Dear elders, friends and wellwishers,
Pranam !
I am deeply disturbed that heir of a well known political and intellectual family of Odisha has hijacked my article as his creation. I found this today. Please know details about that from my mail that I have written to him just a shortwhile ago (pasted just below this paragraph). Below the text of my mail, I have also pasted the exact article for your reference. Just see, how intellectual property rights are blatantly transgressed by so called intellectuals.
Exact text of my mail to Suporno Satpathy:
Dear Suporno babu,
Pranam !
I found a posting titled 'A Special Package of Lies from the Govt of Odisha' under the article segment of 'www.orissabarta.com'.
With all politeness, I will like to inform you that the said piece is written entirely by me and was posted in various listserves in public domain along with posting in my own blog 'www.bimalpandia.blogspot.com' on 23.12.2010 under heading 'A Package of Lies'. But ironically and to my utter bemusement, in your posting (URL: http://orissabarta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4043:a-special-package-of-lies-from-the-govt-of-odisha&catid=41:articles&Itemid=27) it has been shown that the piece has been written by Suporno Satpathy (Chairman SNSMT). No where in website it has been shown that I am the original writer of that piece of article.
I am sure that this is a deliberate act on your part to hijack my article as yours. For the only changes that you have made are the names whom I have quoted in my piece. While my piece carries quotes from Annada Mishra of Bankia village, Ananta Bariha of Dhatuk village, Ashok Pradhan and Murari Prasad Purohit (both farmer leaders) and Vijay Dishari of Mukhiguda village; the piece that you claim as yours just tries to cleverly change those names to Girdhar Padhan of Chhedipada and Dinu of Balangir district. In other cases you have cleverly deleted the names and the quoted portions have been mainstreamed into the article as narration.
Being educated, being the heir of a bright family of the state, and being in the socio-political field, I hope that you are matured enough to understand that I should be deeply disturbed, peeved and angry with such an incursion into my rights and creativity. I hope that I will get an explanation in this regard from you.
Just to introduce myself further, let me tell you that I am the son of highly respected person in erstwhile Balangir district who was also a very close confidant of your mother Nandini Satpathy. Your mother was treating my father and family with reverence and respect and my father and family had the same for your mother and your family. Besides, I give your brother Tathagat babu immense respect and has a very close rapport with the Dharitri family. I too had a political lineage such as yours (though I have left politics now).
Considering this, I do not wish to take this matter to public or other forums until I get a reply from you. But the reply should not be inordinately delayed. I hope you will be apologetic about this transgression and blatant abuse of intellectual rights and rest this matter to piece.
Regards
Bimal Prasad Pandia
Exact copy of my article that Suporno Satpathy has shown as his:
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
A PACKAGE OF LIES
By: Bimal Prasad Pandia
Odisha government’s ‘special package’ for rain affected farmers not only makes a mere routine and mandatory minimum relief measure as a grand compensation package but also it mocks the farmers on their face as it grossly misleads all in its quantitative and qualitative coverage.
“Only Rs 2,000 compensation for a hectare is awfully ridiculous and unacceptable,” says Ashok Pradhan, Convener of Paschim Odisha Krushak Sangathan Samanyaya Samiti (POKSSS). The Samiti has started a massive farmer movement in western Odisha now. “This time crop loss happened at the last stage and during harvesting. By the time we have almost made all expenditures required for raising and harvesting a crop,” informs Murari Prasad Purohit, President of POKSSS. “Cultivation of paddy has become hugely capital intensive. Now we are spending at least Rs 12,000 for one acre (Rs 30,000 for one hectare) of paddy. What is the value of a mere Rs 800 compensation then,” questions Mr Purohit.
The writer may be contacted at: bimalpandia@gmail.com
Odisha government’s ‘special package’ for rain affected farmers not only makes a mere routine and mandatory minimum relief measure as a grand compensation package but also it mocks the farmers on their face as it grossly misleads all in its quantitative and qualitative coverage.
A half page colour advertisement, prominently gracing all major newspapers and medias of Odisha, blaring “Hon’ble Chief Minister’s declaration of special relief package to farmers affected by low-pressure induced rain” has generated more condemnation than kudos. The opposition is expectedly sniffing ‘inefficiencies’. The treasury bench, too, find it awfully awkward to defend a declaration which their government woefully terms as a ‘package’. While the who’s who debate it at their levels, nature ravaged farmers are doomed to a sense of big letdown. “As you can see, I have lost the whole crop. But now I get to know that the package is not for me,” says a bemused Annada Mishra of Bankia village in Sonepur district while he was trying his hands a salvaging operation fully knowing that “the cost of the salvage operation will be more than the value of the salvaged crop”. While Annada, a big farmer, is peeved because he is entitled to a maximum compensation of only 2,000 rupees; Anata Bariha, a small farmer of Dhatuk village in Balangir district, is dumbfounded as the so called package is barely a fraction of what he did spend on his now ruined crop. “I am being told that I will get only 1,200 rupees compensation for the lost crop in crop in my one and half acre holding,” informs Ananta and adds “I had spent 20,000 rupees on the crop.”
To cover so less and so few
The Rs 900 Crore package that the state government did so proudly announce and so profusely advertise is like rubbing salt to farmer’s rotting wounds. And they have reasons to presume so. While announcing the package, Naveen Pattnaik, the Chief Minister of Odisha, did mention that prima-facie estimation of more than 50 percent of crop loss has been reported from ‘around 12 lakh hectares under paddy and non-paddy crops’. Even if we assume that all affected lands are irrigated land, which is entitled to highest compensation, still the total compensation that the farmers will get will be a mere Rs 480 Crore rupees – barely a half of the so called 900 Crore package.
But hold on… there is a catch. Neither all lands are irrigated, nor will all affected lands be provided compensation. Orissa Agricultural Statistics for year 2009-10 claims that irrigation potential has been created in 47.5 percent of the state’s total cultivable area. But a huge chasm between irrigation potential created and utilized undermines all claims. Even the state department of water resources puts irrigation utilization at 81 percent of the potential created. That means about 20 percent of land presently being considered as irrigated is in fact not getting any irrigation cover. Thus effective area under any sort of irrigation is only 38.5 percent of the total cultivable area. But, there are not many takers for this figure either and they reject this claim as being highly optimistic. Still for the sake of calculation let us assume that 38 percent of the 12 lakh hectares of land supposedly identified as rain affected are irrigated land. Thus the maximum possible total compensation - assuming an unrealistic supposition that all land holders are eligible for compensation for all of their holdings - for irrigated lands will be Rs 182.4 Crore only (4,56,000 hectares getting compensation @ Rs 4,000 per hectare) and the maximum total compensation for non-irrigated lands will be Rs 148.8 Crores only (7,44,000 hectares getting compensation @ Rs 2,000 per hectare). Thus even in the best possible scenario, where all affected lands become eligible for compensation irrespective of land holding pattern, still require the government to spend only Rs 331.2 Crores on compensation, not Rs 900 Crores. But the best possible scenario is not at all a reality, as only a fraction of land identified as rain affected are likely to be eligible for compensation. The reason is the land holding pattern and the ceiling condition laid out in the so called ‘package’. Farmers who are not ‘marginal’ or ‘small’ will be entitled to a maximum compensation for one hectare only. Thus a farmer having lost more than 50 percent of crops in 10 acres of land will still get a maximum compensation of Rs 2,000 for non-irrigated land and Rs 4,000 for irrigated land.
Land distribution aspect has significant bearing on compensation coverage and ex-gratia amount. As per the 2001 population census there are 42,34,000 farming households in Odisha. Though 83 percent of them are small and marginal farming households, they own only about 40 percent of the total land. In other words, about 13 percent of big and medium farmers own about 60 percent of the lands. Thus a ceiling of compensation for a maximum of one hectare land for big and small farmers will eliminate scope of compensation to as high as about 40 percent of affected lands which belong to medium and big farmers.
This is not the end of the gaffe. The December rain mostly caused losses in low lands where farmers normally go for late duration crops. The pattern is such that ownership of such low lands mostly lies with the big and medium farmers. This kind of pattern is more prominent in western-southern parts of Odisha. Thus, by virtue of this, a majority of the estimated 12 lakh hectares of land affected by December rainfall belong to big and medium farmers and thereby further erode coverage of the declared compensation package.
‘Why did you prompt us to take up high-cost high risk crops?’
While the very basic claim of the ‘Rs 900 Crore special package’ is hollow, based on untruth and misleading, the compensation ‘package’ itself is atrociously humiliating to farmers. The ‘package’ is nothing but a mere declaration of ‘Calamity Relief Fund (CRF)’ norms. Section 3(e)(i) of the CRF norms mentions an “Assistance to small and marginal farmers for agricultural crops, horticulture crops and annual plantation crops @ Rs 2,000 per hectare in rainfed areas, Rs 4,000 per hectare under assured irrigation area.. (a) No input subsidy will be payable for agricultural land remaining unsown or fallow. (b) Assistance payable to any small farmer with tiny holding may not be less than Rs 250” where more than 50 percent of crop losses have been reported.
“Only Rs 2,000 compensation for a hectare is awfully ridiculous and unacceptable,” says Ashok Pradhan, Convener of Paschim Odisha Krushak Sangathan Samanyaya Samiti (POKSSS). The Samiti has started a massive farmer movement in western Odisha now. “This time crop loss happened at the last stage and during harvesting. By the time we have almost made all expenditures required for raising and harvesting a crop,” informs Murari Prasad Purohit, President of POKSSS. “Cultivation of paddy has become hugely capital intensive. Now we are spending at least Rs 12,000 for one acre (Rs 30,000 for one hectare) of paddy. What is the value of a mere Rs 800 compensation then,” questions Mr Purohit. Even the banks and cooperative societies provide crop loan @ Rs 9,000 per acre for rainfed paddy. “This compensation at best covers less than nine percent of the loan amount,” points out Bijay Dishari of Mukhiguda village in Kalahandi district. Farmers naturally feel brutalized. “The government wants us to go for high-yielding and high-cost cropping practices to feed a growing population. But it does precious little to cushion our losses.”
As magnitude of losses keep on increasing owing to a variety of vagaries and the government continues to be found more and more wanting, farmer’s quandaries continues to mount. “Why are our farmers being asked and encouraged to go for high-cost cropping practices,” questions Saroj Mohanty, a noted farmer activist. “In the long term, total cumulative output from a high-cost method invariably equals that of a traditional and low cost method,” Mohanty adds. Increasing natural disasters, pest attacks and untimely supply or shortages of inputs are growingly affecting high-cost crops more than a traditional crop. And the burden of shouldering such losses has squarely fallen on the hapless farmers. “We were better off growing our crops traditional way where cost of production was very low,” says Daktar Bhoi of Darlipali village in Balangir district. He too echoes Mr Mohanty and innocently questions, “Why did you prompt us to take high cost crops which not only increased our risks but also increased our losses. We are worst off now”.
Perplexed farmers of Odisha are peeved at the way their government is dealing with them. While other state governments have acted differently, Odisha government’s indifference has struck them badly. The state government is propagating what should have been a minimum and routine ex-gratia aid as ‘Chief Minister’s special package’. Odisha government has declared nothing more than what has been stipulated in the CRF norms except raising the minimum compensation from Rs 250 to Rs 1,000. Losses and damages in Tamilnadu are not very different from Odisha, yet the Tamilnadu government has already declared a uniform compensation of Rs 10,000 for every damaged hectare.
As farmers having crop loss of more than 50 percent rue their fate, farmers having lesser crop loss complain why their losses are not been taken into account at all. “We too will not be able to make up the cost incurred on the crop,” complains Santosh Padhi of Panchamahala village in Sonepur distirct. “Further, paddy has become discolored and no one is buying them,” adds M. Govindu a big farmer in the Hirakud command area of Sambalpur district. The package does not even make a consideration for those.
Even as mysteries of the ‘package’ keep unfolding, our bewilderment grows more and more. How a democratic government claim a so little, so less covered and such a routine relief measure as a ‘special package’ and barb about doing that. As farmer movement start growing and politicians are awakening to take some mileage, indications are clearly coming from the grassroots that farmers are not that aloof and ignorant anymore.
The writer may be contacted at: bimalpandia@gmail.com
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Where is Paddy Bonus, Mr. Minister?
Mr Minister, you have made a statement that farmers are getting Rs 50 bonus on a quintal paddy. Sadly, that is nothing but blatant falsehood
(My open letter to Dr Damodar Rout, Agriculture Minister, Odisha)
Dear Dr. Damodar Rout ji, Hon’ble Agriculture and Cooperation Minister, Government of Odisha
Pranam !
Sir, you are a seasoned politician; a senior member of the present cabinet holding agriculture and cooperation portfolio; and also you claim to be an active farmer. You are the most active member of the present cabinet on various media and public communication platforms. Having all these traits, the farming community expects from you a reflection of the true status of the agriculture sector. But, I am constrained to allege that, on many occasions, you have belied the trust reposed on you by the farmers. Your statement made on Friday that a bonus of Rs 50 is being paid now, over and above the Minimum Support Price (MSP) of paddy, adds another leaf to that growing list falsehood.
You are grossly wrong in reporting that farmers are being paid a bonus of Rs 50 on every sell of a quintal of paddy. The farmers are not getting any bonus this year at all and the net sell proceed from a quintal of paddy remains exactly the same as last year. In addition to the MSP of Rs 950 per quintal, farmers were also getting a bonus of Rs 50 last year. The MSP for this year has been increased to Rs 1,000 per quintal. However, the government is providing no bonus this year. Thus, the effective price that a farmer gets by selling a quintal of paddy still remains Rs 1,000.
Your statement is like an insult to injuries to the farming community which is grappling with increasing adversities. If you have made the statement after ascertaining true facts, then your department and your government has failed to convey the decision - to pay Rs 50 per quintal bonus - to your procuring officers. That shows the incompetence of you and your government. But, if you are not aware of the true facts and still preferred to make an announcement that Rs 50 per quintal of bonus is being paid then that is no less than brute treachery towards the public in general and farming community in particular.
You definitely owe us an explanation on this guff.
With regards
Bimal Prasad Pandia
Bank Colony, Sakhipada, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768 001
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Power Politics
Cheap Power to Farmer - A Real Sham
My open letter to Odisha Finance Minister
Dear Sri Prafulla Chandra Ghadei, Hon'ble finance Minister of Odisha.
My open letter to Odisha Finance Minister
Dear Sri Prafulla Chandra Ghadei, Hon'ble finance Minister of Odisha.
Pranam !
Resepected Sir,
Newspapers and media have reported that in a workshop held yesterday you made an indication that the state government is mulling to provide power for irrigation at a 'cheaper rate'. Being a farmer and some what dependent on electricity to save my crops, I should have been jumping in joy. Sadly, that has not happened. There are two reasons for this:
1. Farmers need quality power more than free power: Prolonged and frequent disruptions have become menacingly common. Often it happens that you press the green switch to start the pump but find out that the power supply has again snapped soon after. A simple fault in a feeder line requires days to be attended. After receiving a complaint, the concerned line attendant will come to the section office at 10 am, cut off power supply to the entire feeder from the grid itself (meaning no power for the entire greed supplied area), will check for faults and will return to the section in the afternoon or evening. If the lineman succeeds in finding out and rectifying the fault then the power supply will resume through that feeder in the evening. But that happens only if the consumers are lucky. Even a small fuse related problem takes days to be attended. And if something goes wrong with the transformers or supply lines, take it granted that the fault will not be rectified before the crop is destroyed. Even when there is some kind of power supply, more often than not, the voltage is far too low. Which not only reduces pumping capacity but also results in a severely curtailed life span of the pump set.
2. It is a brazen violation of BJD's own manifesto, which assured the citizens that it will provide free power for irrigation
Your party BJD's manifesto - for the 2009 general election to the state Assembly - had given a clear and unambiguous assurance to give "Free Power to Agriculture Sector"(Source: http://www.
Your party BJD's manifesto - for the 2009 general election to the state Assembly - had given a clear and unambiguous assurance to give "Free Power to Agriculture Sector"(Source: http://www.
Hence, your indications of a cheaper power supply rate do not enthuse any interest in a genuine farmer. Rather, it only gives scope for proponents of privatisation and liberalisation that government has again become 'populist' by 'subsidising' tax payer's money on a sector which is 'failing to fuel' GDP.
I appreciate your and the government's concern towards the farmer. But your indication of providing power at cheaper rate for irrigation is like adding insult to the farmer's injuries. We rather look forward to quality power. If quality power comes to farmers at a cheaper price or at free of cost then that is a bonus. I hope I have been able to make my points clear.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
When Perpetrators Act as Judge
On paper Meena Gupta committee, assigned to assess environment and forest related issues with regard to POSCO's project in Odisha, has given a split report. But a closer look reveals that it is just one member's - who happened to be the boss of the department which doled out many clearances and which are being subjected to review by the committee - divergent view.
Meena Gupta’s report is a classic example of what happens when one allows a prosecutor to also try the case. To be slightly more scathing this case is even serious as it involves an enquiry of a crime by a person who has been party to abetment of that crime itself. As has been already pointed out, Ms Gupta was at the helm of affairs when many environmental / forest clearances were granted by the MoEF. She took charge of environment and forest ministry as its Secretary on June 1, 2007. Prior to that, she worked in the same ministry as the Chief of the Regulatory Agency. Earlier she was the health Secretary to the Government of Odisha. Her period as the Secretary of the Environment Ministry or as the Chief of the Regulatory Agency coincides or precedes or succeeds with many clearances and permissions given to POSCO. Some of the clearances include:
Meena Gupta’s report is a classic example of what happens when one allows a prosecutor to also try the case. To be slightly more scathing this case is even serious as it involves an enquiry of a crime by a person who has been party to abetment of that crime itself. As has been already pointed out, Ms Gupta was at the helm of affairs when many environmental / forest clearances were granted by the MoEF. She took charge of environment and forest ministry as its Secretary on June 1, 2007. Prior to that, she worked in the same ministry as the Chief of the Regulatory Agency. Earlier she was the health Secretary to the Government of Odisha. Her period as the Secretary of the Environment Ministry or as the Chief of the Regulatory Agency coincides or precedes or succeeds with many clearances and permissions given to POSCO. Some of the clearances include:
1. Environmental clearance to captive port on 15 May, 2007.
2. Environmental clearance to POSCO plant on 19 July, 2007.
3. CRZ clearance to port on 15 May, 2007.
4. In principle forest clearance given on 19 Sept, 2008.
5. Final forest clearance given on 29 Dec, 2009.
As Ms Gupta was a key decision maker with regard to POSCO, it was quite natural for her to interpret the ToR for the committee in a very narrow manner. She only wanted to assess whether the orders and clearances have been complied with. She was not ready or interested to assess whether the clearances granted by MoEF were based on sound reasoning or after proper enforcement of the existing laws and guidelines. After all how can she even tolerate that the decisions taken by her department when she herself was the Secretary can be subjected to scrutiny by a committee headed by her?
While the three other members of the committee have taken a holistic look while going through their task, Ms Gupta has been quite the opposite. Some of her reasonings are quite infantile. She tries to make a difference between POSCO and Vedanta. She says, “POSCO and Vedanta are very different projects and operate in different environs and circumstances. Vedanta’s alumina plant (and the bauxite mine for which lease was applied for by the Orissa Mining Corporation), is located in the less developed western part of Orissa, in a Scheduled Area which is home to two Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs)…. POSCO’s plant, on the other hand is to be located in a coastal district, in the more developed eastern part of Orissa; the area is not a Scheduled Area and has virtually no Scheduled Tribe people.” It is so ironic that Meena Gupta has again erred in failing to see the POSCO project in its whole. She has conveniently ignored that the POSCO project too involves large scale mining, which ostensibly will be done in a scheduled area. The Khandadhar mine is being considered for POSCO. This mine too falls in a scheduled area having primitive tribal’s – the Paudi Bhuyans – habitat. Violation and denigration of FRA is no less rampant that in Niyamgiri there too.
Meena Gupta says “each of the members also had a very different understanding of the issues.” That’s quite expected. But how is it that while three well versed and experienced members had an entirely different opinion on whether forest exists in the proposed project area? That had nothing to do with ‘understanding’; they are mere ‘inputs’. She says,
“the area recorded as forest is mainly sandy waste, with some scrub forest, apart from the casuarina plantations in the area.” In sharp contrast to this view the majority report on the other hand says, “As per the land cover analysis with high resolution satellite imagery of 2006/2007 by Orissa government about 70% area of the forest land is covered with various kinds of forest and trees and the remaining area is sandy, covered with betel vine, agriculture and other miscellaneous activities, as also water bodies. The areas under casuarina plantation which occupies the major portion of forests in the coastal areas were earlier covered with mangroves and were destroyed either during super cyclones or by illegal cutting.” Even the main report, drafted by Meena Gupta says at one place, “Since almost 74% of the land to be given to POSCO was forest land, with about 2.8 lakh trees,…”.
Meena Gupta too had an awful interpretation on whether schedule tribe people live in the proposed area or not. While comparing POSCO with Vedanta’s Niyamgiri project she says, “POSCO’s plant, on the other hand is to be located in a coastal district, in the more developed eastern part of Orissa; the area is not a Scheduled Area and has virtually no Scheduled Tribe people.” The majority opinion of the committee on the other hand says, “A large number of documentary and oral evidences have been found to support the presence of forest dwelling STs and OTFDs in the proposed POSCO project area contrary to the claim made by the district administration and the Orissa government that there are none. The voter list of 2006 mentions 21 names of ST community living in one of the villages Polang, included in the project area. A number of non tribal people living in project affected villages have produced documents of 1920s showing their relationship, dependence on forests/forest land thereby clearly establishing the existence of OTFDs and STs in the project area.”
Ms Gupta has failed to go through her task independent of other factors. Rather she has been far too bothered by the scathing N. C. Saxena Committee report and subsequent revoking of environmental clearance to Vedanta’s Niyamgiri project. She admits, “Since POSCO, like Vedanta is a large mineral based company in the process of establishing a major project in Orissa, the two projects are often equated in the public mind. There was an immediate assumption, therefore, that the POSCO project, too, would be disallowed. Working in this kind of charged atmosphere is neither pleasant nor easy.” It wasn’t truly easy for her. For while the other three members of the POSCO committee stood straight irrespective of preceding happenings, Ms Gupta meekly succumbed.
Having said all this, we too should not call Ms Gupta’s report a trash. She too has a long experience of efficiently handling many responsible assignments. Rather we should highlight how a perpetrator should not have been a judge at the first place and how most government officers hold a narrow vision and tend to arrogantly stick to that narrowness.
Glutting Disgrace Buried Beneath Superficial Glory?
Now, the bad news
First Published: 23:23 IST(13/10/2010)
Last Updated: 23:54 IST(13/10/2010)
Last Updated: 23:54 IST(13/10/2010)
October 11, 2010, was a day of glory, hope and shame for India. It was a day India touched — and would soon top — its best-ever medals tally at the Commonwealth Games. It was a day the money poured over 2010 into India by foreign institutional investors was set to touch a record R100,000 crore (or $21 billion). It was a day India was ranked 67 of 84 countries in a global hunger index.
The medals harvest cheered India like nothing else. New sporting heroes, particularly women, emerged from every corner of emerging India. We stopped ranting against that symbol of old India, Suresh Kalmadi, and started raving about the new, like Deepika Mahato, gold medallist in archery and daughter of a Ranchi auto driver. We were right in celebrating the few hundred sportsmen and women who made the long journey from backwater to big stage, from penury to plenty. They had new stories for us, and we wanted to hear them, to be inspired, to feel good.
But there are older stories that we do not like to hear.
India’s latest hunger ranking, delivered by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington D.C., did not make it to television news. In the newspapers, it was buried, just another bad news story in a nation that, increasingly, does not like to hear such news.
The IFPRI’s Global Hunger index ranks India in the ‘alarming’ group (the categories: moderate, serious, alarming and extremely alarming), below many failed States ruled by tyrants and despots. The ranking considers the number of children under five who are underweight, malnourished or wind up dead, particularly girls.
In Asia, everyone, except Bangladesh, which is just one rank below India, is doing better. China is at number nine, Pakistan at 59, Nepal at 56. India is bested by a host of tottering States, including Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.
Hunger is particularly inconvenient bad news. Unlike an ill-prepared Games pulled together at the last minute, there are no last-minute fixes.
India’s approach to hunger has been to throw a programme at every failing. So, the world’s largest programme for nutritional, health and school needs of children under six, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), which runs 1.4 million centres nationwide with a budget of R7,806 crore for 2020-11. So, the world’s biggest cooked-meal programme, covering 119 million children in government schools up to class VIII with a budget of R9,440 crore. So, the world’s largest public distribution system (PDS) for subsidised food, with a budget of R55,578 crore. So, the world’s biggest cash-for-work programme, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), with a budget of R40,100 crore. Hunger in India is definitely not a problem of resources.
Hunger persists despite spectacular economic expansion, and it is disproportionate to rising incomes. With per capita income crossing $1,000, India is now considered a middle-income country.
What, then, is the problem?
As this paper, through its ‘Tracking Hunger’ series (www.hindustantimes.com/trackinghunger) has often reported, behind every story of hunger and malnutrition is a collective national apathy towards the poor, an unreformed, struggling agriculture sector, the low status of women and collapsing administration.
In addressing hunger, the biggest question is the same that arose before and during the Games in Delhi: who’s in charge? That’s the question Lant Pritchett, old India hand and professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, poses when he travels across the nation. He rarely gets a convincing answer. “India’s basic systems are badly, badly broken,” he told me. Evidence abounds in leaky multibillion-dollar, anti-hunger programmes: a quarter of the money spent on mid-day meals never reaches the poor, a third in the NREGA and more than half on the PDS. The failures of the PDS are especially acute. Only 36 per cent of its poor have below-poverty-line (BPL) cards to access cheap food. Nearly 60 per cent of these cards are with people who are not officially poor.
Can this be fixed? Universalise the PDS, says the left. Target it more sharply and pay the poor directly, says the free-marketers. There is an unsexy, boring idea: it’s called reform. For instance, a PDS dealer has to go through an average of 18 levels to get grain.
Unlike the failed States ranked above India in the global hunger index, the government has not lost control — yet. Yet, there is no big-bang fix, just a hard slog ahead.
N.C. Saxena, member of India’s influential National Advisory Council, believes most Indian states have lost the capacity for reform on their own. “That pressure to reform can come only from the government of India,” he said. Right now, there is no such pressure.
As with the run-up to the Games, the government knows the problem. Unlike the Games, it shows no urgency or inclination to intervene, to set deadlines and targets, to pick programmes that need to be reformed, to — most importantly — put more people, administrators and politicians, in charge of national crises like hunger and malnutrition.
India’s new stars could lend a hand. A major reason for India’s high child malnutrition is the low status of women. They still eat last and least during pregnancy. As women’s discus throw gold medallist Krishna Poonia, a Jat, noted: “Our community is known more for female foeticide… but so many Jat women have won medals; it proves what we can do — if we get the opportunity.” India’s undiscovered Poonias must have these chances, sooner than later, or we may be doomed to our hunger rankings — and everlasting shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)