In the Name of Food Security
THESE days we are witnessing dummy wrestling (Noora Kushti) between the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister on the one hand and National Advisory Council (super cabinet) headed by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi over Food Security Bill. While the NAC is for providing this security in terms of cheap wheat, rice and millet to almost 90% of rural India and almost 50% of urban India, the Cabinet is dead against it as it will inflate subsidies by almost 40,000 crore rupees. The Rangarajan committee, constituted be the government to go into the recommendations of NAC, is against many of its recommendations including general category (or APL) in the list of beneficiaries.
THERE is also discord between the two with respect to the figures of total population, off take, procurement and the total cost involved. NAC opines that not more than 90% of beneficiaries will avail of this right while Rangarajan has calculated on the basis of 100% usage.
MEANWHILE, M. S. Swaminathan (in HT, today) has strongly advocated in favour of Food Security Act considering it necessary for sustainable development. He has also recommended "First 1,000 days Child Nutrition and Development Program" to be incorporated within the bill to be introduced in the parliament in its coming session. The government, already under financial constraint, is least likely to give it even a thought.
From the statements and counter statements of Cabinet and the NAC, it seems as if the Congress wants to be in a win-win situation. For the achievements of government, it takes the credit, while for its failures it blames the coalition politics. A couple of days ago, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee castigated the states for their approach towards enhancing storage capacity. Will Mr. Mukherjee be kind enough to tell what Food Corporation of India has done so far in this regard?
THE question, however, is : why food security to 40% as advocated by the government or to 75% as recommended by the NAC and why not 100% that will entail the total subsidy on food to rupees 1,10,000 crore? The question is important because the government gave concessions (benefits to the rich are termed concessions while those to the poor are termed subsidies) to business houses to the tune of Rs. 2.43 lakh crore in the last fiscal.
THERE is also discord between the two with respect to the figures of total population, off take, procurement and the total cost involved. NAC opines that not more than 90% of beneficiaries will avail of this right while Rangarajan has calculated on the basis of 100% usage.
MEANWHILE, M. S. Swaminathan (in HT, today) has strongly advocated in favour of Food Security Act considering it necessary for sustainable development. He has also recommended "First 1,000 days Child Nutrition and Development Program" to be incorporated within the bill to be introduced in the parliament in its coming session. The government, already under financial constraint, is least likely to give it even a thought.
From the statements and counter statements of Cabinet and the NAC, it seems as if the Congress wants to be in a win-win situation. For the achievements of government, it takes the credit, while for its failures it blames the coalition politics. A couple of days ago, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee castigated the states for their approach towards enhancing storage capacity. Will Mr. Mukherjee be kind enough to tell what Food Corporation of India has done so far in this regard?
THE question, however, is : why food security to 40% as advocated by the government or to 75% as recommended by the NAC and why not 100% that will entail the total subsidy on food to rupees 1,10,000 crore? The question is important because the government gave concessions (benefits to the rich are termed concessions while those to the poor are termed subsidies) to business houses to the tune of Rs. 2.43 lakh crore in the last fiscal.
Comments
Post a Comment