and Public Distribution System: A Field Level Study of the Disadvantaged People of

Tapan Kumar Ghosh*

Indrajit Ghosh**

Tonmoy Chatterjee***

Abstract: Food security is a condition related to the supply of food, and individuals' access to it. Concerns over food security have existed throughout history. India has now reached a stage where the country is no longer exposed to real famines. Attaining food security is a matter of prime importance for India where more than a-third of its population is estimated to be absolutely poor, and as many as one half of its children have suffered from malnourishment over the last three decades. India’s Public Distribution System (PDS) is the largest distribution network of its kind in the world.

The present paper attempts to address the meaning, causes, consequences and solutions of the food security and the functioning of the PDS in India. It is an empirical study based on data collected through field survey. This study covers four villages, located in the district of of , India, consisting of 160 households in 2018. The paper presents a comparative study of the four villages considered in the study, focusing on various aspects of food security and the role of Govt. in food security. A number of suggestions have been put forward for better and wider implications of the food security to the disadvantaged people of India. This concise and readable survey not only presents a simple history of food and its consumption, but also provides a unique examination of world history itself.

......

Keywords: Food Security, Public Distribution System, Malnourishment, Hunger, Famine, Disadvantaged People.

1

I. Introduction

India has seen impressive economic growth in recent years; the country still struggles with widespread poverty and hunger. India’s poor population amounts to more than 300 million people, with almost 30 percent of India’s rural population living in poverty. The good news is, poverty has been on the decline in recent years. According to official government of India estimates, poverty declined from 37.2% in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10. Rural poverty declined by 8 percentage points from 41.8% to 33.8% and urban poverty by 4.8 percentage points from 25.7% to 20.9% over the same period (World Bank 2012).

India is home to 25 percent of the world’s hungry population. An estimated 43 per cent of children under the age of five years are malnourished (WFP 2012). India remains an important global agricultural player; despite the fact that agriculture’s share in the country’s economy is declining. It has the world’s largest area under cultivation for wheat, , and cotton, and is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses, and spices (World Bank 2012). Nearly three-quarters of India’s households are dependent on rural incomes. Agricultural productivity in the country’s semi-arid tropical region is impeded by water shortages and recurrent drought, while environmental degradation and vulnerability to weather-related disasters pose challenges to the country as a whole.

Poor populations also face a lack of access to productive assets, financial resources, education, health care, and basic social services. The government has recently begun to focus on microenterprise development as a way to address these challenges, as well as initiatives to bring basic services to the rural poor. With the country’s population and economy continuing to grow, huge demands will be placed on critical infrastructure in the coming years. It is estimated that US$1 trillion will be needed to meet India’s infrastructure needs in the next five years (World Bank 2012).

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines food security as a situation when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preference for an active and healthy life. The lack of a balanced diet minus essential nutrients results in chronic malnutrition.

The global food security challenge is unambiguous: by 2050, the world must feed nine billion people. According to the Global Hunger Index 2014, India ranks 55 out of the world’s 120 hungriest countries even behind some of its smaller South Asian counterparts like Nepal (rank 44) and Sri Lanka (39).

Despite its self-sufficiency in food availability, and being one of the world’s largest grain producers, about 25% of Indians go to bed without food. Describing malnutrition as India’s silent emergency, a World Bank report says that the rate of malnutrition cases among Indian children is almost five times more than in China, and twice that in Sub-Saharan Africa.

2

So what are the reasons for India not being able to rise to the challenge of feeding its poor with its own plentiful resources? Experts ascribe many reasons for this deficit. They say the concept of food security is a complex and multi-dimensional one which becomes even more complicated in the context of large and diverse country like India with its overwhelming population and pervasive poverty and malnutrition.

According to Shaleen Jain of Hidayatullah National Law University in India, food security has three broad dimensions – food availability, which encompasses total food production, including imports and buffer stocks maintained in government granaries; food accessibility – food’s availability or accessibility to each and every person; and thirdly, food affordability – an individual’s capacity to purchase proper, safe, healthy and nutritious food to meet his dietary needs.

Pawan Ahuja, former joint secretary in the ministry of agriculture, says India’s problems result mostly from a deeply flawed public distribution system than anything else. “Despite abundant production of grains and vegetables, distribution of food through a corruption-ridden public distribution system prevents the benefits from reaching the poor,” says Ahuja.

There is other challenges which India faces in attaining food security, adds the expert. “Natural calamities like excessive rainfall, accessibility of water for irrigation purpose, drought and soil erosion. Further, lacks of improvement in agriculture facilities as well as population explosion have only made matters worse.”

To grapple with its food security problem, India operates one of the largest food safety nets in the world — the National Food Security Act 2013. India’s department of food and public distribution, in collaboration with World Food Programme, is implementing this scheme which provides a whopping 800 million people (67% of the country’s population or 10% of the world’s) with subsidised monthly household rations each year. Yet the results of the program have been largely a hit and miss affair, with experts blaming the country’s entrenched corruption in the distribution chain for its inefficacy.

Keeping the above aspects in mind, the article would make an attempt to explore the meaning, causes, consequences and solutions of the food security and the functioning of the PDS in India. The paper also presents a comparative study of the four villages considered in the study, focusing on various aspects of food security and the role of Govt. in food security. For this study we have mainly used primary and secondary data and literature from various sources. The second section deals with the research methodology and food in Indian History. In the third section we have explored the food security in India. In the fourth section we have explain the Public Distribution System. The fifth section deals with the results of the field study. Section six concludes the discussion.

3

II. Research Methodology of West Bengal State, India has seven Panchayat Samitis. Out of seven Panchayat Samitis of Jalpaiguri district, one Panchayat Samiti have been selected randomly which is . And then one Gram Panchayat (Odlabari) from the Panchayat Samiti has also been selected randomly. Thereafter, we have select randomly four villages from the Gram Panchayat which are Gojaldoba Tea Garden, Odlabari Tea Garden, Dakshin Odlabari and Patharjhora Tea Garden. Then from the Below Poverty Line (BPL) list kept by the Gram Panchayat office we have selected 20 households randomly and 20 other households not belonging to the category of BPL have also been selected by us on a random basis. Thus, we have taken into consideration 160 households in total for the purpose of our study. Each of these households has been interviewed by us through administering questionnaire prepared by us to gather relevant information pertaining to our study. An attempt has also been made to interview ‘Prodhans’ of our sampled GP. To be immune from any political bias, we have endeavoured to collect information from representatives of both parties in power as well as outside of it. For our purpose of collecting necessary information, we have contacted some other persons found to be fruitful for ascertaining certain necessary information regarding the functioning of GP, which was found important to be incorporated into our study. Food in Indian History

During the World War II India faced acute food shortages and to meet the exigencies a separate Food Department was established on 1st December 1942 under the Commerce Member of the Governor General’s Council.

The Food Department was re-designated as Ministry of Food on 29th August 1947. As per available records, the Directorate of Sugar and Vanaspati was part of Food Ministry in 1947. On 1st February 1951 the Ministry of Agriculture was combined with the Ministry of Food to constitute the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, for greater administrative efficiency and economy. Over time as the work expanded significantly, two separate ministries, namely Ministry of Food and Ministry of Agriculture were formed in October 1956 but they were again merged on 17th April 1957 as Ministry of Food and Agriculture. On 30th December 1958, the work related to the Central and State Warehousing Corporations was transferred to the Department of Food, in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

In 1960 the Ministry was made into two departments, namely the Department of Food and Department of Agriculture. Department of Food was given the responsibility of procurement of food grains for civil and military requirements, distribution of imported food grains to States, co-ordination, planning and guidance of national food policy and regulation of import and export of food grains. Directorate of Sugar and Vanaspati remained with Department of Food. Department had various schemes for development of sugar and vanaspati industries. The National Sugar Institute was actively engaged in teaching, training and research for the development of this critical sector.

4

In 1962 some subjects related to Fisheries, Fruits and Vegetables were transferred from Agriculture to the Department of Food. Subsequently some items related to ‘sugar’ were also transferred to the Department of Food from Agriculture. These included Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore and Indian Central Sugarcane Committee. In 1965, under the Food Corporation Act, 1964, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) was set up in the Department, as the country was facing major shortage of food grains, especially wheat.

In January 1966, the Ministry of Community Development and Cooperation was merged with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to form a Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Cooperation. Also in 1966 the subjects related to Fisheries, Wildlife Preservation, Prevention to Cruelty to Animals, Movement of Fertilizer, Intensive Agriculture District Plan etc were transferred back from the Department of Food to the Agriculture.

In 1968, Sugarcane Research and Sugarcane Development Scheme were also transferred from the Department of Food back to Agriculture. While the subject of coordination of relief measures during drought, scarcity and famine and that loss of human life during such periods were added to the Department of Food.

In 1971, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Cooperation was renamed as Ministry of Agriculture, with four departments, including the Department of Food. In November 1976, the Directorate of Sugar and Vanaspati was bifurcated, with Directorate of Sugar remaining with the Department of Food, while the work relating to Vanaspati, vegetable oils and fats etc. were transferred to the Ministry of Civil Supplies and Cooperation. In 1983, the Department of Food was taken out of the Ministry of Agriculture and a new Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies was formed.

In June 1991, an independent Ministry of Food was created. But in March 1992 in order to improve efficiency, the Ministry of Food, which was having a single department, was divided into two departments, Department of Food and Department of Food Procurement and Distribution.

On 4th June 1997, the Ministry of Food and Ministry of Civil Supplies were merged to form Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs with three departments, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Department of Sugar and Edible Oils and Department of Consumer Affairs. On 15th October 1999, the Ministry of Food and & Consumer Affairs was renamed as the Ministry of Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution, however having the same three departments. Finally in the new millennium on 17th July 2000, the then Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution was renamed as the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, with two departments, namely Department of Food & Public Distribution and Department of Consumer Affairs, which is continued till date. And we will have many reasons to celebrate its Diamond Jubilee on 1stDecember 2017.

5

III. Food Security in India: Definition Food Security is the ability to assure, on a long term basis, that the system provides the total population access to a timely, reliable and nutritionally adequate supply of food. Food Security is a comprehensive term that includes: Availability, Accessibility and Affordability of food for all.

 Availability of food means, there should be enough food for everyone irrespective of his or her income; no one should starve (from hunger). It also includes the availability of food in government’s stock.

 Accessibility means, every person can have it. Or in other words, its price should not be so high that only a class of people can afford it.

 Affordability means, a person should have sufficient money to buy a balanced food for himself/herself and/or for his/her family.

India has now reached a stage where the country is no longer exposed to real famines. All the same there still exist pockets within the country where people have to face acute starvation year after year.

Availability of Food Grains During 1950-51 annual net imports of cereals amounted to 4.1 million tonnes. This figure was 10.3 million tons during 1965-66. Since then there was a decline and after 1995- 96 India became an exporter of cereals. During the last 50 years, there has been an increase in the per capita availability of cereals to the extent of 9%.

However the country has failed to increase the production of pulses consistent with the needs of the growing population. This is significant since the large number of vegetarians in the country depend on pulses for their protein requirements. Tenth Plan data indicate that consumption of milk and meat products as well as vegetables and fruits has increased as a natural outcome of economic development.

Sources of Food grains across the Nation Rice is grown mainly in Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Kashmir valley, Eastern Madhya Pradesh, , Orissa, , Kerala, Karnataka, Coastal areas of Maharashtra. Rice is now also being grown in the irrigated areas of Punjab and Haryana. Rice Production touched the figure 863.5 lakh tons in 2003-2004. Wheat growing areas include Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, parts of Rajasthan, and Bihar. Wheat production for 2003-2004 was estimated at 727.4 lakh tones.

Millets include jowar, bajra and Ragi. Bajra is a crop of dry and warm regions of Rajasthan. Ragi is a rain fed crop grown in drier parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Maize is mainly produced in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

6

Pulses are grown both as Rabi and Kharif crops. The Rabi (winter season) crops are, Masoor and Peas. The Kharif crops (sown around April and harvested in September- October) include Arhar, Urad and Moong. The major gram producing areas are Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Food grains production touched 229.9 Million tons is 2008-09.

Problems of Food Insecurity  A large section of people in India is facing food insecurity, as they don’t have affordability and accessibility to food even for two times a day.

 In addition to this, natural calamities such as drought, heavy rainfall, earthquake, cyclone further increase the level of food insecurity.

 Natural calamities directly affect the production of food and lead to food shortage. The demand remains high, but the supply level falls down. Further, natural calamities cause a rise in the price of food, which is beyond the affordability of the poor.

 Food insecurity normally leads to Famine. Famine, in fact, is a curse to any society. It brings with it problems such as: Food Insecurity, Diseases and Unemployment.

Vulnerable Groups  The most vulnerable groups that have been suffering with the problem of food insecurity in India are:

 The people who don’t have their own land (for agriculture).

 The traditional artisans.

 The workers (working on daily wages especially on agricultural land).

 The seasonal workers (who finds work only in certain seasons).

 Self-employed workers such as rickshaw-pullers and hawkers.

 The poor people in India normally belong to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes. There is also a section of poor people in India, who have migrated from neighbouring countries.

 These poor people are more vulnerable to natural calamities or any other disaster.

Reasons of Food Insecurity In spite of the various initiatives for food security in India, there are many regions suffering from food insecurity. Some of the major reasons for the failure of these initiatives are:

7

 Poor implementation

 Corruption (ration shop owners often sell the food grains of better quality to other buyers and provide food grains of poor quality to the ration card holders)

 The process involved in availing a ration card is a lengthy one etc.

Hunger Problem  Hunger is another parameter of measuring food insecurity. It includes not only the unavailability of food, but it also reflects the overall poverty of a society.

 Hunger could be temporary or seasonal (because of calamity) or permanent (chronic hunger).

 Chronic hunger illustrates permanent food insecurity, inadequate food supply, and inability of people to buy food.

 Seasonal hunger, on the other hand, occurs temporarily. It is normally related to cycles of food growing and harvesting. For example, people suffering with this problem have inadequate food availabilities for only part of the year.

 As per the latest government report, the percentage of seasonal hunger, as well as chronic hunger, has declined over the years in India.

Famines in the Past Twelve famines and four major scarcities occurred during the period of the rule of the East India Company in India (1765-1858).The frequency of famines increased after the transfer of power to the Crown. In 1943 famine occurred in Bengal and it was a tragedy of unprecedented magnitude. The death toll due to starvations and diseases was around 1.5 million persons.

Periods of famines in India have also been the periods of high food, prices and agricultural unemployment. Famines were caused during the period of British rule due to a variety of reasons.

(a) The import of machine made goods from Britain forced the Indian artisans out of business. This increased the pressure of population dependent on land. The landless labourers were the worst sufferers of famines.

(b) The new land system created a class of land owners who did not till the land and peasants who worked on lands but had no ownership or even permanent tenancy rights. The process of agricultural development was retarded since the real peasant had not much left after paying rent and interest to the moneylenders.

8

(c) Food grains were exported even during the famine years. The peasantry was burdened by high taxation. Wages among the rural population were highly depressed due to unlimited supplies of labour.

Regions of Food Insecurity  Some Indian States such as Odisha, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra have extreme levels of food insecurity.

 There are still many districts (of a few States), which have permanent food insecurity and famine-like conditions. The districts are:

 Kalahandi and Kashipur districts of Odisha.

 Palamau district of Jharkhand.

 Baran district of Rajasthan, etc.

Role of Government in Food Security Well before the harvest time, the government declares a minimum floor price at which the government would buy cereals to maintain its own buffer stocks. Minimum support prices ensure that the growers do not suffer if the traders form syndicates and force low prices on the farmers for their produce.

The role of the government in providing food security involves:

 Promoting domestic production to meet the demands of the growing population.

 Providing minimum support prices for procurement and storage of food grains.

 Operating a Public Distribution System

 Maintaining buffer stocks to counteract any pushing up of prices of food grains during periods of shortages.

 Government of India set up a special agency - Food Corporation of India. The agency is responsible for the execution of food policies of Central Government.

 FCI purchases food grains (wheat and rice) from the farmers in States where there is surplus production.

 FCI purchases food grains on pre-determined rates (fixed by the government in advance). This price is known as Minimum Support Price.

9

 Later, the government makes the food grains available (from the buffer stock) to the areas where the production of food grains was insufficient and to the poor section of the society.

 Government provides a platform where the stock is sold at a lower price (lower than the market rate), which is known as Issue Price.

 The system through which FCI makes the food grains available to the poor society is known as Public Distribution System. The ration shops in most localities, villages, towns, and cities serve as channels and facilitate this distribution system.

 The government issues Ration Cards and the people who have low income can apply and get ration cards from the ration card offices and avail the benefits of PDS.

 Onl three y those people, who hold Ration Cards, can purchase subsidised food.

 The high levels of food insecurity forced the Indian Government to introduce food intervention programmes during the 1970s. The programmes are as follows −

 Public Distribution System (PDS) for food grains (though it was already existing, the execution of responsibilities was strengthened further).

 Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS).

 Food-for-Work (FFW).

 Currently, there are dozens of such programmes functional across the country.

 Targeted Public Distribution System was introduced in 1997. This system aims to focus on the poor in all areas. For this system, different prices are fixed for the poor and non-poor group.

 The following two schemes have been launched recently:

(AAY)

 Annapurna Scheme (APS)

Latest Development  India, after independence, experienced many remarkable achievements. For example, the introduction of ‘Green Revolution’ increased the agricultural produce many folds. But the substantial increase in the production of grains (especially rice and wheat) is not equal across the country.

 The States Punjab and Uttar Pradesh achieved high growth rate; on the contrary, Jharkhand, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, recorded decrease in their food grain production (for the year 2012-13).

10

 In spite of all the disparities (discussed above), over the last few decades, India is self-sufficient in the production of food grains.

 To mitigate adverse conditions, the Indian Government has come up with initiatives such as special food security system (maintaining buffer reserves of food stock) and public distribution system.

IV. Public Distribution System

The Public Distribution System (PDS) evolved as a system of management of scarcity and for distribution of food grains at affordable prices. Over the years, PDS has become an important part of Government’s policy for management of food economy in the country. PDS is supplemental in nature and is not intended to make available the entire requirement of any of the commodities distributed under to a household or a section of the society.

PDS is operated under the joint responsibility of the Central and the State Governments. The Central Government, through Food Corporation of India (FCI), has assumed the responsibility for procurement, storage, transportation and bulk allocation of food grains to the State Governments. The operational responsibility including allocation within State, identification of eligible families, issue of Ration Cards and supervision of the functioning of Fair Price Shops (FPSs) etc., rest with the State Governments. Under the PDS, presently the commodities namely wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene are being allocated to the States/UTs for distribution. Some States/UTs also distribute additional items of mass consumption through the PDS outlets such as pulses, edible oils, iodized salt, spices, etc.

Evolution of Public Distribution System Public distribution of essential commodities had been in existence in India during the inter-war period. PDS, with its focus on distribution of food grains in urban scarcity areas, had emanated from the critical food shortages of 1960s. PDS had substantially contributed to the containment of rise in food grains prices and ensured access of food to urban consumers. As the national agricultural production had grown in the aftermath of Green Revolution, the outreach of PDS was extended to tribal blocks and areas of high incidence of poverty in the 1970s and 1980s. PDS, till 1992, was a general entitlement scheme for all consumers without any specific target. The Revamped Public Distribution System (RPDS) was launched in June 1992 in 1775 blocks throughout the country. The Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) was introduced with effect from June 1997.

11

Revamped Public Distribution System (RPDS)

The Revamped Public Distribution System (RPDS) was launched in June, 1992 with a view to strengthen and streamline the PDS as well as to improve its reach in the far-flung, hilly, remote and inaccessible areas where a substantial section of the poor live. It covered 1775 blocks wherein area specific programmes such as the Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDP), Desert Development Programme (DDP) and certain Designated Hill Areas (DHA) identified in consultation with State Governments for special focus, with respect to improvement of the PDS infrastructure. Food grains for distribution in RPDS areas were issued to the States at 50 paise below the Central Issue Price. The scale of issue was up to 20 kg per card.

The RPDS included area approach for ensuring effective reach of the PDS commodities, their delivery by State Governments at the doorstep of FPSs in the identified areas, additional ration cards to the left out families, infrastructure requirements like additional Fair Price Shops, storage capacity etc. and additional commodities such as tea, salt, pulses, soap, etc. for distribution through PDS outlets.

Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS)

In June, 1997, the Government of India launched the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) with focus on the poor. Under the TPDS, States were required to formulate and implement foolproof arrangements for the identification of the poor for delivery of foodgrains and for its distribution in a transparent and accountable manner at the FPS level.

The scheme, when introduced, was intended to benefit about 6 crore poor families for whom a quantity of about 72 lakh tonnes of food grains was earmarked annually. The identification of the poor under the scheme was done by the States as per State-wise poverty estimates of the Planning Commission for 1993-94 based on the methodology of the "Expert Group on estimation of proportion and number of poor” chaired by Late Prof Lakdawala. The allocation of food grains to the States/UTs was made on the basis of average consumption in the past i.e. average annual off-take of food grains under the PDS during the past ten years at the time of introduction of TPDS.

The quantum of food grains in excess of the requirement of Below Poverty Line (BPL) families was provided to the State as ‘transitory allocation’ for which a quantum of 103 lakh tons of food grains was earmarked annually. Over and above the TPDS allocation, additional allocation to States was also given. The transitory allocation was intended for continuation of benefit of subsidized food grains to the population Above the Poverty Line (APL) as any sudden withdrawal of benefits existing under PDS from them was not considered desirable. The transitory allocation was issued at prices, which were subsidized but were higher than the prices for the BPL quota of food grains.

12

Keeping in view the consensus on increasing the allocation of food grains to BPL families, and to better target the food subsidy, Government of India increased the allocation to BPL families from 10 kg to 20 kg of food grains per family per month at 50% of the economic cost and allocation to APL families at economic cost w.e.f. 1.4.2000. The allocation of APL families was retained at the same level as at the time of introduction of TPDS but the Central Issue Prices (CIPs) for APL were fixed at 100% of economic cost from that date so that the entire consumer subsidy could be directed to the benefit of the BPL population. However, the CIPs fixed in July and December, 2000 for BPL & AAY respectively and in July, 2002 for APL were not revised upwards since then even though procurement cost have gone up considerably.

The number of BPL families was increased w.e.f. 1.12.2000 by shifting the base to the population projections of the Registrar General as on 1.3.2000 instead of the earlier population projection of 1995. With this increase, the total number of BPL families comes to 652.03 lakh as against 596.23 lakh families originally estimated when TPDS was introduced in June 1997.

Under the existing TPDS, the end retail price is fixed by the States/UTs after taking into account margin for wholesalers/ retailers, transportation charges, levies local taxes etc. The States were earlier requested to issue food-grains at a difference of not more than 50 paise per kg over and above the CIP for BPL families. However, since 2001, flexibility has been given to States/UTs in the matter of fixing the retail issue prices by removing the restriction of 50 paise per kg over and above the CIP for distribution of food grains under TPDS except with respect to Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) where the end retail price is to be retained at Rs.2/ a Kg. for wheat and Rs.3/ a Kg. for rice.

Identification of BPL Families under TPDS

To work out the population below the poverty line under the TPDS, there was a general consensus at the Food Minister’s conference held in August 1996, for adopting the methodology used by the expert group set up by the Planning Commission under the Chairmanship of Late Prof. Lakadawala. The BPL households were determined on the basis of population projections of the Registrar General of India for 1995 and the State wise poverty estimates of the Planning Commission for 1993-94. The total number of BPL households so determined was 596.23 lakh. Guidelines for implementing the TPDS were issued in which the State Governments had been advised to identify the BPL families by involving the Gram Panchayats and Nagar Palikas. While doing so the thrust was to include the really poor and vulnerable sections of the society such as landless agricultural laborers, marginal farmers, rural artisans/craftsmen such as potters, tappers, weavers, black-smith, carpenters etc. in the rural areas and slum dwellers and persons earning their livelihood on daily basis in the informal sector like potters, rickshaw-pullers, cart-pullers, fruit and flower sellers on the pavement, etc. in urban areas. The Gram Panchayats and Gram Sabhas would also be involved in the identification of eligible families.

13

Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY)

AAY is a step in the direction of making TPDS aim at reducing hunger among the poorest segments of the BPL population. A National Sample Survey Exercise pointed towards the fact that about 5% of the total population in the country sleeps without two square meals a day. This section of the population could be called as "hungry”. In order to make TPDS more focused and targeted towards this category of population, the "Antyodaya Anna Yojana” (AAY) was launched in December, 2000 for one crore poorest of the poor families.

AAY involved identification of one crore poorest of the poor families from amongst the number of BPL families covered under TPDS within the States and providing them food grains at a highly subsidized rate of Rs.2/- per kg. for wheat and Rs.3/- per kg for rice. The States/UTs are required to bear the distribution cost, including margin to dealers and retailers as well as the transportation cost. Thus the entire food subsidy is being passed on to the consumers under the scheme.

The scale of issue that was initially 25 kg per family per month was increased to 35 kg per family per month with effect from 1st April 2002. The AAY Scheme has since expanded to cover 2.50 crore poorest of the poor households as follows: (i) First Expansion The AAY Scheme was expanded in 2003-04 by adding another 50 lakh BPL households headed by widows or terminally ill persons or disabled persons or persons aged 60 years or more with no assured means of subsistence or societal support. With this increase, 1.5 crore (i.e. 23% of BPL) families have been covered under the AAY.

(ii) Second Expansion As announced in the Union Budget 2004-05, the AAY was further expanded by another 50 lakh BPL families by including, inter alia, all households at the risk of hunger. An order to this effect was issued on 3rd August 2004. In order to identify these households, the guidelines stipulated the following criteria: a) Landless agriculture laborers, marginal farmers, rural artisans /craftsmen, such as potters, tanners, weavers, blacksmiths, carpenters, slum dwellers and persons earning their livelihood on daily basis in the informal sector like porters, coolies, rickshaw pullers, hand cart pullers, fruit and flower sellers, snake charmers, rag pickers, cobblers, destitute and other similar categories in both rural and urban areas. b) Households headed by widows or terminally ill persons/disabled persons/ persons aged 60 years or more with no assured means of subsistence or societal support. c) Widows or terminally ill persons or disabled persons or persons aged 60 years or more or single women or single men with no family or societal support or assured means of subsistence.

14 d) All primitive tribal households.

With this increase, the number of AAY families increased to 2 crore (i.e. 30.66% of BPL families).

(iii) Third Expansion As announced in the Union Budget 2005-06, the AAY was expanded to cover another 50 lakh BPL households thus increasing its coverage to 2.5 crore households (i.e. 38% of BPL). As on 31.03.2016, States/UTs have identified and issued AAY ration card to 228.905 lakh AAY families.

The identification of the Antyodaya families and issuing of distinctive Ration Cards to these families is the responsibility of the concerned State Governments. Detailed guidelines were issued to the State/UTs for identification of the Antyodaya families under the AAY and additional Antyodaya families under the expanded AAY. Allocation of food grains under the scheme is being made to the States/UTs on the basis of issue of distinctive AAY Ration Cards to the identified Antyodaya families.

Scale of Issue of Food-Grains under TPDS

Since 1997, the scale of issue of the BPL families has been gradually increased from 10 kg. to 35 kg. per family per month. The scale of issue to BPL family was increased from 10 kg to 20 kg. per family per month with effect from 1.4.2000. The allocation of food grains for the BPL families was further increased from 20 kg to 25 kg. per family per month with effect from July, 2001. Initially, the Antyodaya families were provided 25 kg. of food grains per family per month at the time of launch of the scheme in December, 2000. The scale of issue under BPL and AAY has been revised to 35 kg per family per month with effect from 1.4.2002 with a view to enhancing the food security at the household level

Implementation of National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013 The National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) has been notified on 10.9.2013. The coverage, entitlements of food-grains, etc. under the NFSA, 2013 have undergone change as compared to those under the existing TPDS referred above. NFSA, 2013 inter alia provides for coverage of up to 75% of the rural population and up to 50% of the urban population at the all India level under TPDS. Under the NFSA, 2013, the priority households are entitled to receive food-grains @ 5 kg per person per month at the issue prices of Rs. 3.00, Rs.2.00 and Rs. 1.00 kg for rice, wheat and coarse grains respectively. The existing AAY households, however, will continue to receive 35 kg of food-grains per household per month.

Major Reforms in TPDS

628.81 lakh MT of foodgrains have been allocated to States/UTs for distribution under TPDS and Other Welfare Schemes (OWS) during 2016-17. Sustained efforts have

15 resulted in significant reforms in TPDS making it more transparent and leak proof and better targeting of food subsidy. Improvements in main components for this purpose are as follows:

Table 1: Significant Achievement in TPDS

Sl. Items May, 2014 December, 2016 No. (as on 27.12.2016) 1 Fair Price Shops automated 5,835 1,77,391 2 Digitization of Ration Cards 75% 100% 3 Aadhaar seeding of Ration Cards 2% 71.96% 4 On line allocation of foodgrains started 9 States/UTs 29 States/UTs 5 Supply chain computerised 4 States/UTs 19 States/UTs 6 Toll free numbers/online grievance redressal system 25 States/UTs 36 States/UTs implemented 7 Direct Cash Transfer in PDS launched Nil 3 States/UTs Source: Annual Report 2016-17, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India. Pp. 24

Cash Transfer for foodgrains under Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme has been implemented in 3 UTs namely Chandigarh, Puducherry w.e.f. 01.09.2015 and in Dadra & Nagar Haveli (in urban areas) w.e.f. 01.03.2016. Total beneficiaries covered under the scheme are 9.14 lakh and total amount of funds transferred is Rs. 11.98 crore per month.

Minimum Support Price

Foodgrains are procured at the Minimum Support Price (MSP) fixed by the Govt. For Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2016-17, the MSP for Common and Grade ‘A’ paddy was fixed at Rs. 1470 and Rs. 1510 per quintal respectively. The MSP of wheat was fixed at Rs. 1525 per quintal for the RMS 2015-16, and for RMS 2016-17, it has been fixed at Rs. 1625 per quintal. The comparative MSP of wheat and paddy as announced by the Ministry of Agriculture for crop year 2011-12 to 2016-17 is given below:

Table 2: Comparative MSP of Foodgrains for the year 2011-12 to 2016-17 (Rs. per quintal)

Sl. No. Commodity 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 1 Paddy (Common) 1080 1250 1310 1360 1410 1470 2 Paddy (Grade ‘A’) 1110 1280 1345 1400 1450 1510 3 Jowar (Hybrid) 980 1500 1500 1530 1570 1625 4 Jowar (Maldandi) 1000 1520 - 1550 1590 1650 5 Bajra 980 1175 1310 1250 1275 1330 6 Maize 980 1175 1310 1310 1325 1365 7 Ragi 1050 1500 1500 1550 1650 1725 8 Wheat 1285 1350 1400 1450 1525 1625 9 Barley 980 980 1100 1150 1225 1325 Source: Annual Report 2016-17, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India. Pp. 32

Food Subsidy

16

The year – wise break-up of subsidy released for distribution of subsidized food grains and maintenance of buffer stocks during the last seven years and current financial year to FCI and the States operating the Decentralized Scheme is as under:

Table 3: Year-wise Break-up of Subsidy (Rs. in crore)

Sl. Year Subsidy Released No. FCI States Total 1 2011-12 59525.90 12845.00 72370.90 2 2012-13 71980.00 12574.00 84554.00 3 2013-14 75500.02 14240.00 89740.02 4 2014-15 91995.35 21175.00 113171.16 5 2015-16 112000.00 22919.00 134919.00 6 2016-17 103334.61 21000.00* 124334.61 Source: Annual Report 2016-17, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India. Pp. 49 (* As on 05.01.2017)

Issue Prices

Below issue prices remained unchanged since 2000 for AAY and BPL categories and since 2002 for APL category. Central issue prices of food grains under erstwhile TPDS are as under:

Table 4: Central Issue Prices of Foodgrains (Rs. in per kg)

Sl. No. Commodity APL BPL AAY 1 Rice (Common) 7.95 5.65 3.00 2 Rice (Grade ‘A’) 8.30 - - 3 Wheat 6.10 4.15 2.00 4 Coarse Grains 4.50 3.00 1.50 Source: Annual Report 2016-17, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India. Pp. 53

V. Results of field survey in the four villages of the district of Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India

Table 5 shows the population wise distribution of householders of the study villages. It is shown from the table that Gojaldoba Tea Garden and Dakshin Odlabari villages are Scheduled Castes dominated and Odlabari Tea Garden and Patharjhora Tea Garden villages are Scheduled Tribes dominated.

Table 5: Population wise distribution of the study villages

Name of the Number of Total Population Total Scheduled Total Scheduled Villages Household Castes (SC) Tribe (ST) Population Population Gojaldoba Tea 877 4722 3996 183 Garden Odlabari Tea 843 4363 499 3071 Garden Dakshin 836 4280 1189 678

17

Odlabari Patharjhora Tea 871 4048 723 1274 Garden Source: Census Data.

Table 6 shows the age wise composition of householders of the study villages. Age is an important variable in the study of grassroots leadership. The present study reveals that the young leadership is increasingly coming to the fore. Previously leadership used to be the domain of the old and experienced. Now it has been a reverse trend. It was found from the table (as a whole) that while people up to the age of 30 years (11.88 per cent) were very small in number, the maximum householders was from middle age group, i.e., 31-45 years (46.25 per cent), followed by the relatively older, i.e., 46-60 years (25.62 per cent) and the older, i.e., above 60 years (16.25 per cent).

Table 6: Age wise composition of householders of the study villages

Age Gojaldoba Odlabari Tea Dakshin Patharjhora Grand Tea Garden Garden Odlabari Tea Garden Total

Number Number Number Number

Up to 30 04 (10.00) 05 (12.50) 06 (15.00) 04 (10.00) 19 (11.88)

31-45 20 (50.00) 18 (45.00) 17 (42.50) 19 (47.50) 74 (46.25)

46-60 08 (20.00) 10 (25.00) 12 (30.00) 11 (27.50) 41 (25.62)

Above 60 08 (20.00) 07 (17.50) 05 (12.50) 06 (15.00) 26 (16.25)

Total 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 160 (100)

Source: Field Data. N.B. Figures in the parentheses indicate column percentages.

Figure 1: Age wise composition of householders of the study villages

25

20

15 Gojaldoba Tea Garden Odlabari Tea Garden 10 Dakshin Odlabari Patharjhora Tea Garden 5

0 Up to 30 31-45 46-60 Above 60

18

Table 7 shows the caste wise composition of householders of the study villages. It can be shown from the table (as a whole) that the general castes (GEN) constitutes to 13.75 per cent, other backward castes (OBC) constitute to 7.50 per cent, scheduled caste (SC) constitutes to 36.88 per cent, scheduled tribes (ST) constitute to 38.12 per cent. This means that the area is scheduled tribes dominated.

Table 7: Caste wise composition of householders of the study villages

Caste Gojaldoba Odlabari Tea Dakshin Patharjhora Grand Tea Garden Garden Odlabari Tea Garden Total

Number Number Number Number

GEN 02 (05.00) 02 (05.00) 14 (35.00) 04 (10.00) 22 (13.75)

OBC 01 (02.50) 02 (05.00) 04 (10.00) 05 (12.50) 12 (07.50)

SC 32 (80.00) 05 (12.50) 12 (30.00) 10 (25.00) 59 (36.88)

ST 05 (12.50) 30 (75.00) 08 (20.00) 18 (45.00) 61 (38.12)

Others 00 (00.00) 01 (02.50) 02 (05.00) 03 (07.50) 06 (03.75)

Total 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 160 (100)

Source: Field Data. N.B. Figures in the parentheses indicate column percentages.

Figure 2: Caste wise composition of householders of the study villages

35

30

25 Gojaldoba Tea Garden 20 Odlabari Tea Garden 15 Dakshin Odlabari 10 Patharjhora Tea Garden

5

0 GEN OBC SC ST Others

19

Table 8 shows the educational level wise composition of householders of the study villages. Education is another important indicator of the quality of grassroots leadership. Although knowledge is not always dependent on educational qualification, yet qualification is a significant carrier of knowledge. Educational qualification not only brings knowledge, it also grants respect and a degree of self-confidence. It is seen from the table (as a whole) that 3.75 per cent of the householders are illiterate, 10.63 per cent up to class IV, 14.38 per cent up to class VIII, 35.62 per cent read up to class X and 35.62 per cent above class X.

Table 8: Educational level wise composition of householders of the study villages

Education Gojaldoba Odlabari Tea Dakshin Patharjhora Grand Tea Garden Garden Odlabari Tea Garden Total

Number Number Number Number

Illiterate 02 (05.00) 02 (05.00) 01 (02.50) 01 (02.50) 06 (03.75)

Up to IV 06 (15.00) 05 (12.50) 04 (10.00) 02 (05.00) 17 (10.63)

Up to VIII 06 (15.00) 06 (15.00) 05 (12.50) 06 (15.00) 23 (14.38)

Up to X 12 (30.00) 14 (35.00) 15 (37.50) 16 (40.00) 57 (35.62)

Above X 14 (35.00) 13 (32.50) 15 (37.50) 15 (37.50) 57 (35.62)

Total 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 160 (100)

Source: Field Data. N.B. Figures in the parentheses indicate column percentages.

Figure 3: Educational level wise composition of householders of the study villages

16 14 12 10 Gojaldoba Tea Garden 8 Odlabari Tea Garden 6 Dakshin Odlabari 4 Patharjhora Tea Garden 2 0

20

Table 9 shows the primary occupation wise composition of householders of the study villages. It is seen from the table (as a whole) that 15 per cent of householders come from agricultural occupation, 10.63 per cent from trade, 59.37 per cent from wage labour, 5.00 per cent come from service, 5.63 per cent come from petty trade and remaining 4.37 per cent from other occupations. This means that the maximum numbers of householders are wage labour.

Table 9: Primary occupation wise composition of householders of the study villages

Primary Gojaldoba Odlabari Tea Dakshin Patharjhora Grand Occupation Tea Garden Garden Odlabari Tea Garden Total

Number Number Number Number

Agriculture 08 (20.00) 05 (12.50) 06 (15.00) 05 (12.50) 24 (15.00)

Trade 04 (10.00) 03 (07.50) 05 (12.50) 05 (12.50) 17 (10.63)

Wage Labour 24 (60.00) 25 (62.50) 22 (55.00) 24 (60.00) 95 (59.37)

Service 01 (02.50) 02 (05.00) 03 (07.50) 02 (05.00) 08 (05.00)

Petty Trade 02 (05.00) 02 (05.00) 03 (07.50) 02 (05.00) 09 (05.63)

Artisan 01 (02.50) 01 (02.50) 00 (00.00) 01 (02.50) 03 (01.87)

Others 00 (00.00) 02 (05.00) 01 (02.50) 01 (02.50) 04 (02.50)

Total 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 160 (100)

Source: Field Data. N.B. Figures in the parentheses indicate column percentages.

Figure 4: Primary occupation wise composition of householders of the study villages

25

20

15 Gojaldoba Tea Garden 10 Odlabari Tea Garden

5 Dakshin Odlabari Patharjhora Tea Garden 0

21

Table 10 shows the income wise composition of householders of the study villages. It can be seen from the table (as a whole) that 6.88 per cent of householders’ income is up to Rs. 4000, 20.62 per cent of householders’ income ranges between Rs. 4001-6000, 35.00 per cent of householders’ income ranges between Rs. 6001-8000, 18.12 per cent of householders’ income ranges between Rs. 8001-10000 and 19.38 per cent of householders’ income lies above Rs. 10000.

Table 10: Income wise composition of householders of the study villages

Monthly Income Gojaldoba Odlabari Tea Dakshin Patharjhora Grand Tea Garden Garden Odlabari Tea Garden Total

Number Number Number Number

Up to Rs. 4000 02 (05.00) 02 (05.00) 05 (12.50) 02 (05.00) 11 (06.88)

Rs. 4001-6000 12 (30.00) 10 (25.00) 05 (12.50) 06 (15.00) 33 (20.62)

Rs. 6001-8000 16 (40.00) 18 (45.00) 10 (25.00) 12 (30.00) 56 (35.00)

Rs. 8001-10000 05 (12.50) 06 (15.00) 08 (20.00) 10 (25.00) 29 (18.12)

Above Rs. 10000 05 (12.50) 04 (10.00) 12 (30.00) 10 (25.00) 31 (19.38)

Total 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 40 (100) 160 (100)

Source: Field Data. N.B. Figures in the parentheses indicate column percentages.

Figure 5: Income wise composition of householders of the study villages

18 16 14 12 10 8 Gojaldoba Tea Garden 6 Odlabari Tea Garden 4 Dakshin Odlabari 2 0 Patharjhora Tea Garden

We asked several specific positive and normative questions related to food security and public distribution system in India of the study villages to ascertain the state of things to trace out an ideal system according to the perceptions of the respondents. The results for the respondents of selected villages are presented in Table 11 below.

22

Table 11: Distribution of respondents in respect of their responses to queries

Gojaldoba Tea Odlabari Tea Dakshin Patharjhora Grand Total Garden Garden Odlabari Tea Garden Questions Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Do you think that food 32 08 30 10 31 09 29 11 122 38 security is the common problem in (80.00) (20.00) (75.00) (25.00) (77.50) (22.50) (72.50) (27.50) (76.25) (23.75) your area?

Do you think that 30 10 28 12 32 08 31 09 121 39 overwhelming population, pervasive (75.00) (25.00) (70.00) (30.00) (80.00) (20.00) (77.50) (22.50) (75.63) (24.37) poverty and malnutrition are the reasons for India not being able to rise to the challenge of feeding its poor?

Do you think that your 31 09 32 08 30 10 29 11 122 38 children’s are going to bed without food? (77.50) (22.50) (80.00) (20.00) (75.00) (25.00) (72.50) (27.50) (76.25) (23.75)

Do you think that 26 14 24 16 20 20 18 22 88 72 Govt. is giving highest priority to mitigate the (65.00) (35.00) (60.00) (40.00) (50.00) (50.00) (45.00) (55.00) (55.00) (45.00) problem?

Are you consulted by 20 20 22 18 24 16 18 22 84 76 the officials of the Govt. in regard to the (50.00) (50.00) (55.00) (45.00) (60.00) (40.00) (45.00) (55.00) (52.50) (47.50) problems of your area?

Do you think that very 28 12 26 14 30 10 24 16 108 52 poor are unable to take the benefit of the (70.00) (30.00) (65.00) (35.00) (75.00) (25.00) (60.00) (40.00) (67.50) (32.50) PDS?

Whether the works 20 20 22 18 18 22 20 20 80 80 done by the Govt. under different (50.00) (50.00) (55.00) (45.00) (45.00) (55.00) (50.00) (50.00) (50.00) (50.00) schemes are satisfactory?

Are you getting any 18 22 20 20 22 18 16 24 76 84 type benefit from the Central/State Govt. (45.00) (55.00) (50.00) (50.00) (55.00) (45.00) (40.00) (60.00) (47.50) (52.50) schemes, which are implemented for poor?

Source: Field Data. N.B. (Every Villages, Yes + No=40). Figures in the parentheses indicate row percentages.

23

Need for Self-Sufficiency India suffered two very severe droughts in 1965 and 1966. Food Aid to India was restricted to a monthly basis by USA under the P.L. 480 programme. India had been a severe critic of the US policy of intervention and war in Vietnam. This was not liked by the then President Lyndon Johnson.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had foreseen such a situation and declared, “It is only when we attain self-sufficiency in food that we can progress and develop ourselves. Otherwise there is the constant pressure of circumstances, there is trouble and misery and sometimes shame and humiliation.”

The Green Revolution made a significant change in the scene. India achieved self- sufficiency in food grains by the year 1976 through the implementation of the seed – water - fertilizer policy adopted by the Government of India.

Long Term Food Security Measures Public Distribution System can at best be a Blood Transfusion exercise. It does not act as a permanent poverty alleviation measure. While it does provide some immediate relief, it fails to provide enduring food security to the poor. It would be more appropriate to focus on strategies that reduce poverty and stabilize prices of food grains.

At one time we had 300 million people at various degrees of starvation while there were 64 million tons of food grains rotting in the go-downs of the Food Corporation of India. The rural poor did not have the purchasing power to buy food grains even at the PDS prices.

Food grains were being transferred to private mills and traders through collusion on the part of corrupt civil supplies officers. Only the very inferior grains were supplied to the ration card holders. The minimum buffer stock now required in India has been fixed at around 16-17 million tons of food grains.

VI. Conclusions The imperative of food security in India is now widely acknowledged, but deep disagreements persist on the best way forward. The year 2014 saw the passing of the NFSA designed to be a comprehensive set of interventions support food security over the life cycle of an individual. Although detractors perceive this to be an expensive and largely wasteful exercise that hinges on a faulty mechanism for procurement and distribution via fair price shops under the PDS, supporters suggest that this is the best way to ensure food access in many contexts in rural India. The immediate challenges for India lie in revisiting operational aspects of food procurement and distribution for a more cost-effective and nimble system. Food grain production increased four-fold during 1950-51 and 2001-2002 from 51 million tons to 212 million tons. The country is no longer exposed to real famines. Total lack of purchasing power however continues to haunt people in some parts of the country. They starve even when the country’s granaries are overflowing.

24

In a fraught global economic environment, exacerbated by climate change and shrinking resources, ensuring food and nutrition security is a daunting challenge for many nations. India, Asia’s third largest economy and the world’s second most populous nation after China with 1.3 billion people, is no exception.

The main purpose of the Public Distribution System was to act as a price support programme for the consumer in 1960s. Those were the years of food shortage. The basic items covered were rice, wheat, sugar, edible oil, and kerosene to be sold at subsidized prices. The coverage was extended to rural areas by some States during the 1980s. Effort was made to cover the tribal blocks with a population around 57 million persons in 1985. Central government expenditure on Food Subsidy was 1, 24,334.61 crores of Rupees in the year 2016-2017.

There had been a growing feeling that the non-poor were the beneficiaries of the PDS in large numbers especially in respect of sugar and Kerosene oil. Under the new system, the non-poor sections have been kept out. However large quantities of Kerosene oil keep on being diverted from the PDS to adulteration in diesel and petrol. The Public Distribution System was very well conceived. However it has remained very ill manned. PDS has remained an expensive and largely untargeted programme.

The very poor are unable to take the benefit of the PDS for a variety of reasons. They do not have a regular income. They are unable to lift a month or a fortnight’s quota at one time for want of enough money. In most cases the PDS shops are closed by the time the labourer is back home. Supplies are irregular and the workers cannot afford to waste a day waiting for the supply to come and be distributed. The inspecting officials are friendlier to the dealer than to the very poor consumer for whom the whole system is supposed to work.

From our field level study (Table 7) we can find that a majority of the respondents (76.25 per cent) think that food security is common problem in his/her area. However, a good majority of them (75.63 per cent) feel that overwhelming population, pervasive poverty and malnutrition are the reasons for India not being able to rise to the challenge of feeding its poor in his/her society. Moreover, 76.25 per cent of the respondent feels that their children’s are going to bed without food. 55.00 per cent of the respondents think that government is giving highest priority to mitigate the problem. With regard to consultation of local people about local problems, about 52.50 per cent told that they are consulted, while nearly 47.50 per cent told that they are not consulted. Moreover, 67.50 per cent of the respondent feels that very poor are unable to take the benefit of the PDS. On our query whether the works done by the Govt. under different schemes are satisfactory, 50 per cent of the respondents seemed to be unsatisfied as they provided negative reply. As regards getting any type benefits from different Central and State sectors schemes, majority (nearly 52.50 per cent) expressed their opinion that they are not getting it.

25

References

1. Bhalla, G. S., P. Hazell and J. Kerr (2001), “Prospects for India’s Cereal Supply and Demand to 2020, Food, Agriculture and the Environment”, Discussion paper 29, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. 2. Bhramanad, P. S. (2013), “Challenges to Food Security in India”, Current Science, Vol. 104. No. 7, 10 April 2013. 3. Chopra, Surabhi (2009), “Holding the State Accountable for Hunger”, Economic and Political Weekly, August 15, Vol. 44, No. 33. 4. Dercon, Stephan (2008), “Children and the Food Price Crisis”, Young Lives Policy Brief 5, Department of International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. 5. Dev, S. Mahendra (2003), “Right to Food in India”, Working Paper no. 50, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad. 6. Dev, S. Mahendra and Alakh N. Sharma (2010), “Food Security in India: Performance, Challenges and Policies”, Oxfam India Working Paper Series, September 2010. 7. Dreze, J. (2004), “Democracy and Right to Food”, Economic and Political Weekly, April 24, Vol. 39. 8. Dreze, Jean and A. Sen (1989), Hunger and Public Action, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 9. Dyson, Tim and A. Hanchate (2000), “India’s Demographic and Food Prospects: State Level Analysis”, Economic and Political Weekly, November 11, Vol. 35. 10. Gaiha, R. (2003), “Does Right to Food Matter?”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38. 11. GoI (1955), “The Essential Commodities Act, 1955”, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. 12. GoI (2001), “The Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001”, Department of Food and Public Distribution. 13. GoI (2002), “Report of the High Level Committee on Long Term Grain Policy”. Department of Food and Public Distribution System, Government of India. 14. GoI (2007), “Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2006”, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. 15. GoI (2007), “Report of Steering Committee on Agriculture for XIth Plan”, Planning Commission, Government of India. 16. GoI (2008), “Draft 11th Five year Plan”. Planning Commission, Government of India. 17. GoI (2008), “PDS Portal of India”, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. 18. GoI (2010), “Economics of Food Grain Management in India”, Ministry of Finance (Chief Economic Adviser: Kaushik Basu), September 2010. 19. GoI (2011), “Reforms in the Public Distribution System and Better Targeting of Food Subsidies”, Working Group on Reforms in the Public Distribution System and Better Targeting of Food Subsidies during the 12th Plan Period (Chairperson: Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution), Planning Commission, July 29, 2011. 20. GoI (2013), “The National Food Security Bill, 2011”, Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, January 2013. 21. Gopalan, C. (1995), “Towards Food and Nutritional Security”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, No. 52, December 1995, pp. 134-141. 22. Gulati, Ashok, Jyoti Gujral and T. Nandakumar (2012), “National Food Security Bill: Challenges and Options”, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, December 2012. 23. Kapur D., P. Mukhopadhyay, and A. Subramanian (2008), “The Case for Direct Cash Transfers to the Poor”, Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 41, p. 40, April 12.

26

24. Khera, R. (2011), “Revival of the Public Distribution System: Evidence and Explanations”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, November 5. 25. Khera, Reetika (2009), “Right to Food Act: Beyond Cheap Promises”, Economic and Political Weekly, July 18, Vo.42, No.29. 26. Kumar, Ajani (2012). “Food Security in India: Trends, Patterns, and determinants” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 67, No. 3, July-Sept 2012. 27. Lal, Neeta (2016), “Chronic Hunger Linger in the Midst of Plenty”, The Wire. 28. Lal, Neeta (2016), “Hunger in a Time of Plenty: The Curious Case of Indian Food-Security”, The Wire. 29. Radhakrishna (2002) “Food and Nutrition Security” in Kirit S. Parikh and R. Radhakrishnas (eds.) India Development Report, 2002, Oxford University Press. 30. Radhakrishna, R. (1991), “Food and Nutrition: Challenges for Policy”, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 211-227. 31. Rao, C. H. H. and R. Radhakrishna (1997), “National Food Security: A Policy Perspective for India”, Plenary paper, 27th International Conference of Agricultural Economists, August 10- 16, Sacramento, California and published in G.H. Peter and J.V. Braun (ed.) Food Security. 32. Rao, K. Subba and C. Ravi (1990), Food Demand Projections for India, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad. 33. Rao, K. Subba, S. Indrakant and C. Ravi (1997), India’s Public Distribution System: A National and International Perspective, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 380. 34. Saxena, N. C. (2008), “Hunger, Under Nutrition and Food Security in India”, New Delhi. 35. Saxena, N. C. (2011), “Hunger, Under-Nutrition and Food Security in India”, Working Paper 44, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. 36. Sen, Amartya and S. Sengupta (1983), “Malnutrition of Rural Indian Children and the Sex Bias”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 24. 37. Swaminathan, M. (2000), Weakening Welfare: The Public Distribution of Food in India, Left Word Books, New Delhi. 38. World Bank (2012), “World Development Report 2012 – Gender Equality and Development”, Washington DC. 39. World Food Programme (2012), “Fighting Hunger Worldwide”, (www.wfp.org).

*******

27