Think of feeding humans first, automobiles can wait

Several years ago, I read a monumental work, entitled: ‘Famines in India: A study in some aspects of the economiceconomic history in India with special reference to food problems 1860 to 1990’, which left a strong impression on me. Written by well-known economist, the late B M Bhatia, the book looked into numerous famines that occurred during the period.

After the Bengal Famine in 1943, which as we all know was not because of any shortfall in food production but because food was deliberately diverted, Bhatia mentioned about a letter that the then Viceroy had sent to the British government. Asked to explain why millions of people had perished, ostensibly due to food shortages, the Viceroy’s reply was something like this: “These people in any case would have perished,” implying that they came from the lowest strata in society, who didn’t have the physical ability anyway to survive for long.

He was responding to the question of large-scale deaths, a figure which finally was estimated at 30-lakh people perishing during the Bengal Famine.

Why I am reminded of this incident from the Bengal Famine years is because the colonial hangover still persists.

After the Food Corporation of India (FCI) refused to supply an additional five kg of rice under the Anna Bhagya 2.0 to Karnataka, an editorial in a newspaper actually called for discontinuing the scheme. I am not getting into the political wrangling between Karnataka and the Centre over the supply of grain under the Open Market Sale Scheme (OMSS), but what certainly came as a big shocker (and disbelief ) was the call to disband the scheme altogether.

While I can understand that the United States, European Union, Canada and some other rich developed countries have been relentlessly building pressure on India under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, asking India to dismantle public stockholding of foodgrains that go to meet the PDS needs. To meet the food security requirement, these developed countries have been demanding India to purchase food from the open market to fulfil its food security obligations. Thankfully, so far India has managed under WTO to protect its food security interests.

Food security becomes utterly important for a country, which is ranked 107 among 121countries in the 2022 Global Hunger Index. With an estimated 14.5 per cent of the population being nutritionally deficient, the challenge is how to ensure food and nutritional security to tens of millions languishing below the poverty line. The Anna Bhagya 2.0 should therefore be seen as a supplementary programme to adequately meet the food requirement of the needy population. Scrapping the Anna Bhagya 2.0 scheme means we are closing our eyes to the biggest scourge that the country has been living with. This appalling suggestion can come from only those people for whom, like the then Viceroy, the poor and hungry don’t matter.

For a country which has a comfortable food stock position – 41.4 million tonnes of rice and 31.4 million tonnes of wheat -- by June 1, everyone will agree that the priority should be to feed the hungry millions first, especially with reports now saying that rural wages are on the decline.

On the contrary, media reports say that the amount of rice diverted by FCI for ethanol production in 2022-23 was six times more than the open market releases it made. I thought instead of filling fuel tanks of automobiles, the effort should be to first feed the famished tummies.

There has been a substantial increase in the quantity of rice in two years, between April 2021 and May 2023 that the FCI supplied for ethanol blending.

Changing the definition and statistics of hunger may be one way to ‘overcome’ the crisis, but to achieve the UN goal of ‘zero hunger’ by 2030 requires untiring efforts to meet the nutritional requirement of roughly 195 million people, who officially fall in the category of food insecure population. Moreover, diverting food to non-food activities does tighten the open market prices as a result of which food inflation inches higher. We know from a survey that the income of poorest firth has gone down by 53 per cent in five years, and some other studies have shown that relative and absolute poverty has risen after 2012. Any rise in its prices makes food go beyond the reach of the poor.

Diverting food for ethanol blending is certainly not desirable. If only we had learnt the crucial lesson from Bengal Famine, food should never be diverted for activities that have nothing to do with domestic food security. We can’t leave it on the markets to ensure food security.

I am glad that in an essay for The Wire (June 20,2023), Siraj Hussain and Shweta Saini have argued in favour of food entitlements for the poor. They concluded by saying “It would be imprudent to allow the use of rice as raw material for producing ethanol, particularly when states are not allowed to buy rice for food requirements.”

A year back, writing in this column under the title ‘Why Indian Govt’s Move to Ban Wheat Exports was Necessary’ (May 27, 2022), I had questioned the double standards of the rich countries. While they continue to divert huge quantities of food to produce ethanol, they ask India to be the food provider for the world. This was at the time when the Ukraine-Russia war had put wheat supplies from the region on hold thereby causing wheat shortages in several countries. Instead of supplying the food themselves, and reducing food supplies from ethanol production, these countries had very cleverly encouraged India to be the food saviour. I am glad India finally decided to stop wheat exports.

Nearly 90 million tonnes of foodgrain is what the US diverts for ethanol production every year, which meets only six per cent of its fuel requirement. Similarly, European Union utilises 12 million tonnes, including wheat and maize, for ethanol blending. Strangely, this diversion is taking place at a time when 2.3 million people are living in hunger in New York alone. There are lessons here. The food that we produce must first and foremost be used for feeding human population. Unless hunger becomes history, the international community must impose a moral obligation on the G-20 leadership to stop feeding cars.

Several years ago, I read a monumental work, entitled: ‘Famines in India: A study in some aspects of the economic history in India with special reference to food problems 1860 to 1990’, which left a strong impression on me. Written by well-known economist, the late B M Bhatia, the book looked into numerous famines that occurred during the period.

After the Bengal Famine in 1943, which as we all know was not because of any shortfall in food production but because food was deliberately diverted, Bhatia mentioned about a letter that the then Viceroy had sent to the British government. Asked to explain why millions of people had perished, ostensibly due to food shortages, the Viceroy’s reply was something like this: “These people in any case would have perished,” implying that they came from the lowest strata in society, who didn’t have the physical ability anyway to survive for long.

He was responding to the question of large-scale deaths, a figure which finally was estimated at 30-lakh people perishing during the Bengal Famine.

Why I am reminded of this incident from the Bengal Famine years is because the colonial hangover still persists.

After the Food Corporation of India (FCI) refused to supply an additional five kg of rice under the Anna Bhagya 2.0 to Karnataka, an editorial in a newspaper actually called for discontinuing the scheme. I am not getting into the political wrangling between Karnataka and the Centre over the supply of grain under the Open Market Sale Scheme (OMSS), but what certainly came as a big shocker (and disbelief ) was the call to disband the scheme altogether.

While I can understand that the United States, European Union, Canada and some other rich developed countries have been relentlessly building pressure on India under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, asking India to dismantle public stockholding of foodgrains that go to meet the PDS needs. To meet the food security requirement, these developed countries have been demanding India to purchase food from the open market to fulfil its food security obligations. Thankfully, so far India has managed under WTO to protect its food security interests.

Food security becomes utterly important for a country, which is ranked 107 among 121countries in the 2022 Global Hunger Index. With an estimated 14.5 per cent of the population being nutritionally deficient, the challenge is how to ensure food and nutritional security to tens of millions languishing below the poverty line. The Anna Bhagya 2.0 should therefore be seen as a supplementary programme to adequately meet the food requirement of the needy population. Scrapping the Anna Bhagya 2.0 scheme means we are closing our eyes to the biggest scourge that the country has been living with. This appalling suggestion can come from only those people for whom, like the then Viceroy, the poor and hungry don’t matter.

For a country which has a comfortable food stock position – 41.4 million tonnes of rice and 31.4 million tonnes of wheat -- by June 1, everyone will agree that the priority should be to feed the hungry millions first, especially with reports now saying that rural wages are on the decline.

On the contrary, media reports say that the amount of rice diverted by FCI for ethanol production in 2022-23 was six times more than the open market releases it made. I thought instead of filling fuel tanks of automobiles, the effort should be to first feed the famished tummies.

There has been a substantial increase in the quantity of rice in two years, between April 2021 and May 2023 that the FCI supplied for ethanol blending.

Changing the definition and statistics of hunger may be one way to ‘overcome’ the crisis, but to achieve the UN goal of ‘zero hunger’ by 2030 requires untiring efforts to meet the nutritional requirement of roughly 195 million people, who officially fall in the category of food insecure population. Moreover, diverting food to non-food activities does tighten the open market prices as a result of which food inflation inches higher. We know from a survey that the income of poorest firth has gone down by 53 per cent in five years, and some other studies have shown that relative and absolute poverty has risen after 2012. Any rise in its prices makes food go beyond the reach of the poor.

Diverting food for ethanol blending is certainly not desirable. If only we had learnt the crucial lesson from Bengal Famine, food should never be diverted for activities that have nothing to do with domestic food security. We can’t leave it on the markets to ensure food security.

I am glad that in an essay for The Wire (June 20,2023), Siraj Hussain and Shweta Saini have argued in favour of food entitlements for the poor. They concluded by saying “It would be imprudent to allow the use of rice as raw material for producing ethanol, particularly when states are not allowed to buy rice for food requirements.”

A year back, writing in this column under the title ‘Why Indian Govt’s Move to Ban Wheat Exports was Necessary’ (May 27, 2022), I had questioned the double standards of the rich countries. While they continue to divert huge quantities of food to produce ethanol, they ask India to be the food provider for the world. This was at the time when the Ukraine-Russia war had put wheat supplies from the region on hold thereby causing wheat shortages in several countries. Instead of supplying the food themselves, and reducing food supplies from ethanol production, these countries had very cleverly encouraged India to be the food saviour. I am glad India finally decided to stop wheat exports.

Nearly 90 million tonnes of foodgrain is what the US diverts for ethanol production every year, which meets only six per cent of its fuel requirement. Similarly, European Union utilises 12 million tonnes, including wheat and maize, for ethanol blending. Strangely, this diversion is taking place at a time when 2.3 million people are living in hunger in New York alone. There are lessons here. The food that we produce must first and foremost be used for feeding human population. Unless hunger becomes history, the international community must impose a moral obligation on the G-20 leadership to stop feeding cars.