There has been an animated debatein the past three years over thesupply of food in the ICDS(Integrated Child DevelopmentServices) programme. Supplementarynutrition has been provided to allchildren under the age of six since theinception of the programme more thanthree decades ago. This was done withthe recognition that the nutrition gap(between what children should be consumingevery day and what they actuallyhave) is more than 500 calories.This is one of the reasons for thehigh incidence of child malnutrition inIndia: 46 per cent. This is double themalnutrition rate of sub-Saharan Africa,and has registered a mere 1 per centdecline between 1999 and 2006.The fact that this rate of childmalnutrition persists in the secondfastest growing economy makes it all themore inexcusable.
Till a few years ago, the entiresupplementary nutrition programmewas borne by the state government.States were, therefore, given thefreedom to decide on the mode ofprocurement and distribution of foodin the ICDS centres. Barring a few notableex ceptions, most states used privatecontractors to procure and distributefood. The quality was greatlycompromised and moreoften than not food didnot reach the ICDScentres.
It was wellknown that contractswere given toprivate players whogreased the system.The politician-bureaucrat-contractor nexus wasestablished.
This led to theSupreme Court order ofOctober 7, 2004, banningthe participation of privatecontractors in the programmeand directing thatfunds for supplementarynutrition be given to mahilamandals, women's self-help gro ups andvillage communities.The logic of the move was fairlysimple. Feeding children was not rocketscience, and surely communities wouldbe able to provide hot,cooked meals to children.Besides, decentralizationof thefunds would allowcommunities tokeep a closer watchon the food beingprovided at the ICDScentres, and, indeed,increase their participationin the programme.
It would also allowcommunities tomake culturally appropriate foodchoices. In any case, a hot, cooked mealwas already being provided in governmentand government-aided primaryschools on the directions of theSupreme Court. It could be replicatedin ICDS.
| Many states supply food to children through private contractors, despite the Supreme Court ban |
The Supreme Court order wasdeeply resisted by the political classcutting across party lines as well as bythe vested interests within thebureaucracy. Universalization of ICDShas doubled the number of ICDS centresacross the country. This has alsosubstantially increased the budgetallocated to supplementary feeding,thereby incr easing the stakes in theprogramme for vested interests.
For the past three years, theSupreme Court commission ers' officeand the Right To Food campaign havebeen persuading state governments toeffectively decentralize the funds for thesupplementary nutrition programme.The Supreme Court has also passedinterim orders to ensure compliance.
Despite unambiguousorders from theSupreme Court and aCabinet decision in2009, many statescontinue to usecontractors for providingsupplementarynutrition. These statesinclude Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Assam,Nagaland and Madhya Pradesh. Inmany states where provisioning ofmeals has been delegated to villageself-help groups, the problems of givingthem money on time and clearing theirdues remain the biggest bottlenecks.
Ensuring decentralization in the spi -rit of the Supreme Court orders remainsa significant challenge for ICDS.
The author is the principal adviser to the Commissioners of the Supreme Court in the Right To Food case