AT a lecture in Panaji on Sunday, well-known agricultural scientist Dr M S Swaminathan, who is regarded as the Father of the Green Revolution in India, lamented that despite the fact that our country had almost 60 million tonnes of food constantly in stock, malnutrition was widespread.
Availability itself did not automatically translate to food for everybody; two other factors which determined it were ‘access to food’ and ‘absorption of food’. Access to food was in turn determined by the ability of everyone to pay for the costs of food available in the market for his/her proper nourishment. Absorption of food means the capacity of the body system of a person to absorb the food he/she takes. Poor absorption may be caused by poor health of the person.
Dr Swaminathan has been championing an ‘evergreen revolution’ in place of green revolution that has been pursued by the government and farmers so far. Evergreen revolution means a proper blend of ecological capacity with technological innovation, so no irretrievable damages occur. Who will disagree with Dr Swaminathan that the green revolution has led to senseless exploitation of the soil and water resources leading to an ecological tolerance deficit? The central government and state governments also agree with the view but have not been doing much to stop this happening. The example of the country’s food bowl, Punjab, Haryana and western UP, is being blindly followed in other parts of the country. Governments have not provided adequate extension services to advise farmers on a balanced use of fertilisers and pesticides. The depletion of soil nutrients and water resources can still be curbed if fertilisers and pesticides are used in a restricted quantity. Governments have not aggressively been promoting organic farming.
With over-exploitation and chemical pollution the soil health runs the risk of deteriorating to the level when production and productivity will stagnate or may decelerate. How will the country enforce right to food as a fundamental right under the food security legislation if it does not produce adequate food for its population? International food prices are very erratic because they depend on a host of factors. Reduction in acreage or output in one major food exporting country can push up prices. That will raise the cost of food imported by India and hence cause food inflation. Already we have seen how food inflation is reducing average Indian’s access to cereals, pulses, cooking oils and vegetables.
The ideal system for a country of our size would be self-reliance in food. As Dr Swaminathan says, it will serve two key purposes: it will keep the farmers interested in growing crops because of assured purchase and it will insulate the country from the vagaries of the international food market.
However, that still does not assure adequate food and nutrition to the poor. The chief promise of the proposed food security legislation is to make available 25 kg of rice and wheat, rice at ` 3 per kg and wheat at ` 2 a kg, to every BPL (Below the Poverty Line) family. This promise is flawed on four major counts. First, is 25 kg enough for a family or should it be increased to a more realistic level? Secondly, should the food entitlement be per family or per person in the family? There are genuine assessments that the entitlement, even say an enhanced one from 25 kg to 35 kg per family, may not be adequate for the BPL families, forcing them to buy from the market at volatile prices or just decide to eat less. As far as nutrition is concerned, pulses and vegetables and fruits at market prices are beyond the reach of the BPL families.
Thirdly, there is also no clear picture how the government proposes to ensure food availability to sustain provisions of the legislation. Will the government procure more food grains for the purpose? Fourthly, should the BPL families alone be given the entitlements or should the APL (Above Poverty Line) families be also given them? Because access to adequate food is not only a problem of BPL families but also a large section of the APL families whose real incomes might not permit them to buy as much cereals, pulses and vegetables as they might need. Unless these issues are resolved, the proposed food security legislation will fail to fulfill its purpose. And these issues cannot be resolved unless the government commits itself to ‘evergreen revolution’ and enhanced home food production.
