There has been an animated debate
in the past three years over the
supply of food in the ICDS
(Integrated Child Development
Services) programme. Supplementary
nutrition has been provided to all
children under the age of six since the
inception of the programme more than
three decades ago. This was done with
the recognition that the nutrition gap
(between what children should be consuming
every day and what they actually
have) is more than 500 calories.
This is one of the reasons for the
high incidence of child malnutrition in
India: 46 per cent. This is double the
malnutrition rate of sub-Saharan Africa,
and has registered a mere 1 per cent
decline between 1999 and 2006.
The fact that this rate of child
malnutrition persists in the second
fastest growing economy makes it all the
more inexcusable.
Till a few years ago, the entire
supplementary nutrition programme
was borne by the state government.
States were, therefore, given the
freedom to decide on the mode of
procurement and distribution of food
in the ICDS centres. Barring a few notable
ex ceptions, most states used private
contractors to procure and distribute
food. The quality was greatly
compromised and more
often than not food did
not reach the ICDS
centres.
It was well
known that contracts
were given to
private players who
greased the system.
The politician-bureaucrat-
contractor nexus was
established.
This led to the
Supreme Court order of
October 7, 2004, banning
the participation of private
contractors in the programme
and directing that
funds for supplementary
nutrition be given to mahila
mandals, women's self-help gro ups and
village communities.
The logic of the move was fairly
simple. Feeding children was not rocket
science, and surely communities would
be able to provide hot,
cooked meals to children.
Besides, decentralization
of the
funds would allow
communities to
keep a closer watch
on the food being
provided at the ICDS
centres, and, indeed,
increase their participation
in the programme.
It would also allow
communities to
make culturally appropriate food
choices. In any case, a hot, cooked meal
was already being provided in government
and government-aided primary
schools on the directions of the
Supreme Court. It could be replicated
in ICDS.
Many states supply food to children through private contractors, despite the Supreme Court ban |
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.