Much of the developmental debate hinges on how our policies are all very well intentioned but we fail when it comes to implementation. The road to social security is literally paved with well-constructed legislation and faulty execution. As policymakers and politicians debate the whys and wherefores of a new Food Security Bill, the old hoary chestnut of just how to ensure delivery has raised its head yet again.
The Planning Commission is advocating the use of a smart card, which like a cash card issued to urban buyers would help route food subsidies directly to beneficiaries of the schemes and also help diversify the range of products from which nutrition security can be derived. For example, if a below poverty line (BPL) farmer and beneficiary of the Food Security Bill has enough grain stored at home and has no use for the monthly quota of 35 kg of rice or wheat, then the card can be used at the same fair price shops to access other items like sugar, kerosene, spices, etc.
Ultimately, this card could be expanded in order to route benefits of other social security schemes as well. It is hoped that by the application of technology the leakages in delivery could be plugged. But can technology be the saviour of failed social security programmes? There has been much technology and even more corruption in all spheres in Indian policy making.
So, will the introduction of one more card or method of identification work where all others have failed?
Naysayers abound and have very convincing arguments on why, however superior a technology is, it cannot circumvent an exploitative social system which would ensure that the poor remain deprived and state benefits never reach them. To a certain extent, these are powerful arguments and empirically backed up by our long history of dealing with failed policies. And yet, is it reason enough to give up?
My sister, who spent many years in the tribal backwoods of Jharkhand researching her PhD thesis, would recount one particular anecdote about systems and people?s response to them. A forest guard in the village where she was staying would make periodic appearances if only to forcibly snatch away poultry whenever he had guests visiting. Now ordinarily that should have made him totally unpopular among the local populace. Surprisingly though, that was not so. The reason being that the guard was the only representative of the state that the people had access to, and who chose to engage with them.
The lesson from all this, of course, is one which is not easily palatable to many. That if systems, even technologically sound systems, have to work, they have to often be implemented through exploitative systems.
However faulty the system, if it engages with the local population, there is a relationship there that has to be understood, accepted and then subverted to deliver.
One of the more successful examples of delivering on food security has been in the state of Chhattisgarh, where on the 7th of the every month, food grain is distributed in the presence of people?s representatives and officials to ensure multiple levels of scrutiny. The existing system has been subverted to deliver rather than collude in corruption.
If delivery systems have to work therefore, a realistic assessment has to be made. Not so much the technology as much as the hierarchical systems which are expected to deliver. If the public gaze is the determining factor ensuring delivery in Chhattisgarh, it could be something else in Maharashtra, and yes, there are many states where the smart card could indeed work.
nistula.hebbar@expressindia.com