If we take into
account the starvation deaths in India, then Delhi chief minister Sheila
Dikshit's comments would not be seen as such a joke.
We are ignoring
the reality to project what we believe, perhaps rightly, is her fictional
notion of how much it takes for a poor family to live.
Here is what she
said:
“In Rs. 600, he
would get dal, rice and wheat...A family of five can easily complete their
needs.”
This Rs 600 is a
monthly cash subsidy under the Dilli Anna Shri Yojna, a food security measure,
to be transferred directly into Aadhaar-linked bank accounts of the senior-most
female members of two lakh poor families.
Ms. Dikshit is
probably not in touch with the ground reality, a term we like to flaunt, but
this money is not a replacement for other options. Just think about the
statistics and you will see that this scheme should have been introduced long
ago.
A cursory look
around reveals:
"The
International Food Policy Research Institute's 2011 Global Hunger Index, it
ranks 67 out of 81 countries and has more than 200 million food-insecure
people, the most in the world."
We produce so
much food that we can export it. A good deal of it, though, ends up rotting in
warehouses. Why is it not used to feed the poor and children who die of
malnourishment?
Years ago when
Tamil Nadu introduced the mid-day meal scheme during MGR’s tenure as chief
minister, it came in for criticism. Partly because his then PR in charge was
Ms. Jayalalitha, now the CM, and it was thought to be populist.
We need to
slacken our righteousness where populist moves are concerned, if they benefit
some people. The two lakh who will gain from this Rs 600 stipend cannot be the
end-of-the-road vote bank. Besides, those in charge of providing essential
food, shelter, clothes often siphon off those funds.
The newly-minted
Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal was among the first to criticise the
scheme:
“Jab unhein aata
dal ka mol hi nahin maloom toh woh logon ke liye kya karengey? (If she does not
know the price of essentials, how will she do anything for the people?) A cash
subsidy can never be a substitute for rations. A Rs-600 subsidy cannot solve
anything. Inflation is not a static phenomenon. The subsidy is almost like a
sop before the assembly polls. It is the job of the government to organize a
healthy public distribution system and not somehow fulfil its obligation by
giving a cash subsidy.”
I don’t see how
a politician keeping track on prices is a prerequisite for solving issues. This
may be a sop, but as I already mentioned it does not mean the beneficiaries
should sit with this and not seek other opportunities. If we wait to address
the issue of unemployment or public distribution, then we miss out on the immediate
needs of a few. Mr. Kejriwal probably is not aware that ration shops sell the
lowest grade available as mid-grade to those who can afford it. He might like
to peek into the grains to see just how bad they are and how often they are
sold in the black market.
Harsh Mander, special
commissioner to the Supreme Court on the right to food said:
“The
government's disconnect with ground realities is self-evident. Even a homeless
person ends up spending Rs 100 to Rs 150 for his daily needs. It is not that
the poor are just looking for handouts. They are hard working and desire a life
of dignity. A labourer works hard to earn a living. It is the duty of the
government to ensure that labour laws are implemented. Same is the case with
the PDS system.”
Is he serious? A
homeless person spends 100 odd bucks a day? On what? There are no overheads, so
what is the expenditure breakup? Such flashy statements do more harm than good.
No one is
denying that the poor should be granted a life of dignity as much as any other
citizen. But let us not romanticise poverty. Take a look at the beggars around.
Try offering them stuff you take in your doggy bag and it is likely to be
rejected. If begging is not seeking handouts, then what is? Has anyone
attempted buying knick-knacks and asking a beggar to go sell these and earn? I
have. It does not work. This does not get enough money. Of course, there is a
begging racket run by a mafia and many of them have no choice. Look at the
crowds of them outside restaurants near places of worship and you will realise how
they feed off the guilt of devotees. I am quite certain that they’d gladly take
the Rs 600.
Is this money
enough to feed a family of five? The obvious answer is, no. But think about
those who go hungry and you will accept that this is a small step. I am setting
aside all political considerations for now.
The fact that
the senior-most female member gets it in her account is another positive step.
This will ensure it is not hogged by the men, or at least she has the power to
assert her right over it. If some NGOs join in and educate them on innovative
use of funds then, say, the wheat can be used to sell ready-made chapattis;
that will bring in additional income.
I can give an
example of how community cooking too can help. This was in a village off Mahad
in Maharashtra. It had no electricity. Late evening, two huge vessels were simmering
with dal while some women were rolling rotis. It was winter and quite nippy, so
the firewood kept them warm. They ate on plantain leaves, so they saved on washing
dishes.
If a group of
people collect their respective Rs 600 and replicate this, it might work at
least to assuage to some extent the problem of their hunger. The Planning
Commission's India Human Development Report states, “If India is not in a state
of famine, it is quite clearly in a state of chronic hunger.”
But, everybody wants to be Mother Teresa. If we can
contribute as little as Rs 6 a month each for such schemes, instead of signing
petitions and one-off donation drives, we might eventually make huge strides.
Getting Paris
Hilton to visit an orphanage is worse than doing a taking digs at an Indian
politician. I fail to understand why opposition groups, or even activists, cry
foul only when certain pro-active schemes are introduced. Why do they not raise
these issues all the time, if they are so grounded and would be cognisant that
this is a huge ongoing problem? Why is corruption a bigger plank than dignity
of the poor, then? This too is politics.
Poverty has fed
many politicians, right from the time of Mahatma Gandhi. If it also manages to
feed the poor, it is worthwhile to make it popular instead of ranting about
populism.
(c) Farzana Versey