The Hindu Business Line : Paradox of hunger amid plenty

The anomaly of hunger amidst the plenty signifies something basically wrong in the system. The question arises why the poor have no access to the food they sorely need.

IN a recent address, the economist Dr Amartya Sen had raised a pertinent point that large subsidies to the agriculture sector only tend to keep the prices of agricultural products high, and the rich farming community happy. Sadly, the high prices of agricultural produce keep them beyond the reach of the vast population of undernourished poor in the country.

No doubt, agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds after the 1960s, making it highly self-sufficient. The employment of new technology in farming, high breed varieties of seeds, use of fertilisers, etc., has brought about a total transformation in the food scene.

Despite these welcome developments, there is, even today, the anomaly of hunger amidst the plenty. Baffling though it is, it signifies something basically wrong in the system. The question arises why the poor have no access to the food they sorely need.

Even a cursory look at the rural areas, particularly in some States, would reveal how impoverished and undernourished the people are, particularly the children. A travel by train through these States will find young and old, emaciated and weak, begging at the wayside stations for left-over food.

The PDS, with all its aberrations, is not slanted towards the rural poor and does not reach all in adequate measure. PDS suffers from two demerits: leakages and low coverage of poor. Even where the benefit is available, the poor people just do not have the money to buy the badly-needed supplies.

The midday meals scheme, in which a high-protein meal is given to children attending primary school in some States touches but the fringe of the huge problem. This laudable scheme should be made compulsory in all primary schools throughout the country.

The problem of child labour, female infanticide, people eating anything edible that grows in the wild (even rats), migration to cities and the rising incidence of family suicides, are all grim pointers to the realities obtaining in the villages.

The post-1990s reforms have not addressed these problems on the scale needed and are more urban-oriented and pro-well-off. The long-term adverse effect of such under-nourishment results in stunted children with low weight, prone to several diseases when they grow old.

It appears we are just slightly better off than sub-Saharan countries in this aspect. Not a flattering situation considering that the taxpayers bear the brunt of innumerable subsidies to the agricultural sector that do not reach the intended people.

One other disturbing feature is that the portion of subsidies that goes to elementary education is lower than that for secondary and higher education. This gives a big edge to the better-off sections when the crying need is to lift the poorer segment out of the morass of illiteracy and equip it with skills for employment.

In order to free themselves from poverty that leads to hunger, under- nourishment and poor health, the weaker sections should get opportunities to work and earn the money needed to buy food. Can the governments and planners afford to ignore this stark reality?

Economic policy should create conditions for large employment opportunities in the rural areas and the smaller cities. Of course, huge funds are needed to undertake this massive, high-priority job. In this context, we should review the lopsided subsidy and taxation policies in the agricultural sector.

The major portion of subsidies and innumerable benefits, given across the board without regard to the size of holdings, goes to a small number of big farmers with land-holdings of above four hectares. More than 70 per cent of people in agricultural occupation have very much less than two hectares.

There will be no protest from the public if these benefits accrue to the poorer cultivators with smallholdings. On the other hand, the heavy subsidy to the agricultural sector, borne by the tax-paying public, is mostly for the benefit of this rich, landed gentry who contribute practically nothing towards tax on the income earned.

It is gross inequity to exempt these rich farmers from paying any income-tax or wealth tax on their large agricultural incomes. There is no rationale, ethically or economically, in leaving them out of the tax net and allowing the poorer sections to wallow in poverty for want of resources.

That agricultural income is a State subject and that the States are unwilling to act is a feeble response from the Centre. Ways are to be found — if needed, by amendments to the Constitution — to overcome this hurdle without injecting politics in the issue.

A peremptory review of the need for all subsidies, both direct and indirect, that go to enrich the already rich sections, should be done, and a case made for scrapping them.

The least that these rich farmers can do is either to agree to pay the tax or forego the subsidies, whichever is higher. They cannot have both. The raison d'etre for subsidies, extended at a time when the emphasis was on self-sufficiency in food production, no longer exists.

The only result of this skewed subsidy policy is the useless storage of massive volumes of foodgrains purchased at high prices and their rotting in government godowns with the efflux of time, side by side with the grim reality of people dying of hunger and undernourished children working in unsafe conditions for long hours for want of food.

No effective way has yet been devised to distribute these foodgrains on a food-for-work basis to the needy. This does not augur well for the country's balanced growth and will only foment social unrest and violence, as we see in some parts of the country today.

(The author is a Chennai-based freelance writer.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
AIDS scare is for real

Positive tones in the telecom sector

Paradox of hunger amid plenty

Women in science

A new form of colonialism

Whose intellect, what property?

Employee relations — Why it should be kept alive

Rural insurance

Election results