India’s government is embarking on one of the most ambitious programs in the world to make food a legal right. The National Food Security Bill, approved by the Indian government on July 3, is the latest attempt to tackle the problem of endemic hunger in a country where — by the government’s own estimate — nearly half of children under five are chronically malnourished. India ranks 65 out of 79 countries on the Global Hunger Index from the International Food Policy Research Institute.
There are already many food guarantee schemes for the poorest of the poor in India. However, the new bill – which was passed by ordinance and still requires ratification by both houses of parliament – is different in the sense that it proposes to give 810 million people the right to food, i.e. two-thirds of the country’s 1.2 billion inhabitants. The ordinance guarantees their right to 5 kilograms per person per month of subsidized wheat, rice and coarse cereals. It also contains a supporting provision specially aimed at pregnant women, lactating mothers and children.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, on a mission in India to study the food situation there, has welcomed the new legislation. Addressing reporters in New Delhi, the Special Rapporteur said: “I believe it is an important moment for the right to food in India. What this bill will do is that it will protect as a legal right what otherwise are benefits given away as charity by the government. It can inspire many countries to do the same thing. It has global significance.”
The right to food is protected under international human rights law: it is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) as part of the right to an adequate standard of living and is also enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11). In practice, it means that all human beings have a right to feed themselves in dignity, either by producing their food or by purchasing it.
To produce his or her own food, a person needs land, seeds, water and other resources; to buy it, one needs money and access to the market. The right to food therefore requires states to provide an enabling environment in which people can effectively produce or procure adequate food for themselves and their families. It is important to underline the fact that the right to food is not a right to a minimum ration of calories or proteins, nor a right to be fed. It is about being guaranteed the right to feed oneself.
This is what the Indian government aims at doing by offering grains at a very cheap price that poor people will be able to buy. Additionally, what makes the Indian bill interesting and rather unique is that Chapter 9 has provisions for a grievance redressal mechanism: anyone eligible for the subsidized food can approach the courts if he or she is denied the right.
It remains to be seen, however, how this will work in practice. “I am particularly interested in how the redressal grievance commission will function and how people should be informed about the new law,” De Schutter declared.
Increasing the fiscal deficit?
Opposition parties view the bill as a political move by the ruling party to win a third term in elections due in May 2014. They have criticized the government for sidestepping parliament and resorting to an executive order, although most political parties probably bear some responsibility in this since they have systematically opposed proceedings in parliament under one pretext or another.
The cost and the implementation of the program have also drawn heavy criticism. Estimates suggest the bill could cost the Indian state as much as $23 billion per year. The government insists money will not be a problem. But experts believe this could exacerbate fiscal problems at a time when economic growth is slowing. The program is projected to push up India’s fiscal deficit to 5.1 percent of GDP in the current fiscal year; the Indian government had promised to keep that deficit under 4.8 percent.
But, argues De Schutter, “the cost of not treating the hunger is immense and completely underestimated. There is no better investment for the country than to invest in its children.” Additionally, since food is often a large part of the consumption basket for the poor, access to cheaper food could leave extra money in their hands that could be used for health and education spending, thus improving their lot and potentially easing the government’s burden in those areas.
Still, implementing the Food Security Bill could be a daunting task and several implementation challenges will have to be overcome. By one estimate, India will need 60 million tons of rice, wheat and coarse cereals per year to service the program that will be implemented through the Public Distribution System. But India’s current five million ‘fair price shops’ that sell subsidized food grains may not be sufficient to cope with the increase in people entitled to the inexpensive rice and wheat.
Corruption in the Public Distribution System also remains an issue, with parts of the subsidized rice and wheat illegally diverted from the shops and sold in the open market. Meanwhile, many eligible recipients either never receive their benefits or do not receive their allotted amount. That said, the new scheme could provide an opportunity to replicate successful models such as those in Chhattisgarth and Tamil Nadu, where corrupt leakages are low and the poor benefit more than might be considered average in other states.
No clear eligible criteria
On what basis to identify the beneficiaries remains a contentious issue: the ordinance has left the identification of eligible households to the discretion of state governments. In the absence of clear eligibility criteria though, how can people know whether they are entitled or not to benefit from the scheme? On what basis then could they possibly resort to the grievance redressal mechanism? The lack of clear criteria to identify the beneficiaries may well render the most important provision of the bill meaningless.
Growing subsidies may also mean less investment in the agricultural sector. In India, 65 to 70 percent of the population lives on agriculture and land. And a piece of land often means the capacity to feed oneself. Yet, in recent years, the Indian government has been taking land from small farmers to sell them to the agriculture industry, often multinationals. As a result, farmers often end up in urban slums, with no resources remaining, leading to a soaring number of suicides.
Last year, after a march by landless small farmers and poor rural communities, the Indian government responded by launching a discussion on ensuring a minimum land holding for landless laborers and small farmers. Indeed, it may be more relevant to allow poor laborers to survive by working land they own rather than keeping them landless while giving them access to subsidized food. For many, it makes little sense to deprive small farmers of their land and then give them access to cheap grains.
Rajagopal P.V., a leading advocate of landless Indians, warned that the 2014 elections “will be around the issues of control over land and livelihood resources.” It increasingly appears he was right. Food Security in India remains a challenge and the battle is certainly far from over. But the Food Security Bill has had at least one positive outcome: it has started a wide and lively debate on the right to food. In a country where endemic malnutrition has long been considered fate or a question of karma, this is probably quite an achievement.