)
The Union Cabinet is expected to discuss a crucial amendment to the National Food Security Ordinance (NFSO) on Thursday, which will ensure that few states get additional foodgrains over and above what has been proposed in the Ordinance at the current above poverty line (APL) rates.
According to a senior official, this would mean that states like Tamil Nadu, whose annual allocation of foodgrains would be cut by 1.2 million tonnes (mt) as per the Ordinance, will hencefoth get extra grains but at the existing APL rate of Rs 8.30 per kg for rice and Rs 6.10 per kg for wheat. "The crucial amendment needs a cabinet approval as it will have financial implication," the official said.
The states stood to lose grains under the current Ordinance will now get exactly what they have been getting, as the Bill is being amended to provide the quantity of grains based on the allocations made to states in the last three years. The Bill, in its present form, promises to provide food grains based on the offtake of grains by states in the last three years. This would have deprived many states, mainly the southern ones and Odisha, of a large chunk of their allocations.
“The amendment would mean that the government would have to continue to provide the same amount of food grains it is giving now whereas the exisiting Bill would have meant that the government saved on 2.5 million tonnes and around Rs 400 crore, says Deepa Sinha, an economist with the Right to Food Campaign, welcoming the amendment.
Bhartruhari Mahtab, a member of Parliament from Odisha's Biju Janata Dal, says he is not aware of any proposed amendment. “But if it were true, then one of our demands has been taken care of. We were otherwise losing on food grains. We were providing 8,000 tonnes of food grains out of our state budget. If the government had reduced its allocations to us using uplift as criteria, then we would have had to put in more from our budget.”
However, his party continues to oppose the Bill on the fact that it uses individual rather than the household as the beneficiary. That remains unaddressed, Mahtab adds.
The amendment proposed by Food Minister K V Thomas says: “...if (the) annual allocation of food grains to any state under the Act is less than the average annual offtake of food grains for (the) last three years under normal (the) targeted public distribution system, the same will be protected at prices as many be determined by the central government and the state shall be allocated food grains as specified in Schedule IV.”
As per the unamended Bill, the total allocation would have been 51.83 mt, against the annual offtake of 43.07 mt. In this scheme of affairs, some states such as Uttar pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat and West Bengal were the biggest gainers. But Tamil Nadu would have lost 1.21 mt, Kerala 429,000 tonnes, Tripura 119,000 tonnes, and Assam 65,000 tonnes.
According to a senior official, this would mean that states like Tamil Nadu, whose annual allocation of foodgrains would be cut by 1.2 million tonnes (mt) as per the Ordinance, will hencefoth get extra grains but at the existing APL rate of Rs 8.30 per kg for rice and Rs 6.10 per kg for wheat. "The crucial amendment needs a cabinet approval as it will have financial implication," the official said.
The states stood to lose grains under the current Ordinance will now get exactly what they have been getting, as the Bill is being amended to provide the quantity of grains based on the allocations made to states in the last three years. The Bill, in its present form, promises to provide food grains based on the offtake of grains by states in the last three years. This would have deprived many states, mainly the southern ones and Odisha, of a large chunk of their allocations.
“The amendment would mean that the government would have to continue to provide the same amount of food grains it is giving now whereas the exisiting Bill would have meant that the government saved on 2.5 million tonnes and around Rs 400 crore, says Deepa Sinha, an economist with the Right to Food Campaign, welcoming the amendment.
Bhartruhari Mahtab, a member of Parliament from Odisha's Biju Janata Dal, says he is not aware of any proposed amendment. “But if it were true, then one of our demands has been taken care of. We were otherwise losing on food grains. We were providing 8,000 tonnes of food grains out of our state budget. If the government had reduced its allocations to us using uplift as criteria, then we would have had to put in more from our budget.”
However, his party continues to oppose the Bill on the fact that it uses individual rather than the household as the beneficiary. That remains unaddressed, Mahtab adds.
The amendment proposed by Food Minister K V Thomas says: “...if (the) annual allocation of food grains to any state under the Act is less than the average annual offtake of food grains for (the) last three years under normal (the) targeted public distribution system, the same will be protected at prices as many be determined by the central government and the state shall be allocated food grains as specified in Schedule IV.”
As per the unamended Bill, the total allocation would have been 51.83 mt, against the annual offtake of 43.07 mt. In this scheme of affairs, some states such as Uttar pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat and West Bengal were the biggest gainers. But Tamil Nadu would have lost 1.21 mt, Kerala 429,000 tonnes, Tripura 119,000 tonnes, and Assam 65,000 tonnes.
The amendment would now see these states continuing to get what they were getting —Tripura 271,000 tonnes, Tamil Nadu 3.68 mt and Kerala 1.42 mt.
The other amendments proposed by the government address many other contentious issues such as cash transfer and ready-to-eat food, which provide a window of opportunity for contractors. The amendments rule out cash in lieu of food, a development that has brought cheer to the civil society. Kavita Srivastava of the Right to Food Campaign says this ensured that food rights of the people will not be compromised with.
The amendment, however, allows cash compensation if a ration card holder is denied food for several months. The government has also ruled out fortified food as part of the Bill, besides giving states a year's time to identify the poor.
Says Srivastava: “The proposed amendments are excellent. But we wanted a slight increase in the quantity of food grains, besides feeding of the destitutes. How much would it have cost the government to do this extra bit? If the Bill does not ensure food to the most needy, that is a huge lapse.”
Adds Mahtab: “Our main demand was to ensure that the quantity of food grains given to each family does not go down. That remains an issue.”
