SC for Santa Claus

Judiciary cannot usurp administration of the food economy

There is absolutely no denying the fact that the sight of rotting food stocks on the one hand and hungry poor on the other is a blot on government and governance in India. Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar deserves all the rap on the knuckles that the country’s highest judiciary can give. Indeed, Mr Pawar ought to step down apologising for his inefficiency in handling the food and agriculture ministry. However, while harsh sentiments expressed by two judges of the Supreme Court (SC) are well taken, they have no right to interfere in the administration of the country’s food economy. If governance can be improved and problems solved through judicial fiat and Santa Claus acts, India would be a land of milk and honey, and overflowing granaries. The idea that food stocks should be dissolved through free distribution of existing stocks is preposterous not because it is “unjust”, but because it is counterproductive. What if India’s farmers were to queue up outside godowns and demand free food and refuse to cultivate any? The court’s angry directive can inspire food riots like the ones witnessed around the world two years ago. District administration could be besieged with people plundering the godowns of the Food Corporation of India and even private warehouses. Clearly the court has not applied its mind to the issue. Worse, the ministry concerned does not seem to have argued its case well either.

There are two important issues with respect to the problem of rotting food stocks. First, it is entirely possible that actual stocks are not as high as imagined and the rotting stocks, as shown on television, are old stocks that are no longer edible. Second, a one-time free sale of existing stocks can have the effect of encouraging such demands in future also. The problem of hunger cannot be solved with Santa Claus acts and Mary Antoinette declarations. Central and state governments must work together to put in place a public distribution system that can, in fact, deliver foodgrain at reasonable prices to the poor and hungry. This calls for hard work on the ground, not declarations from above. The SC’s directive, along with public pressure, can help move the government’s rusty wheels, but at the end of the day it is those wheels that must move. The government and India’s political parties must accept the blame for the court’s populism because it is they who have waxed eloquent about the right to food, without ensuring that government’s agencies are capable of delivering on that promise. The SC’s populist gesture should help wake up those in government who imagine that hunger can be banished by mere declarations of intent and legislation of rights. Time for some hard work. For starters, Mr Pawar should make public the actual position on food stocks, and what it means to run a national PDS. If Mr Pawar does not have the energy for the difficult job at hand, he must step aside and let the more energetic deliver on the ground.