Food Security Bill - A Failure to set the Right Terms for Support for Food Bill by Principle Opposition

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 27 August 2013 The Principle Opposition has managed it again, to support the passage of the Bill for Food Security, a big tribute to Indias democracy where Concern for the Poor leads to unity amongst all/most parties who are shorn to be seen as spoil sport by the poor. However that this Bill has been passed without the right amendments being either proposed or discussed and included speaks volumes about the quality of leadership in the Law making bodies, whether in the ruling party or in any opposition parties. Even the principle Opposition failed to proposed equitable conditions as terms for its support to the bill. One of the Principle arguments in favour of the Bill is that this is merely an Intent -ional Bill i.e. the bill depicts intention of the government or the House that it has serious concerns about Food Security of the poor. Therefore the present and future Finance Ministers must find a way or resources required to take care of the Food needs of the poor and supply them with the essential cereals at designated price. It would depend upon the Future House Members to argue with Finance Ministers if provisions made by them in the Finance Bill is not adequate and the Law will be a criteria for enforcing the discipline, if at all required. The overall situation of the country is such that it can only support such legislation and therefore not many politicians or political parties have opposed the bill. However, is such cases it is the responsibility of the opposition to bring forth and debate all constructive suggestions to improve the Bill which should get passed into Law. It the Bill is about intent then the responsibility is to ensure that the intent of the House is fully reflected in the Law otherwise it will no t be able to stand scrutiny of the Future House Members and would lay down not so healthy footmarks worth emulating. The Opposition should constructively examine if the Bill has most of the intent of the House captured for ensuring such Food Security. It must note that its role of blocking Parliament is not much appreciated while the role of present Ruling Party when it was in Opposition, was largely supported by people because of their constructive support to the then government, in spite of some challenging issues. The opposition off course also have had its own intention-al legislations such as the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management which was implemented in a very limited manner. One of the points of intrigue in the Bill is that why such a bill must ignore which segment benefits out of the business opportunity generated by the legislation meant for the poor. Why such a bill should not include the deprived sections of our society to benefit from the business opportunity which will be generated by the bill. Why is it that whenever such legislations are proposed that will boost a particular stream of business activities, which in this case is the government led distribution services, then the jobs/business unit activities must go to the upper caste while the poor must line up to them for favours or benefits. The poor not only need Food Security but also Job security or better Job/business Prospects as well as Self Respect. Why must our Legislator continue to ignore this aspect in an

economic legislation and for how long will this continue to be ignored with near complete silence by our legislators? This legislation if deemed so necessary by political ruling class from both sides, should include redistribution of Dealerships of which 50% should go to Dalits (SC/STs) and OBCs. Womens reser vation of 50% should also be implemented in the reserved as well as unreserved distributorships. The Credit Guarantee Trust of SIDBI should support these businesses for any funding needs. The legislation should have provisions that all states must implement such re-organization of the distribution in a time bound manner not greater than six months or an year. This would ensure that the distribution system will have necessary empathy about the needs of the deprived sections of our society and these sections can own a business within the provisions of such law and benefit from the opportunity there under. This may possibly ensure somewhat lower leakages from present which is almost 50-75% though the figure admitted by the government is much lower. To be Developed further.