Are we waiting for another Kargil ??

After functioning in the shadows for decades – with zero accountability and budgets that kept increasing without any audit – it’s for the first time in India that the Parliament will debate the constitutional validity, efficacy & oversight mechanisms of India’s Intelligence community.

Despite the Constitution mandating, in its seventh schedule, that a central intelligence bureau be created only by an act of Parliament, no government in India has ever introduced a bill to be passed as an Act, thus creating a major anomaly in the functioning of intelligence agencies in the country. The charter, powers, duties and functioning of these agencies have also never been mandated by Parliament.

However, recurring incidences of intelligence failures in avoiding terrorist attacks and protecting the corresponding loss of innocent lives and national wealth has attracted some staunch criticism for the intelligence community in recent past. Thus, aimed at providing a legal framework of internal and external intelligence agencies, regulating the functioning and the use of powers by Indian Intelligence agencies, both within and outside India, and to provide for coordination, control and oversight of these agencies, senior Congress leader and Member of Parliament (MP) Manish Tewari has introduced a Bill titled “The Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, 2011”, in the recently concluded Budget Session of the Parliament. The Bill, if it gets through, claims to provide a clear framework to regulate the manner of functioning and the exercise of powers of Indian intelligence agencies.

With a strong belief that a legislation is imperative for empowering the intelligence agencies to equip them with the tools and resources necessary to address present day challenges and regulating the possible infringement of privacy of citizens, while giving credence to security concerns, the Bill, introduced by Tewari, also a senior Supreme Court lawyer, seeks to enact a legislation pursuant to Entry 8 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. If approved, the Bill would provide for “a legislative and regulatory framework for the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO); a National Intelligence Tribunal for the investigation of complaints against these agencies; a National Intelligence and Security Oversight Committee for an effective oversight mechanism of these agencies; and an Intelligence Ombudsman for efficient functioning of the agencies and for matters connected therewith.” The proposed reforms in India’s intelligence structure are based on Observer Research Foundation’s (ORF) year-long study guided by Tewari, who is also an advisor to ORF.

The need for the Bill, says Tewari, is based on the concern that organisations which are tasked with the responsibility of preserving and protecting national security (which by influence or corollary gives them the authority of life and liberty) need to be put on a proper legal footing. Tewari has contested that India’s central intelligence agencies – IB, RAW, NTRO – have no constitutional validity as they have not been created through an Act of the Parliament. “In response to a question on the legal architecture from which the IB draws its legal authority, the government responded saying that the Intelligence Bureau figures in Schedule 7 of the Constitution under the Union List. So, the government has the legislative power to create a bureau of intelligence to be called by whatever name and the mere mention of a subject in the laundry list of legislative powers gives neither life nor legitimacy to an organisation. The same goes for RAW. The government has already admitted that there is no specific statute governing the functions and mandate of RAW,” Tewari tells B&E. D. C. Nath, former IB Special Director and a member of the team that drafted the Bill, believes that a one-point answer to all problems related to intelligence in India lies in the understanding of intelligence, most importantly by bureaucrats and politicians. “While talking of intelligence, all that Chidambaram can talk about is the NCTC. However, there are many forms of intelligence – political, military, business, et al. Thus, there has to be a proper understanding and coordination. An acceptance of the primacy of intelligence in day to day functioning is very vital. There also has to be one Head of all these agencies,” says Nath while adding that the openness in the IB functioning is important to help understand and promote transparency.

The need for a legislation to regulate the functioning of India’s intelligence communities is also based on the fact that these agencies have been mired in several controversies ranging from appointments of its chiefs to illegal acts of detention, beatings and an allegedly guided emphasis on gathering political intelligence, which, apart from other negative aspects, certainly damages the integrity of intelligence professionals who prefer their core responsibilities rather than following the contrivances of the political party in power.

Strategic Analyst and another drafting committee member Commander Uday Bhaskar says that the Bill has been long overdue. “Ever since the intelligence failure leading to the Kargil war in 1999, there has been a need to revamp the intelligence structure. There has to be an objective overview of how intelligence agencies operate and the Bill is a commendable attempt in this direction. However, it needs to be reviewed in several areas,” Bhaskar tells B&E. Despite India having been an independent nation for sixty three years now, there has not been one attempt by any government so far to legislate the governance of a sector which should ideally have maximum accountability. Even the UK, from which India inherited its systems of governance and laws, has moved on and passed three Acts of Parliament between 1989 and 2000 to create and oversee its intelligence agencies. In fact, there are currently over 170 countries across the world which have some form of parliamentary control, sanction or mandate for their intelligence agencies.

The Bill stipulates that the day-to-day operation of the RAW shall be vested in an officer not below the rank of a Secretary to the Government of India, appointed by the Prime Minister, with a tenure of two years or until the age of 62. It also stipulates that the IB shall function under the control of the PM and it shall be the duty of the IB to work for national security in the context of internal conflict and, in particular, provide protection against threats from espionage, terrorist acts organised by other countries within the territory of India with the help of Indian nationals or residents and from actions intended to subvert the Constitution of India by violent means. The Bill further proposes that the NTRO (raised in the aftermath of the Kargil war), shall function under the control of the PM and the Central government shall, in consultation with the National Intelligence & Security Oversight Committee, appoint an Intelligence Ombudsman from amongst persons having special knowledge in the field of intelligence to address the grievance of the members of staff and officers of the RAW, the IB and the NTRO.

The NTRO, which gathers technical intelligence using an array of radars and antennae on the lines of the US National Security Agency (NSA), has been dogged by a series of controversies of late. It also has the dubious distinction of becoming the first intelligence agency in independent India to face a hostile audit by the CAG. As per the new Bill, the day-to-day operation of the NTRO shall be vested in a Chairman who shall be appointed by the PM and shall hold office for a period of two years or attaining the age of 62 years.

The Bill further states that the Committee shall, unless it is necessary to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act, not go into the operational aspects and sources of intelligence of the functioning of the RAW, IB and NTRO, as the case may be. The Bill also envisages establishing a tribunal to be known as the National Intelligence Tribunal, under the chairmanship of a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge, for the purpose of investigating complaints against RAW, IB or NTRO.

Given the rising number of terrorist attacks hitting India in recent years, the propositions of the Intelligence Bill do seem relevant, especially if we look at the absence of a regulatory mechanism and an absolute lack of accountability & procedure. However, it is also a fact that there is not a single instance in the history of the Indian Parliament where a private member’s Bill has been legislated into an Act.

Wings for Sale !!

Basic medical facilities may not be available to all in India, but a job as a pilot, well, as recent developments expose, is not very difficult to get if you have a thick wallet.

In its latest breakthrough, the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police, investigating the case of Airline Transport Pilot Licences (ATPLs) and Commercial Pilot Licences (CPLs) in wake of the furore over issuance of fake pilot licences, on April 6, arrested two more officials of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), exposing the rot in a system that has long been known to be an exclusive premise of the high and mighty. It is quite evident now that it was impossible to work the system without the help of DGCA insiders. The point gathers weight as out of a total of thirteen individuals arrested in this regard so far, three are DGCA officials.

The DGCA has been known to dole out favours and change regulations to suit airlines and the siblings of senior ministry officials, and it had all been smooth sailing for the fraudsters until IndiGo pilot Parminder Kaur Gulati landed on the nose wheel of her plane at the Goa airport, though not for the first time. Investigations into Gulati’s faulty landing in January revealed that she had obtained her licence based on a fake marksheet. Further probe revealed that Passi’s daughter Garima, a pilot with SpiceJet, had also obtained her licence through a fake marksheet, allegedly with her father’s assistance. DGCA Assistant Director Pradeep Kumar in the licensing department and R. K. Passi, Director, Safety, DGCA, are among those in the Crime Branch net for allegedly assisting touts, mostly comprising of flying school instructors in Madhya Pradesh and Ahmedabad, to obtain pilot licences using forged documents.

Furthermore, former DGCA chief and now Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, S. N. A Zaidi’s son was employed with Jet Airways. The son of R. P. Sahi, Joint Director General, DGCA, was also a Jet Airways employee. Deputy Director-General A. K. Sharan’s daughter worked for IndiGo Airlines. Director, Air Transport, Lalit Gupta’s daughter handled revenue management for IndiGo. Chief Flight Operations Inspector Capt. H. Y. Samant’s daughter also worked for a private carrier.

“Unlike previous instances where we were unsure whether the DGCA Assistant Director knew that he was pushing for licences based on doctored marksheets, in this case, both the DGCA officials were fully aware that they were using fake marksheets. Thus, while only Rs.25,000 was charged by Kumar to expedite the process of issuing these fake licences, the duo arrested by us charged Rs.4.50 lakh from the tout operating from Ahmedabad,” DCP (Crime) Ashok Chand told B&E. The three pilots currently in the dock include Capt. Swaran Singh Talwar of MDLR Airlines, Capt Meenakshi Singhal of Indigo Airlines and Capt. J. K. Verma of Air India.

In the meantime, the Government was also quick in its display of action against those linked to the fake pilot licence scam and set up an independent committee for the scrutiny of all 4,500 ATPLs, 10,000 CPL licences along with an audit of the 40-odd flying schools in the country. While Union Minister for Civil Aviation Vayalar Ravi says the Government will not spare anyone found guilty, experts say that there is an urgent need to overhaul processes within the DGCA. Before we delve into the intricacies over how the system can be manipulated to suit a privileged few, here is a quick look into the pilot licence racket and how it operates.

To qualify for a CPL, which is issued by flying schools, a candidate needs to register a minimum of 200 hours of flying. Flying schools, however, have been found to issue licences just after 40-50 hours of flying for consideration. The process also mandates that the CPL has to be verified by the DGCA. However, with no audit in place to see whether flying schools are sticking to the prescribed norms, the process can be easily manipulated. Furthermore, ATPLs, a pre-requisite for a pilot to become a commander, can be procedurally obtained after clearing a written test conducted by the DGCA. However, according to reliable sources in the aviation sector, results can be tampered through touts and DGCA officials at an estimated cost of Rs.5-12 lakh. Similarly, for a job in an airline, middlemen are contacted through senior pilots and the cost of landing a job could vary anywhere between Rs.15-25 lakh.

One of the biggest reasons that experts attribute to the dismal state of the aviation sector in India lies in the way the process of examinations and issuing licences can be manipulated across levels. Maintaining that there is a robust system – section 31(d) of the Aircraft rules – that provides for stringent measures against fraudulent means, Kanu Gohain, former DGCA chief tells B&E, “There has to be a renewed focus on stricter vigilance, intelligence gathering and a thorough background screening mechanism. Full computerisation of processes is one option that the government should ideally be looking at.”

Agrees Rishabh Kapur, Secretary General of the Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA). “The best way forward towards ensuring transparency in the process is to minimise human intervention,” he says. When asked about the reasons that encourages aspirants towards such fraudulent means, he raises a different concern. “In India, there are only four pilot examinations conducted in a year as compared to five times a week in the US and UK. The current curriculum is also outdated. All this is leading fresh pass-outs towards unethical means. I am not endorsing what they (the alleged fraudsters) have done, but the process practically leaves them with no choice,” says Rishabh. Some experts feel that India’s aviation regulator needs to probe all pilot licences issued 2004 onwards, i.e. during the aviation industry’s boom period. The demand gains ground as for a significant period of 2005-09, the DGCA also did away with the need to pass Physics and Mathematics in Class XII for a CPL. Interestingly, between 2004 and 2009, there was a horde of co-pilots aged 23-25 who were made commanders.

With all the major airlines and regulators having either neglected or turned a blind eye towards this decline in the safety standards, what we can derive from the entire fiasco is that the accountability for the negligence needs to be fixed right from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the DGCA. However, with the Civil Aviation Ministry’s dismal track record of bringing the accountable to book and the involvement of top government officials in the scam, the future looks uncertain. So, till the time we have safer skies, which is only likely after a genuine and thorough overhaul of the regulatory authorities, here’s wishing all the luck to all you frequent fliers.

MINING POLICY: PROFIT SHARING WITH LOCALS

Who’s The one Joking out Here?

The new profit sharing formula introduced by the Ministry of Mines has upset miners in India. While they contest that the new legislation will wipe off the industry, the Government strongly believes otherwise. Who’s the one joking?

After having displayed a laggard approach on the need of a more contemporary mining policy for years together, the government appears to have woken up and has shown great urgency in bringing out a new mining policy that promises to address mining-related concerns of most stakeholders. The new proposal, titled ‘The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2010’, is an amendment to the MMDR Act, 1957, and has been approved by the cabinet to be put before the Parliament.

The new legislation, as the government claims, aims to open up the country’s resources to foreign and local private investment and increase the benefits from mining to local communities. The contours of the new bill make it mandatory for mining companies to give 26% of their net profit as compensation to locals displaced by the projects. The goals laid out by the government in drafting the legislation are wide-reaching and, in some cases, do seem uncompromising. “We are trying to give enough options to the local community by giving them a recurring financial compensation. It’s not a compensation for their land, it is to enable them to do something different. We cannot, sitting in government or industry, decide somebody’s way of life. All we can do is empower them,” says S. Vijay Kumar, Secretary, Department of Mines. The expansion of mining in India is key towards maintaining the GDP and export growth of the country. In a recent interaction with a parliamentary panel, Mines Minister B. K. Handique asserted that the share of mining sector to the country’s GDP, which currently stands between 2.5% and 3%, is poised to increase substantially. To be exact, as industry movements suggest, it could contribute around 5% by the year 2020.

However, talking about the present, despite the geologically established presence of huge mineral reserves in the country, the current scenario of mining in India is rather disappointing. Considering that the mining and construction equipment industry volume is around 40,000 to 45,000 units per annum amounting to a turnover of $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion, the Indian industry is in its nascent stage as compared to the $75 billion global market. Moreover, as per official estimates, out of the 5.75 lakh sq km available in India with potential minerals, only 75,000 sq kms have been explored in detail so far. Not to forget, the battle between the mining companies and the people displaced by their projects have contributed in a big way for this poor show. While neither the existing spotty government mechanism nor the mining industry has been able to provide any relief to the lives of those affected by earlier projects, the question remains, will the new bill be able to resolve these battles?

Miners, who have recently emerged from a commodity slump, are disturbed with the new profit-sharing formula. The reason, they say, is that 26% is a big add-on to the existing long list of taxes, charges and other requirements [Under current regulation (MMDR only) miners need to pay permit fee (Rs.5–20/km), prospecting fee (Rs.0.50–Rs.5 per hectare), fees for mining lease (Rs.1,500), surface rent (state-wise variable), dead rent (variable), royalty (mineral-wise variable), stamp duty (state-wise variable between Rs.500–Rs.50,000). Besides, miners also need to bear various charges under the Indian Forest Act, Environment Protection Act, Labour Welfare Fund, Income Tax Act, and of course, under the unofficial grease-the-babu-corruption act]. While the industry contests that royalty linked contribution by mining companies is the best way to deliver justice to affected people, the government remains firm on its stand to ensure that miners give tribals and other affected sects of the population a share of the profits. Claiming that the government’s stand may demotivate miners in India, R. K. Sharma, Secretary General, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI) asks, “In mining, the level of expenditure in exploration is so high that it is not necessary that you come out worthy year after year. If the government is asking for 26% of net profits where the chance of discovery is 1:100, who will come to (invest in) this country?”

Apart from the new profit-sharing formula, there are some other facets of the proposed legislation which has the industry worried. The Bill stipulates a payment of 26% of net profit or 10% as royalty, whichever is more. So, even if a company is in loss, it will still have to pay the 10% royalty. Rather than be an inclusive bill, the could be motivating illegal mining. As a matter of fact, illegal mining is already on a roll with a whopping 3.5 million tonnes of ore being illegally exported in 2009 without any royalty to the exchequer, leading to a loss of about Rs.16 billion. Moreover, the number of cases of illegal mining has worsened from 36,677 cases in 2006 to a total of 35,136 cases in the first half of 2010 itself – most of it with the knowledge of government officials and bureaucrats.

However, it is interesting to see that both the government and industry have raised some similar concerns. Both sides recognise the fact that there is an urgent need for a fresh thrust in exploration of minerals and metals in which India is deficient and depends totally on imports. Both parties also believe that mining should be carried out in a manner that does not hurt the interests of the locals or tribals and have also spoken at length about proactive measures to bring tribals into the mainstream. Call it coincidence or irony, despite earnest promises from both ends, neither wishes to spend from respective personal coffers.

One needn’t be a soothsayer to realize that if the current system needs diametric changes, it will require the joint efforts of policy makers at the Centre and state governments to ensure that concerns of locals are addressed beforehand, and that state-level mining policies do not have structural conflicts with central mining policies. Yes, social and economic demands on mining have often gone at loggerheads and in opposite directions at the same time. Yet, the twain has to meet at one point or the other. Sadly, with political interests intertwined in mining across states, not much will happen.

FDI POLICY: DEFENCE PRODUCTION

Higher FDI for Stronger Defence

Higher FDI in India’s Defence sector will not only bring Higher Revenue and State-of-The-Art Technology, It will also Pave way for Self-Sufficiency in The Crucial Sector of defence Production.

Issue Date - 17/02/2011

For a country such as ours which spends billions of dollars every year to import nearly 70% of its total military equipment, the government seems to be stuck with the country’s defence establishment still reluctant to lift the 26% cap on foreign direct investment (FDI) in the “sensitive” sector of defence production. Despite India being one of the biggest users of conventional defence equipment and the cumulative defence budget growing at the rate of over 13% annually since 2006-07, we continue to depend heavily on imports for all our major requirements, with domestic production limited to low technology items and some based on bought technology.

In a discussion paper floated last year seeking stakeholders’ views, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), under the Ministry of Commerce, had favoured 100 per cent FDI in defence in order to attract foreign technology. It further called for an urgent need to ‘enhance the deterrent and the operational capabilities of the armed forces’. The paper also stated that almost 50% of India’s defence equipment was suffering from obsolescence while merely 15% could be called state-of-the-art.

The government, however, now seems to be keen on allowing greater participation of the private sector and expert players in the defence sector to invite higher technology in the sector. With strong backing from both the Finance and Home ministries, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry is learnt to be preparing to move a Cabinet note on increasing the cap on FDI in the defence sector to 49%.

The case for a firm government stand on increasing the FDI cap is backed by the fact that it is of vital importance to the defence sector which is highly capital intensive and where technology requires frequent upgrading. FDI is not just a subject of getting funds, it also facilitates access to the latest technologies and provides for a long term commitment between the foreign and local enterprise. It creates a sort of a cycle where the foreign investment upgrades local technology which, in turn, attracts more FDI with higher technology.

Despite the presence of such alluring factors, the Union minister for Defence A K Antony has registered his firm disagreement with the said proposal on the ground that the Indian defence sector was not matured enough to absorb higher FDI. He did however mention at a conference last year that higher FDI in the long run could not be ruled out and said that the ministry could consider permitting it on a case-by-case basis. The reluctance of the defence establishment, sources say, is also based on the rather conventional belief that defence is a sensitive sector and that opening doors to foreign players could lead to security concerns.

The defence sector in India, which was initially subject to 100% monopoly of the public sector, saw the government open doors to private participation and allow 26% FDI following a policy change over the last decade. However, the policy move did not really help as it failed to amuse both the domestic private sector and the foreign direct investors. Over-dependence on the public sector has been cited as one of the major reasons for this failure. Also, the complete lack of enthusiasm by investors, both Indian and offshore, failed to achieve the basic aim of allowing FDI in the defence sector, which was to pool capital and foster technology partnerships in order to manufacture defence equipment for the armed forces and also register its presence in the export market on a significant scale.

On a global front, India’s defence exports have ranged between 1.5% to 2.4 % of the total production, with an import-export ratio of 194:1, as compared to 1.3:1 in the case of Israel, 8.8:1 in the case of South Korea and 19.7:1 in the case of Singapore. It is disappointing to note that ever since the introduction of FDI in defence in 2001, the grand total of investments in defence through the FDI route have been a meagre $15 million.

Budget allocations to the defence sector have gained special prominence after the onslaught of recent terror attacks and the rising concerns of internal security. As per the Budget Estimates (BE) for the year 2010-11, the defence sector has been allocated Rs.1.47 trillion, a marginal increase of 3.98% over the BE of 2009-10. The outlay for defence comprises of Rs.873.4 billion for revenue expenditure and Rs.600 billion for capital expenditure. Keeping in view the requirement of modernisation of forces, the capital budget has been given an increase of 9.44% over the BE of 2008-09. The revenue allocation has increased only by 0.5%. However, there is a net reduction in allocation of Rs.10.96 billion in revenue budget in comparison to the revised estimates of 2009-10. In the Interim Budget 2009-10, the allocation for Defence was increased to Rs.1.42 trillion crore, almost a 35% increase in current prices from the previous year’s revised estimates. The total revised expenditure for 2008-09 was Rs.1.14 trillion crore. The planned expenditure of Rs.868.79 billion against Rs.736 billion will include Rs.548.24 billion for capital expenditure as against Rs.410 billion in the revised estimates for 2008-09. The expected defence spending over the next five years is $50bn.

Another case for strong legislation in favour of the proposed hike is based on concerns that our vast dependence on imports can be stifled in times of crisis, leaving India defencseless. Considering that India currently needs to import even basic stuff like bullet-proof jackets, ballistic helmets, assault rifles, shells etc., FDI can be kept out of areas which are really sensitive. In fact, the DIPP discussion paper on allowing foreign companies to bring in 100 per cent equity to set up their own manufacturing and integration centres in India, had allayed concerns that fully foreign-owned companies based in India may not be in the county’s security interests, arguing that the concerns remained even in case of direct imports and hence could not be cited for opposing higher FDI.

With India emerging as a major economic destination for several sectors, the efficient management of funds allocated in the defence budget will be of vital importance keeping in view its target of reducing dependence on imports. What India needs today is a dedicated and technology specific policy which is flexible enough to attract frontier technology within the broad regulatory policy framework. It is vital that in the case of cutting edge technology, FDI limit be increased to 51% in order to instil a sense of confidence in the foreign entrepreneur that he would continue to own the enterprise by holding majority stake. An FDI cap of 49% may prove totally unfruitful and even pose as a major hurdle towards attracting high-end investments. Supporters of higher FDI in the defence sector say foreign investors will set up units in India that should lead to cheaper prices of defence equipment, secure supplies and also bring steady jobs for Indians.

For India to sustain its steady economic growth and support it with a robust defence base, we need to offer opportunities which are more striking than our other FDI competitors. In order to have a strong defence industry base in India, it is vital to recognise the peculiarities of the defence sector. Investor facilities in line with prevailing international standards is needed, backed by proper policy support which override the dissuasive incongruities present in the sensitive sector of defence production.

“No question of compromise in security”

The government, for a change, is pressing hard to push through a policy change to attract foreign investments and also bring on board state-of-the-art technology in the sensitive sector of defence production. Even though defence Minister A. K. Antony says India is not ready for higher FDI yet, renowned defence analyst Maroof Raza tells B&E why higher FDI is the right step forward.

B&E: What is your opinion about the current level of FDI allowed in defence sector?
Maroof Raza (MR): One thing is very clear that the defence sector needs huge investments and anyone doing so will not be looking for 26% of stake. If we really want path breaking technologies to come to India, we will have to raise the stake of Foreign Direct Investments up to 74%. Once the foreign companies have control over the projects, they will bring all the investment, high-end technology and would also like to make India as their exporting base.

B&E: Will it in any way threaten to compromise the interests of national security?
MR: The bulk of our arms come from foreign destinations. Whether it is the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft or the Artillery Guns, we are procuring them from outside. Once the companies set up their base in India it will be beneficial for the country. There is no question of security getting compromised.

B&E: What may be the reason for India’s under performance in defence production despite having the DRDO, a dedicated organisation for defence specific technology and production?
MR: We have an intellectual baggage, a Nehruvian idea of self sufficiency, which, to an extent, is okay. But once you look closely at DRDO, you will find that it is adversely affecting the defence preparedness of the country. Most of the important DRDO projects are either incomplete or are thrust on the forces. This is true for Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas and Main Battle tank, Arjun. The point here is not to run down DRDO, but it is also foolish to keep investing in re-inventing the wheel. Thumb rule is to get cheap and efficient.

B&E: What remedy do you propose?
MR: We should focus on cutting edge, high-end technologies and then task the DRDO with projects along with a time-line. For example, when a Sukhoi can be roughly equivalent to three MIGs, then we do not require investing in MiGs. The case is the same with other arms. It is very important that we should look for the best, whether it is from the market or is self produced.

Inputs from Mayank Singh

NREGA: THE STORY SO FAR

Awaiting India’s Rural Revolution

UPA’s flagship Project NREGA has, to a Certain Extent, succeeded in Empowering The Rural Poor, but The Government needs to also address The Larger issues that Hinder India’s rural Development.

Date published- 03/03/2011

Five years have passed since the launch of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) from Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh on February 2, 2006. Ever since it started, it has faced criticism from various quarters over its shortcomings and innumerable allegations of corruption levelled over its implementation methodology across the district, block and gram panchayat levels. As it crosses this important milestone, it is certainly worthwhile to analyse the extent to which this act has worked and where it has critically failed.

The Act has definitely established its pan-India presence and has been successful, to a certain extent, in its agenda of providing employment to the rural poor. Aimed at enhancing the livelihood security of people in rural areas by guaranteeing 100 days of wage-employment in a year to a rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work, NREGA has been touted as one of the major swing factors in UPA-II’s thumping return to power in May, 2009. However, the bigger concern is whether we are looking at only providing an employment opportunity to the rural poor or are we also looking at long-term solutions and creating sustainable assets for the country by efficient management of these employed human resources.

The Act, the government claims, has been instrumental in raising productivity, increasing purchasing power, reducing distress migration, creating durable assets while also ensuring livelihood opportunities for the needy and poor in rural India. Highlighting the achievements under NREGA, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noted that a total of 8.8 billion persondays work has been generated so far under this programme, of which 52% beneficiaries are from SC/ST while 47% beneficiaries are women. At the same time, it is notable that the Centre has released a total of Rs.1.08 trillion to states under the NREGA Scheme since February 2006. According to official figures compiled for the calendar year 2010-11 ending December 2010, 41 million households have been provided employment and 1.45 billion persondays have been generated. The average wage earned has risen from Rs.65 per personday in 2006 to Rs.100 by early this year.

NREGA is already the biggest rural development scheme India has ever had. The sum of Rs.401 billion allocated for it in 2010-11 is more than the money spent on any other single social welfare programme in a year ever. But the huge amount being spent should warrant an explanation on why we are not worried about the better utilisation of the manpower being generated. Maybe, the government needs to look at creating sustainable assets and also adopt some sort of strategy to put the human resources to better use. On the occasion of the Act completing five years, the Secretary, Minister of Rural Development (MoRD), and the Prime Minister, all acknowledged the growing threat to NREGA due to corruption, diversion of money, misappropriations in wage payment and the consequent need for an independent and stronger social audit process. UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi also sought the involvement of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) to increase land productivity. While recognition to the fact that there are gaps that need to be filled is optimistic, it should also be a constant reminder of how much more there is to be done.

The problem in India lies in the fact that most of the government programs like NREGA, when planned, look good only on paper. Most government schemes function through a Public Distribution System like the usual ration shop, where loopholes become a part and parcel of the whole execution process and real beneficiaries are very few. The government always gets a good all-round perspective from relevant people for a nationwide project but fails when it comes to execution. The first point to note is that the funds allocated under NREGA were never fully utilised, with less than 75% used so far. Furthermore, there have been several reports of wage disparities and funds not reaching the households intended for.

Moreover, NREGA, when conceptualised, was more of a stop-gap measure by the government considering India’s rising levels of poverty, hunger and unemployment. Five years on, it is time to focus on the larger national interest of quick, substantial & sustainable rural development. Banking on NREGA to bring about the kind of far-reaching development that rural India requires is not reasonable; hence there is the need for a wake up call to shift focus to bigger problems. The Act, in its initial stages, did not include the component of creating durable assets, since the primary concern was to provide employment, B. K. Sinha, Secretary, MoRD, tells B&E. “We did include it later and will be focussing on creating durable assets also. I do agree that it is important, but this transition will take time,” comments the 1975-batch IAS officer of Bihar cadre.

India’s integration into the global economy has been accompanied by an impressive economic growth that has brought significant economic and social benefits. At the same time, disparities in income and human development are on the rise. A large section of the population – especially the poor, SC/ST/OBC, minorities and women – lack basic access to the resources and opportunities needed to reap the benefits of growth. Between 1980 and 2010, India’s Human Development Index (HDI) has risen by 1.6% annually from 0.320 to 0.519 today, which ranks us 119th out of 169 countries with comparable data.

Considering that most of the Indian poor live on agriculture, removing poverty and improving agriculture are two sides of the same coin. While there is an elaborate structure of schemes and institutions relating to agriculture, it is not clear who will finally interface with the farmer and ensure the support required. Forecasts by analysts that poverty will decline steadily can be no consolation to those living in poverty. There is an urgent need to add value to the life of the Indian poor. As of 2010, over 37% of India’s population of 1.35 billion still lives below the poverty line (22% rural and 15% urban, based on UN data). Government schemes are slow with the delivery systems weak and inadequate. The never ending blame game over the onus of implementation and monitoring that ministries and the Centre and state governments repeatedly indulge in, further paints a bleak picture.

All said and done, NREGA was not initiated as a scheme to create public assets to help the nation and society at large. In fact, until recently, the preamble of the Act did not even include the concept of building durable assets. Development in the true sense has to go much beyond giving cash. Answerability is of utmost importance. Strict laws should be put to place to ensure utmost accountability from all sections involved. Conceptualising a well-intended concept and taking no onus for its implementation isn’t an example of good governance. Skills training for those involved in such schemes and proper guidance for correct utilisation of money are equally important. While India needs to grow at a phenomenal rate to truly transform the employment and poverty scenario, NREGA has set upon an important task towards a more equitable distribution of this wealth. Needless to add, we have a long way to go till we see the real rural revolution that India truly aspires for.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT : THE OFFICE WOES

Change is The Call, can Society do it?

With The Government having failed to check cases of Sexual Harassment in Public Offices, ensuring The Impact of a new law Addressing The Menace of Sexual Harassment will be a Tough Challenge.

Issue Date - 17/03/2011

Despite the Supreme Court’s landmark Vishaka judgement of 1997, which gave a voice to India’s fight for securing protection and justice for women employees (after it became the first instance that recognised sexual harassment against women as a violation of their fundamental rights), cases of sexual harassment against women – more commonly known as ‘eve teasing’ – continue to flourish across sectors and organisations. Recent studies have revealed that sexual harassment touches lives of nearly 40-60% of working women in the country. But what actually poses as the biggest concern for victims and employees is that it is not always considered as a problem at the first place.

However, the government, possibly recognising the existence of sexual harassment as an evil in society at large, has approved the Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010. The bill, prepared by the Girija Vyas headed National Commission for Women (NCW) after consultations with several women and civil rights groups, is currently under the scrutiny of the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Women and also happens to be a part of the 31 pending bills that the government hopes to introduce in the Parliament for approval during the ongoing three-month Budget session.

Before we delve deep into the pros and cons of the draft legislation, here are some key features that the government is banking on. The bill, according to the government, seeks to ensure a safe environment for women at work places, both in public and private sectors – whether organised or unorganised. It also includes setting up of an internal complaints committee in every organisation. Considering that a large number of establishments (41.2 million out of 41.83 million as per Economic Census, 2005) in India are with less than 10 workers and setting up of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) may not be feasible for them, the Bill provides for setting up Local Complaints Committees (LCC) to be constituted by the designated District Officer at the district or sub-district levels, depending upon the need. This twin mechanism, says the NCW, is to ensure that women in any workplace, irrespective of its size or nature, have access to a redressal mechanism. Employers who fail to comply with the provisions of the proposed Bill will be punished with a fine which may extend up to Rs.50,000. Taking into account the possibility that the woman may be subjected to threat and aggression during the course of enquiry, she is entitled to the option of seeking interim relief in the form of transfer either of her own or the respondent or seek leave from work. The Complaint Committees are required to complete the enquiry within 90 days and a time-frame of 60 days has been given to the employer/District Officer for implementation of the recommendations by the Committee.

When it comes to understanding the intricacies involved in dealing with matters of such nature, the Vishaka vs Rajasthan case in 1997 proved as an eye-opener for the Indian judiciary and the country at large. The draft bill has also been drafted in line with the SC guidelines which were formed in the absence of any specific law against sexual harassment. These guidelines defined parameters that amount to sexual harassment, provided for preventive and remedial steps to make the workplace safe for women, framed guidelines to be followed in this context and went on to define the complaint mechanism and provisions for effective disciplinary action against those found guilty. In fact, it was only after this case that sexual harassment came to be categorised as a human rights violation. Vishaka guidelines apply to both organised and unorganised work sectors and to all women, whether working part time, on contract basis or in voluntary capacity. The guidelines are a broad framework which put a lot of emphasis on appropriate preventive measures that could be adopted. However, over thirteen years have passed since then and while the SC verdict in this particular case has been instrumental in bringing guilty to justice, there has been little improvement in the scenario in terms of making working women actually feel safe, which leads us to question : How effective the new policy will be?

According to the latest data provided by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the national capital alone accounted for about 25% of all rape cases, 1.1% higher as compared to 2008. In terms of crime against women in the country, there was a rise of 4.1% with a total of 203,804 cases registered in 2009 as compared to 195,856 cases reported in 2008. But what is notable is that records such as these only indicate the number of cases registered and do not have provisions to account for cases which never got reported. So, while the figures might lead you to believe that such incidences are declining, the other side of the story could also imply the hesitation among victims to go ahead and report unapproved advances by their superiors or counterparts. Also, there is no in-depth analysis to ascertain the causes behind the rise or decline in these numbers. Crimes against women include rape, kidnapping and abduction, dowry death, torture, molestation, sexual harassment, immoral traffic and indecent representation of women. The number of sexual harassment cases reported under section 509 IPC has decreased by 9.9% over the previous year (12,214). Andhra Pradesh has reported 32.0% of cases (3,520) followed by Uttar Pradesh 22.9% (2,524). Andhra Pradesh has reported the highest crime rate of 4.2% as compared to the national average of 0.9%.

While the government often tends to largely attribute the rise in cases of harassment of women at workplaces to the private sector, a closer look unveils a number of similar cases in ministries, departments and public sector undertakings. What is worrisome is that cases involve officials at the absolute helm of affairs which is often seen as the true portrayal of the misuse and abuse of power within the ambit of maximum government control.

Recent studies reveal that sexual harassment is still prevalent, hidden or disguised, and exists in all kinds of offices, – be it the government sector or private. A look at some of the major cases within the Government’s spectrum where the existing guidelines have been found to have been flouted with utter disregard reveals the government’s failure in controlling the menace. Rupen Deol Bajaj, a senior IAS official, was slapped on her posterior by K. P. S.Gill, former Chief of Police, Punjab, at a dinner party in July, 1988. Bajaj filed a suit against him, despite the public opinion that she was blowing it out of proportion, along with the attempts by all the senior officials of the state to suppress the matter. Almost 10 years later, her efforts were rewarded when the Supreme Court fined Gill Rs.250,000 in lieu of three months of rigorous imprisonment handed to him under Sections 294 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The most notable feature of the subsequent trial was the complete unwillingness of witnesses on either side to provide reliable or accurate testimony. Most of the guests at the party were senior bureaucrats and officials.

In 2004, in a first ever incident of its kind, the Government found C. Venkataramana, Chairman and Managing Director of the state-run National Aluminium Company Ltd. (NALCO), guilty of sexual harassment and terminated his services. The case had hit headlines in February 2003, when a senior NALCO executive complained that Venkataramana had tried to sexually harass her. The incident took place in Mumbai when the woman met Venkataramana for her promotion, which had been pending for several years. The CMD is said to have invited the woman to a hotel, where he offered her drinks and later tried to molest her. The woman, however, somehow managed to escape. Following the furore over the incident, NALCO hurriedly conducted an internal probe – and predictably gave a clean chit to Venkataramana. However, the government took serious note of the development and constituted a committee, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in cases of sexual harassment, and the culprit was brought to book.

Another case is that of N Radhabai vs. D. Ramchandran. When Radhabai, Secretary to former minister D. Ramchandran, protested against the minister’s abuse of girls in welfare institutions, Ramachandran allegedly attempted to molest her and later dismissed her from service. Radhabai approached the SC, which in 1995, passed the judgment in her favour, and also ordered the department to pay her salary arrears and perks from the date of dismissal.

In August 2008, a RAW official tried to kill herself outside the Prime Minister’s Office after complaining of unnecessary delays in case of sexual harassment she had filed against her seniors. Nisha Priya Bhatia had accused her seniors of molesting her while she was on duty. The case is still pending. After having diligently served for 15 years as an official in the personnel department of a rural bank in Madhya Pradesh, Seema Sharma suddenly found herself flooded with memos and subsequent transfer orders after she resisted sexual advances from her new boss.

While incidents involving the high-ups in power does highlight the fact that it is prevalent but rarely out in the open, not much has changed for women at the workplace, says Delhi-based advocate Dheeraj Malhotra. “Women are forced to approach social organisations and courts as they fail to get justice in their own offices. This, despite the fact that the Apex court has underlined that sexual harassment at the workplace is not only personal injury to the victim, but also a violation of fundamental rights,” he adds.

It is true that the silence of the victims gives strength to the greatest human rights violators in India, and reporting such incidents are important to bring about the change required. But then, it is also pertinent to note that many cases go unreported as they also threaten to ruin the womens’ dignity. “The society itself would ensure that she cannot live a peaceful and dignified life. Here the fear of the society plays the greatest player who rips off the victim’s right,” says Pune-based human rights activist Alka Joshi, calling for drastic changes in societal beliefs. “When one such victim in Maharashtra decided to pursue her complaint, many of her senior colleagues told her that her experience was nothing extraordinary, and that pushing it would not harm the men but only give her a bad name. Unfortunately, even senior women officers advised her to give up, and she eventually did,” she observes, adding, “Even when complaints do come up, the attitude of authorities have been found to be crude, dismissive and insensitive in many cases”.

The most recent example is the case of Komal Singh, an air-hostess with Air India, who suffered a major setback in a sexual molestation case after the National Commission for Women chose to tread a safe path by coming out with a report that confirmed “assault”, but did not take a stand on whether the employee had been sexually molested by the pilots in the cockpit of a Sharjah-Lucknow-Delhi flight on October 3, 2009 or not. In an affidavit filed later by Komal, she went on to state that she was being pressurised by certain members of the NCW to withdraw her complaint, and that even her version of events was being ‘doctored’. The NCW finally stated that the air hostess had not been molested, but only pushed during a mid-air scuffle.

Sexual harassment has for long been recognised as the most intimidating form of violence in many developed countries where they have not only taken note of how degrading the experiences of sexual harassment can be for women as well as employers, they have also adapted legislative measures to combat sexual harassment. The point is that combating the issue of sexual harassment involves developing an understanding and requires a change of attitude in all employees, colleagues, friends, administrators, employers and the law makers. Even if it was recognised late in India, it cannot be an excuse to allow it to flourish to an extent that it becomes unnoticeable. As the world celebrates the liberalisation of women, in India, the real challenge for the Act will be to effectively address deeper issues which generally never come to fore.

CVC: SC VERDICT

Can we See Some Accountability... Please?

While there are Mixed Reactions over The Impact of SC’s Verdict on P. J. Thomas’ Appointment as CVC, The Nation Actually needs to Focus on Politicians who run The Show.
Issue Date - 31/03/2011

The office of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the apex vigilance institution, has lately been in the news for all the wrong reasons. In a first of its kind in India, a three-member Supreme Court (SC) bench on March 3 quashed appointment of P. J. Thomas, a 1973-batch IAS officer of the Kerala cadre, declaring it as “un est” in law.

Thomas’ current woes date back to a palmolein import case in 1991 when he was the Food Secretary in the Congress-led UDF government in Kerala. In 1996, the Left government in Kearla had ordered a vigilance inquiry into the cabinet decision taken by the then Congress-led Government to import 15,000 metric tonne of palmolein oil, which allegedly caused a revenue loss of Rs.20 million to the state. Thomas was selected to the post in September, 2010, by a committee consisting of the PM, Union Home minister P. Chidambaram and Leader of Opposition, Sushma Swaraj.

Meanwhile, with the Prime Minister accepting responsibility for the “error in judgement” as the final signing authority that approved Thomas’ appointment as CVC, the move has just become a blessing in disguise that Thomas would like. According to Thomas’ counsel Wills Mathews, Thomas has now moved to SC challenging the very legality of the verdict that set aside his appointment as CVC. “The constitutional provisions mandate that the matter be heard by a five-judge bench as opposed to the three-judge bench that handed the verdict in this case. Moreover, the selection of Thomas was carried out by a government committee and the error has been accepted by the PM himself,” Mathews told B&E. When asked about the future course of action, Mathews said that since the error had been committed by the Union of India, it was for the government to rectify it. “Once the mistake is corrected, Thomas will automatically be reinstated,” he said.

Amidst all this chaos also lies a threat to the confidence of whistleblowers who had utmost faith in the CVC when it came to reporting matters pertaining to corruption in government offices. For Dhanraj Singh (name changed on request), a whistleblower involved in bringing the Chairman of a CPSE to book after he took matters to the CVC, “Reporting matters to the CVC is not a routine affair and takes a lot of courage to go ahead with pursuing the matter due to the constant fear of consequences.” While getting matters attended to has been a cause of concern, there is also sheer disappointment when one finds that the appointment of the highest anti-corruption authority was taken lightly. “The anxiety among many of us is on how future complaints will be treated,” Dhanraj adds. Alongside this sense of disappointment within a section of “honest” government servants, there is also a separate school of thought. “The Apex court’s verdict annulling the appointment of the CVC has come as a major jolt to the government and we can expect an overhaul in the manner in which the anti-corruption watchdog functions. We expect more sincerity from the CVC now,” says another whistleblower on condition of anonimity.

However, Pratyush Sinha, former CVC (September 2006 - September 2010), takes a different stand on the matter. “Even during my 4 years, there was no government influence on the inquiry or the nature of cases. However, before the media starts questioning the integrity of the CVC’s office, it should also be understood that most cases which are reported to the CVC are from states, where the CVC has no say at all,” says the 1969-batch IAS officer of Bihar cadre mooting for strengthening the ambit and scope of the CVC. “Even in all its righteousness, in cases pertaining to states, all that CVC can do is send a letter to the respective Chief Secretary stating its intent to investigate a matter of irregularity or corruption, a mechanism where there is no obligation on the state to even respond to it,” he adds.

At a time when the morale of the country is already shattered with revelations of a multi-crore scam on every other day, overlooking a vital aspect of institutional and personal integrity while deciding an appointment to the office of the otherwise sacrosanct anti-corruption watchdog by the high-ups in power has not been a pleasant experience for the nation. Nevertheless, the issue also unveils the casualties that could be associated with similar senior appointments.

“The verdict brought out by the Supreme Court underlines the importance of following the due procedure laid down for appointments to such crucial posts. While talking about the courage shown by the apex court in bringing out such a verdict, it should also be noted that there is need for greater adherence to procedures followed during appointments within the judiciary as well,” says A. P. Shah, retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

The magnitude of corruption in the higher levels of the civil services is actually enormous compared to that in the lower rungs. More than 110 officials, including a highest of 26 from Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), were penalised by CVC in 2010 for their alleged involvement in corruption. As per the CVC’s latest performance report for January, major penalties were imposed against 116 officials and the CVC recovered Rs.148.8 million after examination of three Central departments.

Amidst indications that the Opposition failed to capitalise on the issue despite a clear upper hand, there were also rumours that neither side wanted an election at this time. BJP’s tone too has been strikingly different in this case. The apprehensions, as per sources, could be rooted in corruption where BJP leaders are involved and with the SC having vindicated BJP’s stand already, the fear of a public perception that the Opposition had no issues left to debate could be another issue. As for the Congress, already in the dock over the revelation of a number of scams, the chances for further attack has diminished with the PM accepting responsibility. “SC has adjudicated the matter, the Prime Minister has already spoken on it... There is nothing left to add to it,” Manish Tewari, Congress’ national spokesperson said when contacted by B&E.

The implications of the judgement will surface gradually. However, for a country like ours where the bureaucracy is known to be an exclusive premise of corrupt politicians, shouldn’t Indian lawmakers take a similar stand when it comes to tainted politicians as well?

Food for All... Are you kidding?

For a country obsessed with rapid economic growth, it is disheartening that basic requirements such as food & nutrition continue to be a distant dream for the most vulnerable classes of Indian society
It was just before the 2009 general elections when the issue of ensuring food security in India became one of the major issues for all political parties in their manifestos. With an almost defunct Public Distribution System (PDS), high food inflation figures, poor nutrition rates and corresponding issues, it was probably for the first time that India saw politicians seriously eager to address matters that required radical interventions to help the hungry and the starving class. But, months have passed since then and there has been no concrete forward movement on those tall promises made around a Food Security Bill by the ruling alliance. In fact, while there were a lot of expectations from the government to make sufficient provisions in this regard in this year’s budget proposals, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee did not back it with any concrete allocations. All that he delivered is yet another promise when he said, “After detailed consultations with all stakeholders including state governments, we are close to finalising the National Food Security Bill, which will be introduced in Parliament during the course of the year.”

However, according to sources in the Ministry of Food and Public Distribution, the Bill is still in a very nascent stage with the contours of the same currently being deliberated upon. The proposed National Food Security Bill, which promises cheaper food grains – aimed at easing a prolonged pricing pressure that has battered low-income groups – is still unresolved at the policy level as the government and the UPA-II’s National Advisory Council (NAC) are in disagreement over the ambit of the proposed Bill. While the government seems to be pressing on restricting the benefits of food security only to people below the poverty line (BPL), Congress President Sonia Gandhi is apparently advocating for a universal public distribution system in the NAC. After several rounds of discussions and deliberations, the NAC has failed to produce a draft, which proves good enough for an effective Food Security Act. After having rejected the Bill in the form proposed by the NAC, it is fairly evident that after all the effort, the government is not convinced over the need and feasibility for extending the benefits of a PDS beyond the BPL (a targeted number that has been found to be severely flawed in terms of estimating the existence of hunger and deprivation across India), thus denying eligibility to the right to food to a huge portion of the country’s population.

As per the findings of the latest National Family Health Survey (NFHS) conducted in 2005-06, 46% children below the age of 3 years are underweight; 79% children aged 6-35 months have anaemia, as do 56% of married women aged 15-49 years and 24% of similar men; 33% women and 28% of men have a Body Mass Index (BMI) below normal and 58% of pregnant women have anaemia. Indicators are much worse in rural India. But the disheartening fact is that these indicators have only marginally changed since the previous NFHS in 1998-99. In terms of calorie consumption, the picture is even worse. According to a 2004-05 study by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), average daily intake of calories by the rural population has dropped from 2,153 Kcal in 1993-94 to 2,047 Kcal in 2004-05 indicating 4.9% fall, as against a fall of 2.5% (from 2071 Kcal to 2020 Kcal) in urban areas.

But then, if you go by the Ministry of Agriculture, well, there is ‘no crisis as such’ in India, in terms of access and availability of food grains to all at all times (something that the Bill proposes to address). However, “The proposed Food Security Bill was not conceptualised in recognition to any crisis in terms of food security in India,” says Mukesh Kullar, Joint Secretary, Agriculture Ministry and National Director of the National Food Security Mission (NFSM) to B&E. He clarifies, “It is more a measure that intends to extend the government’s welfare initiatives to a right, just like MNREGA. It is not in response to any crisis.”

While there are several figures to indicate the extent of corruption and leakages under the PDS, the fact remains that the system has definitely failed to deliver. In fact, the SC-appointed Justice D. P. Wadhwa committee has even dubbed the running PDS as a ‘bogus programme’. Citing references to several states where the PDS has either collapsed or languishing, it has clearly brought out that the PDS is a system engulfed in corruption, leakages and inefficiency. “Much of the food from the PDS is diverted to the open market. PDS grains are also diverted to neighbouring countries like Nepal, Burma and Bangladesh,” the Wadhwa committee report says, adding that 80% of the leakages occur before the grain reaches the ration shops.

UPA’s display of a sense of urgency in addressing the problem of hunger and food insecurity in the country offers some relief. However, serious concerns have been raised over the government’s perspective and understanding on how this multi-faceted and deep-rooted problem can be addressed. At a time when the government is planning to bring out a National Food Security Bill, which aims at granting differential legal entitlement of food grains to nearly 800 million people through a reformed PDS network, the question is whether the proposed legislation will mean anything for the poor and hungry or not. Expert opinions suggest that hunger needs more than PDS ration, which is where the government is failing to focus on. “Unless we remove the structural causes that exacerbate hunger, most of them relating to agriculture and management of natural resources, India would not be able to make any significant difference in reducing hunger,” says Devinder Sharma, Senior Agricultural Scientist adding that the contradictions between the government and the NAC threatens to dilute the impact of any such legislation. Even the latest Economic Survey states that increasing agriculture production and productivity is a condition necessary not only for ensuring food security, but also for sustaining the high levels of growth. The survey further calls for concerted efforts for addressing the challenge of stagnating productivity levels in agriculture and suggests the inclusion of renewed agricultural research, dissemination of technology, better inputs such as quality seeds, fertilizers and modern irrigation facilities.

The findings gather weight as per capita availability of food grains and cereals has been a burning issue in India. Latest data from the Agriculture ministry show that the per capita availability of food grains was 444 grams in 2009 against 436 grams per day in 2008, 442.8 grams in 2007 and 445.3 grams in 2006. The average daily intake of protein has also decreased from 60.2 gms to 57 gms in rural India between 1993-94 and 2004-05.

In the current scenario, where the system has definitely failed to reach to the needy, simply ensuring the requisite food entitlements on paper cannot sustain the humongous requirements of the right to food. According to Suvrokamal Dutta, Senior Economic & Political analyst, “If India has to overcome this problem, there has to be a joint effort from the Centre and state governments who agree to work on a common agenda.” There has to be an understanding within the political circles that there is absolutely no room for negligence in this matter. Unlike most other cases where the government usually portrays the success of its flagship schemes through confusing numbers to avoid critics, need for food affects the lives of all Indians across all sections of society. Bold measures will be required to ensure that this issue is not allowed to grow into a crisis like sub-Saharan African nations. The problem of hunger and static levels of malnutrition is an outcome of policies and denial in accepting that the delivery system is not functioning. Currently, over twenty government programmes including the Mid-day Meal Programme, National Food Security Mission, Antyodaya Anna Yojna and the Annapoorna Yojana exist to provide food and nutritional security under the ambit of various ministries. But the problem of hunger and the number of starvation deaths have only multiplied. Above all, the issues plaguing the delivery mechanisms have to be addressed non-politically. Factors directly affecting right to food such as implementation, urban poverty, starvation deaths and the now common issues of absence of transparency and accountability need to be addressed before we really try to move towards ensuring access and availability of food for all.