Why are Tamil Nadu and Kerala opposed to the proposed changes in Food Security law? | Explained

The story so far:

On July 6, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay urged the Centre to retain the present provision of 35 kg of food grains per household per month under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) scheme, meant for the poorest of the poor, and not to make it a per capita system. The next day, the CPI(M)’sPolit Bureau also voiced its concern and demanded that the proposed amendment to the entitlement criteria be dropped. About 10 days ago, immediately after the Union government made public its plan to amend the National Food Security Act (NFSA) in this regard, Kerala’s Food Minister Anoop Jacob expressed reservations over the move.

Also read | NFSA amendments: 7 kg of foodgrains for a person, and maximum 35 kg for a household

What is the amendment mooted?

On June 24, the Food and Public Distribution (F&PD) department at the Centre, while publishing a draft amendment bill to the NFSA, stated that every person belonging to households covered under AAY would be entitled to seven kg of food grains per month, subject to a maximum of 35 kg per household per month. At present, the entitlement is for the entire household with a ceiling of 35 kg per month. The proposed amendment covers the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 (Right to receive foodgrains at subsidised prices by persons belonging to eligible households) of the Act. The public can comment on the amendments till July 13 and send their views by email to [email protected] and [email protected].

Why is the change being proposed?

The existing household-based entitlement, though intended as a protective measure for the most vulnerable families, results in significant inequities depending upon the size of the household, according to the F&PD department. Smaller households receive a higher per-capita entitlement, whereas larger households receive a lower per-capita entitlement, which may fall below the entitlement available to priority households. The aim and purpose are to remove intra-category inequities, provide for more rational food grain allocation and better align entitlements with nutritional requirements, a note prepared by the department points out.

However, the proposed amendment does not seek to address the issue of inclusion of ineligible persons as beneficiaries, the problem of which is being experienced at the State-level.

What is the story behind the two southern States’ opposition ?

It is not for the first time that the two States are articulating their opposition to matters concerning the food policy, as their contemporary political history has an important ingredient — politics of food. Kerala, which has a long history of the public distribution system (PDS) dating back to the now-abolished princely State of Travancore (Thiruvananthapuram), introduced informal food distribution mechanisms to mitigate the food shortage of the poor and vulnerable, and was perhaps the first to launch a formal PDS in 1962, three years before the establishment of the Food Corporation of India (FCI). At least on two occasions — 1952 and 1967 — Tamil Nadu saw political upsets, the incumbent regime getting reduced to a minority in 1952 and being shown the door (in 1967). The reason was that the governments of the periods in question were not being swift in handling the rice shortage. Since 1967, successive Chief Ministers of the State have been cautious in taking decisions with regard to the subject of rice.

It was no wonder that the two States were vociferous in their stand in the run-up to the formulation of the NFSA. Though the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) took charge in 2011 in Kerala, the government did not agree to the implementation of the 2013 law — an Act of Parliament — despite the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance regime at the Centre pushing the legislation. The main reservation it had was that the NFSA would lead to the removal of a “large number of poor families” from the list of beneficiaries and put an “enormous financial burden” on the State. However, Oommen Chandy had, at one point in time, committed himself to the enforcement of the law in his State even though it was left to his successor, Pinarayi Vijayan, to take the formal decision.

In Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa, as Chief Minister, virulently opposed the law because immediately after she came to power in May 2011, her government started the distribution of rice, free to all the ration cardholders, regardless of their economic status. She had criticised the government for stating that those who would be left out of the NFSA would not be eligible to receive free rice. Eventually, she extracted a major concession from the Union government that the existing allocations, as they stood in 2013, for all the States would be legally safeguarded.

Hence, it was no surprise that the two southern neighbours joined the rest of the country in November 2016 in implementing the law.

Why are Tamil Nadu and Kerala opposing the amendment to the NFSA?

Explaining how Kerala would be affected by the latest move, Mr. Jacob has pointed out that States such as his, characterised by nuclear families, would be at a disadvantage as there would be a reduction in the quantity of free foodgrains for families with fewer than five members. He has recalled that even in 2013, when the law took effect, his State took the stand that the AAY card holders deserved “special consideration,” a position that it continues. “As a consumption State, any cut in Kerala’s allocation is a matter of concern,” Mr. Jacob stated.

Mr. Vijay, who referred in his letter to Mr. Modi about how the amendment would cause the fall in the monthly allocation of foodgrains from 65,261 tonnes to 42,040 tonnes, stated that the number of AAY cardholders below the family size of five members is 15.75 lakh (out of a total of 18.64 lakhs), covering 58.51 lakh beneficiaries (total:69.27 lakhs). “Rice provided to the AAY cardholders is a staple ingredient of all three meals of the day and cannot be substituted with any other commodity from the open market, resulting in substantial out of pocket expenses,” he observed.

Besides, Anuradha Talwar, a functionary of the Right to Food Campaign, said that the amendment would bring a “North-South divide” in foodgrain allocation, as families in northern States would get higher allocations in view of their average family size being bigger than that of the southern States.

What is the way forward?

Ideally, such a change should have been subjected to greater public scrutiny to arrive at a consensus. However, T. Sadagopan, President, Tamil Nadu Progressive Consumer Centre and a veteran activist who served on the State government’s panels on food, suggests that the Centre chalk out a middle path by making the allocation of 30 kg per family, irrespective of family members. This would help the Union government to cut down its subsidy bill.