Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Among the many important bills that the UPA government has said it will introduce in the winter session of Parliament is the food security bill. Providing food security was,after all,a crucial part of the Congresss manifesto in 2009; but getting any sort of workable bill out the door hasnt been easy. The National Advisory Councils preferences were dismissed by the prime ministers economic advisory council as unrealistic in terms of expenditure; some others were concerned that the bill would serve as a Trojan horse for the introduction of cash transfers,and others that it would perpetuate the leaky,inefficient,corruption-inducing public distribution system. There is clearly much that needs to be sorted out with the law as it stands today particularly inasmuch as it impacts the federal structure of this country,a point driven home by a report in this newspaper on Monday that collated the states responses to the proposed legislation.
With the exception of Manipur,states that wrote in were concerned about various aspects of the bill. Indeed,the three major problems with such Central bills were made quite clear. First,the fiscal burden. The Centre is legislating a bill to fulfil an electoral promise made by the party at the Centre; but half the cost of that is to be borne by states. Unsurprisingly,cost has come up in several complaints,as has the excessive bureaucratisation the national and state food security commissions have come in for some serious flak. Then theres the question of undermining state autonomy,as is done most egregiously in the proposed communal violence bill. In this case,the Centre has granted itself considerable room to manoeuvre in matters of staffing and supervision of the food security programmes. Thus most states have reminded the Centre that the qualifications required to be,and the appointment of,district-level officers need to be set by states.
