The Centre’s coercive method has
worked. Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the two States that were holding out
against pressure from New Delhi to implement the National Food Security
Act (NFSA), have also fallen in line. By threatening to raise the price
at which it was allocating foodgrains if they did not implement the law,
the Centre has managed to get these two States to agree to the
implementation of the Act from November 1. If they had not done so, they
would have had to pay Rs.22.54 a kg for rice for their monthly
allocations under the ‘above poverty line’ (APL) category, as against
the Rs.8.30 a kg they are paying now. For Tamil Nadu, it would have
meant an additional expenditure of Rs.2,730 crore, over and above the
Rs.2,393 crore it is spending on its universal public distribution
system (PDS). The State says it will implement the Act and also continue
its universal PDS coverage. In the bargain, it will have to maintain a
uniform supply of 5 kg of rice per person as stipulated in the NFSA, and
protect the existing entitlements of PDS beneficiaries. The resultant
increase in offtake would result in additional expenditure of Rs.1,193
crore for Tamil Nadu. Kerala maintains an APL-BPL distinction in its
PDS. However, its concerns over the implementation of the Act related to
the possibility that many beneficiaries may be left out under the
Centre’s categorisation of PDS consumers into ‘priority households’ and
others.
Over the last year or so, Kerala and Tamil Nadu had been
warming to the idea of joining the NFSA, but sought time to do so. They
wanted to complete end-to-end computerisation of their PDS and the
process of seeding Aadhaar numbers with family cards. One clear
advantage of joining the national food security system now is that the
computerisation and Aadhaar seeding process may result in the
elimination of bogus cards and beneficiaries. Tamil Nadu’s case for such
a clean-up is glaring as the number of people covered by its family
cards is about 7.81 crore while the State’s population is 7.21 crore.
There are lessons for both the Centre and the States in this conflict
involving a zealous Central government seeking to force its idea of food
security on States that believe they are already addressing the issue
with the same, if not greater, level of seriousness. A national food
security law may hold good for States with weak food security systems —
but for the rest, it would perhaps be better if States implemented their
own schemes. On the other hand, the States need to temper their zeal
for ‘more than universal’ coverage with a realistic assessment and
identification of beneficiaries.