The prime minister was absolutely right in saying that 37 per cent of the population cannot be given free grains without destroying all incentives for agriculture. It would have saved a lot of hassle if his economic advisers or the Planning Commission had made this clear earlier. If a large part of the population is given free or very cheap grain it reduces the market price.
Small farmers dont get a proper price and the demand for labour in agriculture goes down and wages fall. Poverty goes up.
The two-rupee rice scheme in Andhra by N.T. Rama Rao did that and paddy cultivation in the Godavari delta rice granary got a setback.
There is however a clarification. The courts,to the best of my knowledge,have not categorically said that all the poor defined by the Tendulkar Poverty Line (37 per cent) must get free grain. That line was the Official Urban Poverty Line which Professor Tendulkar recommended as the National Poverty Line and has hardly anything to do with the hungry. The courts wanted the hungry to be fed grain for free. As the author of the task force in the mid-70s which defined the Official Poverty Line,I have for more than two decades now said that that line needs a re-look. To the best of my knowledge,the courts want the government to define the hungry and then feed them.
In fact the task force which defined the Official Poverty Line was very clear that the poverty line is not the line that separates the hungry from the others. Its report is available and it carries a fascinating debate between two Indian greats on poverty and hunger,the late V.N. Dandekar and the late P.V. Sukhatme. Sukhatme had for long argued around the fact that the human bodys requirements depend on many factors including body weight,work,climate and so on. It also adjusts to the intake it takes and what it gets out of food is also determined by how efficiently it absorbs it. Deworming for example,Sukhatme showed,would reduce need substantially. The basal metabolic rate is around 1,200 calories but at around 1,800 to 2,000 most people would meet their needs. Those were somewhat sedate civilised days and the debate went on for some time. The task force finally also defined a Modified Poverty Line which was to be used to guide feeding programmes for the hungry. In fact,Sukhatme had in Pune opened Indira kitchens to prove that clean,nutritious food in smaller quantities would solve the hunger problem. The Modified Poverty Line was 25 per cent lower in calories than the recommended Average Poverty Line. Since calorie distributions are more dense than expenditure distributions (more people around the average),that would mean a lot less people.
In those days,hunger was measured in a different way. The National Sample Survey would ask all households the question that bothered Gandhiji and now Rahul Gandhi keeps on raising: do you get two square meals a day? In those days,more than a fifth of the population would say: we dont. That percentage is now less than five. It is true that the chronically poor and severely malnourished are higher,but not 37 per cent.
So the question being raised is not hunger but poverty,which is a larger issue of deprivation and entitlements. These are very important political and equity related questions,but should not be confused with abolishing hunger. This column has always rooted for abolishing hunger which can be done. As the PM has said and we have always wanted to separate hunger abolition from that trap,feeding grain to a large number of people is being with the angels and not very practical. If the NAC gives Dr Hashim the necessary vision he can do the technical work to redefine poverty. Of course,he will have to do both rural and urban poverty,since you cannot have the ludicrous position that there is a Tendulkar Poverty Line which is the Official Urban Poverty Line and a Hashim Urban Poverty Line,which are two different parallel lines which never meet.
The important thing right now is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to solve the problem of hunger,extreme malnutrition and chronic poverty. Done professionally and reasonably,I am confident the PM will not object to that.
The writer,a former Union minister,is chairman,Institute of Rural Management,Anand express@expressindia.com
