The National Food Securities Bill, 2013 is being hotly debated across the nation. It is an undisputed fact that the object of the Bill is entirely laudable. The real question is, will the much hyped Bill, achieve its objective? There is an obvious political angle to the timing of the Bill. The beleaguered UPA government probably believes that this Bill could be its saviour in the forthcoming elections in 2014. In order to ensure that the political advantage is not lost in the din in Parliament, the President has already promulgated an ordinance. However, one need not grudge the political mileage sought to be gained because in this regard all politicians across the political spectrum are of the same colour.
The aspect that requires to be addressed is that, why after 66 years of independence we still need such a Bill. There are three issues that come to mind, the first one being of principle. The Bill seeks to create a huge subsidy for food. However, the thinking of the Government now appears to be that subsidies are an inefficient way of delivering welfare measures. Consequently, in various areas subsidies are being done away with. The freeing of petrol and diesel prices from the administered price mechanism is a very recent example. Whether the step was advisable could be debated, but it reflects the thinking of the government in regard to subsidies. While these actions are being taken, the Government proposes to embark on one of the largest subsidy programmes in recent times.
The second question is that while it is absolutely true that the number of malnourished citizens, men women and children is large, the problem does not seem to be availability of foodgrains but the weaknesses in the distribution system created by poor policies and rampant corruption. It is well-known that India has a sufficient buffer stock of foodgrain; unfortunately, it does not have an efficient distribution mechanism to reach these foodgrains to the poor and needy. While action in this regard is necessary, the issue is of priorities. Agriculture has been a neglected sector for a very long time. Planners, lawmakers, politicians and bureaucrats have paid only lip service to this sector. Expenditure on fundamental research in agriculture has been extremely meagre and agrarian reforms have been painfully slow. Consequently, agricultural productivity has not increased significantly. If these issues are addressed, it would result in increase in purchasing power of the rural population. That would be a permanent solution rather than subsidies which are temporary.
The third aspect is whether this is the right time to introduce a bill which will create a huge fiscal burden. The figures that are being given by various persons are at substantial variance with each other. However, it is well accepted that if this program is to be really implemented, the funds required over the next 2 to 3 years are huge. The Government is already reeling under a fiscal deficit which has crossed the budgeted limits. While some of the reasons for this deficit can be attributed to the globalisation of the Indian economy, the inefficiencies and inactions of the Government are also major contributors. Therefore, funds required for such an ambitious programme will obviously have to be met from increased taxes or from diverting from other welfare spending. This in itself may slow down the growth further. The drop in the growth will reduce purchasing power in the hands of people, increase unemployment and all this will have a cascading effect. Therefore, assuming that the Government’s intention is absolutely genuine, this is perhaps not the right time to create further fiscal burden.
Finally, it has become increasingly apparent that the Government believes that the solution to all ills is legislation. When will we understand that the need of the hour is action, proper implementation of the existing laws and schemes rather than adding to the mass of legislation already existing. The Right to Education Act, 2009 is an excellent example of a very noble object being sought to be achieved through the wrong means. It is true that a substantially large number of children are being denied access even to primary education. The reason for the lack of enrolment in schools or a high school dropout rate is economic. It is because children are used as breadwinners that they are not sent to schools. The need was to administer the existing legislation in regard to child labour strictly. What needs to be ensured is that more children enroll in schools and do not dropout, rather than reserving 25% seats in private schools.
Only time will tell whether the Food Securities Bill will be passed and whether the political advantage really materialises. Even if the Bill creates more focus in regard to the problem of the malnourished sections of the society and results in some incremental action, it will have achieved its objective to a limited extent.
