Opinion Patronising the poor,in perpetuity

I do not know whether or not Saxena agreed with me. However,there is definitely one initiative of the NAC,of which he is a part,that I completely disagree with — the national food security bill. The draft bill seeks to provide subsidised foodgrain to nearly 41 per cent of the rural population and 14 per cent of the urban population. In addition,various categories of individuals such as pregnant,nursing mothers,children below 14 years of age,people living in starvation,destitute,homeless people,migrants and people affected by disasters will be identified and provided subsidised foodgrain and/or freshly cooked meals and/or cash subsidies. In effect,this would translate to subsidies worth almost Rs 1 lakh crore for close to 75 per cent of our population.

This task will require large-scale foodgrain procurement,storage planning and construction,creation of a distribution system from scratch and strengthening the existing public distribution system. In Madhya Pradesh alone,the foodgrain requirement for priority households would go up to almost 31 lakh million tonnes annually (a conservative estimate). In addition,creation of national and state food commissions,grievance redressal offices and grain banks in each district,providing compensation in case of failure,distributing fresh ration cards to the female head of family,etc,have financial implications. In Madhya Pradesh alone,the expenditure on this has been estimated to be close to Rs 210 crore (one time) and Rs 360 crore (annually recurring). Thus,while the direct burden for food grain subsidy on the state exchequer would be about Rs 1 lakh crore for the country as a whole,the indirect cost implications will be manifold. Whether our economy can bear the burden of such a large subsidy is an important question.

What’s more,this whopping subsidy is going into an area rife with leakage and corruption. The Supreme Court-appointed Wadhwa Commitee has estimated the leakages in the public distribution system to be very high. In Madhya Pradesh,an ambitious UID-linked food coupon programme is currently being set up,through which nearly 25 per cent ghost beneficiaries of the PDS have been eliminated,in five districts.

The argument in favour of the bill is that the poor should also benefit from a growing economy. Certainly,redistribution of income through subsidies to the poor is an objective of a welfare economy,and we cannot dismiss such actions simply on the basis of financial implications. However,the concern is whether such redistribution could threaten to retard the growth process itself.

The problem is sheer numbers — subsidised foodgrain,or for that matter any welfare,can be justified for a small percentage of our population — those that are left out of the growth process,like the economically disadvantaged differently-abled,old widows,orphans or migrant workers. However,providing subsidy to close to 75 per cent of the population will only serve to wreck the psyche of the majority of the population,who will begin to see themselves as dependants rather than participants in national growth.

In this context,South Korea provides an instructive case study — there,the Saemaeul movement managed to eliminate absolute poverty from rural areas through a participative approach. For instance,cement was provided to villages,to be used for the common good of the community. Villagers added their labour and capital to the distributed cement to build what they collectively decided. Village achievements were analysed by state officials on various criteria — the village roads’ capacity,the transformation of traditional thatched roofs into modern roofs,the construction of a village hall,irrigation networks and waterways. The next year,President Park Chung Hee ordered that more cement and steel frames be provided for the half that performed better. The discriminatory reward policy drove villages to compete for the state’s rewards. The state provided 2.7 trillion won,from 1971 to 1980,in support of the Saemaul movement. Rural labour was mobilised to carry out the objectives set by state elites.

Contrast this with our approach — there are countless individual beneficiary-oriented schemes that provide direct subsidies to those below the poverty line. These interventions simply serve to enhance the cash surplus available to the individual. In fact the only substantial scheme for community welfare in rural areas,the MNREGS has also not been able to generate any noteworthy assets in the rural areas because of its emphasis on labour-oriented,low- capital projects that produce temporary assets like moorum roads,mud water tanks,etc. The old adage,“it is better to teach a man to fish rather than give him fish,” has been disregarded by our policy makers.

Interestingly,the UNO’s Millennium Development Goal to “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger” is one thought behind the Act. Laudable as that aim is,any government that imagines it can be achieved through direct food subsidies is fooling itself. Poverty can only be eliminated by creating opportunities for each individual to realise their potential and work themselves out of poverty,as in South Korea.

Somehow,this idea makes our policy makers uncomfortable. People in government are much happier when they appear to be “doing things themselves” rather than “letting things happen”. After all,they argue,what is the government for if not to look after the poor? However,the question is what role the government chooses in “looking after” people. A direct-subsidy-oriented approach that seeks to feed “those hungry mouths” is a form of neo-colonialism,which will only seek to cripple our poor and ensure that they remain poor for generations. An intensive rural infrastructure-building approach through their participation can achieve,in some measure,what the food security bill never can to remove poverty.

The writer is commissioner,food and civil supplies,in the Madhya Pradesh government. Views are personal