Professional Documents
Culture Documents
most attention, and criticism, from the proponents of what can be called a growth-not-subsidy approach. Three major criticisms are levelled against the food security programme. The rst, obvious given who the critics are, is that it will lead to a scal disaster. The more carefully prepared estimates of costs point out that as against the Rs 1,20,000 crore now being spent every year on the ongoing schemes, the new costs will be Rs 1,50,000 crore a year. This is no more than 1.5% of gross domestic product and much lower than the scare-mongering which throws up costs in the range of Rs 4,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 crore a year. The argument that this is a massive hand-out conveniently ignores the much larger volume of concessions (called incentives) now being given to industry and nance, not to mention the state-sponsored loot of public resources. The second criticism is of colossal waste since it is based on the PDS which has been shown to be ineffective and wasteful. The PDS has in the past indeed been a byword for corruption and leakage. But it is not sufciently acknowledged that states which have overhauled their system Tamil Nadu is one but not the only example have made a remarkable achievement in delivering grain where it is needed and reducing leakages. There is indeed much that remains to be done to reform the PDS but condemning it when it has shown the potential to work is irresponsible and motivated criticism. The third and most bizarre criticism is that the new PDS is anti-farmer. In 2011-12, total cereal procurement was 63 million tonnes (mt), in 2012-13 it was 71 mt. Total distribution was 55 mt and 56 mt in the two years, respectively. The new PDS is expected to see distribution go up to 62 mt. So how is the demand of the new PDS going to take procurement to impossible levels and turn agriculture upside down by pushing aside all non-cereal crops? The more substantive criticism against the NFSO is that after dragging its feet for four years the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government took the ordinance route with an obvious eye on deriving electoral benets in the next Lok Sabha polls. The UPA mistakenly thinks that Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) won it the 2009 elections, and that the direct benet transfer scheme and the new food security programme will help it win 2014. If it thinks it has found the tickets to electoral success, the UPA is more likely to be chasing a chimera. A rushed roll-out is also likely to damage the NFSO implementation. As it is, the states have not been sufciently consulted; the NFSO 7
vol xlviII no 30
EDITORIALS
makes no mention of the guidelines to be followed for selection of beneciaries; the shift from household to per capita entitlement is fraught with administrative risks and other than in select states a major reform of the PDS has not been undertaken. Is the very worthwhile national food security programme going to be short-changed then at the altar of the Congress Partys electoral ambitions?
Chhapra asks if we have to be careless in administering public services and if we cannot show more commitment in providing services for the needy and the most vulnerable. The food security programme asks us to acknowledge the scale of one major and basic social problem around us and demonstrate a willingness to address it head-on, even if belatedly.
vol xlviII no 30
EPW