World Disasters Report - International Federation of Red Cross and ...

20
the government to provide a minimum of 100 days’ work at the minimum wage (100
rupees per day) for a member of those families affected by the probable poor harvest.
They would then be able to buy food. The Indian government maintains stocks of
wheat and rice to meet times such as these as part of its National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme.
This programme is one of the ways, like the subsidized food programme in the United
States, by which governments can provide a safety net for people who cannot afford
enough food. India also has the largest number of hungry people in the world – more
than in all of sub-Saharan Africa. Tackling this problem requires more than a programme
of government handouts in the case of emergencies. As Jayati Ghosh, professor
of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi argues, it requires
drastically reducing the high levels of income inequality prevailing in the country
(Ghosh, 2011; see Box 1.4).
Box 1.4 India’s food security law will not feed the hungry
On 21 April 2011, a Supreme Court bench
comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice
Deepak Verma heard a petition from the
People’s Union for Civil Liberty on streamlining
the public distribution system that provides food
to the hungry. What Justice Bhandari observed
while listening to the arguments was a reflection
of the paradox of plenty that prevails in India.
In a country that has emerged as the world’s
fifth largest economy with a growth rate of almost
9 per cent, more than 700 million people
remain food insecure. “See what the stark contradictions
in your whole approach are,” Justice
Bhandari told the Additional Solicitor General.
“You say you are a powerful economy. You
have a bumper crop this year and our godowns
[warehouses] are full, and it is a happy situation,
no doubt. When you have your godowns
full and people are starving, what is the benefit?
You cannot have two Indias.”
This was not the first time that the Supreme
Court had chided the government for its inaction
in feeding the hungry. Historically, through
a mass-based public distribution system – a network
of ration shops spread across the areas
lacking enough food – India has provided essential
grains at subsidized prices to both poor and
non-poor populations. But swamped by rampant
corruption, leakages, spoilage and distribution
bottlenecks, such food has remained outside the
reach of a majority of those who need it.
India’s public distribution scheme technically
caters to 316 million people who are
in the ‘below the poverty line’ category. Add
the ‘above the poverty line’ category and the
scheme is supposed to provide food to more
than 900 million people. But the way the below
the poverty line (which should be dubbed the
‘starvation line’) has been drawn, the distribution
scheme fails to provide them with their minimal
daily food intake. If the scheme had been
even partially effective, there is no reason why
India should be saddled with the largest population
of hungry people in the world.
Despite four ministries administering 22
programmes to alleviate hunger and poverty,
the budget allocation for which is enhanced
almost every year, the poor still go hungry and
hundreds of children die every day in India
from malnourishment.
It is primarily because of the inability of the
state agencies to feed the nation that India retains
the dubious distinction of having the largest
population of hungry people in the world.
This is reflected in the 2010 multi-dimensional
poverty estimates developed by the Oxford Poverty
and Human Development Initiative for the
UN Development Programme (OPHI website).
Eight states – Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand,
Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar
Pradesh and West Bengal – have more desperately
poor people than the 26 poorest African
nations. In 2006, India ranked 66 th in the Global
Hunger Index prepared for 88 countries by
the International Food Policy Research Institute
(Wiesmann, 2006). The low ranking of India in
the Global Hunger Index is despite the distribution
scheme, which is designed to provide a
safety net for the vulnerable sections of society.
According to the recommendations of the
Indian Council of Medical Research, each
able-bodied adult needs a minimum of 14 kilograms
(kg) of grains a month. Given that an
average family comprises five members, the
household allocation would be 70kg. The distribution
scheme at present provides only 35kg
of wheat and rice to each family, so the hungry
remain perpetually hungry.
In 2009, soon after being sworn in, the
government announced its decision to pass a
national food security act, in fulfilment of the
ruling party’s electoral promise to provide
food to all. After much deliberation and many
objections, the draft was submitted to the
government.
The scope of the proposed food security
legislation remains restricted to 46 per cent of
the population in rural areas and 28 per cent
in the urban centres.
The proposed act cannot be an isolated activity.
It has to be integrated with various other
programmes and policy initiatives to ensure
that hunger is eradicated. To achieve this objective,
the food security plan should essentially
aim at adopting a five-point approach:
Public policies for zero hunger: A
combination of structural policies to address
the real causes of hunger and poverty, specific
policies to meet the household needs for longterm
access to nutritious food, and local policies
that are informed by local needs and focus
on the concept of sustainable livelihoods.
Sustainable livelihoods: In a country
where agriculture is the mainstay of the economy,
the strengthening of low external-input,
sustainable agricultural practices is paramount.
This includes revitalizing the natural resource
base, restoring groundwater levels and providing
higher incomes to farmers.
Public distribution system: The present
classification of below and above the poverty
line needs to be revisited. Instead, the finding
of the National Commission on Enterprise in
the Unorganised Sector, that 836 million people
in India spend less than 20 rupees (40 US
cents) a day on food, should be the criterion
for a meaningful food-for-all programme. The
average ration of 35kg per family also needs
to be revised upwards, coupled with the need
to expand the food basket to include coarse
cereals and pulses.
Food grain banks: The restructuring of
the public distribution system has to be accompanied
by the setting-up of food grain banks at
the village and taluka (sub-district) levels. Any
long-term food security plan cannot remain
sustainable unless the poor and the hungry
become partners in hunger prevention. There
are ample examples of successful models of
World Disasters Report 2011 – Focus on hunger and malnutrition 21