Kaun banega Scorepati ?

The National Food Security Bill makes a futile and counterproductive distinction between ‘Priority' and ‘General' households, even after excluding 25 per cent of the rural population.

- Jean Dreze

There is no typo in the title of this article, but the term “scorepati” is perhaps confusing. By way of explanation, let me introduce three acquaintances.

Meena, age 50, lives in a two-room kaccha hut with her disabled husband Chhote Lal who studied up to Class 2. They own half an acre of unirrigated land and a goat. Meena is unable to take up any remunerated work as Chhote Lal needs constant care. Without any specific means of subsistence, they live on one meal a day.

Zafar, age 35, never went to school but he learnt to read and write in a night school. Aside from harvesting the odd sack of grain from his small patch of land, he earns a pittance as a weaver. The family is struggling to make ends meet and two of his five children work as child labourers.

Jeetu, age 45, lives on his own — his family deserted him as he suffers from HIV/AIDS. He has been left to his own devices, in a one-room brick shed on the outskirts of the village. He is too weak to work. Compassionate villagers give him rice from time to time, with some vegetables on festival days — everyone is waiting for him to die.

‘Zero score' household

What do these people have in common? Answer: each of them belongs to a “zero score” household — a household that will get a score of zero in the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC), if the Census reaches them at all.

The SECC is supposed to “rank” rural households on a scale of 0 to 7. A household's score is simply the number of “deprivations” it has from the following list of seven: (1) living in a single-room kaccha house; (2) having no adult member between the ages of 16 and 59; (3) being a female-headed household with no adult male member aged between 16 and 59; (4) having a disabled member and no able-bodied member; (5) being a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (6) having no literate adult above 25 years; and (7) being a landless household deriving a major part of its income from manual casual labour. None of these criteria apply in the above examples.

After ranking households in this manner, a cut-off is supposed to be applied to identify “Priority” households — the main beneficiaries of the Public Distribution System (PDS) under the proposed National Food Security Bill (NFSB). For instance, if the cut-off is two, then Priority households will consist of all households with a score of two or more. The cut-off is supposed to be specified so that the share of Priority households in the population is around 46 per cent — the proportion of the rural population below the “Tendulkar poverty line” (about Rs.25 per person per day in rural areas), with a small margin for “targeting errors.” That, at any rate, seems to be the game plan as of now.

Adivasi households

Since Meena, Zafar and Jeetu have a score of zero, they are certain to be left out from the Priority list, even before the Census begins. The good news is that they are fictional characters. But it would be easy to find real-life examples of such situations, or of other stark cases of poor — even destitute — households being left out of the Priority list because they have a zero score. In fact, even households with a score of one are almost bound to be left out, since the cut-off is unlikely to be less than two.

The odd nature of this scoring system can be appreciated in more general terms by considering Adivasi (tribal) households — the most disadvantaged section of the rural population. Since most Adivasi households possess a little bit of land, however unproductive, and a mud house with at least two rooms, the first and last “deprivations” in the list will not apply to them (note that even land possessed as a matter of traditional rights, without legal title, is to be counted as “owned” by the SECC). Further, a large majority are likely to have at least one able-bodied male adult aged between 16 and 59 years — the second, third and fourth criteria will not apply to them either. It follows that most Adivasi households will have a score of only one, unless they are “lucky” enough to have no literate adult, in which case their score will shoot up to two. But even a score of two may not catapult them into the Priority club. And if it does, Adivasi communities will be oddly split down the middle, between “score one” and “score two” families — a very divisive situation.

Support from Antyodaya

This state of affairs is all the more absurd as the distinction between “Priority” and “General” households in the NFSB is wholly unnecessary and counter-productive. As it is, the Bill calls for 25 per cent of rural households to be entirely excluded from the PDS. Now, if the proportion of excluded households is as high as 25 per cent (instead of 10 per cent as the National Advisory Council had proposed), it is absolutely pointless to split the rest into two groups. It would be much simpler and more sensible to give common minimum entitlements to all households that do not meet the exclusion criteria. This approach would reinforce, instead of undermining, the positive trend towards a more inclusive PDS in many States — Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Orissa, among others. Along with this, the poorest households could continue to receive special support under the Antyodaya programme, which is working reasonably well and should be consolidated — instead of being phased out as the NFSB comes into force.

This would not be the dream of a universal PDS, but it would still be relatively simple, practical and appealing. It would also resolve much of the alarming confusion that surrounds the Socio-Economic and Caste Census, NFSB, poverty lines, and related matters.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2665893.ece?homepage=true

FDI in Retail

In a show of audacity, the United Progressive Alliance government has decided to further open up the retail trade sector to foreign investment. Foreign investors will be permitted to enter the hitherto prohibited multi-brand retail segment and hold equity of up to 51 per cent in the units established. That there is widespread political opposition to this change in policy was known for long. Hence, the move is nothing short of a declaration that UPA II would proceed with implementing its agenda of economic reform, irrespective of whether there is majority support for, let alone a consensus on, that agenda. The opposition to foreign direct investment in the retail sector stems from a number of well-grounded fears. FDI in retail would introduce competition from large players with deep pockets and international sourcing capabilities who would be able to exploit economies in procurement, storage, and distribution to out-compete smaller traders and subordinate myriad small suppliers. The immediate and direct effect would be a significant loss of employment in the small and unorganised retail trade displaced by the big retail firms. The government's claims to the contrary are questionable. They exaggerate the direct and indirect employment that large retail would create and ignore the number of jobs they would displace. Conditions on foreign investors, such as the requirement of a minimum investment of $100 million and entry permission only for cities with populations exceeding one million are not material. They do not change the source of the competition — giants like Walmart, Tesco, and Carrefour — nor the locations in which such competition is most likely to be faced. And the requirement that 30 per cent of manufactured or processed products sold should be sourced from small and medium enterprises would be impossible to implement, especially because it applies to such producers from anywhere in the world.

An erosion of the incomes earned by petty producers is likely to accompany the loss of employment. Prices paid to and returns earned by small suppliers, especially in agriculture, would be depressed because a few oligopolistic buyers dominate the retail trade. This would shift the distribution of the margin above production costs implicit in the retail price away from the producers to the retailers. Given the precarious viability of crop production even at present, that shift could severely damage livelihoods. Moreover, once the retail trade is concentrated in a few firms, retail margins themselves could rise, with implications for prices paid by the consumer, especially in years when domestic supply falls short. None but the Manmohan Singh government believes that FDI in retail is a remedy for the relentless inflation the country faces. All things considered, it would be best advised to focus on improving public distribution and enhancing agricultural productivity — and not court more controversy pursuing a misplaced obsession.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article2665876.ece

IOR-ARC

Opening Statement by EAM at the Council of Ministers’ Meeting of 11th Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC)

November 15, 2011

Excellencies, Distinguished Leaders of Delegations and

Members of the Official Delegations,

Allow me to first thank our officials, business persons and academics, as well as our Secretariat, for their diligent preparatory work for this meeting.

I am grateful to all of you for the confidence reposed in India, as we assume the Chair of this Association for the first time. My colleagues and I will work closely with you to contribute to our collective vision and to achieve our shared objectives.

We welcome Australia as the Vice Chair of our Association.

Excellencies,

Over six decades ago, our first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned a grouping of countries bordering the Indian Ocean that could help one another in tacking common challenges. This extraordinarily perceptive idea was realized in 1997 with the formation of our Association. We reaffirmed then that the Indian Ocean is an integral part of our collective destiny, and that we need a holistic vision for a cooperative response to current challenges for this region.

The key east-west arteries of international trade – especially in commodities and energy sources – run through our ocean. Maritime security issues impact on our strategic security and the conventional security of our boundaries. Technological evolution and the rising cost of natural resources have made it economically viable to harvest new resources from our sea beds.

The sustainability of our economic development in today’s ecologically challenged world requires efficient management of our shared seas. Conservation and sustainable harvesting are vital for the security of our marine food resources.

These are both opportunities and challenges for collaboration, which reinforce the cultural and civilizational factors that have historically united our region. Our Association is based on an open regionalism, permitting multiple channels of interaction in areas of regional and sub-regional interest.

Excellencies,

Piracy is a priority challenge. It increases the direct cost of trade. It adds indirect costs through increased insurance premia and a human cost to many of our nationals involved in the shipping industry. We need to build upon existing national, regional and multilateral measures to enhance coordination to combat piracy.

We can build functional relationships between our Navies and Coast Guards to enhance the security of our waters. Our port and customs authorities, as well as our shipping firms, need to address issues of transport infrastructure and connectivity that hinder trade.

The growth of intra-regional trade has been limited by poor connectivity, market complexities and inadequate trade facilitation. Our intra-regional investment flows are modest, though many of our economies are important destinations for foreign direct investment from outside our region. We need to promote initiatives to rectify this situation.

We should strengthen connections between our disaster management agencies. India is willing to share its experiences with the Tsunami Warning System for the Indian Ocean.

Our hydrology, marine biology and weather systems research institutions can develop mutually beneficial collaborative projects, share best practices and enhance national capacities. We can invite the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, of which all our countries are members, to make a presentation on its work at our future meetings.

Our international technical cooperation programme, ITEC, offers capacity-building courses in a number of areas of priority interest to our Association. Our Foreign Service Institute has developed training modules that could be of interest to diplomats in our member-countries.

More regular educational, cultural and tourism exchanges can play a key role in promoting people-to-people understanding.

Excellencies,

Our officials have been discussing ways of simplifying procedures for utilization of our Special Fund. It should become an effective instrument for financing projects and studies of common interest. With this objective, India has decided to provide additional funding of US $ 1 million to the Fund.

Excellencies,

From our meetings over the last few days, we get the sense of widespread impatience for our Association to move from discussion to action. India shares this sentiment and would like our meeting today to impart the required momentum in this direction. We have asked all our Heads of Mission in your countries to attend our deliberations here, so that they can take forward our agenda in priority sectors of interest.

In conclusion, Excellencies, I thank you again for your support. I look forward to hearing your views on how best to make our Association more effective.

Thank you.

Bengaluru
November 15, 2011

Source - MEA Website

From The Gandhi Foundation

---- Reply from John Rowley, Co-ordinator of Special Events and Projects of The Gandhi Foundation ----

Dear Mr Mukherjee,

Thank you so much for your considered response.

This evening's meeting went well according to the only other Trustee who came. I do not have good hearing, the acoustics were not brilliant and, on top of that, I am unable to decipher many Indian accents. There were some very strong opinions expressed. There will be a report posted on our website fairly soon.

Best wishes,

---- Dr Uddipan Mukherjee to John Rowley ----

Dear Mr Rowley, 

Now its my part to tender an apology for the delay in replying.

Its 9th November today and we all are very sure of the fruitful discussion which must have taken place at The Human Rights Action Centre, London.

Difficult to search for words to delineate the actions of your Foundation.  More so, your acknowledgement :

"Comment and criticism of the original announcement escalated rapidly in the Indian media and cyberspace and we were simply unable to keep up", shows your concern regarding the voice of the masses. It categorically expresses your desire to authenticate an award and not merely impose it from the experts' point of view.

Further, your submission: "Our position is that the UK bears both an historic responsibility....." exhibits your aversion toward colonial and neo-colonial exploitative regimes.

At the other end, we strictly believe that nobody would seem to enjoy the activism (including the activists) as Dr Sen ad Mr Imam do not walk on the podium to accept the recognition of their life-long work. After all, pyrrhic victories do not calibrate the march of progress.

Today, it was postponement. Tomorrow, it could be a second thought. And day after tomorrow, a fresh award, and a fresh personality....

PS: Dr Sen's decision needs to be appreciated.  That further elevates him and anoints him in the service of the Adivasis. Mr Imam was pragmatic enough to visit London and discuss the issues. And we all, must at least, sneak out from our blankets and concern ourselves with those people who are NOT hapless, neither helpless, but simply under heaps of neo-colonial dictates.

Dr Sen refuses to accept the Award...

Dr Binayak Sens letter to the Gandhi Foundation, London

To
The Trustees of The Gandhi Foundation, London.

Dear Friends,

Ilina and I appreciate deeply the solidarity and support extended by so many friends from the United Kingdom and across the world in the course of my trial and incarceration. We were looking forward to meeting at least a few of you in the course of our proposed visit to the United Kingdom in November.

The original citation of the Gandhi International Peace Award when it came, was a surprise, as I on my own had never claimed to be a representative of the tribal people of India. However, I had always proudly claimed the heritage of a vernacular and indigenous life-world that was egalitarian and sustainable, and since the awarding body was free to make its own ascription, I humbly accepted the responsibility being put on me. I was fully aware that there could be many views about my fitness to undertake such a task, but it never occurred to me that my ethnic identity, in that I was not ethnically a member of the tribal people of India, would stand in my way.

To my understanding, the ethnic indigenous people of the world have suffered terrible violence in the course of the development of the capitalist state, a violence that has been directed equally against all colonized people, the working class, and other subaltern sections. Efforts to build a new society must be made by all oppressed people together. To claim to take on board the politics of genetic ethnicity as a part of this effort is a form of racism, and racism never smelt sweeter merely because it was articulated from the platform of a subaltern identity.

What we are confronting throughout India today is widespread hunger, compounded by widespread displacement, to the extent that it constitutes a stable famine spread over large parts of the country and over large sections of its people. Access to appropriate health care remains a dream for all except a privileged minority. The penetration of global capital into resource rich `undeveloped' regions, and the operation of industrial and mining interests in these areas have been responsible for this displacement and disenfranchisement of communities. State policies in countries like ours are aiding rather than curbing these processes. Urgent measures are needed to combat this hunger, stop this displacement and ensure equity, human rights, and social justice. However, voices of dissent are deliberately suppressed through outdated laws and juridical processes, and thousands of citizens languish in prison for opposition to these policies.

In the context of the award, the changed citation has only led to further contention and acrimony. Unfortunately, the process of nomination, the thinking behind the original citation and that behind the second, were never made public by the Gandhi Foundation. If the first citation was problematic, the second was even more so, as in this, the "Tribal People of India' of the first citation did not find any mention at all. This was not a position in which I could afford to be complicit. The level of debate is now such that the paramount issues outlined above threaten to be replaced by a palimpsest of ethnic fundamentalism. Under the circumstances, the really important task of delineating and combating the tragedy being enacted before our eyes gets pushed to the background.

Accordingly, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that at the present juncture it will not be appropriate for me to receive this award. My thanks go to those who nominated and to those who selected me for this award. It was never my intention to give offence or show disrespect to any of the parties in this controversy. I greatly regret any inconvenience that the organisers may be put to as a result of my decision.

Yours sincerely,
Binayak Sen