33 ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE

RAJASTHAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION

Some Reflections on Poverty, Hunger and

Food Security in India
Presidential Address
JNV University -Jodhpur
1/18/2013

* Presidential Address at the 33rd Annual conference of the

Rajasthan Economic Association 18th January, 2013 at Jai
Naraian Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
 Some Reflections on Poverty, Hunger and Food Security in India*
Prof. M.K.Ghadoliya**

At the Outset I would like to express my deep gratitude to the members of the Rajasthan Economic Association for so
kindly electing me the President of the Association for the year 2012-2013 and honouring me with the opportunity to
deliver the Presidential address. While selecting the topic for this conference I had two main considerations in mind: (i)
the topic should be somewhat related to the subjects chosen for the discussion at the conference, and that (ii) it should be
related to the most important problems challenging India’s present as well as future generations. I then decided to speak
on Poverty, Hunger, and Food Security in India. I am conscious that many scholars have done considerable research in
the area and some of them might be attending this conference also, I may not touch upon the serious research but I will
try myself best to give some serious thought on these concepts and their relevance today.
India was called the Golden Bird in the beginning of the 20 th Century and attracted hordes of invaders from outside
through ages. These invaders looted this territory and destroyed its economic structure completely. As a result the
country of riches became a country of poor. When India became independent the biggest challenge for the Planners was
to rebuild the country to match its past glorious history by careful planning and implementation of the appropriate
developmental policies. Planners in India chose the Nehruvian Model in place of the Gandhian Model. The argument put
forward was based on Kuznets thesis that growth will take care of the poverty and underdevelopment through the
“Trickle Down” effect. In fact, our policy makers and planners chose a different path leaving the Gandhian village and
agrarian economy based model of development and choose Russian Model based on development of basic and heavy
industries for the country. As a result the agriculture was neglected causing wide spread poverty, inequality and
unemployment in the country. In fact our policy makers were quite unaware of these problems in the country. One of the
earliest ventures to highlight the issue of poverty was made by Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia. He wrote a pamphlet stating
that a majority of the Indian population is extremely poor and lived on 3 annas a day. This gave rise to a debate and the
Planning Commission set up a working group of economists and social workers to suggest the government about the
nature and extent of poverty in India. The working group gave its recommendations in July, 1962 and suggested that at
the national level the minimum expenditure per capita per month should be Rs. 20/- (at 1960-61 prices). Population
below this expenditure level may be called poor. Planning Commission noted, “on the basis of the available data on
distribution of population according to per capita expenditure nearly half the Indian population in 1960-61 was
below this minimum level and they are poor.”i There was a mention that this minimum was calculated on the basis of
physical commodities but nothing more is said about it. All this awaked the interest of scholars in the study of the
problem of poverty and a large number of scholars started studying poverty on their own.
What is Poverty Line?
Poverty line is the minimum level of income deemed adequate in a given country. The common international poverty line
has in the past been roughly $1 a day. In the year 2008 the World Bank came out with a revised figure of $1.25 a day at
2005 purchasing power parity. In India many scholars like Dandekar and Rath (D&R), Bardhan, Minhas, Ojha have
attempted to define the poverty Two of them Bardhan (1970) and Minhas (1970) started with the national minimum
recommended by the Planning Commission working group in 1962. Ojha attempted a normative basis for fixing the
minimum level.
Earlier Sukhatme (1965) reported that according to the Nutrition Experts (Nutrition Advisory Committee 1958) an
average Indian – average of age, sex, occupation as well as geographic location- needed food at the retail level in the
household that would give him 2250 K. Calorie per day.
Calories (Adequate Food) Norm
In 1971 D&R in their book “Poverty in India” made an effort at fixing a minimum income which was referred as Poverty
Line. They wrote, “For a low income country like India a level of income (or total expenditure) that was just able to
ensure “adequate food” to every member of the household during the year may be considered as such a minimum
income and all households with less income than this may, therefore, be called poor.” In order to translate adequate
food into some measurable quantitative form D&R used calories provided by the food used in the household. Thus, the
poverty line as defined in India may be referred as the Absolute/Extreme Poverty. It is based on the minimum food
required to survive. The minimum protein requirement was not considered separately, and it was assumed that the
usual Indian diet the food that gave adequate calorie also provides the minimum protein required. Similarly no separate
norms were considered for the non-food requirements of the household. Using the NSSO data for the Consumer
Expenditure survey for the year 1960-61 and 1961-62 D&R calculated that income of about Rs. 170/- per capita per year
was necessary to achieve the 2250 k. calories per day target. The population below this level of per capita annual
expenditure could therefore be considered poor. Looking at the higher expenditure in urban India D&R fixed poverty line
at Rs. 180/- per capita per year for the country. The task force set up by the Planning Commission accepted the fact that
the calorie requirement differ for specific age, sex, and activities. After detailed analysis they suggested norms for the
average rural and urban Indian at 2435 and 2095 k. calories respectively. A subsequent Planning Commission committee
rounded these off to 2400 and 2100 calories respectively.
Thus, Indian Poverty line has been based solely upon the ability to purchase the above mentioned daily calorie diet where
70% of the population lives. It did not consider nutrition but only satiation of hunger. Poverty did not take into account
 the provision for shelter, health care, education, etc. Essentially it meant that as long as you consume the required calorie
you are not poor even if, you have no shelter, live in a slum or foot path, can’t see a doctor, and can’t send children
school. Therefore, scholars also refer it as Starvation line rather than poverty line.
According to a UN declaration that resulted from the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995,
absolute poverty is "a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking
water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education, and information”.
David Gordon's paper, "Indicators of Poverty & Hunger,” for the United Nations, further defines absolute
poverty as the absence of any two of the following eight basic needs 1:
 Food: Body Mass Index must be above 16.
 Safe drinking water: Water must not come solely from rivers and ponds, and must be available nearby (less than 15
minutes' walk each way).
 Sanitation facilities: Toilets or latrines must be accessible in or near the home.
 Health: Treatment must be received for serious illnesses and pregnancy.
 Shelter: Homes must have fewer than four people living in each room. Floors must not be made of dirt, mud, or clay.
 Education: Everyone must attend school or otherwise learn to read.
 Information: Everyone must have access to newspapers, radios, televisions, computers, or telephones at home.
 Access to services: This item is undefined.
Absolute and Relative Poverty
Today, most economists and social workers use two ways in defining poverty, Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty.
“Absolute poverty is very important for measuring the level of poverty in a particular country; it does not change from
year to year or even decade to decade. People are called Relatively Poor when they fall behind, by more than a certain
degree, from the average income and life style enjoyed by the rest of the society in which they live 2.” People living in
"Relative Poverty" are placed in poverty because the income in which they live is below a certain income threshold.
There are people and families living in poverty in relative terms, but has all the necessities to live a healthy lifestyle. In
"Relative Poverty,” people are placed in poverty, because they may not meet the national minimum standards.
Further, Poverty is a complex issue and cannot be understood through any one definition. Some of the leading causes of
poverty are crime, natural disasters, substance abuse, overpopulation, lack of education, health, housing, geographic
factors, disease, and mental illness. There are many more causes of poverty and there will always be poverty in this
world in relative terms.
The Calorie based poverty line or the Absolute Poverty definitions has been criticized by Rao (1996) for not providing a
balanced diet, Saith (2005) 3 for being too low, and for focusing exclusively on food consumption norms, with no
allowance being made for expenditure on, inter alia, health, education, and other basic needs.
Nevertheless, I believe that poverty should be defined in Absolute terms so that we may compare the figures at
international level.
Revised Calorie Norm (Tendulkar Committee)
Recently, there was a big debate when the Planning Commission accepted the Suresh Tendulkar Committee’s
recommendations of calculating poverty that went by Food and Agriculture Commission 4 norm that 1800 calories were
enough for one to sustainii. The best-known outcome of the Report of the Tendulkar Committee is that the poverty line
that it has proposed is higher than the current poverty line for rural areas, and has resulted in a dramatic increase in the
proportion of the rural poor in India. The major contribution of the Report is a total revision in the methodology used to
construct price indices to compare rural and urban prices in different states and the state-level prices indices with the all-
India price indices. ‘New’ or revised poverty lines are proposed for the rural areas of all the States as well as for the
country on the basis of the use of new price indices with the existing urban poverty line.
The revised all-India rural poverty line is higher than the earlier poverty line. The Report estimates that 41.8 per cent of
the rural households were below the poverty line in 2004-05, as compared to the current estimate of 28.3 per cent of rural
households. The poverty line that Tendulkar Committee proposed is based on reduced calorie norm. The proposed
poverty line is not based on any new consumer survey or revised method of computation. The new poverty line for rural
and urban areas is simply the old poverty line for urban areas in 2004-05. The simple argument for accepting the urban
poverty line is that the urban poverty line is generally less controversial than rural poverty line.
The new poverty line seems to be reasonable because it happens to simultaneously ensure satisfactory nutrition, health,
and education outcomes. The new poverty line when indexed with inflation for June 2011 gave the monthly per capita
expenditure on food at Rs. 18 for urban and Rs. 16/- for rural areas. Daily expenditure on non-food item were added to
this gave a poverty line of Rs. 32/- for urban areas and Rs. 26/- for rural areas. On this basis it was estimated that 37.5%

1 David Gordon, (2005) Indicators of Poverty and Hunger, UN Headquarter, New York
2
Volkov, Vladimir and Deneburg, Julia. "Wealth and Poverty in Modern Russia." March , 11,2005. October 1,2006.
3
Saith, A. (2005), “Of Calories and Things: Reflections on Nutritional Norms, Poverty Lines and Consumption Behaviour in India”,
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 43, October 22-28, pp. 4611-18.
4 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2004), Human Energy Requirements, FAO Food and Nutrition, Technical Report Series 1.
 of the population was below the poverty line. Government has also accepted a broader poverty line which considers
expenditure on health care and education given by committee. As a result the number of officially poor increased to 405
million in March, 2011 compared with 370 million in 2005. Based on different norms different agencies have estimated
the population below poverty line and these estimates have been presented in the Table-1 given below:
Table: 1 Population below Poverty line
Estimated by Percentage of Population Norm
World Bank 42 ($ 1.25)
ADB 55 ($1.35)
Planning Commission 27 (Calorie)
Kelkar 32.5 (Calorie+)
World Bank 75 ($2.00)
All these estimates only give the Head Count and one gets no idea of the nature and suffering in the form of Hunger,
Malnutrition, Underweight, and illiteracy of the population. The U.N. Economic and Social Council has described
Human Poverty as, “---- a denial of choices and opportunities a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic
capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family not having a
school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living not having
access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness, and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It
means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living on fragile environments without access to clear water
or sanitation”. Thus, the nature of poverty is multidimensional. At international level many agencies are engaged in
preparation of various indices to understand the nature and sufferings of poverty.
UN Human Poverty Index:
The UN Human Development Report also prepares Human Development Index and Human Poverty Index (HPI) that are
widely used for poverty. HDI is based on three basic dimensions of poverty:
Longevity: In this measure we calculate the expectancy of Life at Birth in a country;
Knowledge: In this measure we take into account the literacy of the population in country; and
Standard of Living: In this measure we look at the basic amenities of life.
On the basis of these indicators HPI is prepared with the help of a formula for developing countries.
On the basis of HDI index India was ranked at 134 th position, out of the 182 countries. Whereas China was at 101 st and
USA was at 4th and UK was at 28th position. Norway, Australia and Netherlands occupied the top positions.
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI):
Income based approach do not reveal the nature of poverty and the human sufferings. Poverty is basically denial of a
range of material needs such as nutritious food, shelter, health care, education, drinking water etc. It is based on cost of
subsistence in a given country. Worldwide approximately one billion people live on less than US $1.00 a day. From the
year 2010 the HPI index has been replaced by a better and more comprehensive poverty measure the multidimensional
poverty index (MPI) which goes beyond income poverty and gives a better understanding of different types of
deprivation the poor may face. It incorporates 10 weighted indicators:

Table: 2 Weights assigned to various indicators

Serial No. Indicator Weight Serial No. Indicator Weight

1 Years of Schooling 1/6 6 Flooring 1/18
2 Child enrolment 1/6 7 Drinking Water 1/18
3 Child mortality 1/6 8 Sanitation 1/18
4 Nutrition 1/6 9 Cooking Fuel 1/18
5 Electricity 1/18 10 Assets 1/18
The MPI reflects both the extent of poverty and its intensity and throws up some new light on Indian poverty. A person is
poor in this index if he is deprived on at least 30% weighted indicators. By this definition 55% of India is poor twice the
official figure released by Planning Commission based on the calorie norm.
Global Hunger Index (GHI):
Poverty causes hunger and malnutrition the two biggest enemies of poor. The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is focused on
the following criteria gives a better understanding of the problem:
 Proportion of people who are Under Nourished;
 Proportion of people under five who are Under Weight; and
 Child Mortality Rate
In the recent Global Hunger Index 2011, India has been ranked 67 out of 81 countries way below the several nations of
the sub Saharan Africa and the neighbouring countries like China at 15, Sri Lanka at 39, Pakistan at 52, and Nepal at 56.
 The world food programme mentions that 50% of the hungry in the world lives in India. In terms of number of hungry
people India is ranked number one in the world. It is a matter of great sadness and shame for the country. It is therefore,
necessary to understand the concept of hunger and the facts along with the poverty to draft any meaningful policy for the
removal of hunger from the country.
Understanding Hunger
Hunger can also be viewed as a dimension of poverty. It is true that all poor are not hungry, but almost all hungry
people are poor. The income poverty is based only on one indicator and does not provide us the complete sufferings
associated with poverty.
Hunger Project Board Member Mohini Giri says, “To me Hunger is rape, Molestation, dowry, illiteracy, female
feticide, female infanticide, and above all it is patriarchy. That is what Hunger is all about to me”.
What are the Facts?
NSS 38th Round in 1983, as well as NSS 50th Round in (1993-94) and NSS 55th Round in (1999-2000) had direct
questions on Hunger that allow clear answers from the sufferers. The NSS questions on hunger were,
 Do all members of your households get two square meal/enough food every day?
 If not, then during which calendar months did you or other members of the household not have enough food every day?
The number of months indicated by the household was recorded.
The proportion of households that were hungry during any part of the year by this definition iii was 15.7 percent in 1983,
4.5 per cent in 1993-94 and only 2 per cent in 1999-2000. In terms of individuals assuming that every person in the
household was hungry, the estimate that the number of hungry people declined from 15.7 per cent of the total population
(101million) in 1983 to 4.4 per cent of population ( 37 million) in 1993-94 and further 2 per cent of the population (18.5)
million in 1999-2000. It is useful to look at numbers in relation to poverty because logically the number of hungry people
must be a fraction of the poor for any reasonable definition of poverty.
More formally the line defining the very poor or hungry must logically lie below the poverty line. Thus the hunger ratio
must be lower than the poverty ratio. The ratio of very poor / hungry to the poor may decline, stay constant or rise,
depending on the distribution of consumption in the lower half of the distribution.
NSS data reveal that the consumption distribution has consistently improved for the bottom 40 per cent of the population
over time as can be seen in the table-3. The consumption has increased of the bottom 40 percent of the population from
22 per cent in 1972-73 to 24 per cent in 1999 -2000 but still people are hungry and a sizable number are poor. Thus,
providing food to all should be our prime objective.
Table: 3 Rural Consumption Distributions (NSS 30 Day Recall)
Cumulative percentage of Rural Population Poverty HCR
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage
Year
Cumulative Consumption Distribution Rural Total
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1972-73 3.7 8.9 15.0 22.0 30.1 38.7 49.1 60.5 74.8 100 56.5 54.9
1977-78 3.5 8.4 14.3 20.8 28.4 36.7 46.2 57.6 71.7 100 53.1 51.3
1983 3.8 9.0 15.2 22.1 30.2 39.2 49.2 60.9 75.5 100 45.6 44.7
1987-1988 4.1 9.5 15.8 22.9 30.7 39.7 49.6 61.5 74.7 100 39.1 38.6
1993-1994 4.1 9.6 16.0 23.1 31.1 40.0 50.1 61.7 75.8 100 37.3 36.2
1999-2000 4.4 10.1 16.7 24.1 32.8 41.9 52.1 63.8 77.8 100 27.1 26.2
Source: P.D. Joshi Changing Pattern of Consumption Expenditure in India and some selected states Sarvekshana Analytical Report No. 2 (July 1998)
and NSS.
Concept of Food Security:
World population now is about 7 billion and about 925 million people do not have enough food to eat. About Two-thirds
of the world’s hungry people lives in just seven countries - China, India, Bangladesh Congo, Ethiopia, Indonesia and
Pakistan. The concept of food security, as understood now, has been evolved over the last quarter century. Food security
concept has been considered at a number of levels: global, regional national, state, household and individual. While the
ultimate concern may be at the individual level it is important to realise that food security at the levels outside the
preview of the individual and households have strong bearing at the performance at the individual level.
According to FAO (1983) the basic concept of food security implied that “all people at all times have both physical and
economic access to the basic food they need.”
The World Bank (1986) indicates that food security is “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active,
healthy life. Its essential elements are the availability of food and the ability to acquire it.”
M.S Swaminathan says, “Food security implies livelihood security at the level of each household and all members within
and involves ensuring both physical and economic access to balanced diet, safe drinking water, environmental sanitation,
primary education and basic health care”. On the basis of the above definitions providing enough food to all population at
all times in a country like India is a challenging task. Further, the population in India is growing fast so the demand for
food is growing every day. Besides this the improved purchasing power among poor will further enhance the demand for
superior food and balanced diet. It has also been recognised that physical availability of food grains alone will not ensure
the eradication of hunger from the country. Economic access to food for all population especially the poor and the
vulnerable sections will have to be ensured through appropriate income transfer to the poor.
The 12th Plan approach paper says, “The challenge is how to feed India’s growing population with rising incomes, but
limited land and water resources. The economy is expected to grow strongly and pressure on food demand is likely to
remain strong over the 12th plan period.” In the light of these observations it is essential to grow enough food because this
is the essential condition for ensuring the food security. Although the production of food grains has increased over the
years but experts say it is slowing down. For any programme of food security the rate of growth of food grains must be
above the rate of growth of population. In this context it is important to review the production performance of Indian
agriculture with a view to understand trends and the major constraints in achieving physical access to food.
Production Performance:
It may be recalled that increased availability of food is necessary condition for achieving food security in India. Since
dependence on the imported food grains for long is not desirable. Table- 4 reveals that food grains production in India
which was only 50.82 million tons in 1950-51 doubled in 1969-70 to 108.42 million tons as a result of adoption of HYV
seeds and irrigation popularly known as Green Revolution. In 1980-81 the total food grains production was 129.59 m.
tons that increased to 176.39 million tons in the year 1990-91. After reaching a record level it declined to 196.81mt in the
year 2000-2001. The food grains production at present is at comfortable level but any one or two bad monsoon years may
change the entire scenario.
Table: 4 Agriculture production-Food grains

(Million Tons)
Cereals Pulses Total
Year Rice Wheat Coarse Cereals Total (2 to 4) (5+7)
1952-52 22.90 7.50 19.61 50.01 9.19 59.20
1955-56 27.56 8.76 19.49 55.81 11.04 66.85
1960-61 34.58 11.00 23.74 69.32 12.70 82.02
1965-66 30.59 10.40 21.42 62.41 9.94 72.35
1970-71 42.22 23.83 30.55 96.60 11.82 108.42
1975-76 48.74 28.84 30.41 107.99 13.04 121.03
1980-81 53.63 36.31 29.02 118.96 10.63 129.59
1985-85 63.83 47.05 26.20 137.08 13.36 150.44
1990-91 74.29 55.14 32.70 162.13 14.26 176.39
1995-96 76.98 62.10 29.03 168.11 12.31 180.42
2000-01 84.98 69.68 31.08 185.74 11.07 196.81
2005-06 91.79 69.35 34.06 195.20 13.39 208.59
2010-11 95.32 85.93 42.22 223.47 18.09 241.56
Data for 2010-11 are based on advance estimates
Source: Compiled by the author from the data of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India
Experts are of the opinion that there is a limit to increasing the food grains production through increase in area under
cultivation because the country has already reached a plateau in so far as cultivable land is concerned. The HYV seed
which has been the basis of Green Revolution in seventies has now slowed down. Food grains production increased
annually by 3.22 per cent during fifties mainly because of the area expansion. Sixties recorded a low annual growth rate
of 1.72 per cent and again a growth rate of 2.08 per cent was recorded in seventies. The technological advancement
pushed up the growth rate during eighties and an annual growth rate of 3.5 per cent in food grains production was
witnessed that was above the population growth rate. The growth momentum could not be maintained and during 1990-
91to 2010-11 it again fell to only 1.46 per cent which is much less than the population growth rate.
Table: 5 Annual compound Growth rates of food grains Production
(Base triennium ending 1980-81=100)
(Per cent Per annum)
Crop 1950-51 to 1960-61 to 1970-71 to 1980-81 to 1990-91 to
1959-60 1969-70 1979-80 1989-90 1997-98
Rice 3.28 -8.05 1.91 4.29 1.53
wheat 4.51 5.90 4.69 4.24 3.67
Coarse cereals 2.75 1.48 0.74 0.74 -0.49
Total cereals 3.00 2.51 2.37 3.63 1.84
Pulses 2.72 1.35 -0.54 2.78 0.76
Total food grains 3.22 1.72 2.08 3.54 1.66

In fact, the growth rate of food grain production during the 1990s and thereafter has been close to the annual population
growth rate, which implies a stagnant per capita production level. Further, this growth rate has been achieved with the
strategy popularly known as green revolution with the excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides including heavy
dependence on ground water irrigation. This is dangerous from the point of view of environment. The strategy adopted
in the green revolution period has led to concentration of incremental increases in wheat and rice output and marketed
surplus in few states namely Punjab and Haryana. The revolution was not wide spread in area terms as well as in terms of
crops. In order to take advantage of the large scale procurement for the government PDS programme the political
pressure groups in these states have used the MSP as the remunerative price as there seems to be no correlation between
the price declared by Agricultural Costs and Price Commission and procurement prices.5
The government under pressure of these groups and the demand by the regional political parties have yielded
continuously to fulfil the demands for higher and higher prices to the government purchases what has been referred as
Greed Revolution by the famous agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan. He has drawn our attention towards
environmental problems associated with the recent phase of agriculture due to excessive and unscientific use of
chemical pesticides and fertilizers and ground water. He calls it the exploitative agriculture. This phenomenon of
increased use of water and pesticides is unsustainable and is not in the interest of long term food security for the country.
The declining water availability for irrigation has serious repercussions on food production, demand, trade and prices.
Given the current trends of our water use and water wastage patterns, a severe crisis can evolve in future. All of us know
very well that the biggest user of the water is agriculture sector particularly irrigation, which accounts for nearly 80 per
cent of global water consumption. In developing countries the percentage is even more. So for any policy for food
security should also look into this aspect and should improve the irrigation management. Further the age old traditions
and methods of water conservation strategies to cope up with the adverse consequences should be popularized for any
such contingencies.
Per capita Production and Availability:
When resources (especially Land) and technology constraints limit the aggregate food production, its negative impact on
food security at the household and individual level can be minimized to some extent by the efforts on curtailing
population growth rates within tolerable rates6. Another way to feed the ever growing population is to achieve the higher
fertility rates. Table: 5 presents the data of Yield Per hectare of major food grains in the country. The fertility of wheat
has shown considerable growth from 750 kg/hectare in 1953-54 to 1630 kg/hectare in 1980-81 and to 2281 kg/hectare in
1990-91 and 2708 kg/hectare in 2000-01. The yield per hectare of wheat was 2938 kg/hectare in 2010-11.
Food grain production trends according to major crops indicate non-uniform trends. The substantially higher growth rate
of above 4 per cent experienced for rice during the 1980s has declined to 1.68 per cent during 1990s. Food grain
production has been almost stagnant for more than 10 years and now there is a growing gap between supply and demand
of food grains7.The emerging trends in India’s food grains output can be seen in Figure: 1 output has been fluctuating
sharply.

Fig. 1: Total food grains production from 2000-01 to 2007-08.

Source: Prepared by the authors from the data given
Agricultural situation in India; March 2008

The availability of food grains, derived from the accounting identity involving production levels, stock changes and trade
balance, can be considered as a good estimate of the aggregate consumption, and in spite of the limitations imposed by
the problems in obtaining stock changes. The average daily per capita availability of food grains in 1970s remained
slightly at a lower level than in the 1960s, but the 1980s and 1990s witnessed a moderate improvement in the availability
level8. Remember it also includes the grains spoiled in the warehouses of FCI India. Table -6 presents net availability of
food grains for various years from 1951 to 2010. It also includes data on availability of rice, wheat, other cereals gram
and pulses.
There is an improvement in the per capita net availability of food grains over the decades but one cannot notice any
perceptible upward trend in the net availability. On the contrary what one notices is the YoY variability in the

5 Swaminathan M.S.(1996) “Science and Technology for Sustainable food security”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol.51
No. 1&2 ,pp 60-75
6 P.S.George,” (1999) “Some reflection on Food security in India”, Presidential address delivered at 59 th annual Conference of the

Indian society of Agricultural Economists ,Vol.54, No. 4,

7 Badar alam Iqbal and Theo van Der Merwe”Food Crisis in India (A Review Article)”,Asian Journal of Agricultural Economics
8 P.S.George(1999) op.cit. p 473
 availability. This may be due to fluctuations in area and productivity. During the 1990s both area and yield levels
indicated a reduction in the variability due to increased production and huge stock position with the government.
However it should be emphasized that physical access alone will not ensure the food security unless it is matched by
economic access i.e. the purchasing power with the poor.
TABLE 6: NET AVAILABILITY OF FOOD GRAINS IN INDIA
(Kgs. Per- capita per year)
Years Rice Wheat Other Cereals Cereals Gram Pulses Food grains
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1951 58.0 24.0 40.0 122.0 8.2 22.1 144.1
1956 68.7 22.5 40.7 131.9 10.6 25.7 157.6
1961 73.4 28.9 43.6 145.9 11.0 25.2 171.1
1966 59.1 34.8 37.5 131.4 6.7 17.6 149.0
1971 70.3 37.8 44.3 152.4 7.3 18.7 171.1
1976 68.5 29.1 39.2 13.8 7.4 18.5 155.3
1981 72.2 47.3 32.8 152.3 4.9 13.7 166.0
1985 68.9 50.6 32.1 151.6 4.7 13.9 165.5
1990 77.4 48.4 31.7 157.5 3.9 15.0 172.5
1991 80.9 60.0 29.2 171.0 4.9 15.2 186.2
1992 79.2 57.9 21.5 158.6 3.7 12.5 171.1
1993 73.4 51.2 31.6 156.2 3.9 13.2 169.4
1994 75.7 58.2 24.5 158.4 4.3 13.6 172.0
1995 80.3 63.0 23.7 167.0 5.4 13.8 180.8
1996 74.6 64.3 22.6 161.5 4.1 12.0 173.5
1997 78.1 65.4 26.6 170.1 4.5 13.5 183.6
1998 73.1 55.3 22.8 151.2 4.9 12.0 163.2
1999 74.2 59.2 23.1 156.7 5.3 13.3 170.0
2000 74.3 58.4 21.5 154.3 3.9 11.6 165.9
2001 69.5 49.6 20.5 141.0 2.9 10.9 151.9
2002 83.5 60.8 23.1 167.4 3.9 12.9 180.4
2003 66.2 65.8 17.1 149.1 3.1 10.6 159.7
2004 71.3 59.2 25.3 155.8 4.1 13.1 168.9
2005 64.7 56.3 21.7 142.7 3.9 11.5 154.2
2006 72.3 56.3 22.1 150.7 3.9 11.8 162.5
2007(P) 71.8 57.0 20.8 149.6 4.3 10.7 160.4
Source: Agriculture Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture
Notes: 1 -The net availability of food grains is estimated to be Gross Production (-) seed, feed & wastage, (-) exports (+) imports, (+/-)
change in stocks
To ensure the economic access of the poor the government of India has come up with a very ambitious plan of providing
food at subsidised rates to almost all the population. Government has introduced a National food security Bill in the
Parliament on 22 December 2011 to ensure the adequate safety for 400 million poor. Let us now discuss some salient
features of the bill.
National Food Security Bill:
The Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) —which sets the social agenda for the UPA—had prepared the
initial draft of the Food Security Bill. The salient features of the proposed Bill are:
 The draft Bill that was earlier made public by the food ministry sought to cover up to 90% of the rural population and 50% of urban
households with legal entitlement to subsidised food grains to be extended to nearly 75% of the country’s population.
 The Priority households (46% in rural areas and 28% in urban areas) to have a proposed monthly entitlement of 35 kgs (equivalent to
7kg of food grains per person), at Rs.3 per kg for Rice, Rs. 2 per kg for Wheat and Rs. 1 per kg for Coarse grains.
 The general households (39% in rural and 12% in urban in phase !and 44% rural and 22% urban in final phase) to have a monthly
entitlement of 20 Kgs (equivalent to 4 Kg per person) at a price not exceeding the current minimum support price for millets, wheat
and rice.
 The minimum coverage and entitlement and price to remain unchanged until the end of the XII five year plan.
 The Government of India to specify the criteria for categorization of population into priority and general households.
 Legal entitlements for child and maternal nutrition, destitute and other vulnerable groups
 Reform of Public distribution System.
The following issues need to be resolved to realize the goals of the proposed NFSB:
 Given the current trends in food grain production and government procurement and the likely improvements in these over time, will
there be adequate availability of food grain with the public authorities to implement the full entitlements for the priority and general
category households?
 What will be the impact of such large procurement on the open market prices?
 What are the subsidy implications for both the phases and can these levels be sustained in future
 Arriving at a clear definition of the priority households and general households
 Given the inefficiencies and leakages in the current distribution system, identify the principal areas of reform of PDS and the
alternative mechanisms of reaching the target households.
The food grains requirement would go up to 63.98 million tonnes (million tons) in the final phase. The NFSB proposed
by NAC is a revolutionary Bill with almost universal coverage. The Bill will have huge impact on the economy. Indian
agriculture is highly dependent on Monsoon God. During drought years production falls significantly in such
eventualities the government will have to be dependent on the imports. As a result of this bill there will be sharp increase
in the procurement of wheat and rice which may adversely affect the open market prices of food grains. Now let us have
a look at the Procurement, off take and stocks of the wheat and rice under public distribution system in our country.
Table: 7 Public Distribution System – Procurement, Off-take and Stocks
(Million Tons)
Procurement Off-take Stocks
Year Rice Wheat Total Rice Wheat Total Rice Wheat Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1980-81 5.34 5.86 11.20 5.88 7.51 13.39 6.69 3.07 9.87
1985-86 9.62 10.35 19.97 7.40 11.72 19.12 10.34 10.21 20.75
1990-91 12.92 11.07 23.99 7.91 8.58 16.49 10.21 5.60 15.81
1995-96 9.93 12.33 22.16 11.63 12.72 24.35 13.06 7076 20.82
2000-01 18.93 16.36 35.29 10.42 7.79 18.21 23.19 21.50 44.98
2005-06 26.69 14.79 41.48 25.08 17.17 42.25 13.68 2.01 16.62
2010-11 31.13 25.92 56.79 29.80 23.07 52.87 28.82 15.36 44.35
Data for 2010-11 are based on advance estimates
Source: Compiled by the author from the data of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India

In addition to the physical food grain requirement, the proposed bill has large subsidy implications. The total subsidy out
go is expected to be much higher than the government projections. Again, the extra food grains required for the
distribution will have to be produced either through area expansion or through productivity growth. The production cost
to the government will have to be added in the subsidy cost to know the total financial burden to the government.
According to an estimate, If Parliament passes the Bill, the food subsidy bill is expected to rise by Rs. 27,663 crore at
nearly Rs. 95,000 crore only in the first year of the implementation of the Bill. The production cost of producing extra 20
to 25 million tons of food grains has been estimated at Rs. 1,10,600 crore.
If the extra food grains required for is produced through an area expansion the problem is that the arable land is
shrinking. ISRO mapping shows 81 million hectare has undergone desertification. India has net sown area of 140 million
hectare only and there is ever growing pressure of urbanisation and land going to non-agricultural uses. The food
corporation of India has limited storage capacity and every year lakhs of tons of food grains is destroyed due to open
storage. The cost of inefficiencies of FCI will further cause problems for the authorities.
Again if the food grains required is produced through the gain in productivity the trend witnessed do not favour the
argument. Already the Per-capita availability of food grains has started showing a declining trend. In the year 2000 the
per-capita availability of rice was 203.7 grams per day while that of wheat was 160 gms per day. The availability has
declined by 2009 to 188.4 gms and 154.7 gms respectively. A number of measures will have to be taken to increase the
food grains production.
The present food security system in India is marked by strange paradoxes 9. Under this system the relatively affluent
farmers in the better of irrigated areas are given incentives in the form of a high and rising support price. The
Procurement and distribution of food grains involves a subsidy and it is believed to go not to the consumers of PDS
grains but to make good the losses incurred by the FCI. PDS has remained untargeted for years and even today the
benefits do not reach the targeted population. It can also be easily seen that poor seem to prefer to purchase food grains in
the open market despite all government efforts. The system originated as a response to a critical food crisis and it works
well in the situation of crisis. Rao further mentions if earnestly implemented liberalization could enable the food security
system to much more effectively help the poor at much less cost. The food security system has to aim at three objectives:
 Keeping the aggregate production at or above the level necessary for self sufficiency
 Reducing the instability in food grain markets
 Making dependable arrangements for helping the poor to get adequate access to food
Regarding the first two objectives mentioned above, they may be better served by phasing out the government
interventions rather than by continuing the present price support cum procurement operations. Given the recent strong

9V.M. Rao (1996), Policy Research for Liberalized Agriculture: Some illustrative Research Areas, Indian Journal of Agricultural
economics, Vol.51 No.1&2, Jan-Jun. pp. 138
and broad based trend in production of food grains and its likely continuance it makes little economic sense to continue
with a highly centralised and subsidized arrangements for procuring large quantities of food grains in one corner of the
country, to store them for long periods often in the open in the absence of storage space and to move them over long
distances for distribution to consumers who appears to be increasingly turning to the market for meeting their
requirements.
Again this system is confined to rice and wheat- has hardly much relevance in stabilising the food grains markets which
comprise besides rice and wheat coarse cereals and pulses marked by considerable instability in prices. So long as the
production and supply situation continues to be comfortable, the best policy would be to leave the markets free and
gradually diminish the present large scale procurement operations. FCI may be allowed to work as an autonomous
company on commercial principles but during the time of draught/crisis it should take control of the entire system.
Regarding the third objective, viz., making dependable arrangements to ensure adequate access to food for the poor, it is
necessary to keep the following points about the PDS in mind:
The families purchase part of their requirements from the open market. Sharma (1995) Indrakant (1995) Rao (1996)
Radhakrishna (1996) find a number of poor depends totally on market. It would be necessary to find out how far the poor
turn to the market because of absence of PDS or its poor quality and how far due to positive preference?. It would also be
important to know how is the grain purchased by the poor from the market is utilised.
The NSS data on consumer expenditure indicates that over the recent years the lowest three deciles of the population
rural as well as urban have increased the consumption of non-food grains food items like milk edible oil sugar and Gur
and other food while their consumption for cereals has remained unchanged or even declined. There are reports that
upper strata among the poor tries to catch up the consumption pattern of the strata above them. Such people may sale off
the PDS grains in the open market to finance their purchases on non-food grain items below the price of their purchase.
Some members of the family may sale the grain to finance their liquor consumption or the consumption of tobacco
products.
The PDS and food security provisions therefore need to design in such a way to prevent such types of misappropriations.
The present thinking of issuing the Smart Card to the beneficiary of the scheme of Cash Transfer may simply assure
that the food grains reaches in the hands of the targeted beneficiary. The beneficiary in the target group should be
classified on the basis of the ownership of assets as (a)asset rich-income poor (b) asset poor-income poor (c) asset less-
income poor. The first target should be the third category of beneficiaries. This group is most vulnerable and also most
careless. They simply does not care for themselves and also misuse the benefits by reckless expenditure pattern. This is
the only reason for their not having any productive asset. If cash benefits are transferred to them they may misuse use it
for financing their bad habits. If the beneficiary himself is misusing the benefits who is going to stop them and how? One
possible way is to give this responsibility to the Panchayati Raj Institutions at local level. It is believed that the
decentralisation will make the system more transparent and the active participation of the needy poor will definitely
improve the food security system meant for them. Another suggestion may be that such beneficiaries should be provided
with the benefits in group through a scheme like mid-day meal so that any one person may not spoil the scheme.
Thus at last it can be concluded that the concepts of Poverty and hunger (including APL/BPL) need to be clearly defined.
It is a matter of great concern that even today the Government does not have any acceptable definition of these concepts.
The international agencies working on these themes may not provide us a clear understanding of these concepts. There
are so many areas where we will have to do the serious research. I am of the considered opinion that the over
centralisation of the administration is not going to provide us any relief therefore the local problems should have local
solution. The burden of the inefficiencies of the government functionaries and machineries should not be subsidised by
the public money. Either a government intervention should be helpful or else it should quit quietly. The market is
efficient and it will take care of poor in much more efficient way than government.
__________________________
* Presidential Address at the 33rd Annual conference of the Rajasthan Economic Association 18th January, 2013 at Jai Naraian Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
** Retired Professor and Head, Department of Economics, Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Kota, Rajasthan presently working as Director,
School of Distance Education and Learning, Jaipur National University, Jaipur.

End Notes:
i The recommendations of the Working Groupwere not published until Dec. 1974when a four paragraph recommendations were found

in a footnote to a document of the perspective planning divisionof the planning commission prepares in August 1962 and published
in 1974 in Srinivasan,T.N. and Bardhan, P.K. (1974) “Poverty and Income Distribution in India’ Statistical Publishing Society, Calcutta.
From this foot note the public came to know for the first time that while the Group recommended Rs. 20/- per capita per month as
the national minimum it sadded that because of higher prices this minimum should be Rs. 25/- per capitsa per monthfor urban India.
ii
On calorie requirement, the Report says: “…the revised minimum calorie norm for India recommended by the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) is currently around 1800 calories per capita per day, which is very close to the average calorie intake of those
near the poverty line in urban areas (1776 calories per capita).”
iii This is the authentic voice of the poor in India.

Address
Prof. M.K.Ghadoliya. Director, JNU,Jaipur 302017