Mahatma Gandhi invited us to judge our actions in terms of what they do to the last person. From this standpoint, the proposed amendment of the National Food Security Act leaves much to be desired. Indeed, it is a direct attack on the food entitlements of the poorest of the poor.
More precisely, the amendment adversely affects the entitlements of households in the Antyodaya category, a little over two crore households. The Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) was launched in late 2000, under the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, to provide special protection to the poorest of the poor. Antyodaya households were supposed to be identified by local communities. They were entitled to monthly foodgrain rations of 25 kg at symbolic prices, soon raised to 35 kg. Today, AAY rations are free under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana.
Originally, no specific criteria were laid out for the identification of destitute households. The Supreme Court, however, helpfully defined some vulnerable groups. For instance, the Court rightly acknowledged the extreme insecurity of particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs), and directed that all of them should be covered under AAY. This did happen to a large extent, and AAY cards have been a critical resource for PVTG households ever since.
Similarly, the Court observed that a large number of households in India are at risk of destitution because they have no earning member. Examples include elderly couples, widows with small children, disabled persons without support, and so on. In a significant order dated May 2, 2003, the Court prescribed the inclusion of all these households under AAY. The extent of compliance with this order varies widely across states, but the order did provide a useful framework for special food assistance to destitute households.
The National Food Security Act ushered a transition from household entitlements to per-capita entitlements for “priority” households – the bulk of ration-card holders. For Antyodaya households, however, the household approach was retained. The reason lies in AAY’s special focus on households with no earning member, such as widows living alone and elderly couples. These tend to be small households, and they were at risk of losing a major source of economic security in the switch to per-capita entitlements. Many of them had come to rely heavily on their AAY rations for survival. It seemed best not to rock the boat.
To view it another way, the switch to a per-capita approach under the NFSA was a serious threat for small households with little staying power. The retention of the Antyodaya programme and its household approach made it possible to protect them.
Under the proposed NFSA amendment, however, monthly rations of 35 kg for Antyodaya households are to be replaced with per-capita rations of 7 kg per person, with a cap of 35 kg per household. For households with five members or more, this makes no difference. Smaller households, however, will lose 20 to 80 per cent of their current entitlements. And a majority of AAY households (53 per cent to be precise) have fewer than five members, according to the nationwide Household Consumer Expenditure Survey 2023-24. There are no gainers in this bargain, only losers.
Women living alone will be the worst affected. There are nearly one million of them in the Antyodaya category. According to HCES data, 85 per cent are widows and 74 per cent are illiterate. As recent work by Esther Duflo and others brings out, many of them have to cope with mental stress and social stigma in addition to economic destitution. Their monthly foodgrain rations will crash from 35 kg to 7 kg under the proposed amendment – a reduction of 80 per cent.
Of course, 35 kg per month exceeds the foodgrain requirements of many small households. The surplus, however, can generally be cashed or exchanged for other commodities. AAY’s monthly rations are best thought of as an economic resource, not just food to eat.
Oddly, this reduction of entitlements for the country’s poorest households is being justified in the name of equity. The argument is that it will reduce the variation in per-capita entitlements within the Antyodaya category. This is like reducing the salaries of peons on the ground that it will reduce wage disparities between peons and chowkidars.
The real motive for this amendment is likely to be to save money. The potential savings, however, are small. In 2023-24, the foodgrain allocation for AAY was 10 million tonnes, and offtake was 8.8 million tonnes. Using HCES data on household size, we can easily infer AAY’s foodgrain requirements under the proposed approach: 7.6 million tonnes. At best, the proposed amendment will save around 2 million tonnes of foodgrain per year. This is of little value when the government is already struggling with massive excess stocks. It is for the poor that every grain counts.
Instead of chasing minor savings at the expense of the poor, the government should revamp the AAY programme. The AAY lists are very old, and they must be rife with inclusion and exclusion errors. Without cancelling any ration cards, better-off households could be moved to the priority category to make space for those who are unfairly left out of AAY. Expanding the AAY quota would also be useful to ensure full coverage of all destitute households. Even more useful would be to add dal and edible oil to the PDS entitlements of Antyodaya households, as some states have already done off and on. As for the proposed NFSA amendment, it is best thrown in the dustbin.
Drèze is visiting professor, Department of Economics, Ranchi University and Zameer is independent researcher based in Ranch
Instead of chasing minor savings at the expense of the poor, the government should revamp the AAY programme. The AAY lists are very old, and they must be rife with inclusion and exclusion errors. 
Share
