INDIA has had for some time one of the largest public distribution systems in the world for foodgrains. Its core is the Antyodyay Anna Yojana (AAY) which covers around 75 percent of the rural population and 50 percent of the urban population, and provides 35 kilogrammes of foodgrains per month to each beneficiary household at subsidised prices. In addition, since January 1, 2023, an additional 5 kilogrammes of free foodgrains per person per month are being made available under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) because of the pandemic, which is supposed to last only until December 31, 2028. Despite these schemes the foodgrain intake of the population has been declining on average over the last several years, which puts India’s rank consistently below 100 on the Global Hunger Index among the 115 or so hungriest countries for which the index is prepared. But what is incredible is that the Modi government is now planning to cut down even this quantum of food distributed to the population; and this for no conceivable reason other than to curtail government expenditure and hence the fiscal deficit in order to appease globalized finance.

An amendment to the National Food Security Act (NFSA) under which the AAY operates is about to be enacted under which instead of 35 kilogrammes per household per month, 7 kilogrammes per person per month would henceforth be distributed, up to a maximum of 35 kilogrammes per household per month. This amounts to a curtailment of the average ration per household; it is not as if the amount of foodgrains “saved” by giving 7 kg. per person to households of less than 5 members would be distributed among households having more than five members. In other words, it is not a matter of redistribution of a given amount of foodgrains among the beneficiary households in a different manner than hitherto; it is a plan to cut down in absolute terms the amount of foodgrains that are to be distributed henceforth.

One aspect of this amendment has rightly drawn much criticism, and that is the fact that it penalizes the southern states, ironically because of their success in controlling population growth. This success has meant smaller numbers of persons per household, so that 7 kg. per person would give each household in the southern states, especially in Tamilnadu and Kerala, a smaller amount of grains per month than the 35 kg. they were getting until now. The northern states by contrast which lag way behind in terms of social indicators, and which have made less progress in population control and hence have larger numbers of persons per household, will not be losing much in terms of the grains they get to distribute. The amendment to the NFSA ironically therefore has the effect of penalizing states that have been more successful in population control. It is no wonder therefore that Tamilnadu and Kerala have been in the forefront of the opposition to this utterly ill-conceived amendment.

But it is not only a case of invidiousness vis-à-vis the more progressive southern states; it is also a case of invidiousness vis-à-vis  poor but small households in every state. The important point to note is that even assuming that an average small household gets at present what the government promises, that is, 35 kg. per household and 5 kg. per person per month, it still would be undernourished. In other words, the total amount given officially to every household at present, which the government now proposes to cut further, is still insufficient on average to give that household the minimum required nourishment. 

Let us take a state that has been very successful in controlling its population. The maximum level of achievement there would be a stationary population, which would mean at least a family of four: father, mother and two children. Likewise, even in a state that has not been particularly successful in controlling its population, we can take the minimum reasonable size of a family to be four persons: father, mother and two children.

Now, the Indian Council of Medical research and the National Institute of Nutrition provide guidelines for the daily dietary requirement for Indians depending on age, sex, and the nature of work. But these “norms” relate to an ideal diet; our concern here however is with foodgrain requirements based on the actual dietary pattern; and for estimating this we follow a simple method.

The erstwhile Planning Commission had defined poverty in terms of lack of access to 2200 calories per person per day in rural India and 2100 calories in urban India. It is estimated that roughly 80 percent of total daily calories per head for India’s low-income households comes from foodgrains. One gramme of rice or wheat gives 3.5 calories, so a person just satisfying the nutritional “poverty line” requires 502 grammes per day of foodgrains in rural areas and 479 grammes per day of foodgrains in urban areas. If we take round figures of 500 gms and 480 gms, then this works out to 60  kilogrammes and 57.6 kilogrammes respectively for a family of four per month.

It follows that with 35 kilogrammes of monthly foodgrains provided under AAY per household, and 5 kg. of monthly foodgrains provided per person under PMGKAY (that is, 20 kg. per month for a family of four), an average minimum-sized family would not be having sufficient foodgrains to meet its dietary requirements to reach what is officially considered the “poverty line” in nutritional terms. It would be getting 55 kg. instead of the 60 kg. for rural and 57.6 kg. for urban areas.

Now, what the government is suggesting is a curtailment of this family’s provision from 35 to 28 kilogrammes, which would bring down its foodgrain availability to 48 kg. a month, a full 20 percent below what is needed to reach the “poverty line” in rural India and 16.7 percent below what is needed to reach the “poverty line” in urban India. Thus it is not just the southern states which have been successful in controlling population that are being discriminated against; if even the average minimum-sized household in every state is being discriminated against, so that its foodgrain ration falls far below what is required to reach the officially-defined “poverty line”, then the amendment must be seen for what it really is, namely, a generalized attack on all poor households.

This argument would not be valid if 55 kilogrammes a month was more than sufficient to meet a small family’s requirements, defined in terms of reaching the “poverty line”, but even 55 kilogrammes per household per month was below this “norm”; a further curtailment in the amount of grains given under AAY means a totally unacceptable attack on the poor.

What is more, the PMGKAY was introduced as an emergency measure during the pandemic and is supposed to last only until December 31, 2028. The government has made no specific argument with reference to it while presenting the amendment to NFSA for public discussion; and there is no suggestion that the PMGKAY will be extended beyond 2028, or made a permanent part of the public food distribution system. We therefore have to reckon with the fact that after 2028, matters would become even more grim as far as the population, both in rural and urban India, is concerned.

The obvious question arises: why is the government planning such a cut? One answer is that there is pressure from the US under the Indo-US Trade Treaty to abandon foodgrain self-sufficiency and become dependent on foodgrain imports, which puts a big question mark on the government’s ability to maintain the public distribution system on the scale on which it has been operating till now. The government therefore is winding it down in preparation for the future.

There is however an additional and immediately pressing reason, and that relates to the fear of the fiscal deficit exceeding the limit set under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budgetary Management Act (FRBM). The rise in world oil prices has entailed larger subsidies to several petro-product users from the government budget; and instead of financing these larger subsidies through additional levies on the rich, the government is busy cutting down essential expenditures in a variety of areas. It has reportedly curtailed the budget of the University Grants Commission, and thereby the money earmarked for public universities. Likewise it is curtailing the expenditure on the AAY. The attack on the poor is thus part of the effort to appease globalized finance at whose insistence the FRBM was enacted. Nothing illustrates the callous functioning of a neo-liberal capitalist economy more vividly than what is happening in India at present.