National Food Security Bill makes a mockery of the idea of Food security.

National Food Security Bill makes a mockery of the idea of Food security.

The draft of National Food Security Bill has been approved by the Union Cabinet recently.

The 27-page-long draft Bill placed on the website steers clear of defining who live below poverty line (BPL) terming them—'priority households'—and guarantees subsidized food grain to them as well as to other poor families classified as 'general households.'

It seeks to empower the Centre to issue guidelines from time to time defining the priority households and those who are excluded from the category, with a proviso that those in the exclusion criteria cannot have the facility extended to it by state governments.

The draft also envisages cash transfer or food coupons to these two sections in lieu of their food grain entitlements, which are fixed at 7 kg per head per month for the priority households and 3 kg per head per month for the general households.

The rates proposed are Rs 3, Rs 2 and Re1 per kg for rice, wheat and coarse grains respectively in case of the priority households and at 50 per cent of the minimum support price in case of others.

The draft Bill promises to provide subsidized food grains to 75 per cent of the rural population, 46 per cent of which will be the priority households and 50 per cent of the urban population, including 28 per cent in the priority category, through the targeted public distribution system (TPDS).

It envisages that the eldest woman in the family will be the head of the household and the ration card will be issued in her name except for cases where no female of more than 18 years is present in the family.

Although the Bill is supposed to ensure the food security to the people, the draft goes on to promise even other things like access to safe drinking water, health care and adequate pension to senior citizens, disabled and single women.

The expert committee on Food Security Bill has submitted its report. The committee has said that the National Advisory Council (NAC) recommendations had large subsidy implications and could also lead to distortion of food prices.

Therefore, the committee has said, it will not be possible to implement NAC recommended food entitlements.

Instead, the committee has recommended assured delivery of wheat at Rs 2 per kg and rice at Rs 3 per kg.

The committee has also said that the entitlement should be for really needy households and the coverage for the rest should be through executive order.

The legally entitled population recommended by the expert committee is the same as recommended by NAC.

The committee has estimated the food grain subsidy in phase-I at Rs 68,539 crores and total subsidy in phase-I at Rs 83,000 crore.

The Food Security Bill finalized by a Group of Ministers should not be accepted by Parliament in its present form.

The 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.

This draft Bill makes a complete mockery of the idea of food security for all and dilutes even existing entitlements obtained through the Supreme Court.

It was expected by the Aam Aadmi that his UPA Sarkar will increase investment in the schemes related to food security, in order to reduce the unacceptably high rates of malnutrition and hunger in India.

Instead what we get is a draft which minimizes government's obligations, restricts people's entitlements and is devoid of any accountability. The Bill interprets food security only as distribution of cereals and cooked meals and is completely silent on pulses, millets and oil.

In spite of overwhelming evidence showing the failure of the BPL approach, the draft Bill continues to make a differentiation between those above and below the poverty line.

First, it cuts down on the number of eligible households. Second, the Bill ignores the State government estimations of BPL families. The poverty line itself is too low and does not represent the extent of hunger in the country. The problems related to identification and exclusion errors are well known.

One of the main 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.”

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 surprising that how the NAC members have accepted such a flawed policy.

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 insult to human dignity and shows an utter lack of social conscience. Also, it is not 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.”  Thus the cash transfer scheme is made mandatory. The State governments are given no choice.

This idea of dismantling the PDS with Cash Transfers should be opposed strongly. This shall give the government unlimited powers to provide a “food security allowance” in cash in lieu of PDS entitlements, it also makes it mandatory (under the “Provisions for Advancing Food Security”) for the government to “strive for...  introducing scheme of cash transfers in lieu of entitlements.”

These provisions are opening the door to a wholesale replacement of the PDS with cash transfers, without any safeguards

Cash transfers and their impact on farmers and food security:

The introduction of cash transfers in place of PDS will not just affect household food security but also affect production, procurement and storage systems.

Those affected the most will be the farmers as the government will not procure grain as it will not need to run the PDS shops. The farmers will not get their MSP which is currently their biggest incentive to grow cereals. They will also be left to the market to sell their grains, which they may have to do at low prices. FCI godowns will not be required and the FCI in the long run will be left as a completely skeletal system. This will lead to the end of the nation’s food security.

It is apprehended that the dismantling of the PDS is being done deliberately to pave the way for the entry of organized retail into the country.

Giving cash without ensuring proper food availability is putting people at the mercy of food retailer sharks and cartels. We see the replacement of food grains with cash in conjunction with the decision of your government to raise the FDI limit for international capital in the retail business. This could lead to a bigger retail corruption than the supposed leakages in the PDS, apart from putting farmers at risk.

Positive features

There are some positive features in the Bill viz. 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 the key question is - 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 numbers of poor people reside in 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.