People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
Vol. XXXVI
No. 01 January 01, 2012 |
FOOD
SECURITY BILL Pushing
Reforms on the Back of Hunger Brinda
Karat THE
Food Security Bill 2011, introduced in parliament and sent
for the
consideration of the standing committee, will provide legal
sanction to the
very policies which have led to the present situation of
widespread hunger and
malnutrition. Some of the issues in the bill are (1) Narrow
targeting, categorisation
and definitions (2) Conditional entitlements (3) Extreme
centralisation and
violation of states rights’ (4) Expenditures and cost
sharing. INCREASED
TARGETING
While
experience has shown that targeting policies for food
security are counter-productive,
the present bill adds new categories of targeting. Indeed
the bill is a classic
example of the absurd levels to which policies of targeting
can reach and the
extent of social cruelty embedded in a targeted framework. (3) Excluded Sections: There is a third
category which has been
introduced, for the first time, in the public distribution
system. The Bill
mandates the exclusion of 25 per cent of the population of
rural (4) BPL Census Automatic Exclusions Category:
However, there is yet
another exclusion, the fourth exclusion, which may occur.
The questionnaire of
the BPL census has already defined the categories of those
sections which would
lead to an automatic exclusion. The questions themselves are
highly
problematic. But assume that the numbers reached through
this exercise do not
add up to 50 per cent of the population in urban areas or
even 25 per cent in
rural areas, which is what is required in the Food Security
Act. Then what will
occur is a fourth exclusion category to make up the gap
between the two, the
arbitrary exclusion percentage requirement of the Bill on
the one hand, and the
actual numbers identified through the BPL census on the
other. Apart from the ethical issues arising
out of arbitrary exclusions from
what should be recognised as the universal right of food
security, even from a
purely economic and administrative point of view, the
multiple levels of
categorisations will lead to added expenditures, guaranteed
leakages and
increased corruption. ABSURDITIES IN DEFINITIONS The definitions section in the bill
further expose the folly of targeting
. In the section on “special groups” there are provisions
for further
affirmative action for some sections. But how are these
defined? Persons living
in starvation are to get two free meals a day once they are
so identified by
the state government. Starvation has been defined in Chapter
1 Clause 2 (24) as
"prolonged involuntary deprivation of food that threatens
the very
survival of the person.” But who will decide when survival
is threatened? At
present, even after a person has died due to starvation,
official medical teams
prompted by governments declare the person had died due to
some other ailment.
There is rarely an acknowledgement of a starvation death.
Then again, what will
happen to the semi-starving? Will they have to wait till
they come into the
category of starvation to get the benefit? Another example
is that of
“destitution.” In the bill in Ch III Clause 8 (a) a destitute person
“shall be entitled to at
least one meal every day” — so there is a differentiation
being made in the
benefits for those in starvation and those in destitution.
While the former is
entitled to two free meals, the latter gets only one. This
absurdity is taken
further in the definition of a destitute person. In Ch 1,
Clause 2 (3)
destitute persons are those who "have no resources, means
and support
required for food and nutrition enabling their survival, to
the extent that
makes them vulnerable to live or die of starvation." Can any
sane person
find any difference between a person in starvation whose
life is threatened by
food deprivation and a destitute who is
vulnerable to death by starvation? But World Bank trained or
indoctrinated
economists can find the subtle differences between equally
hungry people to
decide who will get two free meals and who will get only
one. These abhorrent
differentiations between equally poor and deprived sections
are fundamental to
the ideology of neo-liberalism and targeting. The logical
corollary of
targeting --- we can now have inspectors to confirm how
often people eat,
whether they are destitute or starving or whether they are
cheating the
treasury by eating two free meals when they deserve only
one. In the 1930s when the capitalist crisis
had created "the Great
Depression," free soup kitchens were run in the United
States. But at that
time no one needed a card to prove that they were hungry, it
was assumed that
only those in need would stand in the queue for free food.
Even that
sensitivity gets eliminated in the present dominant
philosophy of
neo-liberalism where targeting and cuts in subsidies in
welfare schemes has
become the mantra of governments. In a country with the highest
malnourished population in the world, free
meals to a small number are an inadequate response. What is
required to prevent
starvation and hunger is universal access to cheap
foodgrains and a basket of
essential commodities. The Food Security Bill, however, does
the opposite. LINKING ENTITLEMENTS TO REFORMS The Food Security Bill has an additional
provision which was not there
in the earlier drafts. Even the reduced entitlements for APL
sections have been
made conditional to the reform process. Ch II Clause 3(3)
states,
"Provided that the entitlements of those belonging to the
general
households shall be linked to such reforms in the public
distribution system
and from such date as may be prescribed by the central
government." In a
new chapter VII entitled ‘Reforms in the Public Distribution
System,’ the central
government details eight reforms of which the most toxic are
the
"introduction of schemes such as cash transfer, food coupons
or other
schemes for targeted beneficiaries in lieu of foodgrains;"
and "use
of aadhar for
unique identification
with biometric information for proper targeting." Thus
contentious policy
measures which are against the interests of the people are
sought to be legalised
on the back of the Food Security Bill. This is a highly
objectionable strategy
which amounts to using the Food Security Bill to blackmail
states to accept the
so-called reforms or else be held responsible and guilty of
depriving the APL
households of their entitlements. LEGAL SANCTION FOR BOGUS POVERTY ESTIMATES In any case, how has the government
arrived at the percentages of BPL
and APL that it wants included as the law? Contrary to media
hype, there is no
change in government policy regarding estimations of
poverty, nor is there any
delinking between the Planning Commission’s bogus estimates
and poverty
“quotas” given to the states as promised by the prime
minister in response to
the public outrage against the government affidavit in the
Supreme Court case.
Chapter V1 Clause 15(1) states, “The central government may
from time to time
prescribe the guidelines for identification for priority
households, general
households and exclusion criteria for the purposes of
entitlements under this
Act and notify such guidelines in the official gazette.” The
next provision 15
(2) gives responsibility to the state governments to
identify these sections
“in accordance with the guidelines” but here again the
central linkage is made
“provided that no household falling under the exclusion
criteria to be
prescribed by the central government, shall be included
either in the priority
households or general households.” Further, in Clause 17, in
case the state government
wants to update the lists it has no right to do so and such
updating can only
be done “in a manner prescribed by the central government.”
Thus the present highly objectionable
method used by government to
distribute poverty quotas to the states is sanctioned by the
law itself. The
notorious 26 rupees a day destitution line used for
calculating BPL in rural
India and 32 rupees for urban India remains as the anchor
for the various
categories, with the government arbitrarily increasing it by
a certain
percentage as a "compromise." ENCROACHMENTS ON STATES’ RIGHTS If the government has learnt any lessons
from it's attempts to
steamroller the rights of states in the Lokpal Bill, then it
should revise the
even more blatant encroachments it has made in the food
security bill. Under
the Food Security Bill the central government has
appropriated all rights in
deciding a slew of issues in violation of the federal
structure. In as many as
20 clauses the words "…..as may be prescribed by the central
government
have been used." Everything,
from
deciding poverty quotas, to the amount of food security
allowance, to the
qualifications of even the district level griveance officer
working under the
state government, to when and how wheat flour can be given
instead of grain,
all is to be decided by the central government. The
centralised thrust of the
bill is illustrated well in Ch XV titled Miscellaneous in
Clause 46 which
states." The central government may from time to time give
such directions
as it may consider necessary, to the state governments for
the effective
implementation of the provisions of the Act and the state
governments will
comply with such directions.".....Such is the commitment of
this government
to push through reforms that it does not maintain even the pretence
of consultations with the states,
many of whom are running much
better
food security programmes than those envisaged in this Act. ISSUE OF EXPENDITURES Equally objectionable, as far as rights
of states are concerned, the
bill has no provision for consultation with the states as
far as cost sharing
is concerned. The expenditures for the states are going to
be quite
substantial. But even as far as foodgrains supplies are
concerned, while the
state governments are mandated by the bill to pay the food
allowance the bill
includes a provision in Ch X clause 31 which allows the
centre to substitute
food grains supplies with payment to the states. This means
that the state
would have the responsibility to purchase the foodgrains but
there is no
guarantee in the bill that the central government would meet
the full cost. The
states are mandated to fulfil all the schemes including the
supply of free
meals or rations to special groups. However, the centre
according the Clause
30(4) in Ch X will charge the states prices equivalent to
the price given for
BPL grain. In both these provisions the state governments
are expected to
subsidise the central scheme from their funds. As a postscript, the bill has a special
"gift" tucked away in
the last section under Clause 52. This provision states that
if there is a
natural calamity which leads to failure of supply of
foodgrains then neither
the central government nor the state government, as the case
may be, can be
held liable. The list of conditions where there is no
liability includes floods
and drought. Since large parts of India are perennially
affected by conditions
of floods or
drought or sometimes both
in different regions of the same state, the law
to ensure food security will be suspended precisely
at the time when
people will need it the most, when blackmarketeers and
profiteers are out to
make profits from the vulnerability of the affected
population. The government
has no liability in these conditions,
and in the non-secular language of the bill, any
other "acts of
God." CONCLUSION The Congress spin masters have
propagated the bill as the "pet bill"
of the UPA chairperson Mrs Sonia Gandhi. If indeed it is so,
it only shows that
contrary to media creations, the UPA chairperson is very
much in sync with the
neo-liberal framework of the Manmohan Singh government,
which is why such a
deeply flawed bill should be flaunted with her stamp of
approval. The bill in
its present form is unacceptable. Concrete amendments should
be moved before
the standing committee and a widespread campaign launched to
explain to the
people the fraud being perpetrated on them in the name of
food security.
So
far there have been three categories
for targeting for food access in the PDS, namely the APL,
BPL and Antodaya. The
last category was carved out from the BPL population with an
added price
advantage of 35 kg of rice at two rupees a kilo. The present
bill eliminates
the Antodaya category. Henceforth all the 2.5 crore Antodaya
families will come
under the BPL category and will have to pay one rupee a kilo
more for rice
which has been pegged in the new bill at three rupees. Thus
for these 2.5 crore
families the present version of food security means an added
cost of 35 rupees
a kilo per month.
ARBITRARY
CATEGORISATION
The
bill has the following
categories:
(1) BPL:
The first category
is the BPL category renamed as the “priority sections.”
These sections are
eligible for 7 kg of foodgrains per person (it is not clear
whether a child is
considered a person under this definition), if it is rice it
will cost three
rupees a kilo and wheat at two rupees a kilo, millets or
coarse grains at one
rupee a kilo.
The
number of BPL households at the
national level is declared in the law to constitute 46 per
cent of the
population in rural
(2) APL:
The second category is the APL category renamed the
“general sections.” The
Bill declares these sections to constitute 29 per cent in
rural areas and 22
per cent in urban areas. This is less than the number of
APL cardholders today.
Therefore a substantial section of APL
cardholders will be excluded by law. Those who manage to
retain their APL cards
will get only 3 kg of foodgrains per person. Assuming a
family of five members,
the bill provides a maximum of only 15 kg of foodgrains
which is less than what
the APL sections are getting now. The price will be 50 per
cent of what the minimum
support price (MSP) is at any given time. Since MSP
increases every year
because of the increase in the prices of farm inputs, APL
sections will lose
the advantage of the fixed price they have today and will
have to contend with
an increased price every year. Therefore, in terms of
numbers, price benefit
and amount of grain, APL sections stand to lose their
present entitlements.
There is another highly objectionable new provision, which
will be dealt with
later in this analysis — namely, even the reduced
entitlements of the APL
sections are linked to the implementation of reforms.