Thought for food

The cabinet must do its homework on the food security bill,now that it has some more time

Food security is a pressing moral imperative,apart from being the UPAs biggest promise since the MNREGA however,there are bitter disagreements on how to enact the legislation. The Union Cabinet has deferred any decision on the draft food security bill,given the fiscal strain it entails right now.

This bill is hyper-detailed in all the wrong ways,and lacks clarity on major points like who will be served by the subsidy. The government proposal had no real measure of how much it will finally cost. It ties itself in knots trying to target beneficiaries it wants to sort priority and general categories,but remains vague on how they will be identified the socio-economic and caste census already having been delayed,and does not define exclusion criteria. Rather than pondering the fiscal burden alone,this should also be an opportunity for the cabinet to confront and resolve the bills gaps and evasions.

Some,like Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar,have questioned the fiscal sustainability of such generous and legally binding food security provisions. The proposed food security bill is expected to send the food subsidy soaring by roughly 40 per cent,along with significant annual recurring expenditure on allied welfare schemes and logistics for which the states will have to share the tab in some ratio yet to be clarified. Pawar also questioned the wisdom of high levels of government procurement,and its implications for the domestic grain market. Then there are the deep and running arguments over relying on the public distribution system versus cash transfers or food coupons,between near-universal coverage and sharper targeting. Whats more,the current version of the bill blithely overrides the will of the states. Apart from their having to split the costs,many states object to the bureaucracy it aims to set up,with national and state-level food commission officials and grievance redressal officers. Apart from Manipur,which has accepted the bill as is,most other states have objected to one or the other feature Bihar wants cash transfers,Kerala insists on the PDS. Any reasonable food security law should,apart from guaranteeing funds from the Centre,allow these states to choose the version that works for them. Now that the cabinet has another chance to redesign the bill,it must flesh out these particulars,and present a workable proposition to Parliament.