Rice at Rs 2/kg tastes really good, especially if it costs Rs 35/kg elsewhere. In Kerala, it is available at this subsidised rate to above-poverty-line ration card holders, provided they give an application stating their income. All it takes is a few washes, before the rice is nice and pink. Sometimes, it may be slightly blackish, but as long as it is clean, no one doesn’t really mind. In fact, the pink matta (brown rice) is good enough to be served at an Onam feast.
For below-poverty-line (BPL) families, the rice costs even less, Rs 1/kg, with allocation for each at 5 kg. Tamil Nadu goes a step further, distributing it free of cost.
The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government has taken a leaf out of the books of Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. However, instead of footing the bill for the universal coverage of this scheme, partially or wholly, as is the practice in these sates, it wants states to limit the benefit to two-thirds of their population. For the public distribution system, it wants to impose a uniform exclusion rate of 33 per cent through the Food Security Bill in all states, in both rural and urban areas.
The Union government disagrees with the Kerala and Rajasthan governments, as far as access to affordable foodgrains is concerned. It feels in states where the poor population is large, the scheme may lead to risks. About 50 per cent of Rajasthan’s population is below the poverty line. Here, for instance, if the state has to give cheap foodgrain to BPL people, as well as to a number of above-poverty-line ration card holders, the overall number would add up to more than the Centre’s cap of 67 per cent. Therefore, a large number of people would be left out. Or, the state would have to pay for them from its own resources. Conversely, in states like Punjab, Haryana and Kerala, the BPL population is lower and, therefore, subsidised foodgrains may exceed the requirement of these states.
While the UPA government is trying to reduce the scope of the Food Security Bill, it wants to splurge Rs 7,000 crore on providing mobile phones to six-million BPL people in the country. Just as poor people don’t need the government’s assistance to exercise their right to sell, or refuse to sell, their land, they don’t need a middleman between them and the telecom companies. In any case, telecom companies have been faring much better than ration shops in reaching out to the poor, even in remote areas.
Instead, the government could have used this corpus to find long-term solutions to the financial woes of weavers, carpet makers, small and marginal farmers, etc. Considering data on consumer expenditure from the National Sample Survey showed the poor population in rural areas spent about 80 per cent of its earnings on food, the Centre could also have invested the sum in the food security scheme. Only when the population is well-fed, can the focus shift to goals such as education.
