Ranchi/Palamau: Death of Ramcharan Munda raises serious question for the government and district officials. However, they [officials] denied that it was a hunger death and emphasising on other benefits being served to the families, including ration card, pension scheme and Ayushman Bharat etc, while, Amitabh Kaushal, secretary of the food and civil supplies department has asked the deputy commissioner of Latehar along with other officials to explain the noncompliance of the guidelines of the National Food Security Act in the district.
Although, the state food and civil supplies minister Saryu Rai, who had arrived at Latehar and also rejected the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the district administration and asked the Latehar DC to initiate a fresh probe as per the protocol for conducting investigations into suspected hunger deaths. The minister had also taken strong exception to the fact that the autopsy of the deceased was not conducted and opined that the body be exhumed for the same. The minister conceded that the area where the old man died belonged to the offline category and that ration should have been distributed at all cost.
Apart from the above, there are few cases have been reported in the state i.e. death of two other deceased persons can be added, Lalji Mahto [70], of Narayanpur, Jamtara district, alleged that he didn't receive pension for three months, Rajendra Birhor [40] of Mandu Ramgarh etc.
A considerable proportion of the grain, mainly wheat and rice, to be distributed to eligible families under the Public Distribution System (PDS) ends up being sold in the open market by corrupt intermediaries, including some dealers who manage PDS outlets. One can't deny by the fact some officers are also involved in doing so, as it clears when a complaint being given to those officers, but they don't act as fast as it needs to curtain the corruption into the PDS delivery system.
The extent of this “diversion” of PDS grain, the Two recent surveys has revealed that - the diversion ratio (proportion of PDS grain “diverted” to the open market) has been estimated by several researchers in the past by corresponding to National Sample Survey (NSS) data on household purchases with Food Corporation of India (FCI) data on “offtake.” They tell as how much grain people are buying from the PDS. It also explains how much grain has been lifted by State governments from FCI godowns under the PDS quota.
Based on this method, the estimated diversion ratio was around 54 per cent in 2004-05, the last year for which detailed data are available from a “thick round” of the NSS. Needless to say, this is an alarming figure. Tamil Nadu had the lowest diversion rate (around 7 per cent); the rate was well below the national average in the other southern States also (around 25 per cent in each case). By contrast, the estimated diversion rates ranged between 85 and 95 per cent in Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam, and Rajasthan. These estimates, if proved correct, suggest a comprehensive breakdown of the PDS in these States at that time.
Having said so, the reliability of NSS figures with respect to PDS purchases is not clear. There are two reasons to assume that they are not wildly off the mark. First, the State-wise averages for 2004-05 are broadly consistent with corresponding figures from the India Human Development Survey (IHDS) for the same year. Second, the inter-State patterns are more or less as one would expect, with, for instance, very little diversion in Tamil Nadu and a huge amount of it in Bihar.
Further evidence on these matters is available from a recent survey, conducted in June 2011 by student volunteers under our guidance (hereafter “PDS Survey”). The survey covered about 1,200 randomly-selected BPL households in nine sample States (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh). The investigators were carefully trained to record the respondents' PDS purchases, in three different ways. The purchases were then compared with “entitlements” — what BPL households are supposed to get from the PDS in different States. For instance, BPL households are entitled to 25 kg of grain a month in Orissa and Rajasthan, and 35 kg a month in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.
The findings of this survey confirm other recent evidence of substantial improvements in the PDS around the country. In most of the sample States, there have been major initiatives in the recent past to improve the PDS, and it seems these efforts are showing results. Also of interest are provisional figures on PDS purchases for 2009-10 (the latest “thick round” of the NSS) computed by the National Sample Survey Organisation. Starting with the good news, these figures suggest that on average PDS purchases of wheat and rice have more or less doubled between 2004-05 and 2009-10. This, again, is consistent with independent evidence of a revival of the PDS in recent years.
NSS-based estimates of diversion rates, however, remain high. Applying the method described earlier to these provisional figures, the diversion rate for 2009-10 seems to be around 41 per cent. This is 13 percentage points lower than in 2004-05, but still very high. The diversion rates improved (that is, declined) in almost every State, with big improvements in some States: down from 23 per cent to 8 per cent in Andhra Pradesh, from 85 to 47 per cent in Jharkhand, from 76 to 30 per cent in Orissa, and from 52 to 11 per cent in Chhattisgarh. Interestingly, these are four States where the PDS Survey also found evidence of major improvements. In 2009-10, none of India's major States had an estimated diversion rate higher than 75 per cent (the top rate, found in Bihar), in contrast with 2004-05 when as many as eight major States had that distinction.
This broad-based improvement is good news, but needless to say diversion rates remain unacceptably high. The question remains how these high diversion rates (41 per cent at the national level) square with the fact that BPL households in the PDS Survey were able to secure 84 per cent of their PDS entitlements. Even if the comparison is restricted to the nine sample States, a similar contrast applies.
There are at least two possible explanations. First, the PDS Survey is more recent: it took place two years after the NSS survey. And as mentioned earlier, there is consistent evidence of steady improvement in the PDS in recent years in many States. However, it is difficult to believe that progress has been so rapid as to explain, on its own, the full contrast between the two surveys. Second, the PDS Survey is restricted to BPL households in rural areas.
Diversion rates may be higher (possibly much higher) under the APL quota, and perhaps also in urban areas. Indeed, the APL component of the PDS, which has expanded steadily since 2004-05 (with a big upward jump in 2009-10), is devoid of any transparency. There are no specific entitlements for APL households, and no clear allocation norms. This segment of the PDS remains highly vulnerable to corruption, as it is possible for large quantities of grain to disappear without anyone feeling the pinch.
The recent turnaround of the PDS in Chhattisgarh (or, for that matter, Orissa) also built largely on this simple insight, as well as on the related fact that broad coverage strengthens public pressure for a functional PDS system.
