Food Security Act: A lesson from Chhattisgarh? - YES/NOT

Food Security Act: A lesson from Chhattisgarh? - YES
Reetika Khera 

A year after the Centre tabled a National Food Security Bill, on December 21, the Chhattisgarh Government enacted the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act (CFSA) which, in some ways, is better than the Centre’s Bill

The CFSA covers the public distribution system, school meals, anganwadis (including take-home rations for pregnant/lactating women and children under three) and free meals for the destitute and homeless. It excludes 10 per cent of households from the PDS.

The rest are divided into three groups: Antyodaya, Priority and General. Unlike the Central Bill, the size of these groups has not been capped artificially.

Antyodaya and priority households get 35 kg of grain at Rs 1-2/kg. Taking a cue from States such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra and Himachal Pradesh, the CFSA guarantees 2 kg of pulses at Rs 5-10/kg, an essential source of protein.

Notable features of the CFSA include: One, sensible use of technology (for example, full computerisation of PDS); two, greater transparency (public scrutiny of all records) and three, strengthening accountability (public institutions such as Gram Panchayats have priority in running ration outlets).

These reforms, in place since 2004 in Chhattisgarh, have yielded good results: Estimated diversion of PDS grain fell from half in 2004-05 to 10 per cent in 2009-10.

The CFSA comes at a time when the Centre appears on the verge of reneging on its promise of a National Food Security Act in favour of cash transfers. Doublespeak and confusion on the issue abound: While the Food Minister stated in Parliament that the failed Kotkasim kerosene cash transfer model will be applied to food in six Union Territories and Puducherry, other senior Congress leaders continue to deny this.

The benefits of computerisation (enhanced administrative capacity, better accounting) and banking (protection from corruption) are being marketed as the “magic” of aadhar. An impression is being created, perhaps unintentionally, that aadhar will create eligibility for welfare benefits.

In fact, today, aadhar is neither necessary nor sufficient for any government benefits. From January, it will become necessary for some benefits, without being sufficient.

Setting aside political considerations, there is a strong case for such an Act: Economic and food security.

In Tamil Nadu, 60 per cent of the “poverty gap” has been wiped out due to implicit transfers through the PDS; the figure for Chhattisgarh is 40 per cent and nearly 20 per cent at the all-India level.

The case against cash-for-food is equally strong: Poorly developed banking infrastructure and markets in rural areas, inflationary pressures and so on.

The Chhattisgarh Government has other faults, but this is one lesson to learn from it.

(The author teaches economics at IIT Delhi and is currently on a fellowship at the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi.)

Food Security Act: A lesson from Chhattisgarh? No

M.R. Subramani

A few months ago, I had occasion to go to the ration shop to buy sugar and pulses. While making the bill, the fair price shop staff added the cost of palmolein too to it. Seeing the staff add what I had not bought, I told them that I would take that also.

The staff relented, unwillingly. Later, it became clear that such entries are made by the staff, who thereafter strike the entry and sell the product to hotels and business establishments.

It is an open secret that in Tamil Nadu that the 20 kg of rice given to those below poverty line at Re 1 a kg actually goes to hotels and road-side eateries.

Food Ministry officials can narrate stories of how foodgrains meant for the public distribution system (PDS) get diverted to hotels or even as animal feed.

It is such misuse of the PDS that makes one oppose measures such as the food security legislation. For instance, in Chhattisgarh, the legislation allows 7 kg of foodgrain a month for a person.

Rice will be given at Rs 3 a kg, wheat at Rs 2 a kg and coarse grains at Re 1 a kg to the identified beneficiaries. Other households will get at least 3 kg of foodgrain per head at 50 per cent of the minimum support price fixed by the Centre for the grain.

The legislation will cover at least 90 per cent of the population in the State.

Data indicates that 70 per cent of the people in Chhattisgarh depend on PDS. The numbers also throw light on the fact that 45 per cent of the population is below poverty line.

When the situation is such, why is Chhattisgarh trying to cover 90 per cent of the population through food subsidy?

Giving foodgrains at a subsidised rate to the identified section of the poor is fine, but why to the others or the other 45 per cent of the 90 per cent targeted by the Raman Singh Government?

The subsidy will cost the State nearly Rs 2,500 crore. How will the State offset that? Naturally, it will have to raise taxes on something. Wouldn’t this mean robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Allegations are galore of corruption in the execution of various welfare schemes. How will Chhattisgarh ensure that the foodgrains reach the targeted people? Has the State worked out any leak-proof mechanism?

The issue here is that the danger of the scheme being misused outweighs its benefits. Chhatisgarh might have set a wrong precedent for other States.

Such policies could end up filling the pockets of the wrong persons, especially with elections around the corner.

Chhattisgarh is a land of opportunities. Unfortunately, the development boom in the State has benefited only a chosen few.

It would have been in the fitness of things, had the State Government chosen to provide more job opportunities and ways to improve the livelihood of the people, rather than resort to a political gimmick, in the guise of a food security law.