Right To Tokenism

RIGHT TO TOKENISM. The likely scenario of drought looming large on the horizon has made the country look to the proposed Right to Food legislation with a sense of urgency. The Prime Minister has been quick to announce in his Independence Day speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort that no one will be allowed to go hungry. The recent passage of the landmark Right to Education Bill in both houses of Parliament should also give an impetus to the demand for the Right to Food which is in every sense as basic as the Right to Education. What is, however, disturbing, is the news that this Right is proposed to be defined in a manner that would do little to improve the levels of malnutrition and hunger in the country. The draft Legislation has proposed that each poor household would get a right to receive 25 kg. food grains per month through ration shops at Rs. 3 per kg. This quantum is not insignificant and there could be a body of opinion that would argue that given the fiscal constraints this is a good beginning. We wish we could agree. The point is that it is not the lack of budgetary commitment by the Government which lies at the heart of the criticism of the proposal. The problem is much more fundamental. Successive official surveys have confirmed that the public distribution system is dysfunctional in most States of the country. The key findings that emerged from the evaluation of the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) by the Planning Commission are revealing: • • • • •

The system is plagued by targeting errors, prevalence of ghost cards and unidentified households; Only 57% of poor (Below Poverty Line) households are covered; Only 42% of subsidized grains reach the target group; Over 32% of subsidies are siphoned off and another 21% reach Above Poverty Line households The cost of income transfer to the poor through the TPDS is much higher than through other modes.

Leakages and diversion of food grains are as high as over 60 per cent in several States. There are a large number of "exclusion" errors that leaves a significant percentage of poor households outside the system. For such households the Right to Food is hollow as they are not in the list and in effect for the system they do not exist. NSSO surveys have also confirmed that the dependence of poor households on the PDS in several States for meeting their food requirements is minimal. In any case the TPDS already allocates the equivalent of 35 kg. per household per month to all "Antodaya" and BPL households at highly subsidized rates. The UPA’s Manifesto commitment scarcely goes beyond what is already being allocated. In any case much of what is allocated is not distributed to the poor. To make the Right to Food revolve around such a crippled, dysfunctional, and "leaky" TPDS infrastructure is the principal objection to the proposal. But, in criticising the proposal are we being "obstructionist"? Is there a better "plan"? Isn’t something better than nothing?

Consider this. An average sized poor rural household requires 65-70 kg. food grains per month to meet their calorific requirement defined in terms of 2400 calories per day. Given the leakages, diversion and improper identification of households, in many States, poor households obtain close to 80 per cent of their requirement of food grains not from the TPDS but from the open market. In such a scenario, it appears illogical to attempt to operationalise the Right to Food on the edifice of a crumbling and dysfunctional TPDS. The poor household’s ability to access food grains is circumscribed by two factors – its income, availability of foodgrains and the open market food prices. Open market prices are a function of market availability while income for rural farm households are a function of the wage rates and the number of days a person gets employment. Logically, therefore, the Right to Food must concern itself with these two fundamental factors – improving macro availability and enhancing employment (and, thus, increasing incomes). What then is the ground level situation? Per capita availability of food grains actually fell in the nineties and has improved only marginally since then. In fact in the years 2001, 2003 and 2005 the net availability went down to below 160 kg. per capita per year. Close to 80 per cent of the rural population have calorie consumption less than the norm of 2400 calories per day (NSSO 61st round). This means that food insecure households comprise a much larger set than the official declared poverty line that covers only 28 per cent of the population. Within the household, successive surveys have shown that the levels of malnutrition are the highest amongst children, especially in the 0-6 age group. The percentage of children in the 0-3 year age group below the required weight is as high as 45.9 per cent (National Family Health Survey 2005-06). Any meaningful Right to Food legislation must focus on adequate reach to this most vulnerable age group. There are only two ways of ensuring availability of food grains – increase in production or imports. The Right to Food must then be defined in terms of ensuring first, at the country level, the Right to the supply of a pre defined quantum of food grains in the economy. In years of stress as may be caused by a food grains shortfall (due to drought as may take place this year) the Government must make good the shortfall either through the release of food grains stock out of its "buffer" holding or through imports. There can be no other way. In such a situation a Right defined in terms of "allocation" (not even distribution) of 25 kg. of food grains can only be a sure path to perpetuating hunger and malnutrition. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) has already guaranteed 100 days of employment to each rural household. This may not be adequate to stave off hunger when there is an overall macro deficit. In such years market prices would hit the roof. The only tangible relief would be to add a foodgrains component under NREGA to the wage either in addition or in lieu of cash as was being done in the erstwhile SGRY programme. Surveys show that leakage and diversion in wage employment programmes is less in comparison to the PDS; exclusion errors are also minimal as anyone can offer himself for employment, unlike in the PDS where the State determines the beneficiary household through a ‘list’.

In summary, if there is to be more than mere tokenism in the proposed Right to Food legislation, then the essential ingredients would have to include the following: 1. Ensuring adequate availability of food grains in the economy, say, to begin with 170 kg. per capita per person annually. 2. Stable prices of food grains ensured by Government release of additional stocks/imports whenever food grains prices reach beyond a pre-defined acceptable level of inflation of, say, 5 % on a year to year basis. 3. Universal coverage of supplementary nutrition through the ICDC programme for the 0-6 year age group; 4. Introduction of a food grains component in the NREGA in vulnerable and food insecure pockets of the country. What then happens to the PDS? Should this be disbanded? Not really. It can continue as a government programme and can undergo reform by progressively being replaced by an entitlement based ‘food coupons’ program. The Right to Food legislation can incorporate the Government’s commitment to the present proposal of fixed allocations to ‘poor’ identified households but to limit the Right to such allocations would be perverse or at best tokenism.