will offset the extra burden on the government, but what about the anticipated rise in population?

The government has already provided Rs 90,000 crore in this financial year for the food subsidy Bill. Last year, it was Rs 85,000 crore. The remaining money will come from the merger with the existing schemes. Midday meal will add Rs 13, 214 crore and the Integrated Child Development Scheme Rs 17,700 crore. The additional burden will only be of Rs 23,794 crore. “Rs 5.55 lakh crore is our annual budget. An additional Rs 23,794 crore will have no affect on the financial management or fiscal deficit of the country,” Thomas says.

The Food Minister is also confident of production and procurement. The annual production of the country is 212-213 MT, out of which the government procures 30 per cent for the PDS. The annual requirement for the legal right to food will be 61.2 MT. The average annual procurement for the past four years has been 60.2 MT. In the time of a natural calamity, drought or war, the government will disburse cash in lieu of food grain.

Right noises

The right to food ordinance is the biggest intervention by any country. Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food who is currently in India to gain experience of legislative procedures on this aspect, calls this endeavour a “historic event”. “I am encouraged to see the dedication towards the right to food and setting the standards,” says De Schutter who will be presenting a report to the UN General Assembly after comparing legislative experiences in various countries. “Reports based on these country missions demonstrate the transformative potential of the right to food,” he adds.

India now joins the select group implementing such a provision. Right to food is a human right recognised under international law which protects the right of all humans to feed themselves in dignity, either by producing their food or by purchasing it. Many countries have given constitutional protection to the right to food, he says. These include China, Vietnam, South Africa and Mexico. “It is a battle that must be fought and won. It may cost money to treat hunger, but how much?” is his argument in its favour.

While the Congress blames the BJP for disrupting the monsoon session and not allowing the important pro-poor move through, BJP leaders say had the government really wanted to follow the democratic Parliament move, it would have conceded to their demand on Ashwani Kumar and Pawan Bansal.

The problem obviously is with the Congress hogging all the brownie points. The Left wants to move amendments for universalisation of the scheme. Experts believe that in countries where administrative capabilities are questionable, a universal scheme may give people better protection than the targeted scheme. “Targeted people have to be adequately identified,” they say.

The BJP wants the government to study the “much better system” followed by the Raman Singh government in Chhattisgarh, a debate and some amendments. “There are several flaws in this Bill and we want a debate in Parliament. We want to pass the Bill with certain amendments,” BJP president Rajnath Singh says.

Biraj Patnaik, Principal Adviser to the Supreme Court on the Right to Food, says: “I think it is a small step in the right direction, but the government has missed an opportunity of passing a historic legislation that the world would have celebrated and learnt from. India's poor deserved more.”

Long wait

The 2009 poll promise of the UPA has taken four years to see the light of the day. The long and tedious journey was mired with obstacles from outside and also within. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2011, where it went through the rigours of the Standing Committee and is still awaiting discussions.

Thomas says soon after the President made the announcement in 2009, the Centre wrote to the states about the proposal and constituted an empowered group of ministers under Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, who was then also the Food Minister. The high-level group, which included the Finance Minister, met several times to thrash out the parameters. The Sonia Gandhi-led national Advisory Committee also gave its inputs.

While most non-Congress states opposed the measure, protesting the burden on their non-existent infrastructure, the biggest hurdle for the Bill proved to be Pawar and even the Finance Ministry and the Planning Commission. The then Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who as the President signed the ordinance, had observed: “As the Finance Minister, when I think of the huge subsidies to be provided, I lose my sleep.”

Sources said Pawar's unceremonious exit from the Food Ministry was meant to pave the way for Sonia-loyalist Thomas so that her pet project could see the light of the day. Pawar's opposition to the Bill on the basis of some hard economic facts cost him his portfolio. His main concerns were its legal bindings, poor economics vis-à-vis India's skyrocketing subsidy bill and limitations on fronts like capacities of mandis, financial position of state agencies, manpower, quality control mechanism and storage.

“I will be failing in my duty if I do not emphasise the fact that the Food Security Act will never succeed in achieving its goal if we try to push the same through the existing PDS apparatus,” he had said. His concern was reflected in his statement: “Even at the level of operation, the railways are finding it difficult to handle the movement. The massive programme to enhance food grain output would require huge investments in irrigation, power and fertilisers.”

Grey areas and confusion remain, but with emerging political compulsions, it was smooth sailing at the Cabinet meeting that cleared the ordinance.

Ambitious reach

• Covers 75 per cent of rural and 50 per cent of urban population.
• Rs 3, Rs 2, Re 1 per kg for rice, wheat and coarse grains, respectively, for three years from the day of commencement of the Act; to be linked to the MSP thereafter.
• Meals and maternity benefits for pregnant and lactating mothers.
• The eldest woman of a household of age 18 years or above to be the head of the household for issuance of ration card.
• Grievance redress mechanism to be set up by states.
• Vigilance committees to ensure transparency and accountability.
• Food security allowance in case of non-supply of entitled food grain.
• Provisions for penalty on public servant or authority in case of failure to comply.