Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
Channels Astrology | Cricket | Tenders | Classified | Blogs | Shopping | Opinions | Hotel| Travel
You are here: IE »   Story

Change the PDS, don’t save it

3 Comments | Post Comment
FontLarger | Smaller
  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
    • Milind Murugkar Tags : food security law, milindmurugkar, column Posted: Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 at 0057 hrs

    The food security law is the government’s response to sustained, painstaking and zealous campaigns from dedicated social activists, a series of efforts that deserve nothing less than complete respect. But expecting empowerment of the poor through a law that does not fundamentally reform the present system is misplaced idealism.

    The writer is a policy researcher associated with Pragati Abhiyan express@expressindia.com

    Single Page Format
    Previous123
    Comments
    Post comment
    View all Comments (3) |
    response to MILIND MURGUKAR article dated 17-06-2009 on food securityBy: rajiv sharma | 18-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward why can't the govt. pay markit price of wheat/rice minus 3ruppees in cash in place of food grain to BPL families.payments can be directly credited to bank account of the concerned in order to root out any malpractice. this will not only check leakages/corruption but also stop fall of price levelof wheat and rice. moreover,more liquidity with the BPL families may create demand for other articles and check recession or create employment.
    Response to RohitBy: Milind Murugkar | 17-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward Rohit,if we try to keep food prices low, then the rural economy in general is adversely affected.Majority of the poor in India are directly or indirectly dependednt on agriculture. Suppressing the food prices hurts them. So the government should protect the poor consumers by providing them effective food subsidy cover and then allow the farmers to benefit from rising food prices.Milind
    Subsidy = more avenues for cheatersBy: Rohit | 17-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward The author is right in saying that this scheme will hurt more than heal. Better would be to have a price differential that's too small for racketeers or no subsidy at all (sell rice/wheat to all irrespective of rich/poor at a single low price - there won't be any hoarding by the rich or by shopkeepers who simply won't be able to sell it at a different price). However given our country's history the govt. has always created a rich-poor divide by way of subsidies. It basically asks the poor to remain poor by making things cheap, opens avenues for black marketing, and fundametally gets it wrong every time - it attacks the symptom rather than the cause. What's wrong with having flat food prices so cheap that even the poor can afford it? Will the rich eat more? No - in fact this will result in every one getting food and reduction in black marketeering.
    Post a Comment
    View all Comments (3)
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.