Background :-

The recent diplomatic engagements that played over a month upto the Seoul Plenary session of NSG and the subsequent developments has been at the center stage of Indian media.The consequence of India not getting a membership of NSG has been disappointing.However , while many have lauded the diplomatic pursuations few have criticized it on the basis of outcome. In this regard, here is our analysis of the issue :-

India has already got NSG waiver , so should we worry about membership ?

Ans– In this regard, there was an article that reads “India’s obsession with NSG” , although we have not gone through the entire article , it is quite indicative of its stance from the heading itself.The question is should India be obsessed with NSG ?

To answer the above question , we have been deliberating why and why not , however one of our UPSCTREE core member pointed out a very good arguments in this regard:-

“It is always better to be inside the room that takes decisions and makes policies than to be an outside of its door , waiting for the outcome”

So , in this ground , it is always better to be on the decision making table , becasue that changes the whole game altogether and most importantly , one will have a say in the decision making process –  which is as important as the outcome of the decision itself.

In a nutshell, yes, India should put its all weight to get things done diplomatically and more so to get NSG membership.

The next question is the way the diplomatic engagement was launched and the way media played it out as if it is a do or die situation.

Ans :- In this regard, we firmly believe that every action that one pursues should be a do or die situation.Because there should not be regret afterwards that we have not done enough.That’s a regret one can not afford- whether preparing for an exam or getting a membership.

In this context , India did manage to punch above its weight , the outcome are indicative of it.

What are the lessons from the outcome ?

Here is the list :-

  1. India managed  diplomatically pursue the matter and made enough noise about it, which is good.Noises are good in geopolitik , becasue right noise builds right perception and India’s geopolitics profile has only increased after this.
  2. The outcome clearly indicated who are our friends and who are our foes- pretty clearly.Which is good , becasue , then one knows who the foes are and how to fight it- you can not win a fight if you don’t know the opponent.We now know who is who and policy can be calibrated accordingly.
  3. The fact that all the major countries – 38 out of 48 out-rightly supported India , where as 9 remained neutral and one played the spoil-sport indicates India’s international importance.
  4. Moreover , nothing is stronger than an Idea whose time has come .India’s time has come , and it is just a matter of time.
  5. If one delves in to the philosophical angel of this question, Indian philosophy gives importance to work than outcome.Work is in our control , not the results- so working hard is not a bad thing.Means are as important as ends ,in diplomacy one should not only be judged by outcome but also by the means.
  6. Disappointment on the outcome is fine , but  to be disheartened due to the outcome is neither necessary nor required.Diplomacy is a subtle art , everyone will pay their debt and everyone will get their credit – history stands testament to it.
  7. To blame the diplomats for putting all the effort is a no-brainer.The outcome is not the result of this particular endeavor, it has it’s past too.History clouds the judgements and has its way to influence geopolitics.Why China did what it did becomes obvious if we look at our past clearly.The efforts are new but the outcome is old.

Interestingly, the MEA has put a public statement saying that it will be difficult for India to implement Paris climate agreement as it hits NSG roadbloack.

 

Here is an article that explains rather clearly why China did what it did ?We are publishing it as is-

Editorial :-

If reports emanating from Seoul, where NSG plenary session was held on June23-24, are to be believed, India’s request for membership was turned down despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of 38 out of 48 member countries favoured India’s inclusion into the group. Nine other members were not against India’s inclusion but they wanted clear-cut criteria to be put in place simultaneously for inclusion of non-NPT signatories like New Delhi.

However, there was one country which was dead against India’s inclusion and it was none other than  China, India’s arch-rival in Asia as well as one of the two neighbours with whom India had fought an overt and full-fledged war in the past.

Despite the strenuous efforts of Ministry of External Affairs and its diplomats, China refused to budge an inch from its stand. In fact, it was not even ready to discuss India’s case in Seoul. Facing tremendous pressure from other member states, it agreed for a discussion reportedly on the condition that India will not be granted membership, at least in this session.

Even the much-touted ‘personal touch’ diplomacy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi , who met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on June 23 and pleaded for Chinese support, failed to work or break the ice.

Not only that, Chinese even refused to pay any heed to the sane advices that came from common friends like Russia and France. The US also tried its best to persuade China, although not at the same level they had worked phones in 2008 to ensure one time waiver for US-India civil nuclear deal, but to no avail.

Since NSG as a group takes all decisions through consensus, China’s strident anti-India posture ensured that New Delhi was denied entry into NSG, at least for the time being. China, obviously, played the spoilsport for India.

In international diplomacy, these things are neither unusual nor unheard of. It is only natural that  a big group rather a cartel like 48-member NSG will take its own time before it arrives at a consensus on an issue which generates diverse viewpoints and opinions.

However, what has baffled observers is the obduracy with which China publicly took an anti-India stand this time. It’s a fact that even in 2008, China was not in favour of the India-specific favour but it had preferred not to go public with its opposition. At that time, Chinese relented after the then US President George Bush personally called up the then Chinese President Hu Jintao.

In fact, NSG is not the first instance in the recent times when China has taken an anti-India position.

On April 1, 2016, it had blocked an UN Security Council move to blacklist Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar who India has accused of masterminding the Pathankot airbase attack.

What has changed since 2008 that has forced China to take an unambiguous anti-India stand on international forums like NSG and UNSC?

In fact, there are a host of issues and developments that has made China wary of India’s rising international profile.

In Seoul, China objected to India’s NSG entry  on the ground that New Delhi is yet to sign the NPT but in reality, the NPT was just a fig leaf that Beijing used to thwart India’s candidature.

Despite being a NPT signatory, China’s own record on proliferation – from Pakistan, North Korea and Iran – is pathetic.

The actual reasons behind China’s anti-India hostilities go beyond NPT. In fact, they have nothing to do with NPT.

Let’s have a look at some of these factors:

1. China’s growing unease over deepening Indo-US military ties

It’s an open secret that China has always been suspicious of deepening military ties between India and the United States.

China believes that through these military tie-ups, United States is trying to prop up India as Beijing’s  counterweight in Asia-pacific reason.

China did not hide its concern over the recent Indo-US logistics exchange agreement under which militaries of India and the US can use each other’s assets and bases.

US willingness to sell India cutting-edge military hardware including local manufacturing of F-16 fighter jets has further added to the Chinese fears.

The recent statement of an US official that Washington will do everything to boost India’s naval power has been seen by China as yet another American attempt to undermine and challenge its strategic interests in Indian ocean region.

China knows that it can’t stop two sovereign nations from engaging into military cooperation but its frustration over its helplessness is now getting manifested in its increasingly anti-India posturing on international platforms.

2. Beijing’s fears on Indo-US interference in South China sea dispute

China’s construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands have been objected to  by many countries. In fact, China has faced resistance on this issue from time to time by many countries including Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia.

The dispute also involves clash of interest between different nations on issues like acquiring fishing areas, the potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas under the waters of various parts of the South China Sea, and the strategic control of important shipping lanes.

The United States has openly opposed the Chinese move and India has also started calling for restraint and peaceful resolution of the dispute.

The two countries have started mentioning South China Sea in joint statements recently although during last  US visit of Modi, the two sides deliberately omitted the topic given the fact that India was hopeful of Chinese support on NSG issue.

China sees a design in India and US taking a similar line on South China Sea dispute  and considers it a ploy to curtail its influence in the region

3. China alarmed over India’s military ties with its adversaries like Japan and Vietnam  

The recent reports of India trying to sell supersonic BrahMos missile to Vietnam has also alarmed China. Some media reports have also pointed out that Vietnam has expressed keen interest in Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas as well.

The growing military ties between India and Japan have further annoyed china. Much to China’s discomfort, India, Japan and US are regularly holding naval exercise, Malabar 2016 being the latest one.

Obviously, China is not taking these military moves kindly.

4. Not ready to welcome New Delhi on big table and de-hyphenate India and Pakistan

China does not want India to emerge as a rival power in Asia and as part of the strategy, it wants India to remain bogged down with Pakistan.

That’s one reason why China encouraged Pakistan to apply for NSG membership just after a week India moved its application.

China knows that as long as India is forced to compete with Pakistan on international platforms, it can’t acquire the respect to claim a seat on the table meant for big powers.

5. Chinese concern over aggressive diplomacy of PM Modi in neighbourhood

China is also looking with suspicion at the aggressive diplomatic posturing of PM Modi.

The recent Chabahar port agreement between India and Iran has also ruffled the Chinese feathers.

Chinese believe that Indian presence in the neighbourhood of Gwadar port (that it is developing in Pakistan) may also give a foothold to Americans as the two countries now share a logistics exchange agreement.

PM Modi’s outreach to countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Qatar and Afghanistan has further raised the eyebrows of the Chinese.  It is concerned over the impact of India’s new aggressive diplomacy over its client state Pakistan.

Should India retaliate against China?

India’s attempt to get entry into NSG may have failed this time but this is not end of the road for New Delhi.

As the Americans have pointed out, the process has begun and India may get the membership by end of this year. The American official pointed out that even in the case of India’s MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) application, the members deliberated upon it for nearly a year and then arrived at a conclusion.

There have been suggestions that India should curtail trade opportunities for Chinese as a retaliatory measure but there is no unanimity among experts on that.

“This will be very immature. In international diplomacy, ups and downs are part and parcel of the game. Even Chinese have faced similar situations. There is no need for any knee-jerk reactions,” former diplomat TCA Rangachari pointed out.

Ambassador Rangachari is not the only one who advises against any knee-jerk reaction from India. Former diplomat Kishan S. Rana agrees with him.

“ It’s true that China is opposing India’s NSG bid and wants to support Pakistan on this issue. But we have to take every call with a cool mind,”  Ambassador Kishan S. Rana said.

On their part, both India and China look to keep each other engaged both bilaterally as well as on multilateral platforms.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be travelling to Hangchou in September to attend G20 summit while Chinese President Xi Jinping is coming to India in October to attend BRICS summit.

That India will be finally included in the NSG club is almost certain but whether Chinese will fall in line easily or will delay India’s entry for a longer duration remains to be seen.


 

 

 

Share is Caring, Choose Your Platform!

Receive Daily Updates

Stay updated with current events, tests, material and UPSC related news

Recent Posts

  • Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.

    Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.

    The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.

    Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.

    In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.

    Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.

    “Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.

    India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.

    With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.

    They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.

    India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.

    As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices

    The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).

    The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.

    Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):

    a)Base Price

    39

    b)Freight

    0.34

    c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b)

    39.34

    d) Excise Duty

    40.17

    e) Dealer Commission

    4.68

    f) VAT

    25.35

    g) Retail Selling Price

    109.54

     

    Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.

    So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?

    India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.

    However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.

    That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.

    Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.

    Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.

    But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.

  • Globally, around 80% of wastewater flows back into the ecosystem without being treated or reused, according to the United Nations.

    This can pose a significant environmental and health threat.

    In the absence of cost-effective, sustainable, disruptive water management solutions, about 70% of sewage is discharged untreated into India’s water bodies.

    A staggering 21% of diseases are caused by contaminated water in India, according to the World Bank, and one in five children die before their fifth birthday because of poor sanitation and hygiene conditions, according to Startup India.

    As we confront these public health challenges emerging out of environmental concerns, expanding the scope of public health/environmental engineering science becomes pivotal.

    For India to achieve its sustainable development goals of clean water and sanitation and to address the growing demands for water consumption and preservation of both surface water bodies and groundwater resources, it is essential to find and implement innovative ways of treating wastewater.

    It is in this context why the specialised cadre of public health engineers, also known as sanitation engineers or environmental engineers, is best suited to provide the growing urban and rural water supply and to manage solid waste and wastewater.

    Traditionally, engineering and public health have been understood as different fields.

    Currently in India, civil engineering incorporates a course or two on environmental engineering for students to learn about wastewater management as a part of their pre-service and in-service training.

    Most often, civil engineers do not have adequate skills to address public health problems. And public health professionals do not have adequate engineering skills.

     

    India aims to supply 55 litres of water per person per day by 2024 under its Jal Jeevan Mission to install functional household tap connections.

    The goal of reaching every rural household with functional tap water can be achieved in a sustainable and resilient manner only if the cadre of public health engineers is expanded and strengthened.

    In India, public health engineering is executed by the Public Works Department or by health officials.

    This differs from international trends. To manage a wastewater treatment plant in Europe, for example, a candidate must specialise in wastewater engineering. 

    Furthermore, public health engineering should be developed as an interdisciplinary field. Engineers can significantly contribute to public health in defining what is possible, identifying limitations, and shaping workable solutions with a problem-solving approach.

    Similarly, public health professionals can contribute to engineering through well-researched understanding of health issues, measured risks and how course correction can be initiated.

    Once both meet, a public health engineer can identify a health risk, work on developing concrete solutions such as new health and safety practices or specialised equipment, in order to correct the safety concern..

     

    There is no doubt that the majority of diseases are water-related, transmitted through consumption of contaminated water, vectors breeding in stagnated water, or lack of adequate quantity of good quality water for proper personal hygiene.

    Diseases cannot be contained unless we provide good quality and  adequate quantity of water. Most of the world’s diseases can be prevented by considering this.

    Training our young minds towards creating sustainable water management systems would be the first step.

    Currently, institutions like the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT-M) are considering initiating public health engineering as a separate discipline.

    To leverage this opportunity even further, India needs to scale up in the same direction.

    Consider this hypothetical situation: Rajalakshmi, from a remote Karnataka village spots a business opportunity.

    She knows that flowers, discarded in the thousands by temples can be handcrafted into incense sticks.

    She wants to find a market for the product and hopefully, employ some people to help her. Soon enough though, she discovers that starting a business is a herculean task for a person like her.

    There is a laborious process of rules and regulations to go through, bribes to pay on the way and no actual means to transport her product to its market.

    After making her first batch of agarbathis and taking it to Bengaluru by bus, she decides the venture is not easy and gives up.

    On the flipside of this is a young entrepreneur in Bengaluru. Let’s call him Deepak. He wants to start an internet-based business selling sustainably made agarbathis.

    He has no trouble getting investors and to mobilise supply chains. His paperwork is over in a matter of days and his business is set up quickly and ready to grow.

    Never mind that the business is built on aggregation of small sellers who will not see half the profit .

    Is this scenario really all that hypothetical or emblematic of how we think about entrepreneurship in India?

    Between our national obsession with unicorns on one side and glorifying the person running a pakora stall for survival as an example of viable entrepreneurship on the other, is the middle ground in entrepreneurship—a space that should have seen millions of thriving small and medium businesses, but remains so sparsely occupied that you could almost miss it.

    If we are to achieve meaningful economic growth in our country, we need to incorporate, in our national conversation on entrepreneurship, ways of addressing the missing middle.

    Spread out across India’s small towns and cities, this is a class of entrepreneurs that have been hit by a triple wave over the last five years, buffeted first by the inadvertent fallout of demonetization, being unprepared for GST, and then by the endless pain of the covid-19 pandemic.

    As we finally appear to be reaching some level of normality, now is the opportune time to identify the kind of industries that make up this layer, the opportunities they should be afforded, and the best ways to scale up their functioning in the shortest time frame.

    But, why pay so much attention to these industries when we should be celebrating, as we do, our booming startup space?

    It is indeed true that India has the third largest number of unicorns in the world now, adding 42 in 2021 alone. Braving all the disruptions of the pandemic, it was a year in which Indian startups raised $24.1 billion in equity investments, according to a NASSCOM-Zinnov report last year.

    However, this is a story of lopsided growth.

    The cities of Bengaluru, Delhi/NCR, and Mumbai together claim three-fourths of these startup deals while emerging hubs like Ahmedabad, Coimbatore, and Jaipur account for the rest.

    This leap in the startup space has created 6.6 lakh direct jobs and a few million indirect jobs. Is that good enough for a country that sends 12 million fresh graduates to its workforce every year?

    It doesn’t even make a dent on arguably our biggest unemployment in recent history—in April 2020 when the country shutdown to battle covid-19.

    Technology-intensive start-ups are constrained in their ability to create jobs—and hybrid work models and artificial intelligence (AI) have further accelerated unemployment. 

    What we need to focus on, therefore, is the labour-intensive micro, small and medium enterprise (MSME). Here, we begin to get to a definitional notion of what we called the mundane middle and the problems it currently faces.

    India has an estimated 63 million enterprises. But, out of 100 companies, 95 are micro enterprises—employing less than five people, four are small to medium and barely one is large.

    The questions to ask are: why are Indian MSMEs failing to grow from micro to small and medium and then be spurred on to make the leap into large companies?

     

    At the Global Alliance for Mass Entrepreneurship (GAME), we have advocated for a National Mission for Mass Entrepreneurship, the need for which is more pronounced now than ever before.

    Whenever India has worked to achieve a significant economic milestone in a limited span of time, it has worked best in mission mode. Think of the Green Revolution or Operation Flood.

    From across various states, there are enough examples of approaches that work to catalyse mass entrepreneurship.

    The introduction of entrepreneurship mindset curriculum (EMC) in schools through alliance mode of working by a number of agencies has shown significant improvement in academic and life outcomes.

    Through creative teaching methods, students are encouraged to inculcate 21st century skills like creativity, problem solving, critical thinking and leadership which are not only foundational for entrepreneurship but essential to thrive in our complex world.

    Udhyam Learning Foundation has been involved with the Government of Delhi since 2018 to help young people across over 1,000 schools to develop an entrepreneurial mindset.

    One pilot programme introduced the concept of ‘seed money’ and saw 41 students turn their ideas into profit-making ventures. Other programmes teach qualities like grit and resourcefulness.

    If you think these are isolated examples, consider some larger data trends.

    The Observer Research Foundation and The World Economic Forum released the Young India and Work: A Survey of Youth Aspirations in 2018.

    When asked which type of work arrangement they prefer, 49% of the youth surveyed said they prefer a job in the public sector.

    However, 38% selected self-employment as an entrepreneur as their ideal type of job. The spirit of entrepreneurship is latent and waiting to be unleashed.

    The same can be said for building networks of successful women entrepreneurs—so crucial when the participation of women in the Indian economy has declined to an abysmal 20%.

    The majority of India’s 63 million firms are informal —fewer than 20% are registered for GST.

    Research shows that companies that start out as formal enterprises become two-three times more productive than a similar informal business.

    So why do firms prefer to be informal? In most cases, it’s because of the sheer cost and difficulty of complying with the different regulations.

    We have academia and non-profits working as ecosystem enablers providing insights and evidence-based models for growth. We have large private corporations and philanthropic and funding agencies ready to invest.

    It should be in the scope of a National Mass Entrepreneurship Mission to bring all of them together to work in mission mode so that the gap between thought leadership and action can finally be bridged.

     

    Heat wave is a condition of air temperature which becomes fatal to human body when exposed. Often times, it is defined based on the temperature thresholds over a region in terms of actual temperature or its departure from normal.

    Heat wave is considered if maximum temperature of a station reaches at least 400C or more for Plains and at least 300C or more for Hilly regions.

    a) Based on Departure from Normal
    Heat Wave: Departure from normal is 4.50C to 6.40C
    Severe Heat Wave: Departure from normal is >6.40C

    b) Based on Actual Maximum Temperature

    Heat Wave: When actual maximum temperature ≥ 450C

    Severe Heat Wave: When actual maximum temperature ≥470C

    If above criteria met at least in 2 stations in a Meteorological sub-division for at least two consecutive days and it declared on the second day

     

    It is occurring mainly during March to June and in some rare cases even in July. The peak month of the heat wave over India is May.

    Heat wave generally occurs over plains of northwest India, Central, East & north Peninsular India during March to June.

    It covers Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, parts of Maharashtra & Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telengana.

    Sometimes it occurs over Tamilnadu & Kerala also.

    Heat waves adversely affect human and animal lives.

    However, maximum temperatures more than 45°C observed mainly over Rajasthan and Vidarbha region in month of May.

     

     

    a. Transportation / Prevalence of hot dry air over a region (There should be a region of warm dry air and appropriate flow pattern for transporting hot air over the region).

    b. Absence of moisture in the upper atmosphere (As the presence of moisture restricts the temperature rise).

    c. The sky should be practically cloudless (To allow maximum insulation over the region).

    d. Large amplitude anti-cyclonic flow over the area.

    Heat waves generally develop over Northwest India and spread gradually eastwards & southwards but not westwards (since the prevailing winds during the season are westerly to northwesterly).

     

    The health impacts of Heat Waves typically involve dehydration, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and/or heat stroke. The signs and symptoms are as follows:
    1. Heat Cramps: Ederna (swelling) and Syncope (Fainting) generally accompanied by fever below 39*C i.e.102*F.
    2. Heat Exhaustion: Fatigue, weakness, dizziness, headache, nausea, vomiting, muscle cramps and sweating.
    3. Heat Stoke: Body temperatures of 40*C i.e. 104*F or more along with delirium, seizures or coma. This is a potential fatal condition.

     


     

    Norman Borlaug and MS Swaminathan in a wheat field in north India in March 1964

    Political independence does not have much meaning without economic independence.

    One of the important indicators of economic independence is self-sufficiency in food grain production.

    The overall food grain scenario in India has undergone a drastic transformation in the last 75 years.

    India was a food-deficit country on the eve of Independence. It had to import foodgrains to feed its people.

    The situation became more acute during the 1960s. The imported food had to be sent to households within the shortest possible time.

    The situation was referred to as ‘ship to mouth’.

    Presently, Food Corporation of India (FCI) godowns are overflowing with food grain stocks and the Union government is unable to ensure remunerative price to the farmers for their produce.

    This transformation, however, was not smooth.

    In the 1960s, it was disgraceful, but unavoidable for the Prime Minister of India to go to foreign countries with a begging bowl.

    To avoid such situations, the government motivated agricultural scientists to make India self-sufficient in food grain production.

    As a result, high-yield varieties (HYV) were developed. The combination of seeds, water and fertiliser gave a boost to food grain production in the country which is generally referred to as the Green Revolution.

    The impact of the Green Revolution, however, was confined to a few areas like Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh in the north and (unified) Andhra Pradesh in the south.

    Most of the remaining areas were deficit in food grain production.

    Therefore the Union government had to procure food grain from surplus states to distribute it among deficit ones.

    At the time, farmers in the surplus states viewed procurement as a tax as they were prevented from selling their surplus foodgrains at high prices in the deficit states.

    As production of food grains increased, there was decentralisation of procurement. State governments were permitted to procure grain to meet their requirement.

    The distribution of food grains was left to the concerned state governments.

    Kerala, for instance, was totally a deficit state and had to adopt a distribution policy which was almost universal in nature.

    Some states adopted a vigorous public distribution system (PDS) policy.

    It is not out of place to narrate an interesting incident regarding food grain distribution in Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in the early 1980s implemented a highly subsidised rice scheme under which poor households were given five kilograms of rice per person per month, subject to a ceiling of 25 kilograms at Rs 2 per kg. The state government required two million tonnes of rice to implement the scheme. But it received only on one million tonne from the Union government.

    The state government had to purchase another million tonne of rice from rice millers in the state at a negotiated price, which was higher than the procurement price offered by the Centre, but lower than the open market price.

    A large number of studies have revealed that many poor households have been excluded from the PDS network, while many undeserving households have managed to get benefits from it.

    Various policy measures have been implemented to streamline PDS. A revamped PDS was introduced in 1992 to make food grain easily accessible to people in tribal and hilly areas, by providing relatively higher subsidies.

    Targeted PDS was launched in 1997 to focus on households below the poverty line (BPL).

    Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) was introduced to cover the poorest of the poor.

    Annapoorna Scheme was introduced in 2001 to distribute 10 kg of food grains free of cost to destitutes above the age of 65 years.

    In 2013, the National Food Security Act (NFSA) was passed by Parliament to expand and legalise the entitlement.

    Conventionally, a card holder has to go to a particular fair price shop (FPS) and that particular shop has to be open when s/he visits it. Stock must be available in the shop. The card holder should also have sufficient time to stand in the queue to purchase his quota. The card holder has to put with rough treatment at the hands of a FPS dealer.

    These problems do not exist once ration cards become smart cards. A card holder can go to any shop which is open and has available stocks. In short, the scheme has become card holder-friendly and curbed the monopoly power of the FPS dealer. Some states other than Chhattisgarh are also trying to introduce such a scheme on an experimental basis.

    More recently, the Government of India has introduced a scheme called ‘One Nation One Ration Card’ which enables migrant labourers to purchase  rations from the place where they reside. In August 2021, it was operational in 34 states and Union territories.

    The intentions of the scheme are good but there are some hurdles in its implementation which need to be addressed. These problems arise on account of variation in:

    • Items provided through FPS
    • The scale of rations
    • The price of items distributed through FPS across states. 

    It is not clear whether a migrant labourer gets items provided in his/her native state or those in the state s/he has migrated to and what prices will s/he be able to purchase them.

    The Centre must learn lessons from the experiences of different countries in order to make PDS sustainable in the long-run.

    For instance, Sri Lanka recently shifted to organic manure from chemical fertiliser without required planning. Consequently, it had to face an acute food shortage due to a shortage of organic manure.

    Some analysts have cautioned against excessive dependence on chemical fertiliser.

    Phosphorus is an important input in the production of chemical fertiliser and about 70-80 per cent of known resources of phosphorus are available only in Morocco.

    There is possibility that Morocco may manipulate the price of phosphorus.

    Providing excessive subsidies and unemployment relief may make people dependent, as in the case of Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

    It is better to teach a person how to catch a fish rather than give free fish to him / her.

    Hence, the government should give the right amount of subsidy to deserving people.

    The government has to increase livestock as in the case of Uruguay to make the food basket broad-based and nutritious. It has to see to it that the organic content in the soil is adequate, in order to make cultivation environmentally-friendly and sustainable in the long-run.

    In short, India has transformed from a food-deficit state to a food-surplus one 75 years after independence. However, the government must adopt environmental-friendly measures to sustain this achievement.