The ongoing debate about the Planning Commission setting a per capita expenditure of Rs 32 a day as the norm for offering benefits targeted at the poor has rapidly taken the hue of a heartless official body being challenged by those who are much more concerned about the poor. Ironically, this emotional twist to the debate allows the Commission to present itself as the rational body that knows what the country can afford, while its critics are unrealistic dreamers. This statement of the problem hides the real debate between two very different approaches to the collapse of the public distribution system, an official one that is preoccupied with the national Budget and an alternative one that emphasises the government's commitment to ensure every Indian has adequate nutrition.
The Budget approach that underlies the Planning Commission's actions sees the problem of the public distribution system as essentially one of leakages. What should go to the poor is diverted to others either through corrupt means or by fixing criteria for poverty that allow the non-poor to get the benefits.
INCOME CUT-OFF MEANINGLESS
The battle against corruption is to be fought through cash transfers while keeping out the non-poor is to be done by fixing more ‘realistic' poverty norms. Both these instruments are fundamentally flawed but let us concentrate on the ‘realistic' norm which is what the current debate is about.
To begin with, an income cut-off is not the ideal norm to target the under-nourished. The budgets of individuals vary quite substantially so that a lower per capita income may ensure one family takes care of its nutrition requirements while another family may require a much higher income. A family that has to put aside a part of its income for warm clothing in a cold region needs a higher income than a family in a warm region that does not need to.
There is also a problem with any cut-off that gets magnified when dealing with food. Those just above the poverty line will not get any of the benefits given to those just below it. Going by the Planning Commission's numbers, households with a per capita income of Rs 33 a day will not get any benefits while those earning Rs 31 a day will get all the benefits. When these benefits relate to something as basic as food, they can generate great anger.
The Planning Commission can insulate itself from that anger but the local politician cannot. Her solution would, quite simply, be to declare the person having a per capita income of Rs 33 as having a per capita income of Rs 31. But that does not solve the problem as those with a per capita income of Rs 34 will now see no reason to be left out when those with a per capita income of Rs 33 get all the benefits.
And this process typically goes on till we reach those who do not want the benefits offered to people below the poverty line. By the time this happens as much as 70 per cent of the population can claim the benefits of being below the poverty line. Those who are above this liberal effective poverty line may see this as corruption, but for those who get the benefits this is no more than the means to deal with the tyranny of a cut-off for something as basic as food.
NUTRITION-BASED APPROACH
The alternative nutrition-based approach would avoid such a cut-off. It would argue that there must be a basket of basic food items that every Indian must have access to at a subsidised price. The Budgetarians would argue that the country cannot afford that subsidy and spreading the available subsidy across the entire country would limit what is available to the poor. But this Budget-centric approach ignores three aspects of the current reality that can be tapped to provide adequate nutrition to every Indian.
First, all calculations about the amount of subsidy that can be spent on providing food depend on the relative importance given to the different components of the Budget. And this is not just a matter of food-versus-guns, though that is not entirely irrelevant here. There is also the question of very expensive infrastructure being built for our cities to be world class. How much should we spend on beautifying ourselves for the world when our official position is that we cannot afford to feed all those who want subsidised food?
Second, even if such larger questions are typically left unanswered, we need to pay greater attention to reducing the current wastage in the use of food subsidies. In the current system food is procured from farmers that cannot be sold in the public distribution system. The unsold stocks are paid for by the food subsidy. We need to develop a system of providing subsidies to farmers in a way that does not generate huge stocks that cannot be sold even in the public distribution system.
Third, in order to distinguish between the poorest and the not-so-poor who still want to tap the public distribution system, we urgently need a system of food kitchens. At present several religious institutions do provide meals to those who want it. But this is still some way from being universal. The government must be willing to step in with its own kitchens or help charitable institutions set up kitchens to meet this shortfall.
By taking a minimalistic view of poverty norms, even as it claims India is an emerging major economy, the Planning Commission has reinforced a traditional Indian practice of dressing the bride even as she remains hungry.
(The author is Professor, School of Social Science, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore. blfeedback@thehindu.co.in )