Economy
Food Security Bill: How the UPA is making mockery of Parliament’s decision

The UPA has bowed down before the WTO and limited the grant of food subsidy to just four years in the Food Security Bill, alleges EAS Sarma, former secretary to the GoI, in a letter to Sonia Gandhi

EAS Sarma, former secretary to Government of India (GoI) has alleged Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government is bowing to pressures from developed countries to limit the grant of food subsidy to just four years against the provisions in the Food Security Bill.

 

Mr Sarma, in a letter to UPA chairperson and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, said, “If the benefits of the food security law were to last only four years, it would inevitably lead one to the conclusion that UPA has enacted the law only to gain political mileage for the coming elections and not with any commitment to the need to provide nutritious food to the low-income groups.”

 

Here is the letter sent by Mr Sarma to the Congress president…
 

Smt Sonia Gandhi

President

Indian National Congress

 

Dear Smt Sonia Gandhi,

 

Subject: - India's stand at ensuing Bali session of WTO is an affront to National Food Security Act, 2013 enacted by the Parliament

 

The National Food Security Act, 2013 enacted by the Parliament on September 12, 2013 is a progressive law aimed at ensuring the supply of nutritious food to millions of low-income groups of the population. The law emerges from the right to nutritious food and right to live, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

When the law was enacted by the Parliament, the leaders of INC tried to draw political mileage by saying that it was the Congress that spearheaded the initiative to introduce the law.

 

Hardly two months after its enactment, this Act that truly belonged to the Parliament has come under a serious threat as a result of UPA government's haste in making commitments to WTO prior to the Bali session of the world organisation scheduled to take place in December this year.

 

Apparently, under pressure from the developed countries, the government has caved in to agree to a 4-year “peace clause” (see enclosed report), tacitly accepting the latter's contention that food subsidy is a “market distorting subsidy” and limiting the grant of the subsidy to a time frame of four years. In other words, when the Parliament of this country has provided a permanent statutory foundation for food security as a fundamental right, the UPA executive has bowed down before WTO and introduced a time limitation, a concept not envisaged by the Parliament. In a way, it amounts to holding the Parliament in contempt and defying a fundamental right of the citizen provided in the Constitution. There cannot be anything more bizarre than this.

 

It is ironic that India should initially lead 46 developing countries in WTO to press the argument that the concept of food security should be deemed to be outside the world organisation's protocols on free trade, but quietly cave in to the pressures exerted by the developed countries to discard that argument overnight. In the process, the UPA government has literally questioned the sovereignty of the Indian Parliament and the applicability of the Indian laws.

 

If the benefits of the food security law were to last only four years, it would inevitably lead one to the conclusion that UPA has enacted the law only to gain political mileage for the coming elections and not with any commitment to the need to provide nutritious food to the low-income groups.

 

I am marking this letter to all political parties and Parliamentarians so as to generate a debate on the stand that the government should take before WTO, when the Parliament itself has enacted a law.

Regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

EAS Sarma

Former Secretary to GOI

Visakhapatnam
20-11-2013

User

COMMENTS

Dayananda Kamath k

4 years ago

you allow the food to wrought in fci godowns and forget the purpose of buffer stock.those who allow food grains to wrought due to their negligence should be brought to book then we may not need a food security bill. but how will politicians earn their moolah. it is money garnering security act.

rangan v

4 years ago

food subsidy is to make bjp spend money so that bjp aprty will be alays in difficulty to raise resources and that party cannnot make money lke congress which ahs formed so many yojnas and siphoed the money from exchqr never did anyone inform that it is only for four years this is what they tell and it will becomelike reservation when no party can fford to change since each aprty wants to win the eletion

Dayananda Kamath k

4 years ago

it is mockery of people by parlimentarians. just to get votes all parties did not raise their voice and voted it even knowing very well that it is mismanaging countries finance. people have voted back congress for their earlier mismanginge of countries finance in the name of manrega. direct credit of subsidy is also to make it impossible to pin them down for irregularitis. new banks are opened because funding old banks will only leed to financing their npa and no new loans can be given.

Hemlata Mohan

4 years ago

Isn't it funny that Congress has called its own bluff?
They pushed this act in Parliament against so many odds and now they cave in!
Expediency is the name of the game !

Yerram Raju Behara

4 years ago

The Act itself is a flawed Act. Now it is turning out as a fraud on people through its representative form - the Parliament.
'A food-security strategy that relies on a combination of increased productivity in agriculture, greater policy predictability and general openness to trade will be more effective than other strategies;

Safety nets are crucial for alleviating food insecurity in the short term, as well as for providing a foundation for long-term development;

High food prices present incentives for increased long-term investment in the agriculture sector, which can contribute to improved food security in the longer term.' (IFAD, WFP and FAO, 2011)
Schedule II of the Act contains provisions relating to reforms to the agricultural sector that needed attention. Assuring sustained increase in production consistent with the growing requirements of the Act and the resources that the States should provide for implementing the Act are vital components of the agenda but receive scant attention. As the CACP points out “Assured procurement gives an incentive for farmers to produce cereals rather than diversify the production-basket…Vegetable production too may be affected—pushing food inflation further.” If these cereals do not find attractive prices and specific support prices for those that are part of the food security system, there would be serious consequences for the farm economy.
“Priority Category”: Definition of the poor has come into serious controversy lately. The criteria have to be fully in public knowledge. While the Act specified that the records have to be transparent and in the public domain, there is no timeframe for doing so by the States. So is the case for another requirement under the Act: “that the States shall put in place the needed information, communication and technology systems in place.”

The list of the eligible families should be displayed at the village Panchayat level and at the ward level in the urban municipalities. Any divergence of opinion has to be resolved at the village/ local level within one week of placing the list on notice. Such list could be prepared through a survey done by NGOs or educational institutions at the block/ Mandal levels.

All those who are within the exempted income category for payment of income tax should become eligible for food entitlement under the food security provisions.

All the tax-payers shall be the excluded category for two reasons: they have the ability to buy the food because they have regular income; they are also otherwise covered by some social security provision or the other.

Nutrition security is the whole while food security is a part of that, and therefore the law that is being contemplated should really have been a food-cum-nutrition security law rather than a mere food security law.
It is also worth noting at the outset that an important strategy for defending and expanding the rights of the poor in any scheme that seeks to guarantee a particular right is to fine-tune it to the other related schemes in a manner that all related schemes pull together all the rights that govern all the participants in such schemes. Such a synergy will guarantee all rights essential to the poor, each right reinforcing the other. Food and nutrition security is no exception to such a synergy. In fact the most important paradigm that should govern a law that guarantees food-cum-nutrition security is to define such security as the sum total of the entitlement that a poor household would access through its entitlement in all the food and nutrition related schemes that the Government implements or proposes to implement and not merely through a single programme like the TPDS. Unfortunately, the Act failed to provide this comprehensiveness
“Priority Category”: Definition of the poor has come into serious controversy lately. The criteria have to be fully in public knowledge. While the Act specified that the records have to be transparent and in the public domain, there is no timeframe for doing so by the States. So is the case for another requirement under the Act: “that the States shall put in place the needed information, communication and technology systems in place.”

The list of the eligible families should be displayed at the village Panchayat level and at the ward level in the urban municipalities. Any divergence of opinion has to be resolved at the village/ local level within one week of placing the list on notice. Such list could be prepared through a survey done by NGOs or educational institutions at the block/ Mandal levels.

All those who are within the exempted income category for payment of income tax should become eligible for food entitlement under the food security provisions.

All the tax-payers shall be the excluded category for two reasons: they have the ability to buy the food because they have regular income; they are also otherwise covered by some social security provision or the other.

Nutrition security is the whole while food security is a part of that, and therefore the law that is being contemplated should really have been a food-cum-nutrition security law rather than a mere food security law.
It is also worth noting at the outset that an important strategy for defending and expanding the rights of the poor in any scheme that seeks to guarantee a particular right is to fine-tune it to the other related schemes in a manner that all related schemes pull together all the rights that govern all the participants in such schemes. Such a synergy will guarantee all rights essential to the poor, each right reinforcing the other. Food and nutrition security is no exception to such a synergy. In fact the most important paradigm that should govern a law that guarantees food-cum-nutrition security is to define such security as the sum total of the entitlement that a poor household would access through its entitlement in all the food and nutrition related schemes that the Government implements or proposes to implement and not merely through a single programme like the TPDS. Unfortunately, the Act failed to provide this comprehensiveness.
Implementation is at the doorsteps of the State Governments while the stocks are with the Central Government and the coordination between the two would require to be non-partisan and wholehearted.

Crossroads’ tax return shows big donors, but doesn’t name them

The biggest dark money group, launched by Republican strategist Karl Rove, shows in its tax filing that it got one donation of nearly $23 million and another of $18 million (Donors names not included)

The dark money giant Crossroads GPS, launched by Republican strategist Karl Rove, told the IRS it raised almost $180 million in 2012, including one donation of $22.5 million, another of $18 million and another of $10 million. Fifty donations were for $1 million or more. Because the group is a social welfare non-profit, none of the donors have to be made public.
 

The details come from the group’s 2012 tax return, which Crossroads made available today at their Washington office. We picked up a copy and you can see it here.

Crossroads raised more than twice as much in 2012 as it collected in 2010 and 2011 combined.
 

The group also reported spending almost $75 million on direct and indirect campaign activities.
 

Crossroads GPS, also known as Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, is the largest social nonprofit active in elections. The group was created after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to unlimited corporate and union spending on elections, to super PACs and to hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous money.
 

In Crossroads’ application for nonprofit status in 2010, the group told the IRS that while it planned to spend money on elections, “any such activity will be limited in amount, and will not constitute the organization’s primary purpose.”
 

In the 2012 cycle, Crossroads told the Federal Election Commission it spent almost twice as much on political ads as the next most active social welfare nonprofit, Americans for Prosperity, backed by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
 

Crossroads is in the crosshairs of campaign finance watchdogs, who have criticized social welfare nonprofits for exploiting loopholes in tax and election rules to be able to pour millions from undisclosed donors into campaigns. Democrats have also targeted Crossroads for special attention. In 2012, the lawyer for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign asked the FEC to force Crossroads to register as a political committee and disclose its donors. (So far, that hasn’t happened.)
 

“There is no way in the world that $20 million-plus contributions, $10 million-plus contributions, that are funding campaign ads should be kept secret from the American people,” said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, who has worked to rein in outside spending in politics for decades.
 

Social welfare nonprofits are allowed to spend money on elections, but they are also supposed to be able to prove that social welfare is their primary purpose. ProPublica has focused extensively on how many of these groups have poured much of their resources into political races.
 

Tax returns are one of the few places in which groups are required to detail both their revenues and expenditures and justify their social welfare mission. But the returns are often filed more than a year after an election.
 

About 150 of these nonprofits reported spending more than $254 million in 2012 on ads, phone calls and mailings. Most of that money — more than 85 percent — was spent by conservative groups.
 

Crossroads GPS and its sister super PAC, American Crossroads, provide a blueprint of how these outside-spending groups work. The Rove juggernaut gives potential donors the option of giving to a super PAC, which has to report its donors, or to a social welfare nonprofit, which doesn’t.
 

Some people and corporations prefer the anonymous option. American Crossroads, for instance, raised about $117.5 million in the 2012 cycle, according to the FEC, as opposed to the $180 million Crossroads GPS collected.
 

Both super PACs and social welfare nonprofits can accept unlimited contributions, unlike candidates and regular political action committees.
 

The Wall Street Journal first reported an early look at Crossroads GPS’s tax return last Thursday. (ProPublica initially asked for a copy of the group’s tax return on Thursday morning, but Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said, “It’s not available yet.” He also said it wasn’t available on Friday, the deadline for filing the return. On Monday, Collegio said the return was available for pickup.)
 

In a cover letter accompanying the tax filing, Collegio positioned the group as a balance to unions and other liberal groups. “Crossroads GPS serves as a counterweight to well-funded labor unions and other far-left advocacy groups that promote more government, more regulation and higher taxes,” Collegio wrote.
 

He also pointed out that the group didn’t just get big contributions. It also had 1,254 small donors, who gave less than $5,000 each. (That works out to $348,361, or .2 percent of Crossroads total revenue.)
 

On its tax return, Crossroads justified its social welfare mission in part by saying it spent more than $74 million on public communication and building “grassroots to influence policymaking outcomes through grassroots mobilization and advocacy.” It also said it spent more than $3.2 million on research and handed out more than $35 million in grants, mainly to similarly aligned social welfare nonprofits active in politics.
 

Of those grants, Crossroads gave $26.4 million to Americans for Tax Reform, and $2.15 million to the Center for Individual Freedom. It told the IRS that these grants were not supposed to be spent on elections.
 

In the group’s statement, Collegio said the group had a ratio of 60.2 percent of social welfare spending to 38.8 percent of political spending in 2012. (It is not clear where the missing 1 percent went.)
 

Among the things Crossroads appears to have counted as part of its spending on social welfare are tens of millions on ads criticizing Obama in swing states in 2012.

Most of those ads stopped short of telling people how to vote and didn’t need to be reported to the FEC.
 

The IRS says it considers an ad to be political simply if it seems aimed at influencing an election, not just because of when it runs. But so far, despite promises to crack down on social welfare nonprofits engaged in too much political activity, the IRS has taken a hands-off approach to the groups. Its most significant enforcement action so far has been to deny the recognition of one small Democratic group and its affiliates in 2011.
 

In May, a scandal erupted over the IRS targeting the applications of conservative Tea Party groups for extra review, and since then, it’s not clear how — or if — the agency is going to tackle the highly charged issue. The battle will soon move to the courts. In August, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, the Campaign Legal Center and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, filed a federal lawsuit aiming to force the IRS to block social welfare groups from engaging in overt campaign spending.
 

There is another potential hurdle for Crossroads GPS. As of this month, according to the IRS website, the agency hasn’t yet recognized the tax-exempt status of Crossroads, which applied for recognition in September 2010. That’s a longer wait than faced by any of the major politically active social welfare nonprofits applying since the Citizens United decision.
 

Courtesy: ProPublica.org

User

Neera River Death: Consultant blames driver but recommends safety repairs!

Moneylife invoked Section 7 of the RTI Act to procure the safety audit report, after four young ad professionals of Pune died after their car plunged into Neera River. What we discovered was shocking

Four young ad professionals from Pune died in a horrendous tragedy on 2nd November when their car plunged into the Neera River through a dangerous gap left open at the tip of the bridge on the Mumbai-Bangalore Highway. However, the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) insisted that unless they get a safety audit report from their safety consultants, HAKS Engineers and Info Trans Engineers Pvt Ltd, they would not undertake safety repairs.

 

Moneylife invoked the RTI Act under Section 7, under which the applicant can get information within 48 hours, “Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.’’

 

The writer received the copy of the safety audit report on the afternoon of 19th November.

 

Shockingly, the ‘Inspection report on accident at Neera Bridge site’ puts the blame squarely on the driver stating that: “In spite of the warning signs and barricades, the accident has taken place. The opinion of the safety consultant is that the driver of the vehicle has ignored the warning signs. The accident occurred due to the driver’s fault and not due to the deficiency of the safety measures at the bridge site.’’

 

This is clearly an attempt by the safety consultants to protect and defend the NHAI and Reliance Infra despite their complete criminal negligence through shoddy and unsafe work on this stretch of the highway. Photographs published in Moneylife last week clearly show that Reliance had not protected the tip of the bridge with a crash barrier; the ‘work in progress’ signboard of the NHAI on the left is confusing to drivers, particularly at night.

 

After having squarely put the blame on the driver, the safety report recommends safety measures, which this writer through the Nav Bharat Nagarik Manch has been demanding. It states: “Cross wall connecting the abutments of the two bridges shall be raised above the ground level up to the height of the hand railings to avoid the entry of animal and human into the river by accident or mistake.’’

 

The wordings of this recommendation are highly objectionable as it trivialises the issue.

 

The second recommendation is: “Metal beam crash barriers shall be provided on the right edge of the carriageway to suitable length.’’

 

This is the very place where the car plunged into the Neera River. However, the safety consultant admits it, after having put the blame on the victims who can speak no more.

 

Nav Bharat Nagarik Manch had given the NHAI, seven days that is 26th November, to do the necessary repairs, or else agitate. It is also in the process of collecting information under RTI to file a public interest litigation (PIL), on the 140 km stretch of this highway, which runs through Maharashtra and is being built, maintained and operated by Reliance Infra.

 

The contract agreement procured by Moneylife shows that it is mandatory for the Reliance Infra to check the road conditions in terms of passenger safety and traffic signboards every seven days and it is incumbent on the NHAI to monitor the work of the contracting agency.

 

Following are some of the points in the Contract Agreement:

*that the traffic worthiness and safety are at no time inferior and that the worthiness of the road should be checked every 7 days

* For the avoidance of doubt, it is agreed that the Concessionaire shall at all times be responsible for ensuring safe operation of the Project Highway

* The independent Engineer shall inspect the Project Highway at least once a month and make a report of such inspection (the "Inspection Report") stating in reasonable detail the defects or deficiencies

*Upon recommendation of the Independent Engineer to this effect, the Authority may by notice require the Concessionaire to suspend forthwith the whole or any part of the Construction Works if, in the reasonable opinion of the Authority, such work threatens the safety of the Users and pedestrians.

 

The obligations of the Concessionaire (in this case Reliance Infra) hereunder shall include:

 

(a) permitting safe, smooth and uninterrupted flow of traffic on the Project Highway during normal operating conditions;

 

(d) carrying out periodic preventive maintenance of the Project Highway;

 

(e) undertaking routine maintenance including prompt repairs of potholes, cracks, joints, drains, embankments, structures, pavement markings, lighting, road signs and other traffic control devices;

 

(f) undertaking major maintenance such as resurfacing of pavements, repairs to structures, and repairs and refurbishment of tolling system and other equipment;

 

(i) operation and maintenance of all communication, control and administrative systems necessary for the efficient operation of the Project Highway;

 

(k) maintaining a public relations unit to interface with and attend to suggestions from the Users, government agencies, media and agencies; and

 

(I) complying with Safety Requirements.

 

The NHAI and Reliance are also bound by the NHAI’s Safety Manual as well as Citizen Charter besides the contract agreement. Both are flouting all norms at the expense of innocent lives being snuffed out. As per the information procured from the Rajgad Police Station by the writer, in the 29 km stretch between Katraj tunnel and the Neera Bridge, there have been 174 deaths and 111 serious injuries from January 2011 to 31 October 2013.

 

Strangely, the safety report does not have a dateline of when it has submitted the report to the NHAI though it says that inspection took place on 12 November 2013. The inspection report does not even give any timeline to conduct the necessary repairs. So, is this all just a farce?

 

(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)

User

COMMENTS

Mathai

4 years ago

Could you out a photo of the approach to the gap, the went through, to understand the issue?

Prakash Basrur

4 years ago

Our national motto should have been "Chalta Hai" ! I did my B.E.(civil) from VJTI (Mumbai) in 1966 and gave up that profession in 1969 to take up computer management precisely because I felt civil engineering ( be it building construction or road construction ) as practiced in India is not a "science" ! As a Site Engineer on A.C.C.'s Chandrapur Cement Plant Construction site whenever I scrupulously "checked" the diameter and "lap-length" of reinforcement rods to be as per the drawing from the design office, I was laughed at by both the contractor's personnel as well as company's (i.e. client's) old time engineers. They dubbed it as a "show off" by me ! After going through such type of civil engineering "practice" that too on the site of a reputed "cement manufacturing" company I was totally disillusioned and left engineering to become a "computer engineer" so that I was in a better desciplined career ! Have you any time in your life seen BMC / PWD /CPWD /ZP civil engineers doing thorough checking of concrete mix and the steel reinforcement at any site or for that matter checking personally at site the asphalting/concreting of roads ? In fact civil engineers in India consider themselves to be "white collared" rather than "blue collared" workers ! They feel demeaning to be standing at the concreting sites in hot sun ! Nobody inspects the civil work for it to be as per contract specifications ! The "Government Engineers" delegate such serious responsibility to the poor ill-paid "Surveyor/Mukadams" under them and they in turn down delegate it to the contractors personnel at site ! With such neglect in their responsibility it is but natural that nowhere in India proper , i.e. well-written and conspicuous , road signs are ever displayed at any construction site. We even today do not have site areas with sign boards such as "Hard Hat Area" and "No Entry Without Helmet" !

prakash sawant

4 years ago

Let's see, what happens till 26th Nov 2013.
Hope for the best, that atlest they make construction of safety cross wall on the gap between two bridges.
As a reader, I fully support to "Nav Bharat Nagarik Manch" for their stand against goverment's irresponsible behaviour.

chandrashekhar kulkarni

4 years ago

Everyone knows with blessing of Politician & paying them bribe,all such illegal toll collection going on without proper road condition and safety measures.Huge toll collection from common citizen whereas number of vehicle is raising day by day.Actually when number of vehicle increase day by day toll should be reduced every year.Its nothing but Loot by Politician & Private companies Chandrshekhar Kulkarni

Frank Elias

4 years ago

Kindly persuade and assist the families of the ad professionals of Pune to sue the NHAI & Reliance Infra, also individuals who are directly or indirectly responsible for this tragedy. BBC had a series of documented articles on the road accidents in India which had said that there are a 100,000 deaths annually on the roads of India which is more than the combined deaths on the roads of the rest of the world. It was also attributed to poor design and lack of safety features & signs by the civic authorities, police, infrastructure companies, etc.

SUJIT KATYAL

4 years ago

We can take action against both public servants as well as politicians but the private companies seem to be above the law in recent times.

REPLY

MOHAN

In Reply to SUJIT KATYAL 4 years ago

Sujith,
The so called Private companies are actually owned by Politicians.

sanjay ranade

4 years ago

I travel on this road every for last 11 years.The old bridge is about to collapse any time.around 15 boards saying"work in Progress"by Brahmaputra Infrastructure limited were placed on the old bridge.No work has been done on the bridge in last one year.The road condition is pathetic.The lights inside the twin tunnel which is around 1.5KM long are never "ON".There is evry possibility that further fatal accidents may take place in this stretch any time.The Toll collection needs to be stopped and timely completion of road widening project needs to be ensured.For any delay a hefty fine needs to be imposed on the agency which is collecting TOLL everyday from tens of thousands of vehicles

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)