In a country devastated by high levels of hunger, malnutrition and deprivation, the Government, be it Central or State or local body, should play a role in addressing food security concerns. Food security legislation that is being brought in by the Central government is indeed a welcome step as it will transform mere provisos under different schemes and programmes into legal entitlements.

The major drawback of the legislation is that it overlooks the specific concerns of State governments, and ignores features instrumental for the successful implementation of food security programmes in states. For instance, Tamil Nadu has been implementing a public distribution system over many decades, with a universal approach and phenomenal reach.

Even so, the central legislation has prescribed only a targeted approach which would exclude large sections of the needy population in the country. States such as Tamil Nadu, which has been providing wider reach and better benefits, will now have to use their own resources to maintain status quo .

The proposed legislation seriously undermines the allocation of grains from the central pool to Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu government has estimated a shortfall of foodgrains to the tune of one lakh tonnes per month, costing Rs 1,000 crore per annum. This is akin to penalising states that have a better track record of food security programmes.

Further, the inclusion percentage varies across States, as per the norm fixed by the Planning Commission. In Tamil Nadu, 63 per cent in rural areas and 38 per cent in urban areas would be covered as against 75 per cent and 50 per cent in India.

The Planning Commission has used the NSSO consumption expenditure figures of 2011-12 to arrive at the coverage ratio across states. States with a lower average monthly per capita expenditure are assigned a higher coverage ratio and vice versa.

As the average figures overlook the vast differences that prevail among sections, using this as a base seems cruel in these times of deprivation as it arbitrarily excludes food-insecure population from receiving subsidised food grains.

Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia’s reported comment that the well-off populations of states like Tamil Nadu will make way for the ‘more-deserving’ poor of states in the north and the east completely misses the crucial point that per capita expenditure figures conceal the inequality persistent in any society.

Moreover, in a federal structure, and given such rampant food insecurity, only the Central government can take on the entire financial responsibility of providing food subsidies, while the implementation should rest with the State and local bodies. The attempt to shift the additional subsidy burden to TN, for having already implemented a system of universal coverage, is undemocratic and unreasonable.

(The author is with the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai.)

Also read: Should Centre play a role in food subsidy schemes? - YES

Related Topics