The tussle between the National Advisory Council and the Expert Committee headed by the PM’s Economic Advisor C Rangarajan over the National Food Security Bill is being projected as a contest between the ‘pro-people concerns’ of the NAC headed by Sonia Gandhi, and the neoliberal commitments of Manmohan Singh on the other. Indications are, however, that it’s all a case of calculated shadow-boxing, with food security being a casualty at a time when food prices are hitting an all-time high and India has among the worst rates of hunger and malnutrition in the world, especially among children and women.

Under pressures from the Government, the NAC had already watered down its initial proposals of universal PDS coverage along with child and maternity nutrition programmes. According to the NAC’s proposals, the BPL/APL divide was to continue, with the ‘priority segment’ (46 % of the rural population and 28 % of the urban population) being eligible for 35 kg of foodgrain at the rate of Re.1 a kg for millets, Rs.2 a kg for wheat and Rs.3 a kg for rice; and the ‘general segment’ (44 % of rural and 22 % of urban populations) being eligible for 20 kg per household at half the minimum support price for the grains. The 46% of ‘priority’ rural population is based on the rural poverty ratio for 2004-05, with a margin of 10% for “exclusion errors.”

The NAC’s calculation of ‘priority’ population is only marginally higher than the Tendulkar Committee’s estimate (rural poverty at 41.8%), and much lower than the N C Saxena committee’s estimate that between 50-80% of rural households were poor. And it is a far cry from the Arjun Sengupta report’s estimate, which had found that 77% of India’s population lived on less than Rs 20 a day. At a time when food prices are soaring, how much can Rs 20 stretch? Yet even the NAC proposal left out a large section of such people from the ‘priority’ list of the poor.

As Jean Dreze, a member of the NAC, put it in a scathing dissent note, the NAC’s was “a minimalist proposal”: far from being a radical food guarantee, or even a substantial expansion of the existing PDS coverage, it was even a curtailment of the existing PDS model under which APL households too are eligible for 35 kgs of grain. But even this ‘minimalist’ proposal has been too much for the UPA-II to digest. It appointed the Rangarajan panel to review the NFSB proposal, which, on cue, declared that the NAC proposal was infeasible, since there was a shortage of food stocks to meet the requirement. When food grain stocks rot in godowns, prompting even the Supreme Court to take notice, can it really be that India lacks food stocks to feed all her people?

The Rangarajan panel has sought to mask its hostility to the very idea of expanded PDS coverage behind a facade of concern for the burden placed on the poor, arguing that if the Government goes for larger procurement to stock the PDS, it will run the ‘danger of distorting food prices in the open markets,’ thereby increasing the burden of food prices on the poor. This is not only rank hypocrisy, it makes no sense economically. After all, increased procurement if accompanied by increased distribution cannot result in increased food prices. On the contrary, it has the potential to ease the agrarian crisis by guaranteeing an assured minimum income for the crisis-ridden peasantry.

The Rangarajan panel recommends an even further dilution of the NAC proposal – suggesting that guaranteed PDS coverage be restricted to the ‘priority’ households (defined as official BPL estimates + a margin of 10% of BPL population, amounting to 46% rural and 28% urban population) which will receive 35 kgs at Rs 2 per kg wheat and Rs 3 per kg rice. State-wise BPL population cut-off will be fixed from above by the centre. According to the Rangarajan panel, PDS foodgrain can be sold to the non-BPL population at the Minimum Support Price. Further, the Rangarajan panel, in the name of reforming the PDS mechanism, essentially suggests dismantling it in favour of a system of ‘smart cards’ whereby beneficiaries can “go to any store of their choice and use their smart cards or food coupons to buy food.” The Rangarajan panel’s suggestion disturbingly indicates the UPA-II’s motive to privatise the PDS, relieving the Government of accountability for its functioning.

Jean Dreze’s dissent note had observed that “the NAC proposals are a great victory for the government – they allow it to appear to be doing something radical for food security, but it is actually ‘more of the same’”. To confuse the issue, the UPA-II is seeking to restrict the entire question of food security to a debate between the minimalist proposal of the NAC and the even more minimalist proposal of the Rangarajan panel – both of which are a mockery of any genuine programme of ‘food for all.’ The Rangarajan recommendations will serve as a pretext for further retreat on part of the NAC, and behind the NAC-Rangarajan smokescreen, the UPA-II plans to stall, delay and dilute its promise of guaranteed food security for all.