Food For Thought, Thought For Food?
By Juwairia Mehkri
Despite the various criticisms barraging the Food security bill and its credibility, the fact that a majority of Indians go to bed with an empty stomach remains inescapable. When the ruling government resumed responsibility of chalking out a solution to this endemic and vicious cycle of poverty, hunger and malnutrition, much was said against the idea, its implementation model and primarily those who will be implementing it.
In retrospect, India has seen subsidies awarded in the name of poverty alleviation, employment generation and equitable food distribution. Most of these programs did see the light of the day but the end results weren’t exactly what the governments that implemented them anticipated.
Besides a host of shortcomings that the government must deal with first before they dole out the program in its entirety, one other uncertainty that echoes unanimously in every mind is this-will this program also become vulnerable to something that has earned the ruling party widespread infamy? No prizes for guessing what, Corruption!
This article attempts to decipher one aspect that was probably not delved into very deep- graft. It goes without saying that corruption has permeated every sphere, every development program that has been introduced in the country’s democratic history. What makes this scheme immune from the rampant disease, you may ask. Truth be told, this large scale utopian government undertaking puts at stake not just their existence but the whole country.
Even if the initiative projects an overly idealistic image of the government, as the critics of this bill claim, it could merely be trying to salvage their hold over the country’s governance or they live in a utopian bubble that makes them believe that alleviating poverty could solve the country’s problems overnight.
The sustainability of the bill is contingent on the resolution of certain procedural loopholes that could potentially devastate this large scale program.
Three important factors that could make or break this program are identification of beneficiaries, supply chain management and improvement of warehousing infrastructure.
Ambiguity in identification of beneficiaries makes the task of equitable distribution of subsidy all the more difficult. In fact, three points namely identification of beneficiaries, the government’s definition and understanding of poverty, the debate between universalised and targeted approach depend on one another.
To start off, all the aforementioned ambiguities create a convoluted labyrinth that only inhibits the program from reaching its final goal. The program distinguishes beneficiaries into priority and general population. The question that still remains unanswered is this- how are these categorisations made? At present, one is entitled to services under the public distribution system if one fulfils the required criteria mentioned in the clause. If the government proposes to build the new scheme using the framework of the existing public distribution system, they must completely revamp the existing PDS.
More so, if the government’s perception or understanding of poverty or the criteria that demarcates those below poverty line or above continues to remain skewed, determination of a clearly defined eligibility criterion becomes a cause for concern.
Universally implementing the program would mean that the governing body would be spared from the headache of handpicking beneficiaries but how practical would such an approach be?
On the other end of the spectrum, a targeted approach would require a clearly defined criterion for citizens to avail the subsidy, which reverts to the question of identification. Quantification and identification of population is crucial in both approaches which is to be handed over to respective states as it is cumbersome to create a uniform national criteria that can be applied to all states. But then again, awarding states the power of doling out these subsidies gives them enough upperhand to meddle with the system. A central watchdog is vital to ensure complete transparency in state level implementation.
There is a feared possibility of severe under inclusion of beneficiaries, making us repeat the same mistake we made with the ambitious public distribution system.
Direct cash transfers as a form of redressal for beneficiaries who are denied access to food grain due to certain anomalies has received mixed responses. Discounting the shortcoming that a majority of the population is functionally illiterate, this method could prove to be effective in curbing potential corruption in the implementation of the Food Security Act.
Lastly, the government ought to take a cue from the earlier food grain scams that involved either the food grains being sold in black in open markets or the subsidized food grain rotting away in warehouses while the poor lived under the assumption that there wasn’t enough food in the country to feed every belly.
India’s food grain production was at an all-time high in the year 2011-12, exceeding 259.32 million tonnes. The claim that our nation needs to import food because we are not agriculturally self-sufficient is a farce. If the public distribution system functions systematically and efficiently by plugging rampant pilferage, the dream of every Indian enjoying the right to a square meal everyday shall become reality.
Even if all these questions shall be adequately answered, one question that hangs as a sword around the scheme is this- who is to implement the program? Prevention of pilferage, meeting the target of provision of food grain to the hungry solely depends on who takes charge of the entire program.
Any government or party at the helm of affairs in this scheme carries the burden of ensuring complete transparency and accountability in order to prevent corruption from engulfing one of the largest poverty alleviation programs the world has seen.
Regardless of the scale of any program that has been undertaken in the country to improve living conditions or empowering the lesser privileged , there exists a ‘black hole’ that embezzles allocated funds, leaving enough traces for the media to chance upon and sensationalise breaking stories with but otherwise no hope of recovering the money stolen.
An efficient and transparent social audit system is a must to ensure corruption from marring this large-scale undertaking to benefit scores of citizens living in poverty. Although this program is to be executed in phases, the government must make it a short term affair during which they not only alleviate poverty, but also take a multifaceted approach towards solving other issues jeopardising the progress of the nation’s economy.
Without disregarding the potentially beneficial intentions of this scheme, if all the questions posed regarding the bill's success are resolved, our country will one day reach a tipping point when no Indian shall go to bed hungry.