The Centre has a constitutional responsibility to play a role in food subsidy programmes, deriving not only from a citizen’s fundamental right to life and liberty, but also from an explicit mandate to address inequalities across populations. Indeed, the Centre already implements several food-related schemes – the ICDS, Mid-day Meal and the PDS. The Food Security Act comes as an additional step that protects these as entitlements. The question is perhaps then not whether the Centre has a role, but the kind of positive role it can play.

The strongest case for Central government role is in addressing the inequalities across states. On the one hand, there are states where food security has long been a political priority such as TN and Kerala. They have had strong food security interventions that work relatively well. In contrast, there are states where historically, food security has got short shrift or have been undermined by poor governance, compromising the ability of a significant majority of the vulnerable poor to attain even the minimal needs. The positive role of the Centre is in providing a framework for a minimum acceptable norm towards food security. The Centre could potentially be effective in nudging states like UP, for example, where PDS leakages have rendered the scheme a veritable cash cow. The Centre is also best positioned to manage the inequities between chronically food deficit and surplus states. That the current system of centrally managed food is wanting in many respects should not detract from the possibility of an efficient and nimble approach to food management, especially via decentralised procurement.

That said, there are serious dangers of over-centralisation that might thwart innovative improvements at the state level. For example, the imposition of per-capita entitlements could be severely disruptive in many states where household entitlements are working well. The hasty imposition of UID could have similarly detrimental consequences. The determination of eligibility norms and exclusion criteria for instance ought to be state-specific. What signifies wealth in the plains and can serve as a criterion for exclusion ( pucca houses) might not be appropriate in the hilly states. These are ominous examples where the state role is perhaps detrimental to the goals of the Act. Further, the guidelines should necessarily allow states the freedom to determine their food delivery systems, whether in terms of coverage, scope or efficiency.

In short, the goals of food security are best served when the Centre does not overreach itself. While the Centre should use the Act to push states to increase accountability, it should desist from cavalier experimentation, and from foisting rigid and uniform norms on states where schemes relating to food security are working rather well.

(The author is Assistant Professor, IGIDR, Mumbai.)

Also read: Should Centre play a role in food subsidy schemes? _ NO

Related Topics