The nine-hour debate in Lok Sabha generated more heat in the House without throwing much light on how to make the legislation more effective to benefit the poor.The Opposition made no sincere effort to get over 300 amendments to the Bill they had planned. In disarry they were, the only option for was to get the Bill passed lest in the eyes of the people they will be seen as “anti-poor.”

Food is often used as a political weapon. Politicians in this country are not lagging behind to raise the bogey of food security to gain mileage. The UPA Government rightly termed the Bill as “game-changer” to allure the people before the polls, while Dr Murli Manohar Joshi called it a “Vote Security Bill”. The UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi complained of being uneasy and rushed to AIIMS hospital before the voice vote.

The helplessness of the Opposition can easily be gauged from the statement of the Leader of The Opposition Sushma Swaraj: “We are supporting this half-baked Bill with the hope that we will make a better version of it when we come (to power).”

Equally was the admission of the Food Minister KV Thomas – “This is not going to be a perfect law. But once we implement it, we will be finding the loopholes and plugging those loopholes gradually.”

Hence the Opposition and the Government was in hand-in-gloves to make this Food Bill as Fodder for Election Security and not real food security for the poor.Both the Government and the Opposition did not give much Thought for Food while they had much Food for Thought while legislating the law.

Had it been so they should have insisted upon reversing the policy of acquiring farmland for non-agricultural purposes, particularly for corporate houses and unwarranted urbanization. They should have suggested measures to bring in more land under agriculture as Brazil has done, incentivising farmers to produce more, ban on inviting FDIs in food retail chains and assure procurement of their produces by local grain banks.

However the Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh did his best to modify the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resttlement Bill-2011 by incorporating 158 amendments for raising the compensation payable to farmers and consent of 80% land owners for acquisition for private projects and 70% in case of public private projects. However, fears remain for alluring farmers to sell prime lands which are essential for food security. According to official records the country has already lost 4,91,000 hectare farmland in 2006-11. The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha by almost all parties by 216 votes to 19.

The National Food Security Bill-2013, stipulates to dole out subsidised wheat at Rs 3 a kg, rice at Rs 2 a kg and coarse cereals at Rs 1 a kg per month to 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population. The Bill says that every identified poor will get 5 kg of foodgrains a month and the poorest of the poor under the Antyodaya Anna Scheme will continue to get 35 kg of foodgrains per household per month.

The basic question is – has the Government identified the “poor”? Based on the Tendulkar methodology, the Planning Commission has claimed that the poverty ratio in the country has come down from 37.2% in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10. This claim was severely contested and as a result the Government had to appoint an expert panel under the chairmanship of Dr C Rangarajan to review the estimates. Dr Ragarajan, who is also the Chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economy Advisory Council, is yet to submit his panel’s report.

Without waiting for the proper identification of the poor, Bill claims to cover 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population. It further says that the central government will determine the percentage coverage of the beneficiaries and accordingly state governments will identify these beneficiaries.

The motive of the central government is not clear. It has been guilty of fudging poverty ratio that would amount to excluding a large number of beneficiaries. While the World Bank report says that India now has a greater share of the world’s poorest than it did 30 years ago, the government on the contrary claims the poverty ratio in the country has reduced. According to the World Bank India accounts for one-third of world’s poorest people.

With a view to justify its claim the Planning Commission set the poverty line at the daily expenditure at Rs 32 in urban areas and Rs 26 in rural areas on food, education and health. It further reduced the poverty line to Rs 28.65 per capita daily consumption in cities and Rs 22.42 in rural areas. Without waiting for the Ragarajan panel report the government is adamant in claims of poverty reduction by nearly three times under the Congress-led UPA coalition rule since 2004-05 compared to 11 years before based on the contested Tendulkar formula. Even ridiculous statements have been made from time to time about survival on Rs 15 per day and a responsible minister claiming meals available at Rs 1.

In 2006, the Arjun Sengupta panel report has said that more than 85% of workers in organised sector and more than 78% of workers in the unorganised sector live with income of less than Rs 20 a day. The Government claims to have created wonders by fudging the poverty ratio within a period of 7 years!.

Fudging poverty ratio will not help in boosting the image of the Government. On nutritional aspect and mother’s healthcare, India’s report card is poor. The State of the World’s Mother’s Report-2013 says that India has the highest number of deaths of newborns on the first day of life, estimated at 309,000. UNICEF report says India has 43% of underweight children in the age group 0-5 years, which is much the average in sub-Saharan Africa at 21%. According Government’s estimates about 56,000 maternal deaths recorded in 2008 and 11.64 lakh infant deaths occurred in 2011. Neo-natal mortality rate was 31 per 1000 live births in 2011 indicating deaths of 3.1% new born babies within first month of their birth.

Rendering food security is a laudable measure, but the government needs to rightly estimate the eligible beneficiaries. Nutritional food like pulses, vegetables and cooking oil should be supplied to the poor at subsidised rates apart from rice, wheat and pulses. On the lines of mid-day meals for school children, provision for community kitchen should be made for the homeless and destitutes.

The Bill has proposed no serious measures for restructuring the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the public distribution system (PDS). Procurement of grains should be done all over the country, at the level of cluster of villages. The FCI should set up grain banks at cluster of villages to procure grains from farmers at minimum support prices (MSPs). The grains procured by the grain banks should be stored and distributed to the beneficiaries. If there is shortage in procurement, foodgrains procured by nearby grain banks can be transported at minimum cost. Such a really decentralised structure of procurement and disbursement will greatly reduce the huge storage and transportation costs and wastage which the FCI is presently incurring. Local self government bodies like panchayats and zilla parishads can be roped in for managing grain banks.

The local grain bank system of procurement, storage and disbursement will not only reduce transportation costs, but will encourage farmers in the area to produce more as they will be assured of immediate procurement by the grain banks. Wheat procurement can be the only exception as it is not grown in most parts of the country. In this case the FCI should take the responsibility of transporting wheat from surplus areas to the grain banks. (IPA Service)