The Human Development Report (HDR) for 2009 states that 46% of India?s children under the age of 5 are underweight. International Food Policy Research Institute?s (IFPRI) Global Hunger Index (GHI) for 2009 reports that more than 40% of India?s children are underweight. United Nations World Food Programme?s 2009 report states India is 94th among 119 countries in GHI. More than 27% of the world?s undernourished population lives in India and 43% of children (under the age of 5) are underweight. This is among the highest in the world and is much more than the global average of 25%. It is also higher than sub-Saharan Africa?s 28%. 230 million are reported to be undernourished and 1.5 million children suffer the risk of becoming under-nourished because of the increase in food price inflation. 350 million of India?s population is ?food-insecure? and 50% of world?s ?hungry? population lives in India. In May 2004, UPA-1 promised in its National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) that a medium-term strategy would be worked out in three months for food and nutrition security. Nothing happened for five years. Then in June 2009, UPA-2 promised through the President?s address to Parliament that a National Food Security Act would be passed so that every BPL family would be legislatively entitled to 25 kg of rice or wheat at Rs 3 per kg.
So far so good and there can be no dispute that something should be done about food insecurity. The debate is about what. We have been going around in circles trying to identify BPL. We have four different BPL numbers floating around, three of which use the same NSS 2004-05 data?Planning Commission?s conventional poverty number, Planning Commission?s Suresh Tendulkar number, rural development ministry?s NC Saxena number and National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector?s Arjun Sengupta number. There can be no dispute about subsidising the poor, and the National Food Security Bill, cleared by EGoM, presumes the non-poor will not be subsidised, which is why the NGO lot and Left are upset about the Bill. As beneficiaries of subsidies, given in the name of the poor but catering to the rich, why should the pampered urban middle class, the aam aadmi invariably depicted in electronic media, voluntarily give up subsidies? Instead, this opposition wants a universal food subsidy, akin to universal PDS. Other than fiscal costs, this is contrary to common sense. However, without BPL identification, the Bill is doomed. NSS-based identification won?t work. It is a census, not a survey. Data surfaces with a lag. States have a vested interest in projecting higher poverty numbers so that they obtain larger handouts.
The President?s address to Parliament talked about decentralised identification through gram sabhas and urban local bodies. That?s probably workable in rural areas, assuming gram sabhas meet. What isn?t as obvious is how this will work in urban areas. It shouldn?t be that difficult to identify a large chunk of poor?the elderly, the disabled and women-headed households. Poverty among those in working age groups should be a different proposition. Since UPA hasn?t yet figured out how to identify the poor, the Bill faces its biggest hurdle. Like NREGA under UPA-1, right to food is probably going to be UPA-2?s landmark legislation. After all, it has the approval of none less than Amartya Sen. The second problem is quasi-legal. Compared to targeted PDS and Antyodaya Anna Yojana, the Bill reduces entitlement from 35 kg to 25 kg and one shouldn?t forget there are other programmes with food components, too. NSS data shows an expected switch in consumption patterns (even among poor) away from rice and wheat. If properly implemented, 25 kg should be adequate, especially because NREGA is supposed to have boosted incomes among rural poor. However, 35 kg now seems to be a court-guaranteed minimum.
The third problem is one of implementation. PDS leakage has been documented ad nauseam, including recently by Supreme Court appointed Justice DP Wadhwa?s central vigilance committee. It is ?inefficient and corrupt? and diversion and leakage is controlled by a ?vicious cartel of bureaucrats, fair price shop-owners and middlemen.? The annual central food subsidy of Rs 28,000 crore doesn?t, therefore, benefit the poor. Every sensible economist will advocate direct conditional cash transfers, such as through food coupons. These offer choice and competition and result in efficiency and there is no reason why they cannot be implemented on pilot basis. There have been pilots. But since food coupons were first promised in UPA-1?s Budget for 2004-05, one detects a lack of seriousness, though the current Bill does mention the possibility. One gathers the EGoM will now take a relook at the Bill and, given populist pressures, may well recommend a hike to 35 kg. That doesn?t solve the problem, since the heart shouldn?t work against the brain. The bottom line is UPA has failed to introduce reforms, including in rural India.
The author is a noted economist
