Welfare claims

Published : Nov 24, 2001 00:00 IST

The responses of the State governments filed before the Supreme Court on a petition moved by the People's Union of Civil Liberties reveal major flaws in the implementation of Centrally sponsored welfare schemes.

EVEN as the callousness of various State governments in the matter of food security became increasingly evident, 11 of these filed reports before the Supreme Court making claims that sought to project a different picture. The reports said that all the Central and State schemes had been implemented fully, there were no starvation deaths, there were no destitutes in the respective States, sufficient food was supplied through the Public Distribution System (PDS), the States had been lifting their grain quota from Food Corporation of India (FCI) godowns, anyone who needed food but was unable to work for it was given gratuitous relief, and so on. These claims were made by Rajasthan, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, Karnataka, Orissa, Meghalaya and Manipur in the first week of September in response to a petition filed by the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) alleging starvation deaths in several States, including Orissa. But the Supreme Court was unimpressed. It asked the State governments to prepare a compliance report vis-a-vis nine Central government schemes. Their affidavits make it clear that the state of food security in India is worrisome.

Less than half of the foodgrain allotted to below poverty line (BPL) families is distributed through the PDS. On an average, a BPL family gets 10.85 kg of grain a month against the allotment of 25 kg. States such as Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Maharashtra, Orissa and Meghalaya are yet to identify the BPL families and in States such as Jharkhand and Maharashtra and in the Union Territories of Pondicherry and Chandigarh, those identified have not received ration cards.

The picture becomes even grimmer when one scrutinises the records of schemes that were intended to assure food supply to the poor. The Antyodaya Anna Yojana is a case in point. Under this scheme, 25 kg of grain is to be provided to each identified family at the rate of Rs.2 a kg for wheat and Rs.3 a kg for rice. Most States took up the task of identifying the beneficiaries of this scheme only after the Supreme Court's order. States such as Manipur and Sikkim have not even begun the work. Assam, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal and the Union Territory of Chandigarh are yet to complete the identification process. As a result, the scheme benefits on an average only 7.09 per cent of the target population.

Similar is the case with the mid-day meal scheme, which aims to provide every child in a government school a meal with a nutritional value of 300 calories a day for a minimum of 200 working days of the school. The national offtake of foodgrain for this scheme is less than half of the allotment. Worse, the majority of the States - Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal - provide dry rations to the children instead of cooked meal. States such as Nagaland have converted foodgrains into cash and distribute it among the children. Even in States where the scheme has taken off, the provision of dry rations is delayed and the quality of foodgrains is poor.

The worst is the case of the Annapurna scheme, which aims to help destitute persons over 65 years of age. Under the scheme, such persons without an assured pension or a regular source of income or those with a family that earns less than Rs.24,200 a year are entitled to a free monthly ration of 10 kg of foodgrains. The States are nowhere near implementing it. The governments say that the scheme would be effective if it covers all destitutes above 65. But the Central government has not responded to their request to expand the scope of the scheme.

The PUCL's assessment of the schemes is based on the details provided by the State governments. Colin Gonsalves, an advocate representing the PUCL, says: "I am sure the situation on the ground is much worse."

The worst defaulter, according to the PUCL, is the government of Delhi. The Targeted PDS scheme in the national capital is reportedly plagued by corruption. According to Kislaya, a non-governmental organisation in Delhi, Rs.10 is collected for the application form for a ration card and Rs.200 for accepting a completed form. In some areas, the authorities insist on the applicants getting the signature of the local Member of the Legislative Assembly on the form.

The Delhi government has not even started the process of identifying the beneficiaries of the Antyodaya scheme. Under the mid-day meal scheme, children in Delhi are given six biscuits every day instead of a balanced and protein-rich meal. The State government has not filed the compliance report with regard to the National Old Age Pension Scheme. It has not yet started distributing grain under the Annapurna scheme.

In this background, the Central government, driven by political considerations, has built up buffer stocks in excess of the requirement. The PUCL has pointed out that at the time of filing of the petition in the Supreme Court, the stocks stood at 45.77 million tonnes against a requirement of 16.8 million tonnes. The present stock position is 65 million tonnes, which is expected to go up to 80 million tonnes after the harvest of the kharif crop.

Since the time the PUCL filed its petition, there have been several instances of State governments blatantly overlooking the food needs of the people. The affidavit filed by the Government of Orissa before the Supreme Court on September 3 reflects the general attitude. The government claimed that it had discharged its constitutional duties and other responsibilities conscientiously and effectively by utilising the available resources to mitigate the distress of the drought-affected people. The claim is disquieting for three reasons. First, a BPL family in Orissa gets only 16 kg of grain a month against its entitlement of 25 kg under the Targeted PDS. Secondly, many of the starvation deaths in Orissa could have been averted if the State government had identified the beneficiaries of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana, which was launched in January 2001. Thirdly, by its own admission Orissa has lifted only 69.4 per cent of the rice allotted for its BPL population even though almost half the State's population is below the poverty line.

On September 3, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice B.N. Kirpal, Justice Santosh Hegde and Justice Brijesh Kumar asked the State governments to file compliance reports vis-a-vis the Antyodaya Anna Yojana. In its report filed on September 17, Orissa claimed that on September 11 it had reached the target of identifying 5,05,500 beneficiaries under the scheme. The affidavit has a list of 30 districts and the sum of the number of beneficiaries identified in each district matched the quota fixed by the Central government. The court expressed its dissatisfaction over the manner in which the BPL families had been identified by the Orissa government. It asked: "You mean to say that if there are other BPL families over and above this, you will not take them into account?" The affidavit, it said, was "thoroughly irrelevant" and betrayed "utter callousness" on the part of the State government.

THE claims made by other State governments also ranged between half-truths and gratuitous claims. For instance, the Madhya Pradesh government said in its affidavit that it had been lifting a major portion of the allotted foodgrains. However, according to the figures provided by the Centre, Madhya Pradesh has lifted only 41.76 per cent of the wheat allotted for BPL families and 69.16 per cent of the allotment under Antyodaya; in the case of rice, it has lifted only 59.41 per cent of the allotment for the BPL population and 49.03 per cent under Antyodaya. Similarly, the Centre has contradicted Maharashtra's claim that it had been lifting sufficient quantities of foodgrains from the FCI depots. Maharashtra lifted only 63.93 per cent of the wheat and 65.41 per cent of the rice allotted for the BPL category. There has been no offtake of rice and wheat under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana.

In affidavits filed before the Court at various points of time, the FCI has stated that its stocks have piled up because of the States' failure to lift the quantities allotted to them. All it can do is to allot the foodgrains to the States and keep them in good condition until they are lifted. It cannot force the States to take the foodgrains, the FCI has said. The States, on the other hand, say that the FCI and the Centre have set such high issue prices for grain meant for the above poverty line (APL) category that the targeted consumer finds it cheaper to buy the grain in the open market than from PDS outlets. The Centre has admitted in its affidavit that the Department of Food and Public Distribution has the responsibility to ensure that foodgrains are distributed to the consumer at "reasonable prices".

At the same time, the affidavits of the States reveal some subtle manoeuvres made by the Centre. The report filed by the West Bengal government in response to the PUCL's main petition with reference to the National Benefit Maternity Scheme revealed that the Centre had "significantly reduced" the allocation for the scheme. This response was in sharp contrast to those of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, which maintained that the scheme was being "fully implemented" by them. Similarly, in the case of the National Old Age Pension Scheme the West Bengal government wrote that the Centre had reduced the allocation for the scheme and that as a consequence 33,900 eligible persons had been left out. The affidavits of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Orissa and Gujarat stated that they were implementing the scheme fully. Said Yug Mohit Chaudhry, an advocate representing the PUCL: "They made no reference about the cuts made by the Central government. Clearly, some of the State governments are giving full support to the Central government in hiding the facts."

The Supreme Court is expected to give an interim order after scrutinising the responses. A judicial fiat will help remove some of the flaws on the food security front. The State governments have a major role to play in the effort to ensure sufficient food supplies to the needy. In addition to ensuring that people have access to sufficient food at affordable prices, the State governments can intervene to provide relief during periods of distress. The need of the hour is to create mechanisms that can pressure them to play this role effectively.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment