The National Food Security Bill (NFSB) has become the source of many debates, having come under the scrutiny of activists, economists and civil society actors. While those opposing the bill have highlighted problems from various angles, one side of the debate – at times underemphasised – has to do with the problems posed by the highly centralised nature of the current Public Distribution System (PDS). The bill has tried addressing this concern, but sadly falls short of laying out a concrete vision for a participatory PDS essential to food security.
The latest version of the NFSB, approved by the Union Cabinet on 19 March 2013, is likely to be passed by parliament during the ongoing budget session. The bill, which is the result of a promise made by the Congress party in its 2009 general election manifesto, has come a long way from its earlier versions. For example, it has taken initiative in prioritising vulnerable population groups like children (under the age of six) and pregnant women, encouraging the allocation of specific diets. It has also widened the ambit of what constitutes food grains by including millets (as coarse grains): a progressive step in addressing nutritional security. Furthermore, acknowledging the need for a decentralised PDS, it mentions taking a few tentative steps: giving preference to panchayats, self-help groups and cooperatives, and establishing storage facilities at the state, district and block levels.
The NFSB, however, remains silent about ensuring the safety of farmers' livelihoods, extending reasonable minimum support price (MSP) for produce, and increasing production of food grains – all of which are essential to food security. The bill continues the discriminatory approach in distribution, preferring a Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) over a universal one, restricting access to only 67 percent of the total population (75 percent in rural areas and 50 percent in urban areas). In contrast to the 'priority' and 'general' categories seen in the earlier versions, the bill only mentions the 'priority' category, but retains the 'Antyodaya' grouping that covers about 25 million extremely poor households. While the latter will continue to receive 35 kg of food grain per household (per month), the former will only receive 5 kg per head.
There are fundamental questions that remain: How will this 67 percent be identified? What yardsticks will be used in identifying the 33 percent that would be excluded? The bill seems to continue the legacy of the current Above Poverty Line and Below Poverty Line (APL and BPL) classification. In doing so, it overlooks voluminous evidence against targeted distribution, which is rife with problems of omission and commission, and a breeding ground for corruption. And as many food rights activists have pointed out, the provision goes against the order issued by the Supreme Court, which guarantees 35 kg per month to every BPL household in India.