What do you think that “Right to Food Act” is able to solve the hunger and malnourishment problem of Indian population?

The Union government’s draft Right to Food (Guarantee of Safety and Security) Act insists on “the physical, economic and social right of all citizens to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with an adequate diet necessary to lead an active and healthy life with dignity”

 The proposed law offers a quantity of cereal at a modest cost each month to a broad range of beneficiaries: in principle, all those living under the poverty line and a range of others. The recognition of a right to food (and therefore to freedom from undernourishment and hunger) is a landmark measure and deserves great credit. However, there is an imbalance between the expansive vision expressed by the Act in principle and the narrow means it seeks to achieve it in practice; reflected, for instance, in its focus only on calories from foodgrains and on direct distribution rather than on the provision of means for commanding food and on complementary policies. It appears that the Act may not add much to the existing Public Distribution System or State and Central programs to provide subsidized cereals.

It appears very important to address the poor functioning of the existing system, and to remedy both the apparent discrepancies across States and the general non-transparency in the definition of the beneficiaries (in particular, the ambiguities in the understanding of what is a ‘Below Poverty Line’ household). It is also unclear how the Act will be truly rights-based, in the sense that an individual may make a binding demand for the satisfaction of the right.

A contrast can be drawn between an approach to further economic and social rights which centers on the direct provision of essential goods and one which ensures access to such goods through the creation of an economy and society which produces and distributes these adequately in the normal course. It is possible to fulfill such basic rights even at a relatively low per-capita income by employing public action, but there are advantages to combining both means in order to fulfill them in a sustained way.

An approach focused on the provision of subsidized resources can play a vital role in protecting the poor and the vulnerable from catastrophic outcomes, and can contribute to the establishment of a more productive and healthy population that is capable of bringing about a higher level of national development. It can serve ends which are both intrinsically and instrumentally important.

However, such an approach is, in isolation, likely to be more costly, less effective and face more political challenges to its maintenance, than one which is supported by a larger program to generate remunerative livelihoods and inclusive growth.