Monday, Jan 20, 2003
Monday, Jan 20, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By G. Srinivasan
The demand for supply of rice, instead of food, is growing even as the scheme is under way with poor attendance in delta areas. The beneficiaries consider it an affront to take meal in plates. It was especially an unpalatable idea on Pongal day, when the scheme was launched. Everyday they cannot come to the meal centre to get the food, trekking miles, as they have to go in search of job to far-away places. Supply of rice would help them prepare food at their convenience and feed all in the family, say the farmers and farm hands. Ironically, inspite of their reservations about accepting the meal, there was no dearth of applicants. In many panchayats, the number of people who wanted to avail themselves of the benefit crossed 1000. The Government announced the ``unwieldy'' scheme without giving much thought, to take the wind out of the Opposition sails, especially in the wake of criticism over suicide by two farmers and crop failure. First it said food would be provided to all starving farmers and farm labourers. Later it backed out and sent word through tasildhars that the number of beneficiaries should be restricted to 50 per panchayat. This direction put the village administrative officers and panchayat presidents in a predicament, not knowing who they should choose and who should be left out. Many panchayat presidents opted out of the scheme and in many villages there is a problem in preparing food. In some villages, the people wanted all applicants included in the programme, and boycotted the scheme in support of their demand. However, the beneficiaries flooded the VAOs and village panchayat presidents with applications and said though they were reluctant to take food, they enrolled themselves considering the applications might be used for implementation of any future welfare scheme. They wanted to register themselves as persons in need of assistance, indicating that they were not against any government help but only differed on the mode of implementation. Officials, who find it practically difficult to prepare food at nutrition centres and supply it every day, for want of utensils,— which are now hired in many places— say the beneficiary target should have been fixed after a survey, instead of introducing the scheme for all. Area and need specificity would have made the programme meaningful. The officials also say the Cauvery was the basic issue and crop failure and suicide by farmers are a fallout. Ending the Cauvery tangle is the main solution and noon meal can at best be a temporary arrangement.
Comparison of schemes
Juxtapose this scheme with the relief announced for farm labourers during the kuruvai season in the wake of crop failure. That scheme worked, providing work to the farm labourers who took wages in both cash and kind. It brought about benefits also. Many tanks were desilted and assets such as threshing floor buildings for self-help groups and farm ponds created. There was no murmur at that time and the Centre's assistance was also well utilised in time. The Government should have drawn lessons from this experience, say social workers and political scientists here.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
