March 10, 2004
Press
Release
`Shining
India'
today
is
inhabited
by
one
fourth
of
the
world's
hungry.
And,
it
has
also
the
dubious
distinction
of
being
home
to
the
fastest
growing
hungry
population.
The
commitment
of
a
society
free
of
`bhookh,
bhay
and
bhrashtachar'
stands
thoroughly
defeated
--
the
shadow
of
`bhookh'
looms
large
driving
hundreds
to
desperation
and
that
final
dreaded
end
--
starvation
deaths.
We,
from
the
Communist
Party
of
India
(Marxist),
intend
to
tell
this
story
on
the
`food
question'
in
the
second
episode
from
our
series,
"Lies,
damned
lies
and
statistics".
Is
India
Really
Shining?
Lies,
Damned
Lies
and
Statistics
Food
Security
Imperiled
v
The
latest
report
on
the
State
of
Food
Insecurity
in
the
World
(SOFI
2003)
published
by
the
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations
(FAO)
has
estimated
that
out
of
a
total
of
842
millions
undernourished
people
in
the
world
in
1999-2001,
214
millions,
i.e.
over
25%,
were
in
India
alone
(India
has
about
17%
of
the
world
population).
What
is
alarming
is
the
fact
that
the
number
of
undernourished
increased
by
the
biggest
magnitude
in
India
(nearly
20
millions)
compared
to
all
other
countries
of
the
world
during
the
period
1995-97
to
1999-01.
v
Since
the
mid-90s
the
growth
rate
of
foodgrains
output
has
been
lower
than
that
of
the
population
growth
rate.
Estimates
made
on
the
basis
of
data
published
in
Economic
Surveys
and
the
Census,
suggest
that
net
foodgrains
output
per-capita
had
fallen
from
181.59
kgs
in
1994-95
to
164.59
kgs
in
2002-03.
Per-capita
net
availability
of
foodgrains
(Net
Availability
=
Net
Output
+
Net
Import
–
Change
in
Public
Stocks)
fell
much
more
drastically
from
177
kgs
in
the
early
1990s
to
an
all
time
low
level
of
151.06
kgs
in
2000-01.
By
2000-01
an
average
Indian
family
of
four
members
was
absorbing
93
kg
less
food
grains,
compared
to
three
years
earlier.

Source: Estimates from Economic Surveys and Census data
It should be noted that the data on per capita food availability are all-India averages across income groups, which implies that the worsening of the nutritional condition of the poor has been far more severe than what the averaged figures suggest.
v
The
Targeted
Public
Distribution
System
introduced
during
1997-98
has
pushed
a
large
section
of
the
population,
which
is
vulnerable
to
hunger
and
malnutrition,
out
of
the
purview
of
the
PDS.
The
distinction
drawn
between
the
Below
Poverty
Line
(BPL)
and
Above
Poverty
Line
(APL)
segments
of
the
population
is
itself
questionable
because
the
data
and
methodology
used
to
draw
the
poverty
line
has
been
fudged
and
manipulated
largely.
Moreover,
under
the
Vajpayee
regime
both
the
BPL
and
the
APL
prices
of
wheat
and
rice
had
been
revised
upwards
and
today
both
prices
are
higher
than
the
prices
that
prevailed
during
universal
PDS.
Given
the
very
low
income
and
purchasing
power
of
the
poor,
the
increase
in
issue
prices
of
foodgrains
could
have
only
one
possible
impact
—
a
decline
in
consumption
of
foodgrains
by
the
poor.
This
got
reflected
in
the
observed
decline
in
foodgrains
offtake
from
the
PDS
on
the
one
hand
and
accumulation
of
huge
stocks
with
the
FCI
on
the
other.
PDS
issue
prices
of
wheat and rice (Rs. / quintal) |
||
|
|
wheat |
rice |
|
1996-97 |
402 |
537 |
|
1998-99 |
|
|
|
BPL |
250 |
350 |
|
APL |
650 |
905 |
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
April |
|
|
|
BPL |
415 |
565 |
|
APL |
510 |
730 |
|
July |
|
|
|
BPL |
415 |
565 |
|
APL |
610 |
830 |
|
Source
:Economic
Survey,
2002-03 |
||
v
The
buffer
stocks
held
by
the
government
increased
enormously
at
a
time
when
newspapers
were
full
of
reports
of
starvation
deaths,
suicides
and
malnutrition
from
different
parts
of
the
country.
By
July
2002,
63
million
tonnes
of
foodgrains
stocks
had
piled
up
as
against
the
minimum
norm
of
24.3
million
tonnes.
The
government
had
to
incur
huge
carrying
costs
for
holding
these
excess
stocks
of
foodgrains,
which
obviously
added
to
the
food
subsidies.
Those
subsidies,
however,
did
not
come
to
the
benefit
of
the
poor.
Foodgrains
were
allowed
to
rot
in
godowns
but
not
distributed
to
the
starving
masses.
v
Although
the
government
ran
down
the
surplus
foodgrains
stocks
eventually,
a
part
of
it
through
the
schemes
like
Antodaya
and
the
mid-day
meals
scheme,
a
big
proportion
of
the
stocks
were
exported
by
providing
incentives
including
permitting
exporters
to
lift
foodgrains
at
BPL
prices
during
November
2000
to
December
2001.
Therefore,
while
the
poor
during
this
period
who
happened
to
be
above
the
official
poverty
line
had
to
pay
Rs.
10.87
per
kg
of
rice
and
Rs.8.30
per
kg
of
wheat,
the
same
were
being
sold
to
exporters
catering
to
markets
outside
the
country
at
Rs.5.65
per
kg
rice
and
Rs.
4.15
per
kg
wheat.
According
to
the
Economic
Survey,
India
exported
9.6
million
tonnes
of
foodgrains
in
2002-03
(upto
December)
while
the
offtake
from
the
PDS
was
13.5
million
tonnes
(upto
December).
This
policy
of
exporting
foodgrains
on
the
one
hand
and
increasing
the
domestic
price
of
foodgrains
despite
a
significant
proportion
of
the
population
remaining
hungry
on
the
other
not
only
exposes
the
gross
mismanagement
of
the
food
economy
by
the
Vajpayee
regime
but
also
sheer
insensitivity
on
its
part
towards
hunger
and
livelihood
of
the
poor.
v
The
government
and
the
policymakers
have
often
put
forward
the
argument
that
surplus
food
stocks
were
a
result
of
`overproduction'.
The
Economic
Survey
2001-02
argued
that
excess
stocks
were
a
surplus
over
what
people
voluntarily
wished
to
consume,
and
represented
a
"problem
of
plenty".
NSS
data
on
falling
share
of
cereals
in
the
spending
on
food
were
quoted
to
argue
that
not
only
the
well-to-do
but
all
segments
of
the
population
were
voluntarily
diversifying
their
diets
to
high
value
foods
away
from
cereals
to
eggs,
milk
and
meat.
This
logic
is
completely
fallacious
because
per
capita
availability
of
foodgrains
includes
not
only
direct
consumption
of
cereals
like
wheat
and
rice
but
also
the
part
converted
to
animal
products
by
being
used
as
feedgrains.
The
per
capita
availability
or
absorption
of
foodgrains
always
rises
as
a
country’s
per
capita
income
rises
not
because
people
consume
more
foodgrains
directly
but
because
more
animal
products
are
consumed
which
in
turn
increases
the
indirect
uses
of
foodgrains
as
fodder.
China,
with
a
per
capita
income
about
twice
as
much
as
India's,
absorbed
325
kg
per
capita
of
foodgrains
in
the
mid-1990s,
compared
to
India's
less
than
200
kg
at
that
time.
Mexico
during
that
period
absorbed
375
kg
per
capita,
high
income
Europe
absorbed
over
650
kg
per
capita
and
the
United
States
absorbed
the
maximum,
850
kg
per
capita.
v The abnormal trend in India of a sharply declining per capita foodgrains absorption while the average per capita income has been on a rise, is a reflection of increasing income inequalities. While the upper strata in both rural as well as urban areas have been diversifying their consumption away from cereals, the poor of the country, especially in the rural areas have been forced to consume less foodgrains under the Vajpayee regime due to their reduced incomes on the one hand and increased food prices on the other.