Home

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

CounterMedia.in

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Food Security Act: Time To Act

By Aashish Gupta

09 October, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Over the past two months, I have been involved with a student initiative called “Food Security Act: Time to Act”. I should clarify the word “involve” here, because in my case, it just means small trifles – helping with organisational and documentation work, some of which is being done through a page on facebook. “Time to Act is a platform of concerned students and citizens which aims to deepen and sharpen the debate on the proposed Food Security Act, and is currently engaging members of parliament, to convince them that the act should be universal and comprehensive, with adequate safeguards for accountability and transparency.

Over the past month or so, “Time To Act” volunteers have met more than 60 MPs, from political parties of every possible hue, from diverse regions of the country and with very different orientations. One of them hung images of Bharat Mata and MS Golwakar in his home while another one from UP had a home office which looked like that of a high-end technology enterprise. An MP came to talk in his pyjamas (wearing nothing above the waist), while another one was a well-infored gynaecologist from Gujarat. It is common to dismiss students in India’s elite colleges and universities as elitists themselves, but through “Time to Act”, they have creatively used a democratic space that is available but seldom utilised, to push the concerns of some of the most marginalised sections of our society.

The minutes of these meetings were compiled recently (and are also available on the facebook page of this initiative.)These “notes give us some remarkable insights about the food security debate (while also telling us important things about democratic processes and outcomes in India). In this post, I’ll try to glean some insights from these notes of meetings by “Time to Act”, consisting of meetings with as many as 57 MPs.

A contentious point in the debate on the “Food Security Act” is whether food entitlements should be universal or targeted to those who possess a BPL card. The Agriculture Ministry (one of the more disoriented ministries), the Planning Commission (a rather miserly organisation) and the government in general are vehement that they want a targeted PDS. Do our MPs agree? Not quite. A third fully supported universalisation. Consider Arjun Singh Meghwal, an ex-IAS BJP MP from Bikaner, who said that the process of targeting is corrupt, and that it really is a matter of chance who gets selected and who doesn’t.

Or consider Vilas Baburao Muttemwar, a congress MP from Nagpur, who countered the fiscal conservative rhetoric of the planning commission by saying that “A universal PDS is possible”. Pradeep Tamta (Almora, INC) concurred – “Universalisation is the only way forward” and Abani Roy from West Bengal’s revolutionary socialist party joined the chorus: “This government is not for the poor, it is only for the rich.”

We managed to change the views of 16 MPs, who initially were sceptical of the idea of universalisation. Thus, when volunteers first met Chonsheng Chang, Lok Sabha MP from Nagaland, he said that “A Universal PDS is not possible.” When it was mentioned that Tamil Nadu has a universal PDS, his reply was, “I do not believe that!” Volunteers showed him websites of the Tamil Nadu civil supplies corporation, as also those related to the PDS in Chattisgarh.

Ultimately, he did realise that the planning commission is a stingy organisation, and asked, “If they don't have money for the poor, who do they have money for?!” Of course, it is not entirely possible to change the views of MPs in a small meeting, and there is also the possibility that MPs were just being politically correct, and we shouldn’t be naive in thinking that if they say the right things, they actually mean it.

About 11 of 57 (see Graph 1) were completely opposed to the idea of a universal PDS. Dr. Ram Prakash of the INC dismissed universal PDS as too theoretical (ignoring the fact that it practically exists in some states) and made a universal claim, “people don’t want to work”. Mr. Shanavas from Kerala (INC) thinks that only 25% of the people in the country are poor, and glorified our impressive economic growth in the past few years. Aditya Nath Jogi, from the BJP thought that the idea is bakwaas (useless), and reminded volunteers that they should speak in Shudd Hindi (Pure Hindi) (Rajnath Singh, a senior leader of the also BJP did the same).

Another big debate is that of comprehensiveness. The Right to Food Campaign has argued that given the nature and extent of malnutrition in the country, just entitlements under the PDS would not be enough. The PDS cannot tackle malnourishment in children under six, iron deficiency and anaemia, because of which lactating and pregnant mothers need other interventions to ensure nutrition for themselves and their children. Thus we need to include children’s right to food (through the ICDS) and mother’s entitlements. The nutrition needs of the sick, the elderly, vulnerable groups as well as those of disabled are hardly met by the PDS in its current form.

While it is easier to convince someone (MPs included) that the right to food should be comprehensive (compared to convincing them that the act should be universal), the debate on comprehensiveness seems to have received much less attention than it deserves, getting lost in the noisy debate on universalisation. 21 MPs supported comprehensiveness, 5 agreed to support after discussions, while another 13 were still confused, but did change their stand against comprehensiveness. Only 3 (Graph 2) refused to listen to reason: A very significant finding, I think.

Tamil Nadu’s Adhi Shankar (DMK) informed us that the TN government is already giving bananas and eggs in Mid-Day Meals (Tamil Nadu introduced the scheme in the 1960s, but the rest of the country adopted it only after a hard legal and political battle fought by the Right to Food Campaign), and emphasised the importance of preventing lapses in hygiene and food quality. Smt. Helen Davidson, from the same state and party, wanted the act to explicitly make the District Commissioner accountable to implement nutrition-related schemes. Tamil Nadu pays, according to her, Rs. 6000 to pregnant women, compared to Rs. 500 elsewhere. We did try to convince these DMK MPs to push for similar demands for the rest of the country. It will at least be easier for them, DMK being a part of the ruling coalition.

A big worry, however is that MPs seem unaware of the nutritional emergency India’s citizens have been facing for the past decades. In an article, Reetika Khera, had written that “Most serious though, is the fact it has not occurred to any of the MPs we met so far that the country faces nothing short of a “nutritional emergency”, with a bad record on nutrition indicators, which are hardly improving over time.”



As Graph 3 shows, very few (8) MPs are aware of these indicators. About 18 MPs are at best acquainted, having only a faint or vague idea of nutrition indicators. A large number (19) just needs to be shaken up, and a small minority are ready to question even data collected by the National Family Health Survey. At least some MPs realise this distrust of hard numbers and lack of awareness in MPs of our pathetic record on nutrition. They urged us to make our representatives in parliament alert and aware – Mr. Gadhvi (INC, Gujarat) told us, “I am with you!”, while Mr. Charan Das Mahant, said “Only 5% of the MPs are interested in the country, and only 10% know about India. The rest are looting the country, or sleeping. We are with you, you have to wake those up who are sleeping.”

Thank you, Sir! We are trying our very best.