Despite Modi's poser, will BJP blink on food security bill?

When the ruling Congress pushes for the Food Security Bill today in Parliament it will not just be undermining the position of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Planning Commission but also Parliamentary conventions. But with an eye on the coming assembly and soon to be followed parliamentary elections, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and her party strategists are hastily pressing for ratification of the ordinance by Parliament with a basic assumption, albeit political, that no party will have the courage to oppose the hugely populist bill per se and any attempts of rival parties to hide behind technicalities could be dealt with on the floor of the House. Section 3(2) of the Food Security Bill says, “the entitlements of the persons belonging to the eligible households referred to in sub-section (1) at subsidised prices shall extend up to seventy-five percent of the rural population and up to fifty percent of the urban population.” The Bill however, does not provide for how and on what criteria the 75 percent of population in rural areas and 50 percent in urban areas should be identified. A point also highlighted by Narendra Modi, Gujarat Chief Minister and BJP’s face of the campaign for 2014, in his letter to the Prime Minister. [caption id=“attachment_1032185” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Parliament in session: PTI[/caption] While pursuing political exigencies, the Congress leadership conveniently ignored one most important fact – in May 2012 its own government had constituted a technical group or committee headed by Dr C Rangarajan, Chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economy Advisory Council, to look into this very question. Point number 4 in the terms of reference for the Rangarajan committee states that it will “recommend how the estimates of poverty, as evolved above, should be linked to eligibility and entitlements for schemes and programmes under the government of India”. Though it does not mention the Food Security Bill,  the references as outlined there make it clear that the recommendations of the committee would be applicable for all such policy formulations. The other point in the terms of reference says, “to comprehensively review the existing methodology of estimation of poverty and examine whether the poverty line should be fixed solely in terms of a consumption basket or whether other criteria are also relevant, and if so, whether the two can be effectively combined to evolve a basis for estimation of poverty in rural and urban areas.” The committee was formed after the Planning Commission’s figures for BPL (below poverty line population) identification - Rs 33 per person per day in urban areas and Rs 27 in rural areas - had come under severe criticism. But then the problem for the Congress was that the committee was to submit its report only by mid-2014, and by that time parliamentary elections would have taken place and the popular verdict on the UPA’s fate already announced. The ruling Congress couldn’t take that chance and went on hard pressing the bill, despite containing some obvious deficiencies. The Standing Committee of Parliament, in January, 2013, recommended that that government should formulate eligibility criteria in consultation with the state governments. But the UPA government chose to ignore the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee. The other interesting fact is that when the Bill was first introduced in Parliament in the midst of turmoil in the closing days of the last Budget session, the Food Minister and the government had introduced 70 amendments. Many senior MPs say that the many official amendments moved by the government are almost tantamount to the introduction of a new Bill so it should be sent to the Standing Committee, something that had happened with the Companies Bill in the recent past. Moreover, such a populist bill is bound see 100-plus amendments moved by various political parties. It is one of the reasons the Congress found an alibi, pressing the urgency clause as prescribed in Article 123 of the Indian Constitution. The same article also says that it has to be ratified within six weeks from the day the next Parliament session is convened. The Congress leadership has been aware that the opposition and even some supportive parties would press for sending the bill to the standing committee, which will effectively put it in cold storage, as this Lok Sabha cannot transact any effective business beyond the winter session. Senior Congress leaders and top ministers are now pleading that the ordinance has to be ratified within the stipulated period and those seen to be opposing the bill run the risk of being called anti-poor just ahead of elections. The Congress’s belief that the bill will be politically difficult to oppose got further strengthened when the BJP’s central leadership failed to take a clear position on Tuesday, despite the very tough position taken by the Gujarat Chief Minister in his letter to the PM, where he called the Bill ‘deficient’ and ‘unworkable’. A close scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill indicate that Modi and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa are perfectly justified in demanding that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh call a Chief Ministers’ meet before the bill is taken up by Parliament for discussion. Besides implementation, the bill is heavily loaded on keeping the onus on states, including making cash payments to the supposed beneficiaries in case foodgrain is not available. However, the mode of payment and amount of compensation will be decided by the centre and not the state government. Modi argues the bill has “far reaching implications” for the people and the agriculture sector, and will also raise “centre-state issues”. So it was only appropriate that the provisions ought have been widely debated and discussed at proper forums, something which he says “has not been done so far”. The key deficiency, according to Modi, is that the number of beneficiaries has been fixed in the ordinance without specifying eligibility criteria and fixing individual entitlements. Between different states, he says, there could be wide regional disparities. Jayalalithaa had earlier written to the Prime Minister on the same subject saying, “In view of the foregoing reasons, I would like to register my strong opposition to the Draft National Food Security Bill….In a federal structure like ours where the states are in close and direct contact with the people, the choice of designing and implementing popular welfare schemes is best left to the states. The Union Government should not attempt or be seen to attempt encroaching into the domains of the states.” Some of the following provisions of the Bill suggest that Modi is not far from the truth when he calls the Bill “unworkable”: [caption id=“attachment_1032191” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The food bill puts the onus of implementation on the state governments: Reuters[/caption] *Section 3 (1) of Food Security Bill 2013 says, Every person belonging to priority households, identified under sub-section (1) of section 10, shall be entitled to receive five kg of foodgrains per person per month at subsidised prices specified in Schedule I from the state government under the Targeted Public Distribution System: *Section 3(2): The entitlements of the persons belonging to the eligible households referred to in sub-section (1) at subsidised prices shall extend up to seventy-five per cent of the rural population and up to fifty per cent of the urban population. *Section 8: In case of non-supply of the entitled quantities of foodgrains or meals to entitled persons under Chapter II, such persons shall be entitled to receive such food security allowance from the concerned state government to be paid to each person, within such time and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. * Section 9: The percentage coverage under the Targeted Public Distribution System in rural and urban areas for each state shall, subject to sub-section (2) of section 3, be determined by the Central Government and the total number of persons to be covered in such rural and urban areas of the state shall be calculated on the basis of the population estimates as per the census of which the relevant figures have been published. * Section 11: The state government shall place the list of the identified eligible households in the public domain and display it prominently. * Section 12 (h); This section talks of introducing schemes such as cash transfer, food coupons, or other schemes for targeted beneficiaries in lieu of their foodgrain entitlements specified in Chapter II, in such area and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. *Section 24: The state government shall be responsible for implementation and monitoring of the schemes of various ministries and departments of the Central Government in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Government for each scheme, and their own schemes, for ensuring food security to the targeted beneficiaries in their State. *Section 24 (4): In case of non-supply of the entitled quantities of foodgrains or meals to entitled persons under Chapter II, the state government shall be responsible for payment of food security allowance specified in section 8. Besides the above mentioned provisions in the Bill that requires consultation with the states, the BJP leaders are peeved by the fact that the Congress leadership has already announced that the scheme would be launched on 20 August, on Rajiv Gandhi’s birthday, in some Congress-ruled states like Delhi and Haryana, without even waiting to see how other parties would respond when it comes up for ratification in Parliament. The Congress is sure of its passage. The question is how BJP would respond for it will have far-reaching implications for the party’s internal politics.