Chhattisgarh changes its name to California

Though we call India a federal system, there have not been many instances we could offer as proof. Today was an exception.

Chhattisgarh’s chief minister Raman Singh pulled a fast one on the UPA government at the center. While the latter was dithering on legislating for food security, counting pennies as to who to include, what percentage of the most poor, less poor etc. Chhattisgarh went ahead where no state has gone before. It preempted the central government and how!

But where does California come in? For that you would have to understand and appreciate the kind of federalism the US enjoys. American states, in one way of thinking are the laboratories for the whole nation. While the federal government sets the rules the states have to follow, the states are free to experiment, going beyond federal mandates. This is how standards about vehicle emissions got more stringent, for example. Lead-free gas was introduced in California first. Of course, other states also have experimented with and helped in extending federal laws or even created new ones for themselves that were subsequently taken under the federal mandate.

Coming back to India, Chhattisgarh in particular, Jean Dreze, the economist-cum-social activist said [1], “In many ways it is an improved version of UPA’s National Food Security Bill.” Kavita Srivastava of the Right to Food campaign added, “It is a very good step forward … to give a legal food guarantee to 90 per cent” of the state’s population. So, the activists are satisfied. “If only Chhattisgarh were California …hmmm… and the rest of the nation followed,” I heard their sighs!).

The bill passed by the state Assembly comes close to universalizing PDS. The government has “clearly stated that it was not fixing any percentage limits of beneficiaries,” precisely the factor that has a strangle-hold on the UPA. The includees go beyond SC/ST, OBC enumeration, and the list is a lot more inclusive [2]. For example, “widows or single women, terminally ill persons, physically challenged persons, elderly-headed households with no assured means of subsistence, and persons freed from bonded labour.” It feels good to hear. If the intentions fructify, that will be better.

No one would take exception to who are excluded (even the excludees themselves) – those who pay income tax, those who hold specified hectares of land, people in urban areas who own houses with concrete roof, of carpet area more than 1,000 sq.ft, those who are likely to pay property tax. But, I fail to understand the logic behind at least one category that is included: “students in hostels and ashrams will get mandatory subsidized foodgrains.” What will students in hostels do with food grains? Or, is it to satisfy the religionists, the ashramists, but being subtle about the dole by coopting hostel inmates?

The state government is committed to bearing all “additional costs.” We have to hold the government to this the next time it goes to the Planning Commission!

But behind all these goody-goody stuff, there must be politics. It is buried in the last sentence in the article referred at 2. “The Act will be notified in six months.” Why not now? Perhaps, elections loom in six months, somewhere, in some state? The cynic in me just had to come out!

Let that be. If Chhattisgarh gets its act together and makes a success out of the new Act, I would hope that it spreads and consequently the state changes its name to California; and, India becomes a truer federal entity, open to experimentation.

Raghuram Ekambaram

References

1.    Raman Singh steals a march over UPA on food security, Gargi Parsai, The Hindu, December 22, 2012

2.    New Act will provide food security to 90% of Chhattisgarh population, Gargi Parsai, The Hindu, December 22, 2012