Central Chronicle, April 27, 2010
Sixty three years after Independence and rapid economic growth during the past decade, we still have no clear idea as to how many Indians still languish in poverty, deprived of even two frugal meals a day. But, judging by official figures, hastily put together to satisfy the political establishment, the number of people below the poverty line seems to grow with the fast growth in population, which is four time that in 1947. Food production and employment have not kept pace with the rapidly growing numbers and per capita income and food availability, adjusted to inflation, have gone down in real terms. The plight of tribals and landless labour is the worst of all, which explains the growth of Maoism. Pushed below the poverty line and deprived of their sources of living--land--by encroaching industry and mineral extraction, they are driven to violence.
This is despite thousands of crores being spent by the Central government on poverty alleviation and rural employment guarantee schemes, because the bulk of cash in pocketed by administrators in collusion with politicians, leaving the intended beneficiary high and dry. There is no earthly reason why a poor family should starve if even 25 kilos of foodgrains are delivered to it every month. The swindle of welfare funds is a major continuing scandal and wily politicians, in collusion with middlemen and foodgrain dealers and contractors, are enriching themselves at the cost of the poor. To quote Rajiv Gandhi's famous words: not even ten paise of every rupee spent by the State on poverty removal reaches the intended beneficiary; the rest is pocketed by middlemen and politicians. The result is falling nutritional levels in the rural areas, rising infant mortality and acute hunger is certain districts, such as, Kalahandi.
After decades of planning, we still do not have reliable statistics relating to poverty, on the basis of which credible schemes could be drafted for distribution of cash and kind among beneficiaries. The situation is paradoxical: before election-time each ruling party in the states claims tremendous achievements, including pushing the number of people above the poverty line and rising incomes of vast majority. But, when it comes to seeking more funds from the Planning Commission the same chief ministers want more and more because more people have become poor and go hungry and hence the requirement of cash and foodgrains grows higher. The Commission plans in a statistical vacuum, does not monitor expenditure or target fulfillment, has no idea of how much development has taken place and how many schemes languish with only foundation stones laid.
As chairperson of the National Advisory Council, Mrs Sonia Gandhi has asked the government to rework the Food Security Bill, which has been touted as NREGA of UPA-II. She feels that the Bill falls woefully short of the aims of the measure and the Congress Party's elections promise. The Bill does not adequately address the issue of identification of the poor. There should be a proactive attempt on the government's part to include the maximum number of poor. To settle the controversy, the Planning Commission has finally accepted the size of the below poverty line population at 37.2 per cent. Hitherto, it was keen on proceeding on the basis of its own estimates of 27.5 per cent of the population. The switch to the new benchmark boosts the number of potential beneficiaries of food security by 1.1 crore families, raising the total to 37.2 per cent, which works to 40.71 crore for 2004-2005.
There are indications of the Congress leadership's annoyance with the lethargic implementation of the "amm admi" agenda of the Party. The Plan panel set up to sort out the matter rejected the idea of having two separate poverty figures--one for food security and the other for social security measures. The increase in the numbers will mean the cost of implementation of the proposed food security law going up, more so if Sonia Gandhi decides to heed the civil society activists who want entitlement of foodgrains per family to increase from 25 kgs to 35 kgs a month. Among the objections raised by Mrs. Gandhi were the low allocation of 25 kgs per household, lack of provision for putting in place a redress and monitoring system and inadequate focus on vulnerable sections, like women, children and the elderly.
During the debate on the issue, divergences over the estimates of poverty came to light. The Planning Commission's own estimate was 27 per cent of the total population, or 6.5 crore households being below the poverty line category. But the Suresh Tandulkar Committee set up by the Planning Commission to give an authoritative view on the subject come out with a higher figure of 38 per cent, or 8.3 crore families. The Supreme Court's Food Commissioner N. C. Saxena quoted a figure of 50 per cent--10.86 crore households. The Chairman of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector Prof. Arjun Sengupta placed the figure at 77 pr cent. One wonders why he was not a little more liberal in his estimates and declared the entire population as below poverty line. Such is the reliability of our statistics and those who produce them on the basis of half-baked statistics and half-conjectures and pass them on as authoritative figures.
As I mentioned earlier, the states have a tendency to inflate the number of the poor and the socially disadvantaged so that they are entitled to higher allocation of funds from the Central exchequer. Some people feel finding the BPL is a pointless exercise and only the states are interested in extracting more money from the Centre on this pretext. CPI leader D. Raja, for instance, argues that the division of BPL and above Poverty Line should be done away with as it lacked objectivity. No uniform yardstick was applied for deciding who was APL and who BPL. His demand is for universalising the Public Distribution System, but the government was not agreeable to it. The Supreme Court's Food Commission, Mr. Saxena also holds similar views. He feels there should be pro-active attempt on the government's part to include the maximum number of poor. If steps were taken to plug the loopholes in the PDS and make it more efficient, it would be possible to cover 50 to 70 per cent of the population. But the PDS was almost demolished by the Vajpayee Government under pressure of the foodgrain trade lobby, as well as, as states who wanted cash in hand rather than foodgrains which they had to distribute, but cash they could keep or use it for budgetary support as well.
The Food Security Bill, as drafted, denies the poor even the rights conferred by the Supreme Court as far as food security schemes are concerned, many of which concern children, leave aside any expansion into fundamental issues of production, distribution, pricing and control of foodgrains. Surprisingly, despite the outcry over rising prices of foodgrains, the States refused to lift higher allocation of foodgrains for distribution at subsidised rates for distribution among the vulnerable sections of the population because the foodgrain dealers and profiteers were opposed to it. The result: there was very little above normal off take from Central stocks and foodgrains keep rotting in open storages and overflowing bins. A niggardly approach besets all food security measures and existing services for the poor a more and more targeted PDS, unfair estimates of poverty and the application of BPL cut-offs to most essential services including free health care.
The Bill is now to be reworked, involving a range of interventions that includes midday meals, child care programmes, maternity entitlements and special provisions for the most vulnerable. It would also require a willingness to allocate substantial funds for this Bill. As Development Economist Jean Dreze points out. The Bill is a non-starter as for eliminating hunger is concerned. It does not add anything to the existing food entitlements for BPL families it guarantees less than what they are already entitle to under the Supreme Court orders. For other families, it guarantees nothing. An obnoxious provision in the Bill relates to allowing states to replace physical provisions with system of cash transfers to the identified poor. The States may distribute the equivalent food subsidy in cash to identified BBPL families.
Obviously this has been done at the instance of states which want cash rather than foodgrains so that they could divert it to other purposes. It is impossible to imagine that corruption that operates and prevents the vulnerable sections from access to foodgrains will not operate with greater intensity when it comes to cash transfers. Neither cash nor foodgrans will reach the targeted population and they will slide further down the BPL. This will completely destroy the PDS, which has already been emasculated, rather than strengthen the system of food supplies to the poor.
The increase in the number of families and higher allocation of 35 kg per family will cost the exchequer Rs. 40,400 crore. The burden on the exchequer will still be lower than the existing Rs. 56,000 crore annual food subsidy under the PDS. The law should promote food security instead of creating more food insecurity and the right to food should become a fundamental right.
Author can be contacted at (nationalpressagency@gmail.com)
MK Dhar, NPA
No comments:
Post a Comment