Amartya Sen forgets the system does not work in half the country
The Ordinance for the food Bill would be a political shot in the arm for the government. In fact, the government doesn't even need to pass the Bill in the next six months as they can always re-promulgate the ordinance. I don't agree with Amartya Sen who recently said food security should come, even as an ordinance, if not as a law. While the ordinance will help the UPA government, Sen and Jean Dreze (development economist, who recently quit the National Advisory Council) forget that the system does not work in half the country. Their arguments in favour of a law even before correcting the system is based on assumptions that if states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu can work their systems well, others too can. N C Saxena (National Advisory Council member) in a study has talked about a single woman in Uttar Pradesh having 400 ration cards. Imagine the impact of this on large quantities of cheap food grain. The Ordinance also raises serious questions about the state of federalism. There is opposition from across the political spectrum. These states, which already have a better programme that gives a near universal coverage would now have to make separate allocations on food security. Besides, the Ordinance has chosen to leave out 50 per cent of the urban population, which causes concern in view of the Arjun Sen Gupta committee report, which said 80 per cent of the country lived on Rs 20 a day. A troubling fact.
Ashwani Kumar, economist, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
It's the best thing to have happened
The food security Ordinance is the best thing to have happened. It is true the public distribution system is in a bad shape in some states, but it is also true that many states have improved theirs. In any case, nothing is going to happen in the next six months and there is ample time for states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to reform systems. The Ordinance would put pressure on officials there.
It cannot be implemented for at least the next six months because the Social and Economic Caste Census has not been done yet. It has been delayed by more than a year, and just Haryana and Tripura have done their work. Other states have simply not done the census or identification of who is poor and who is not. The government can decide on allocation of foodgrains per state only on the basis of the number of poor identified in each state. It cannot be the same everywhere. The reason for the delay is not only the states' lethargy, but also the confusion caused by the methodology of the survey. It is, however, wrong to believe that non-implementation would make the ordinance futile. It would still help the government, for it will create hope. It will also put pressure on states and Opposition parties to fall in line with the law when it is passed later.
N C Saxena, member, National Advisory Council
Senseless law that will disrupt market & increase corruption
I can scarcely think of a more senseless law that has such universal support just because it happens to have the words food security in its title. The ordinance is living proof that there are no limits to how far political correctness can push politicians into lining up behind something that is so much against the interests of the nation. The beneficiaries will receive five kg rice or wheat at near-zero price. All this will do is cut their open-market purchase by five kg and save them some cash for other items. For this non-achievement, the government would have disrupted the private market in cereals on a scale not known before. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had tried the takeover of wholesale grain trade in the early 1970s, but was wise enough to backtrack when she saw that the government was not up to the task. The UPA has forgotten the lesson of that episode or chosen to ignore it. Alongside the disruption, also be prepared to see more corruption and leakages along the supply chain and, of course, yet higher fiscal deficit and inflation."
Arvind Panagariya, economics professor, Columbia University
The question is how to make it sustainable
Given the level of stocks in state-run godowns, this (the Ordinance) is a good way to ensure that grains reach the poor. But the big question is how to make it sustainable. The Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), plagued by inefficiencies, has to be improved. There are three things which must be taken care of now; first, plug the leakages in TPDS; second, invest in infrastructure like storages; and third, monetary and financial stability, because currently stocks are adequate, but what will happen if foodgrain production drops. Also, the Bill freezes the price of wheat and rice for three years, but the minimum support price needs to increase to compensate the farmers.
Ashok Gulati, chairman, Commission for Agriculture Costs and Prices
Ordinance will create enemies for food security
Ordinance is no option. It is not the right way. It has to go to Parliament in a specified period of time, otherwise it will lapse. This will make more enemies for food security. Had there been a provision that it does not require to go to Parliament, then it would have been a different matter. Substance-wise, I would have been happier if there were certain different provisions in the Bill. But that is not the issue. I am for the Bill.
Abhijit Sen, member , Planning Commission
