Food security bill is being touted as come- back mantra by the UPA2 similar to the NREGA of UPA1. After its dismal show and charges of corruption of unprecedented scale and subsequent brazenness, this would be seen by the people as a last minute gimmick before it is all over for the UPA2. This is not only because of political reasons, but also due to nature of the policy. On the political front, the Congress and the UPA2 want to harness the sentimental value of such a policy. People realize that the govt. had all the time in the world (9 years), to improve the PDS system. It had shown a blind eye to the rotting food grains in FCI go-downs despite the Supreme Court asking it to distribute the excess food grains than allowing them to rot. The only thing that the govt. could think of to avoid such huge wastage was the extremely contentious FDI (in multi brand retail) bill in the face of dropping economy and investor confidence. This they proclaimed would invite foreign investment in modern warehousing and supply chain management, and will solve the problem of food security. In the eleventh hour the govt. has decided that a food security bill would fill the empty stomachs and the people would in turn vote them back for the last minute intervention. On the question of merit, Food Security and even Right to Education is not the same as employment guarantee. The latter does not involve any preliminary and parallel infrastructure, except legal and administrative setup. The policy only involved disbursement of funds from centre and organizing local manual work (irrespective of its utility). That could immediately start and money reached the hands of the people. This along with farm loan waiver was an instant benefit in the hands of much depressed rural population. It is a different matter as to what effect the scheme had on agricultural labour market and the quality and utility of the work done. Moreover since the work is of manual nature there is no incentive or plan for skill development and long term economic emancipation. Such policies tend to perpetuate poverty and the politics associated with it. They are like direct cash gifts and can provide temporary relief to people and in return electoral dividends, but by now, NREGA should have given way to more productive asset development and skill enhancement schemes. In the case of Right to Education and Food Security there is no instant benefit reaching the poor and they require lot of infrastructure and capacity building for the legal entitlements to materialize. Without those in place the entitlements will remain just on paper. Even before these new laws, there already exist entitlements for food and primary education in some form and the present laws are only incremental improvements to the legal framework. Hence they are neither innovative nor game-changing interventions. Rather than trying to make a big propaganda about enacting new laws, it would be more credible had the govt. built infrastructure/ capacities and worked on improving the delivery mechanisms. The most important link in the whole system is the fixing of accountability, without which the schemes would be like sieves and will hold no water. It is obvious that since there is no immediate or possible benefit, there will be no immediate political dividends accruing out of these incremental legislations. But whoever comes to power can reap rich dividends if they use their 5 years term to build infrastructure and capacities and set up a robust system of fixing accountability.
Posted on: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:46:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015