140 Right to Food: End Hunger by Law _—pr Archana Gadekar' “The first essential component of social justice is adequate food for all mankind." Abstract Over 900 million people experience the hard- ship that hunger imposes, a figure which continues to rise even amidst the riches of the 21st century. As world food prices scale new peaks, food insecurity and famine once again dominate humanitarian headlines, economic instability, climate change and food security presents a formidable challenge for national and global governance. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, in 2010, out of the 925 million undernourished people, 578 million lived in Asia and the Pacific region. There is an immediate niced to address this, else we shall be gravitating towards an unhappy world. Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger is one of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. Food security is an issue over which every nation should be con- cerned as it has serious repercussions on economic, social and political stability. It is all the more important for poorer countries.!1t This paper shall begin with making a brief overview of the right to food internationally and the challenges faced by India in this context. Further, this paper will attempt to dis- cuss India’s endeavour to end hunger by law. This paper aims at examining and scrutinising the Food Security Bill on the touchstone of the lofty and idealistic promise made in the Preamble of the Bill. Law is an instrument of social change. This paper shall try to find out whether having or making a law can be an answer to feed the starving people. + Lecturer and Dean of Stucdents, Baroda School of Legal Studies, Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda, Gujarat, India. tt Norman Borlaug, “The Vision” (Acceptance Speech for Nobel Peace Prize). ‘Ht. Joginder Singh, “Food Security May Be A Myth”, The Tribune, 7-6-2007, available at chttpi/www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030825/agro.htmiia>. tyON RIGHT TO FOOD: INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW To produce his or her own food, a person necds land, seeds, water aa other resources, and to buy it, one needs money and access to the mar. ket. The right to food is a human right recognised under internationa, law which protects the right of all human beings to feed themsemse in dignity, either by producing their food or by purchasing it, ‘the right t0 food therefore requires States to provide an enabling environment which people can use their Tull potential to produce or procure adequate food for themselves and their families. To purchase food, a person Needs adequate income: the right to food consequently requires States to ensure that wage policies or social safety nets enable citizens to realige their right to adequate food. At the international level the promise to ensure freedom from hunger has been expressed and reiterated at several times beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR),! International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR)2 World Food Conference, 1974,> World Food Security Compact, 19854 International Conference on Nutrition, r992,5 and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979.6 The right to food is a human right. It protects the right of all human beings to live in dignity, free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutri- tion. The right to food is not about charity, but about ensuring that all people have the capacity to feed themselves in dignity. The provisions pertaining to right to food directly or indirectly have been discussed briefly in some of the major international instruments, 154 FOOD SECURITY LAW: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 The human right to food has its contemporary origin within the UN Universal Human Rights framework. The main reference point is located within the UDHR. It provided a reference point for human rights legisla- tion that followed but is not itself a binding international legal instrument. Article 25 UDHR states, “Everyone has the right to standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, includ- ing food ... .” 1, “fveryone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health ahd well-being of himself and his family, including food ..™ “States Parties . ‘cognize the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hun- ger 3. “Every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition.” 4. “The hungry cannot wait,” 5. “We pledge to act in solid reality.” 6. Arts. 12 and 14. larity to ensure that freedom from hunger becomes 3RIGHT TO FOOD: END HUNGER BY LAW T55 jaternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 This was entered into force on 3 January 1976; it deals with the right to adequate food in Article x1(x) and (2) and Comment No. r2. 1999. ‘Article 11(1) ICESCR states, “The State Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food...” Article 11(2) ICESCR recognises freedom from hunger and right to life, i.e. the right to at least a nutritional intake ensuring survival. This provision is to be read in conjecture with Article 3 UDHR. The Committee on Economie, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in jes General Comment 12 defines right to food as: The right to adequate food is realised when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.” Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) recognises the child’s right to the highest standard of health’ and the obligation of signatory governments to “take appropriate measures to combat disease and mal- nutrition ..., through inter alia .., the provision ‘of adequately nutritious foods”. Article 27 also specifies good nutrition as part of the adequate standard of living to which children have a right. UN Millennium Development Goals Through the UN Millennium Development Goals, government leaders committed to halve world hunger by 2or5. Right to food under other international conferences/conventions . 1, World Food Conference, 1974: It states, “Every man, woman and child has the inalicnable right to be. free from hunger and malnutrition.” 2. Conference on the Nutritional Rights of Man, Declaration, 1992, Articles 1, 2 and 3. 3. United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat 11) 1996, held in Istanbul. Barcelona Je at chttp:/www.unhehr.ch/tbs/doc, 7. General Comment 12 (1999) para. 6, avails nsflo/3d02758c70703 1d58025677[003b73b9>. 8. Art. 24, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.00D SECURITY LAW: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES International Conference on Sustainable Constitution of Fisheries to Food Security (Kyoto Declaration, 1995). 5. Right to Food Voluntary Guidelines: To Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Sccurity (2 Parts) adopted by the 127th Session of the FAO Council in November 2004, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, 2005. ; : 6. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Right to Food Resolution 2000/2010. Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, 1974, Article 1. 8. World Summit on Food Security, Rome, 2009. At the World Food Summit, 2002, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food in 2002 defined it as follows: Right to adequate food is a human right, inherent in all people, to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and suf- ficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures.a physical and mental,.individual and collective fulfilling and dignified life free of fear. RIGHT TO FOOD: CONTENT The right to adequate food is realised when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.? Access, availability and adequacy can be saitl to be the three key ele= ments in the right to food. Availability requires on the one hand that food should be available from natural resources either through thé production of food, by culti- vating land or animal husbandry, or through other means of obtaining food, such as fishing, hunting or gathering. On.the other hand, it means that food should be available for sale in markets and shops. Accessibility requires economic and physical access 0 food to be guaranteed. Economic accessibility means that food must be affordable. Individuals should be able to afford food for an adequate diet without compromising on any other basic needs, such as school fees, medicines or rent. Physical accessibility means that food should be accessible to all, including to the physically vulnerable, such as children, the sick, persons with disabilities or the elderly, for whom it may be difficult to go out to get food. 9. General Comment 12. (1999) p. il ene nsllolsdoaysBereroed oo eat & available at .ee quacy means that the food must satisfy dietary needs, taking act the individual's age, living conditions, health, occupation, Mar example, if children’s food does not contain the nutrients ssary for their physical and mental development, it is not adequate. est d also be safe for human consumption and free from adverse Food shows ich as contaminants from industrial or agricultural pro- subster cluding residues from pesticides, hormones or veterinary drugs. ce ro should also be culturally acceptable. For example, aid a teaiting food that is religious or cultural taboo for the recipients or compasistent with their eating habits would not be culturally acceptable. RIGHT TO FOOD: END HUNGER BY LAW 157 ro acc’ FOOD SECURITY: CHALLENGES FOR INDIA ‘The state of India’s food security is worsening by the year. The cost of pod items is increasing rapidly, making them unaffordable to a major- ity of the people. Added to these woes is the short supply of pulses and ible oils, which forces the Central Government to import them. Pulses play a critical role in the diet of the people of India, where large sec- Fons are vegetarians. Protein plays a key role in the human diet. It is the body-building nutrient that develops muscles and is responsible for body strength, endurance and productivity.at the workplace. Given the important role that pulses play in the human diet, their availability needs to be increased indigenously. The common belief that without new high- yielding varieties the country will have to continue importing pulses and edible oils to mect the requirements is not true. ‘According to projections, India’s expenses on food handouts will likely rise by 2.2 per cent, much lower than analysts have projected. India currently spends z 60,572 crores for an existing food supply pro- gramme under the Targeted Public Distribution System for the needy. Food handouts are currently pegged to the 1993-1994 poverty estimates and in line with population figures of the 2000 Census. Since the govern- ment will have to apply the 20rz Census and updated poverty estimates, currently being finalised, for all future entitlements, the food subsidy would have risen to 1,09,795 crores even without the food security law. To cover 63.5 per cent of the population, or about 800 million Indians, the goverment would have had to spend nearly g 1,12,205 crores." _ India is faced with a big deficit of pulses and vegetable oil, mak- ing it vulnerable to price shocks in the global market, at least in the case of pulses.!! ‘We have serious limitations on all fronts like capaci ties of mandis, fitancial position of State agencies, manpower, quality 10. Zia Hag, “Govt Likely to Tweak Food Bill © Widen Coverage”28-2-2012 Hindustan mes, WE 1. xr Bureau, “Food Security: Government Mulls Private Purchase of Farm land toad” 5-3-2012 Economic Times.Ye ERSPECTIVES | INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPEC 158 FOOD SECURITY LAW: INTERDIS! and movement. Even at the level of opera- it difficult to handle the movement. Also, inspection mechanism, storag put would require huge , " ending tion, the Railways are findii 0 a massive programme to enhance food grains ont ii q ilisers.!? javestments in irrigation, power and ferti investments in irrigate of Indian agriculture that threatens food The underiying Proee ctiity. For example, in the case of rice it is nly a third of what has been achieved elsewhere. Cotton productivity is only a sixth of what has been achieved in developed countries. The Situation is no different in the case of other crops. In order to progress, the mindset with regard to the following two factors needs to change. Iris not the farmer who makes the food: he is only a facilitator. Food is actually made by plants. Therefore it is important to understand the requirements of plants and supply them without restrictions in order for plants to deliver food. Since plants do not talk, their needs are understood through research and experimentation. As indicated by Dr R.S. Paroda, a former Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Indian agriculture scientists will not by themselves be able to cope with the food security challenges that face the country. The current policy of pampering farmers with subsidies will get us nowhere in terms of improving productivity. This is well understood not only in developed countries but also in developing African countries like Malawi, Malawi was a basket case of poverty, malnutrition and food shortage. Crop productivity improvements have taken it to the point where the country now exports its surplus food to neighbouring poor countries. The lesson India has to learn is that instead of subsidising food supply to the people, the plants need subsidised food such as fertilisers and other inputs in order for them to produce the food to achieve food security. i The mindset that assumes that breeding is the solution to-all maladies has to change. Nurturing of plants’ is several times'more important in crop productivity improvement than hybrid seeds per se. A hybrid variety will not produce if planted in non-fertile beach soil. But it will produce several times more if planted in fertile soil. nat Re bay coon Policy has a laudable objective to ensure avail- Fea cabo Brains to the common people at an affordable price and ‘abled the poor to have access to food where none ‘existed. ‘The People are divided into two categories: bel i p above poverty line (APL) oii eons below poverty ‘ine (BPL) and category, Hegre APL) with the issue price being different for each 7 tegorisation is imperfect and a number of 12. Sharad P, gei harad Pawar, Agriculture Minister, speakirig at: the: conference on “Targeted Public Distribution Syste bution System and Storage” conves A Distribution Ministry, ‘The Hindu 8 eco ned by the Union Food and Public 13, Lux La a “ V's Fe Lakshmanan , “India’s Food Security Challenge” 4-1-2010 The Hindu.RIGHT TO FOOD: END HUNGER BY LAW deserving poor have been excluded from the BPL fold. Moreover, of the so-called APL slips back to BPL, say with failure of even one crop and it is administratively difficult to accommodate such shifts. The policy has focused essentially on growth in agriculture production and on support price for procurement and maintenance of rice and wheat stocks. The responsibility for procuring and stocking of food grains lies with the Food Corporation of India and for distribution with the Public Distribution System (PDS). Some challenges that India faces are: minimum support price input subsidies issue price market demand and 5. food-for-work scheme byops The government is running food-for-work scheme to give purchasing power to the poor who get paid for their labour in cash and food grains. The scheme is, however, not successful since the Central Government is required to meet only the food grain component and the cash strapped States are expected to meet the cash component (almost 50 per cent of the total expenditure). In many States the scheme has even failed to take off. INDIAN JUDICIARY ON RIGHT TO FOOD On x6 April 2001, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) submit- ted a “writ petition” to the Supreme Court of India asking three major questions: x. Starvation deaths have become a national phenomenon while there is a surplus stock of food grains in government godowns. Does the right to life mean that people who are starving and who are too poor to buy food grains ought to be given food grains free of cost by the State from the surplus stock lying with the State, particularly when it is lying unused and rotting? 2. Does not the right to life under Article 2x of the Constitution of India include the right to food? 3. Does not the right to food which has been upheld by the Supreme Court imply that the State has a duty to provide food especially in situations of drought to people who are drought affected and are not in a position to purchase food? Article a1 of the Constitution, entitled “Protection of life and personal liberty”, says, in its entirety, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The PUCL petition essentially argues that the right to food is a funda- mental right of all Indian citizens, and demands that the country’s gigan- tic food stocks (about 50 million tonnes of grain at that time) should beINTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 160 FOOD SECURITY LAW: nger and starvation. The right to used without delay to Pree i Findamencal “right to Kier tare cae eon of india), insofar as itis impossible to live without feed Constitution highlights two aspects of the Srate’s negligence in ensur- 7 va re ecuritye the breakdown of the PDS, and the inadequacy of vehi pro grammes in drought-affected areas. Following on this, it aske the Supreme Court to intervene, by directing the government to 1) pro- vide immediate open-ended! employment in drought-affected villages 2) provide unconditional support to persons unable to work, 3) raise the PDS entitlement per family, and 4) provide subsidised food grace to all families. The petition also requests the court to order the Central Government to supply free food grains for these programmes, Interim applications submitted from time to time by PUCL have further enlarged and consolidated these demands. The initial Petition focused on the drought situation prevailing at that time, especially in Rajasthan, but the litigation now. has a much broader scope. The main concern is to put in place permanent arrangements to prevent hunger and starvation. The interim applications adyocate the introduction of a nation-wide “employment guarantee act”, combined with social security arrangements for those who are unable to work, As a result of the ongoing proceedings, the Supreme Court has been issuing orders calling upon government agencies to identify the needy within their jurisdictions, and to assure that they receive adequate food, On 23 July 200%, the court said qn our opinion, what is of urmost importance is to sce that food is pro- vided to the aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women, destitute men who are in danger of starvation, pregnant and lactating women and destitute children, especially in cases where they or members of their family do not have sufficient funds to provide food for them. In case of famine, there may be shortage of food, but here the situation is that amongst plenty there is scarcity. Plenty of food is available, but distribution of the same amongst the very poor and the destitute is scarce and non-existent leading to malnourishment, starvation and other related problems. On 3 September 2001, the court directed that 16 States and Union ter- Titories that had not identified families below the poverty line must do So within two weeks, so that those families could be provided with food assistance. After two weeks, on 17 September 2001, the court repri- manded them, saying, “we are not satisfied that any such exercise in the right earnestness has been undertaken.” They were then given another three weeks to comply with the order. The court also reminded the Seatea that “certain schemes of the Central Government are mentioned whic aré required to be implemented by State Governments”. These fechas are: Employment Assurance Scheme which-may have been rep! laced by a Sampoorna Grameen Yojana, Midday Meal Scheme, IntegrateRIGHT TO Foon: ? END HUNGER BY LAW 161 Development Scheme, National Benefit Maternity Scheme for BPL preg- nant women, National Old Age Pension Scheme for destitute persons of over 65 years, Annapurna Scheme, Antyodaya Anna Yojana, National Family Benefit Scheme and Public Distribution Scheme for BPL and APL families. The Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Union territories were directed to report to the Cabinet Secretary, with copy to the learned Attorney General, within three weeks with regard to the implementation of all or any of these schemes with or without any modification and if all or any of the schemes have not been implemented, then the reasons for the same. All State Governments were directed to take their “entire allotment of food grains from the Central Government under the various Schemes and disburse the same in accordance with the Schemes”. Further, the court required that “the Food for Work Programme in the scarcity areas should also be implemented by the various States to the extent possible”. On 28 November 2001, the court issued directions to eight of the major schemes, calling on them to identify the needy and to provide them with grain and other services by carly 2002. For example, for the Targeted Public Distribution Scheme, “The States are directed to complete the identification of BPL (below poverty level) families, issuing of cards, and commencement of distribution of 25 kg grain per family per month latest by 1-12-2002.” The Supreme Court itself noted in an interim order dated 2 May 2003: Reference can also be made to Article 47 which inter alia provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. The PUCL claimed that starvation deaths had occurred despite excess grain stocks leading to a'violation of the right to food; court found right to life imperiled; orders for implementation of famine code, food schemes and midday meals in schools. ‘The case has been significant in not only catalysing an Indian-wide movement for implementation of various food schemes, but it has also become widely discussed in the global right to food movement and in research on right to food. This is particularly so since litigation specifically targeting the right to food is quite rare. INDIA’S ENDEAVOUR TO END HUNGER BY LAW National strategies on the progressive realisation of the right to food should fulfil four functions: 1. define the obligations corresponding to the right to adequate food, whether these are the obligations of government or those of private actors;162 FOOD SECURITY LAW: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES rove the coordination between the different branches of govern. eta and programmes may have an impact on the ment whose activit ; iPro isatic ig food; alisation of the right to : if : Gee targets, ideally associated with measurable indicators, defin- set targets, idea * ing the time-frame within which particular objectives shuld be achieved; and ; : 8 4. provide for a mechanism ensuring the impact of new legislative ini- tiatives or policies on the right. Article 47 of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall regard raising the nutrition and standard of living of its people and the improve. ment of public health as among its primary duties. The National Food Security Bill, 20rr (NFSB) is a step taken in pursuance of the constitu- tional obligations and obligations under international conventions, National Food Security Bill, 2011 The NFSB is the most expansive—politicians have called it showpiece— legislation of the UPA government in its second term in office, It covers the whole of India, except Jammu and Kashmir. The priority house- holds, the main beneficiaries of this Bill, will be selected from the Poor- est 46 per cent in rural areas and 26 per cent ‘in urban areas. Another 29 Per cent and 22 per cent of the population from rural and urban arece respectively will be treated as general category. The NFSB, which was introduced in Parliament aims to provide cheaper food grains to the poor fo ensure that people “live a life with dignity”. Salient features of the National Food Security Bill, 2011 1. The Bill confers the right to food security," 2. The draft has cast the so-called NFSB into the mother of all welfare schemes by Providing free food to children and pregnant women and encompassing swathes of people such as the destitute, the homeless and migrant workers, '5 3. The Bill provides for identification of persons living in starvation and has provision for immediate relief from starvation.'® The Bill has recognised the right to receive food at subsidised rates.” The Bill also guarantees seven kilograme of grain to every person l social access, at all times, either ancial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively res an active and healthy life. 17. Chap. Vi, ibid,Io. rr. 18. S. RIGHT TO FOOD: END HUNGER BY LAW 163 belonging to priority houscholds and three kilograms to individuals from general houscholds every month at subsidised prices. The Bill provides for food security allowance, ‘The Bill imposes obligation of food security on State Governments. It states that in case of non-supply of entitled quantities of food grains or meals, the State Government shall be responsible for payment of food security allowance. The Bill provides guidelines for identification of priority households and general households. ‘The Bill also presses for a radical overhaul of the food distribution system by giving incentives to independent agencies that procure food grain. . It has provided for reforms in Targeted Public Distribution System. The Bill calls for improved “modern and scientific” storage and doorstep-delivery of grain to Targeted Public Distribution System outlets." The draft Bill also envisions a radical change in welfare schemes by making women of 18 years and above as head of selected households that can access rice, wheat and nutria-cereals with ration cards. The Bill pushes for the creation of an advisory: body called the National Food Security Commission to help the Central Government implement the landmark welfare scheme. The Commission will advise the Central.Government on “synergizing existing schemes and framing new ones for entitlements”. It will also recommend steps for effective implementation of schemes through greater gov- ernment oversight by dramatically overhauling the nation’s food distribution system. Under the Food Commission’s watch, guide- lines will be issued for the training, capacity building and perfor- mance management of people involved in the implementation of welfare schemes, says the draft. The Commission will also prepare annual reports on implementation of the Act. The Commission will be headquartered in Delhi and comprise a chairperson; a vice- chairperson and five other members, provided that there are at least two women and at least one person each from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Centre will pay the salaries of the Commission’s bosses, support staff and administrative expenses. The Bill says that the Centre must periodically prescribe guidelines to identify households selected for the food schemes, including exclusion criteria. It also says these households must be reviewed - 28, National Food Security Bill, 2orr states: (1) The Central and State governments shall take necessary steps to develop ade- quate infrastructure designed and constructed on scientific basis for storage of food grains at State, di and block level as the case may be for distribution under this Act and for adequate buffer stocks.164 FOOD SECURITY LAW: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES. and updated through periodic surveys, which happens to be another key National Advisory Council (NAC) recommendation to the Food Ministry, which has prepared the draft and is tasked with the Act’s implementation. ‘The Bill also fixes responsibilities on the Central and State Governments. 12. Grievance redressal mechanism has been provided under the Bill, Criticism of the National Food Security Bill, 2011 Although, this Bill addresses many of the concerns of the Food Security Bill, zoTo, yet, the present Bill also suffers from certain drawbacks. Thy NAC framework includes important provisions relating, for instance, to child nutrition, reform of the PDS, and redress of grievances. It has the potential to put all the food-related schemes on a new footing, in a rights framework. However, this potential is in danger of being wasted by a flawed approach to the PDS, In this approach, the PDS rests on a three-way division of the popu- lation, among “priority,” “general” and “excluded” households. This framework is problematic. First, it hinges on a lasting division of the Population into three groups, without any clarity as to how the groups are to be identified. In the absence of any obvious alternative, the NAC is effectively falling back on the BPL census to identify priority groups. This is a major setback—the NAC’s entire work began with « vies, ally unanimous rejection of BPL-based targeting for the PDS. Exclusion crrors in earlier BPL censuses were very large, and the next BPL census is unlikely to fare much better, judging from the pilot survey, Second, since identification criteria are left to the Central Government, with some discretion for State Governments, nobody has guaranteed PDS entitlements under the Act, except for a few ultra-marginalised Broups (such as the so-called primitive tribal groups) which hare a right of “automatic inclusion” in the Priority list. Other households have no legal entitlement to be included in the priority list or, for that matter, in the general list, Therefore, they have no guaranteed PDS entitlements at all, This undermines the basic purpose of the Act. Third, the transition from the current ABL~BPL framework to the NAC framework is likely to be disruptive. There are at least three major sources of disruption: the creation of an “excluded” category; the tran- sition to a new BPL list; and the switch from household to per capita entitlements, Each of these changes entails a loss of entitlements for sig- nificant numbers of households, Meanwhile, the entitlements of other households will be enhanced, Can we expect this transition to happen » Or even to be completed at all? Fourth, the NAC framework fails to “de-link” PDS entitlements from official poverty estimates, and to prevent a rapid shrinkage of PDSRIGHT TO FOOD: END HUNGER BY LAW 165 coverage over time, It is well understood by now that official poverty lines in India are abysmally low, and that undernutrition is not confined ro households below the “poverty line”. In the NAC framework, 46 pet cent coverage of priority groups in rural areas corresponds to the propor- tion of the population below the “Tendulkar poverty line”, plus a margin of ro per cent for targeting errors, 'This is significantly higher than the current BPL coverage of about 33 per cent, But except for ruling out any reduction of PDS entitlements before the end of the r2th Five Year Plan (which is only a few years from now), nothing in the draft NFSB prevents the government from reducing PDS coverage in tandem with official pov- erty estimates over the years. Fifth, the idea of a universal PDS in the poorest 200 districts was dropped from the NAC framework (after being agreed and placed on record). This was an important idea, because any targeting process here is likely to lead to massive delays, fraud, and exclusion errors, In many of these districts, the local administration has little credibility. Large num- bers of poor households are outside the BPL list, and are-likely to remain excluded from the proposed “priority” list. Further, targeting is pointless in areas where an overwhelming majority of the population is vulnerable to food insecurity. Launching a universal PDS in these districts would have addressed a large part of the food insecurity problem in rural India in one go, at a small extra cost.'? Overall, the Bill’s promised operation may be dogged by the risk of misdirected or ambiguous logistics, as accessibility seems tied to some peculiar classifications.?° Eligible beneficiaries are categorised by age, location and status. Something called an “age-appropriate meal” will be given to children in the six-month to six-year age-range. It is not stated what this might be for each of the sub-sections of the age group. There is an assurance of “a free meal” for all children with malnutrition, but no mention of age limits. In another part of the draft text, an age bar of “children up to 14 years” is mentioned. Three supply points are identi- fied: the anganwadi, the “school and community kitchens”. However, the Bill has not explained about community kitchens. On the assumption that mothers-to-be can access the anganwadis, that is where all “pregnant and lactating mothers” would line up for a daily take-home ration of 600 kilo-calories and 18-20 grams of pro- tein—but if they are also classified as destitute or needy they come under other provisions. The Bill offers a meal a day to “all destitute persons”. It does not say for how long, or predict an end to the destitute condition. It offers two meals a day to households affected by emergencies or dis- asters—for a period of three months. It does not name any supply point. 19. Jean Dréze, “Mending the Food Security Act” 24-5-2011 The Hindu. 20. Razia Ismail, “No Guarantee of Food Security in Children’s Incredible India” 3-3-2012 Mainstream, Vol. x (No. 11).166 FOOD SECURITY LAW: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES The Bill secks to provide legal entitlement to subsidised food grains to 75 per cent rural and 50 per cent identified urban population. If the Bill becomes law and is implemented in its current form, the food subsidy Bill is expected to rise by % 27,663 crores to nearly % 95,000 crorety while the food grain requirement would go up to 61 million tonnes from $5 million tonnes.2! According to the latest review of the Bill, food subsidy could go up to ¢ x lakh crore from x 65,000 crores at present when the right to food programme is rolled out sometime in 2012-2013. The Bill has been criticised by many, even within the government as being unsustainable to the exchequer besides requiring an increase in food grain procurement by the government. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ORDINANCE, 2013 1. Priority households are entitled to 5 kilogram of food grains per month, and antyodaya households to 35 kilogram per household per month. The combined coverage shall extend up to 75 per cent of the rural population and up to so per cent of the urban population. The PDS issue prices are given in Schedule I: z 3/2/1 for rice/wheat/ millets (actually called “coarse grains” in the Ordinance). These may be revised after three years, 2. The food to be provided will be age-appropriate, with care on nutri- tious value of the food offered. The main beneficiaries will be chil- dren, pregnant and lactating women of eligible households. Every pregnant and lactating mother is entitled to a free meal at the local anganwadi (during pregnancy and six months after childbirth) as well as maternity benefits of & 6000, in instalments, 3. This massive programme will be transparent and subject to griev- ance redressal at appropriate levels with provisions for penalties and compensation, 4. The Ordinance also has provisions for PDS reforms including door- step delivery of food grains, end-to-end computerisation, leverag- ing “aadhaar”, etc,—in a nutshell, revolutionising food distribution system as it exists now. It aims at making concrete changes to the PDS for strengthening its network with greater transparency. 5. The responsibility is not just of the Central Government but equally of the States/Union Territories.? Corresponding to coverage of 75 21, Liz Mathew, “Ramesh Wants to Sidestep . 22. Available at last accessedRIGHT TO FOOD: END HUNGER BY LAW 167 Fer centso per cent of the rural/arban population at the all India level, State-wise coverage will be determined by the Planning Commission. The work’ of identification of eligible households i proposed! t0 be left to the States/Union ‘Territories, which may ‘rame their own criteria or use the Social I ie al Economie and Census (SECC) data.28 © and Caste 6. It also envisages a Grievance Redressal System and constitutes a whole new machinery to ensure efficacy of the “Right to Food” model. This agency shall work at various levels of District, State and National Commission. CONCLUSION India is on the threshold of a historic transition from a ship-to-mouth existence to implementing the world’s largest social protection pro- gramme against hunger with home-grown food. The NFSA is signa- ture social safety legislation. The Food Security Act will confer double benefits—procurement at a remunerative price for the PDS will stimulate production, and consumers who need social support to ward off hunger will be able to have economic access to the food needed for a productive life. Making good food and nutrition security available to the people is a matter of ethics in governance, and should be a hallmark of the leg- islation, and an evidence of the State’s guardianship of people’s food security.?4 This Bill can be said to be a paradigm shift in addressing the problem of food security—from the current welfare approach to a right based approach. The NFSA opens with a laudable objective stating that it is a Bill to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters con- nected therewith or incidental thereto. There is need for a political will, especially at the State’s level over the question of implementation. Time alone will answer whether India is ready to take such a gigantic social responsibility by enacting this much needed legislation and to end hunger by law. 23. Available at chttp://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=95441> last accessed eens ildren’ fl ” 24. Razia Ismail, “No Guarantee of Food Security in Children’s Incredible India’ 3-3-2012 Mainstream, Vol. x (No. 11).