Food for rumination

The New Indian Express
First Published : 30 Mar 2010 12:22:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 30 Mar 2010 12:50:53 AM IST

The question of food security in this country is back in business with the Cabinet clearing the food bill and the Supreme Court gearing up to consider a report commissioned by it on the definition of poverty and related issues. The point is simple. The Bill that will be introduced in Parliament envisages providing 25 kg of food grain at subsidised rates to the poor. But it does not define poor. The inescapable conclusion is that it will go by the eminently flawed and frequently changing official definition of poverty. The Wadhwa report, which will be considered by the court, possibly next month, makes more radical provisions. It proposes that the poor be defined as people whose income is below Rs 100 and recommends that all of them be made eligible to receive 35 kg of subsidised grain. If the Supreme Court accepts the Wadhwa report before the government passes its Bill, it will have to shoulder a much bigger subsidy burden. The number of the poor will rise by 500 million, according to estimates. The government’s financial burden — now Rs 118,525 crore — will rise by Rs 82,100 crore. There are several issues that need to be looked at.

First, activists are alleging that the government is trying to rush the bill through to pre-empt the Supreme Court, which has over the past few years passed important directions on poverty alleviation. This accusation is not entirely unfounded. Regardless of what the truth is, one thing is clear. Given the reservations expressed over the past few months — mainly the criticism that the Bill makes no advance on the existing situation — it would be completely unacceptable on the part of the government to try to ram this Bill through Parliament. It must have reasoned debate and take the nation on board before acting. If the government is in a hurry, the party should apply the brakes. Many people, especially those with a technocratic bent of mind, will castigate this ‘subsidy’ as another example of self-defeating ‘populism’. To them we make this proposition. What is undeniably unacceptable is that people remain chronically undernourished in a country that boasts exponential growth numbers. Any attempt at providing them enough to eat advances India’s case as a civilised nation. Certainly, not all populism is bad. And, anyway, if the middle classes can get freebies along with the plutocrats, why not the people at the margins?