This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/apr/08/food-rights-welfare-squeezes-hunger

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Food rights and welfare squeezes: how do we free people from hunger? Food rights and welfare squeezes: how do we free people from hunger?
(6 months later)
While British society, reeling under forced austerity programmes, revamps its attitudes to social security, public opinion in India is divided over a landmark national food security bill, which was approved by the cabinet last month and creates legally binding obligations on the state to provide food to all those in need.While British society, reeling under forced austerity programmes, revamps its attitudes to social security, public opinion in India is divided over a landmark national food security bill, which was approved by the cabinet last month and creates legally binding obligations on the state to provide food to all those in need.
The bill follows sustained campaigning for a little longer than a decade over the right to food, which has involved arguments in the supreme court, public mobilisation, and pressure on the state to accept its legal obligations towards the most vulnerable groups in society. The supreme court has interpreted the right to food as a constituent element of the right to life, and the government committed itself to implementing a food security bill after elections in 2009. The legislation that last month received cabinet approval is an attempt to fulfil this obligation, admittedly enacted with an eye to the likely political gains to the ruling coalition at the poll booths.The bill follows sustained campaigning for a little longer than a decade over the right to food, which has involved arguments in the supreme court, public mobilisation, and pressure on the state to accept its legal obligations towards the most vulnerable groups in society. The supreme court has interpreted the right to food as a constituent element of the right to life, and the government committed itself to implementing a food security bill after elections in 2009. The legislation that last month received cabinet approval is an attempt to fulfil this obligation, admittedly enacted with an eye to the likely political gains to the ruling coalition at the poll booths.
Herein lie the political fault lines in the Indian debate. Critics of the bill have been quick to dismiss it as an electoral gimmick, politically ambitious but economically misguided. As the finance minister Shri Palaniappan Chidambaram struggles to contain the fiscal deficit, questions are being raised about whether an expensive programme of subsidised food distribution is affordable, and a sensible use of public funds. Commentators also suggest that widespread corruption and inefficiency in India's public distribution system will mean that good intentions are unlikely to translate into actual improvements in food security, and propose alternatives such as direct cash transfers to poor people. On the other hand, those who support the legislation argue that the food subsidy remains below 1% of India's GDP, and contrast this with other areas of public spending, such as tax concessions to the corporate sector.Herein lie the political fault lines in the Indian debate. Critics of the bill have been quick to dismiss it as an electoral gimmick, politically ambitious but economically misguided. As the finance minister Shri Palaniappan Chidambaram struggles to contain the fiscal deficit, questions are being raised about whether an expensive programme of subsidised food distribution is affordable, and a sensible use of public funds. Commentators also suggest that widespread corruption and inefficiency in India's public distribution system will mean that good intentions are unlikely to translate into actual improvements in food security, and propose alternatives such as direct cash transfers to poor people. On the other hand, those who support the legislation argue that the food subsidy remains below 1% of India's GDP, and contrast this with other areas of public spending, such as tax concessions to the corporate sector.
While there is legitimate discussion about detail – including over universal coverage and whether this is more efficacious than the proposed targeted approach which focuses on what the bill calls "priority" households – there is a critical imperative to address the scandal of persistent malnutrition in a country that has experienced record levels of economic prosperity over the past 20 years. Ultimately, food security is an ethical debate about social provisioning, a point made with great clarity by Harsh Mander, one of the Indian supreme court's commissioners on the right to food, in his recent book, Ash in the Belly.While there is legitimate discussion about detail – including over universal coverage and whether this is more efficacious than the proposed targeted approach which focuses on what the bill calls "priority" households – there is a critical imperative to address the scandal of persistent malnutrition in a country that has experienced record levels of economic prosperity over the past 20 years. Ultimately, food security is an ethical debate about social provisioning, a point made with great clarity by Harsh Mander, one of the Indian supreme court's commissioners on the right to food, in his recent book, Ash in the Belly.
Clearly even if the right to food is accepted as a basic moral principle or "meta-right" in a civilised society, the question of how best to realise this right continues to cleave public opinion. Critics are correct to question the role of India's public distribution system in the past 60 years, and there is recognition that a step-change will be required for the effective implementation of the proposed bill. But, are the days of public procurement, storage and distribution over, and should this intervention in agricultural and food provisioning markets be consigned to the scrapheap of India's socialist past?Clearly even if the right to food is accepted as a basic moral principle or "meta-right" in a civilised society, the question of how best to realise this right continues to cleave public opinion. Critics are correct to question the role of India's public distribution system in the past 60 years, and there is recognition that a step-change will be required for the effective implementation of the proposed bill. But, are the days of public procurement, storage and distribution over, and should this intervention in agricultural and food provisioning markets be consigned to the scrapheap of India's socialist past?
There are several reasons to be cautious about a blind faith in the efficacy of food markets – the horsemeat scandal that has engulfed the British food industry being the most recent cautionary tale. Relying on the private sector to source and distribute food from increasingly complex supply chains has proven to be risky. The food system needs to reflect the co-dependent interests of consumers, producers, suppliers, retailers and the state, bound together in a web of relationships; there is little reason to expect that a deregulated private food industry will serve the public good.There are several reasons to be cautious about a blind faith in the efficacy of food markets – the horsemeat scandal that has engulfed the British food industry being the most recent cautionary tale. Relying on the private sector to source and distribute food from increasingly complex supply chains has proven to be risky. The food system needs to reflect the co-dependent interests of consumers, producers, suppliers, retailers and the state, bound together in a web of relationships; there is little reason to expect that a deregulated private food industry will serve the public good.
For India's government, the lessons are clear – leaving the delivery of food security solely to self-regulating private markets would be foolhardy, and the only viable option is to strengthen the public commitment to ensuring freedom from hunger and malnutrition, while harnessing the power and logistical sophistication of private supply chains where necessary.For India's government, the lessons are clear – leaving the delivery of food security solely to self-regulating private markets would be foolhardy, and the only viable option is to strengthen the public commitment to ensuring freedom from hunger and malnutrition, while harnessing the power and logistical sophistication of private supply chains where necessary.
These are difficult times for the vulnerable and poor, the global precariat. The language of austerity and responsible welfare spending appears to dominate public discourse. We must not allow this to suppress a much deeper moral debate about our collective aspirations as a society. Whether it is towards India's millions who remain hungry, or the increasingly squeezed bottom third of British society who will face the brunt of the coalition government's plans, our shared social contract must not be forgotten.These are difficult times for the vulnerable and poor, the global precariat. The language of austerity and responsible welfare spending appears to dominate public discourse. We must not allow this to suppress a much deeper moral debate about our collective aspirations as a society. Whether it is towards India's millions who remain hungry, or the increasingly squeezed bottom third of British society who will face the brunt of the coalition government's plans, our shared social contract must not be forgotten.
• Bhaskar Vira is senior lecturer in environment and development and David Nally is senior lecturer in human geography at the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, and both are fellows of Fitzwilliam College. The right to food will be debated at Kings Place, London, on Monday 8 April at the third debate in a series organised by the University of Cambridge's Strategic Research Initiative in Global Food Security. Tickets are available from the box office (020 7520 1490) or online• Bhaskar Vira is senior lecturer in environment and development and David Nally is senior lecturer in human geography at the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, and both are fellows of Fitzwilliam College. The right to food will be debated at Kings Place, London, on Monday 8 April at the third debate in a series organised by the University of Cambridge's Strategic Research Initiative in Global Food Security. Tickets are available from the box office (020 7520 1490) or online
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.