Vijay Kumar Gaba

 The Government of India has rolled out an integrated food security scheme effective from 1 January 2023. The new scheme shall remain effective till 31 December 2023. The scheme is estimated to cost the central government rupees two trillion. Under the scheme, the government would provide 5kg food grains per person to Priority Households (PHH) beneficiaries and 35 kg per household to Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) beneficiaries, free of cost.

The scheme has apparently subsumed two extant food subsidy schemes of the central government, viz.,

(a)   Food Subsidy to Food Corporation of India (FCI) for discharge of obligations under The National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA). Under this scheme Under the scheme, 5 kg food grains per person is provided to Priority Households (PHH) beneficiaries and 35 kg per household to Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) beneficiaries at a subsidized rate of Rs 3 per kg for rice, Rs 2 per kg for wheat, and Rs 1 per kg for coarse grain.

(b)   Food subsidy for decentralized procurement states, dealing with procurement, allocation and delivery of food grains to the states under NFSA, popularly known as the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) started for 9 months in April 2020 to mitigate the effect of Covid pandemic on poor and extended twice thereafter. Under this scheme beneficiaries registered under the NFSA were provided an additional 5 kg of foodgrain per month for free.

This implies that by implementing the new integrated food security scheme:

(i)    The central government would save about Rs1.5 trillion on food subsidies in the calendar year 2023.

(ii)   The beneficiaries registered under NFSA would get free ration for one year; though the quantity of ration available will be less.

(iii)  The state governments who were claiming credit for free ration actually funded by the central government will not be able to do so.

The new scheme is thus a fiscally prudent and politically smart move by the central government. It has however evoked a variety of criticism. For example, the political opponents are criticizing the government that the very fact that over 81 crore still need subsidized or free food indicates the failure of the government's economic policies. The economic and financial market experts have criticized the government for failing in controlling subsidies. Their criticism is that the government is increasing subsidies which it will find politically inexpedient to unwind; and hence burden the future governments.

In my view, the criticism may not be fair, or, inter alia, the following reasons.

·         The National Food Security Act was enacted in 2013 by the UPA government, in recognition of the fact that the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live dignity that essentially includes the right to food and other basic necessities. This in fact is a globally accepted good practice for welfare states.

·         The fact that 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population is entitled under NFSA to subsidized food does not necessarily imply that as many households cannot afford to buy food for their sustenance. This could just be a mechanism to compensate for poor minimum wage structure; faulty agriculture pricing mechanism; disproportionate indirect tax structure; and inadequate social infrastructure, especially health and education. Besides, this should be seen as a direct and effective wealth redistribution mechanism.

·         Number of people availing subsidized food cannot be a good measure of poverty.

·         The incumbent government has shown resolve in managing subsidies by not increasing fuel subsidy, despite political pressures, increasing fertilizer prices and imposing GST on common food items. Despite being a challenging year, the government is most likely to meet its budgeted fiscal deficit targets. Consequently, the Indian bond markets have shown remarkable stability, defying turmoil in the global bond markets.

·         The restructuring of food subsidy schemes could be the first step in the direction of further rationalization of food subsidy from 2024 onwards.

Overall, in my view, NFSA, like MNREGA, is a transformative legislation. This ensures a dignified life for over 800 million people; and thus provides stability and resilience to the economy. The government’s commitment to obligations under NFSA must be commended, not criticized.