Food security bill

National Food Security Bill (referred to as NFSB in this report) is a proposed act which makes food availability a right for every citizen of India. The bill has come about after discussion amongst large number of stakeholders including right to food campaigners, National Advisory Council (NAC) and Government of India. There is a widespread agreement about the intension of the food security and a visibly clear gap about how to implement it.
In the following report, we will first analyse what the government’s bill is - followed by the changes that are necessary in our opinion and why this necessity arises. Towards the end of the report, we will see how Brazil implemented the food security for its citizens. As per assignment, section A of this report is required section B of the assignment and vice-versa. Section C of the report and the assignment is same.
Section A: A Critique of National Food Security Bill
NFSB that came out of deliberations of Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) is a watered down version of the food security bill proposed by National Advisory Council (NAC).
Even before we analyse the food security bill, it is indeed necessary to take a look at some starling numbers. The below poverty line population of India is still very high (37% as estimated by Tendulkar committee and 77% as estimated by Sengupta committee). Every 1 in 3 malnourished children lives in India. The child mortality rate because of hunger and huger-related diseases is very high (6000 deaths on an average day). 76% of the people in India do not get the daily required amount of calories, according to Professor Utsa Patnaik.
Contrast this situation against the record 220 billion Kg (160 Billion contributed by rice and wheat) of food production in the last year. It is nearly 15kg per person per month. Even with leakages and the provisions for future emergencies, it is still possible to provide EVERYONE with 7kg per person per month.

PROS:

1. Right to food to become a legal right- The proposed bill aims to provide legal right over subsidised foodgrain to 67 per cent of the population.
2. The bill provide uniform allocation of 5 kg foodgrain (per person) at fixed rate of Rs. 3 (rice), Rs. 2 (wheat) and Rs. 1 (coarse grains) per kg to 75 per cent of the rural population and 50 per cent of the poor in urban India – about 800 million people.
3. Continuance of Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) – Protection to 2.43 crore poorest of poor families under the Antodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) to supply of 35 kg foodgrains per month per family would continue.
4. Nutritional support to pregnant women without limitation are among other changes proposed in the bill. The bill will extend subsidized food to pregnant women and children under the age of 16. It is positive that it is including those who really need nutritious food The Bill proposes meal entitlements to specific groups. These include: pregnant women and lactating mothers, children between the ages of six months and 14 years, malnourished children, disaster affected persons, and destitute, homeless and starving persons.
5. For children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years, the Bill guarantees an age-appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi. For children aged 6-14 years, one free mid-day meal shall be provided every day (except on school holidays) in all schools run by local bodies, government and government aided schools, up to Class VIII. For children below six months, “exclusive breastfeeding shall be promoted”.
6. Endevours to empower woman- The eldest woman in the household shall be entitled to secure food from the PDS for the entire household.    
7. Bill seeks to utilize already existing infrastructures like PDS and aganwadi’s. This has prevented further wastage of money to develop the infrastructures.

CONS:

1. Credibility of PDS system- The government intends to use the Public Distribution System for delivering subsidies to the poor.  The PDS is already used to deliver food subsidies to the poor but around 51% of the food delivered that way is currently lost to leakages. It is sold on the open market for a higher price.
2. The government is also considering using direct cash transfers. In cases where the government is not able to make food available in the PDS then they will give cash payments to be used for food directly into people’s bank accounts. I think here bill is deviating from its purpose. Bill is to provide access to food not money in lieu of food.

1. The cost of food grains is rising globally then how would government be able to provide subsidized food to 70% Indian population?
   1. What are we going to do in a drought or a flood? The production of rice and wheat might come down dramatically. If we are entering the global market then the global price would shoot up along with the subsidy bill. If this situation prevails and climate change takes, place what is going to happen?
   2. Effect on farmers and producers- The very low prices of the subsidized food will distort the market and farmers who can’t sell to the government-assured program will lose out on the open market because prices will be forced down. Hence the person who are not poor at present but will become poor in days to come.
   3. How to be implemented? Things are not very clear how it will be initiated. Every district will have a grievance officer who will deal with complaints about implementation at the local level. We don’t know how that will function but they have the authority to punish people who are not giving out the food. Still the commission under this bill is yet to be set.
   4. Failure to define the beneficiaries are some of the shortcomings of the bill. Also, the scheme does not define the beneficiaries properly. The bill says that States will provide the list of the poor but they have no such records. So, whether it will reach the right persons is hypothetical.
   5. Division among three groups – priority, general and excluded – and adopting a complex, impractical and politically contentious ‘inclusive’ criteria that too to be provided at later stage.
   6. Not enough resources- Moreover, to implement this scheme, the total estimated annual food grains requirements will be 61.23 million tones and is likely to cost Rs.1,24,724 crore. Given the rising costs of the scheme and rising population, its sustainability is under question. This is a mega program and will require a huge food subsidy.  The cost of it will go up from 0.8% of Gross Domestic Product to around 1.1% of GDP. This is a serious increase in a situation where the government does not have enough resources as it is.
   7. Based on schemes which are itself in trial stages- It will be linked to the Aadhar scheme which provides every citizen with a unique identification number that’s linked to a database that includes the biometrics of all card-holders. Aadhar scheme and direct cash transfer both are in their trial stages. So burdening an still developing programme will lead to total failure.
   8. Implementing this bill could widen the already swollen budget deficit next year, increasing the risk to its coveted investment-grade status. The government has already budgeted 900 billion rupees for the scheme in the current fiscal year ending March 2014. If the bill is passed, it will need to come up with as much as 1.3 trillion rupees in 2014/15, adding to a total subsidy burden that already eats up about 2.4 percent of gross domestic product.
   9. Critics say the food bill is little more than an attempt to help Congress, reeling from corruption scandals, win re-election in a vote expected by next May.
   10. Critics argue that eradication of malnutrition needs more than just removal of hunger. Food security is necessary but not sufficient for nutrition security.

SUGGESTIONS:

1. We should have learned lessons from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (which provides 100 days of work to the poor at 100 rupees a day) and strengthened it to make it more effective to help the very poorest. Those who are part of that program should be targeted for this subsidy.
2. Or we could link it to education as they did in Bangladesh where school children and their families were given access to subsidized food.
3. The bill should have included subsidized rates for pulses which for many of the poorest are their only source of protein and highly nutritious. The price of pulses has gone up, making them out of reach for many.
4. We need to reduce the leakages from the distribution system and make it transparent. This bill has transparency provisions but do not provide how this transparency shall be achieved.
5. Community based agricultural programs and teaching about sustainable farming shall enhance production in the country. And this in turn would bring down the prices of various essential commodities and people can be self sufficient themselves. Relieance on government programs would reduce and this would give people a feeling of security and not fear of dependence.
6. For reducing loopholes in PDS system government must take lessons from Chattisgarh government where after the delivery is made to PDS branch, all the beneficiaries get a message though mobiles about the same, so they know about it and reach to PDS branch on time.
   

Will the relationship between India and Pakistan will ever improve ?

Indo-Pakistani relations are grounded in the political, geographic, cultural, and economic links between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan the two largest countries of South Asia. The two countries share much of their common geographic location, but differ starkly in religious demographics. India is a secular country with Hindu majority at about 80% of the total population and Muslims being the largest religious minority with about 13% of the population. Pakistan, on the other hand, is an Islamic country with 97% population being Muslim, and only about 1.8% Hindus. Diplomatic relations between the two are defined by the history of the violent partition of British India into these two states, and numerous military conflicts and territorial disputes thereafter. Kashmir was a princely state, ruled by a Sikh, Maharaja Hari Singh. The Maharaja of Kashmir was equally hesitant to join either India–, because he knew his Muslim subjects would not like to join a Hindu-based and Hindu-majority nation–, or Pakistan– which as a Sikh he was personally averse to. Pakistan coveted the Himalayan kingdom, while Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi and Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru hoped that the kingdom would join India. Hari Singh signed a Standstill Agreement (preserving status quo) with Pakistan, but did not make his decision by August 15, 1947.

Rumors spread in Pakistan that Hari Singh was trying to accede Kashmir to India. Alarmed by this threat, a team of Pakistani forces were dispatched into Kashmir, fearing an Indian invasion of the region. Backed by Pakistani paramilitary forces, Pashtuns invaded Kashmir in September 1947. Kashmir's security forces were too weak and ill-equipped to fight against Pakistan. Troubled by the deteriorating political pressure that was being applied to Hari Singh and his governance, the Maharaja asked for India's help.

However, the Constitution of India barred the Indian Armed Forces' intervention since Kashmir did not come under India's jurisdiction. Desperate to get India's help and get Kashmir back in his own control, the Maharaja acceded Kashmir to India (which was against the will of the majority of Kashmiris), and signed the Instrument of Accession. By this time the raiders were close to the capital, Srinagar. On October 27, 1947, the Indian Air Force airlifted Indian troops into Srinagar and made an intervention. The Indian troops managed to seize parts of Kashmir which included Jammu, Srinagar and the Kashmir valley itself, but the strong and intense fighting, flagged with the onset of winter, made much of the state impassable.

After weeks of intense fighting between Pakistan and India, Pakistani leaders and the Indian Prime Minister Nehru declared a ceasefire and sought U.N. arbitration with the promise of a plebiscite. Sardar Patel had argued against both, describing Kashmir as a bilateral dispute and its accession as justified by international law. In 1957, north-western Kashmir was fully integrated into Pakistan, becoming Azad Kashmir (Pakistan-administered Kashmir), while the other portion was acceded to Indian control, and the state of Jammu and Kashmir (Indian-administered Kashmir) was created. In 1962, China occupied Aksai Chin, the northeastern region bordering Ladakh. In 1984, India launched Operation Meghdoot and captured more than 80% of the Siachen Glacier.

Pakistan maintains Kashmiris' rights to self-determination through a plebiscite in accordance with an earlier Indian statement and a UN resolution. Pakistan also points to India's failure of not understanding its own political logic and applying it to Kashmir, by taking their opinion on the case of the accession of Junagadh as an example (that the Hindu majority state should have gone to India even though it had a Muslim ruler), that Kashmir should also rightfully and legally have become a part of Pakistan since majoirity of the people were Muslim, even though they had a Hindu ruler. Pakistan also states that at the very least, the promised plebiscite should be allowed to decide the fate of the Kashmiri people.

India on the other hand asserts that the Maharaja's decision, which was the norm for every other princely state at the time of independence, and subsequent elections, for over 40 years, on Kashmir has made it an integral part of India. This opinion has often become controversial, as Pakistan asserts that the decision of the ruler of Junagadh also adhered to Pakistan. Due to all such political differences, this dispute has also been the subject of wars between the two countries in 1947 and 1965, and a limited conflict in 1999. The state/province remains divided between the two countries by the Line of Control (LoC), which demarcates the ceasefire line agreed upon in the 1947 conflict.

Pakistan is locked in other territorial disputes with India such as the Siachen Glacier and Kori Creek. Pakistan is also currently having dialogue with India regarding the Baglihar Dam being built over the River Chenab in Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan, since independence, was geo-politically divided into two major regions, West Pakistan and East Pakistan. East Pakistan was occupied mostly by Bengali people. In December 1971, following a political crisis in East Pakistan, the situation soon spiralled out of control in East Pakistan and India intervened in favour of the rebelling Bengali populace. The conflict, a brief but bloody war, resulted in an independence of East Pakistan. In the war, the Pakistani army swiftly fell to India, forcing the independence of East Pakistan, which separated and became Bangladesh. The Pakistani military, being a thousand miles from its base and surrounded by enemies, was forced to give in. Though these all create t a certain bitter past between the two great countries but still here is hope the prime minister of India has visited to Pakistan and president of Pakistan have visited India and many conferences have been going on through but sill it will take a long time to improve the cordial relation between the two countries.

Indians and Pakistanis living in the Britain are said to have friendly relations with one another. There are several of suburbs such as Harrow, Hounslow and Red Bridge where both communities live alongside each other in peace and harmony. Both Indians and Pakistanis living in the UK fit under the category of British Asian. The UK is also home to the Pakistan & India friendship forum.

‘We can also hope like that India and Pakistan should become friends. Bloodshed is not hat these two country need right now.’

Janta party chief Subramanian Swamy joins BJP

Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy is back on the scene, telling a new story peopled by familiar characters—the Gandhi family, more specifically Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her son and party general secretary Rahul. Watching Arvind Kejriwal, information activist-turned-anti-corruption-crusader-turned-politician, grab the headlines on a daily basis, how could Swamy, who redefined the use of information in politics, sit quiet?

Swamy is often dubbed “Sherlock Swamy” for his ability to dig up all kinds of information against the who-is-who of Indian politics. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul are relatively recent targets of Swamy, whose friends and foes keep changing. He has friends in all political parties. These friendships are to a large extent seasonal. In truth, Subramanian Swamy has only one permanent friend: Subramanian Swamy; not surprisingly, the cover story on Swamy in Sunday Magazine, a weekly news magazine, in 1998 was titled, I, Me, Myself. People like P.Chidambaram, J. Jayalalithaa, M. Karunanidhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee can throw more light on this aspect of Swamy’s multifaceted personality.

Interestingly, Swamy’s allegations against the Gandhis haven’t got the treatment from the media that Kejriwal’s purported exposes did. Kejriwal’s accusations drew strong rebuttals; in the case of Swamy, Rahul Gandhi’s threat of legal action received more media attention than Swamy’s allegations.

Swamy is a politician—he is leader of the Janata Party, now a constituent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance. Kejriwal is not yet formally a politician. People tend to disbelieve politicians, especially when they raise allegations against their opponents.

Swamy started his public life as a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s ideological parent. Later, he said one of his missions was to “free the country from the pernicious effect of the RSS...”

In his political career spanning almost four decades—he began his political life in the Sarvodaya movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan which later led to the formation of the original Janata Party in the 1970s—Swamy has never been consistent. He engaged in bitter rivalry with current Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha, but joined hands with her later.

He had a blow hot-blow cold relationship with the Gandhi family, too. Once close to Rajiv Gandhi, he became his bitterest critic. After Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, Subramanian Swamy renewed his friendship with the Gandhis for a brief period—he was instrumental in the temporary friendship between Sonia Gandhi and Jayalalitha.

However, for most of his time in public life, Swamy has fought the Gandhis. Political rivals have always used Swamy’s allegations to attack the Congress presidents’ family. There were reports that the NDA government in 2001 ordered a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the charges Swamy made against Sonia Gandhi. Swamy had then alleged that Sonia Gandhi’s family members in Italy received money from the KGB in Indo-Soviet trade deals and that the money was used in the 1989 general elections. Of course, the charges remained unproved.

Any allegations Swamy comes up with suffer a kind of credibility crunch for the simple reason that these are being raised by Subramanian Swamy.

Kejriwal’s apolitical status lends him more credibility with ordinary people.

While Swamy has an image of a cerebral personality—many say his intelligence has been utilized more for destructive than productive purposes—Kejriwal is considered a common man. He is certainly more amicable than Swamy, who can come across as arrogant and condescending.

Still, Swamy does have his share of victories, especially in the court rooms where he himself argues his cases. One recent victory came when the Supreme Court cancelled the 2G spectrum allocations and licences in February. It was a case in which Swamy dragged even the Prime Minister’s Office to the apex court.

To quote Swamy, “all that people want is authority. Everyone drools over the PM’s chair. Even the media have joined the bandwagon. They prop up new leaders and have favourite whipping boys who are abused for no reason... Subramanian Swamy’s name tops the list. Everyone is out to attack me.”

The fact of the matter is that anyone can be on Swamy’s own hit list, even Kejriwal.