Right to Food as Human Rights

http://socialissuesindia.wordpress.com/

Right to Food As a Human Right in India

What is the human right to food? --------------------------------------------------------- 2

Humanitarian Assistance vs the Human Rights Approach ---------------------- 2

What Difference Does a Rights-based Approach Make? ------------------------- 3

Shades of Hunger – Under-nutrition and Malnutrition ----------------------------- 3

Right to Food and State Obligation ------------------------------------------------------ 4

World Hunger Facts 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Current Status of World Hunger ---------------------------------------------------------- 5

Children and Malnutrition ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

What are the causes of hunger? ---------------------------------------------------------- 7

Misconceptions About Right to Food --------------------------------------------------- 8

Right to Food Around the World ---------------------------------------------------------- 8

Indian Scenario ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

Economic Liberalization – Is it for the Poor ----------------------------------------- 12

Human Right to Food in Indian Constitution --------------------------------------- 13

Human Right to Food in India ------------------------------------------------------------ 14

Missing Pieces in India’s Food Right Campaign ---------------------------------- 15

References ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16




Right to Food in India 2 / 16


What is the human right to food?

Food is the basic necessity for all human beings, so everyone should have a right to it. The right to food protects the right of all human beings to live in dignity, free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. It is not about charity, but about ensuring that all are capable of feeding themselves. Human rights are mainly about upholding human dignity, not about meeting physiological needs. Dignity does not come from being fed. It comes from being able to feed oneself. In any well-structured society, the objective is to move toward conditions under which all people can look after themselves. Fulfilling one’s need for food in the biological sense is different from fulfilling one’s right to food. If people have no chance to influence what and how they were being fed, their right to adequate food is not being met, even if they get all the nutrients their bodies need. Certainly one can provide food for individuals that will meet their basic nutrient requirements, as in a prison or an army. Serving pork to a Muslim prisoner would violate his human rights, even if it contained the nutrients he needed. The Right to Adequate Food is a fundamental human right firmly established in international law. This right flows from the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966. The Right to Adequate Food has been reaffirmed in many pronouncements of the international community over the last 50 years. Noteworthy is also the recognition of the right to food in numerous national constitutions.

The human right to food has its contemporary origin within the U.N. Universal Human Rights framework. The main reference point is located within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (U.N. 1948), Article 25, which states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food.” It provided a reference point for human rights legislation that followed but is not itself a binding international legal instrument. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Committee on ESCR) in its General Comment 12 says

The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone and in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement (General Comment 12, 1999, para 6).

Humanitarian Assistance vs the Human Rights Approach There is a difference between the humanitarian assistance programs and the human rights approach. The former treat lives to be saved as bare life, not as lives with a political voice. The human rights approach respond directly to this concern. One can assure that people are treated like dignified human beings, rather than like animals on a feedlot, by making sure that they have

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9




some say in how they are being treated. This is why, in a human rights system, the people must have some institutionalized remedies available to them that can address the issues whenever they feel they are not being treated fairly. This implies that people must be free to participate in shaping the conditions in which they live. This refers not only to the quality of relationships between individuals and their governments, but also to the quality of their relationships with one another. Human rights are not only about the potentialities of isolated individuals. People must be recognized as social beings with a need and a right to share in shaping not only their individual futures but also the futures of their communities. Strictly speaking, the human right to adequate food must be seen in the context of the right to adequate livelihood.

What Difference Does a Rights-based Approach Make?

A human rights approach thus removes the charity dimension inherent in basic needs strategies, however valuable this may be, and emphasizes rights and responsibilities. Implicit in the introduction of a rights dimension are also attitudinal aspects whose potential political impact should not be underestimated. Introduction of a rights approach would also have important implications for the analysis of food and nutrition problems and for policy and program planning. It necessitates a multifaceted role/responsibility analysis of

obstacles confronting the realization of the right to adequate food. This becomes the basis for determining who is to be held accountable for the existence of such obstacles and who would be responsible for their removal. Given this, a human rights framework means: 1. Human rights are legally binding for states, not optional.

2. National law and policies need to be brought into agreement with right to food and

remove all obstacles on the path of right to livelihood and hence food.

3. Human rights require active and effective remedies – through courts or other procedures – whenever rights are violated.

4. Rights imply accountability, both domestic and international, and thus contribute to good governance. Under international covenants, states are obliged to submit periodic reports on the human rights measures they have taken. These reports are public and accessible, now accessible even on the Internet, and can be used to hold governments accountable for non-compliance with their obligations.

Shades of Hunger – Under-nutrition and Malnutrition Many people affected by chronic undernourishment suffer from what the FAO calls ‘extreme hunger’. This means that their daily ratio of calories is well below the minimum necessary for survival. Many people die on a daily basis from starvation.




Malnutrition, also called the ‘hidden hunger’, refers to deficiency of calories, proteins or nutrients. Thus, malnutrition necessarily encompasses undernourishment, but it also has another dimension – a person might receive enough calories but not enough nutrients. Malnutrition is quieter than famine, in the sense that it does not attract the attention of the media; nonetheless it has no less tragic implications for the sufferer. Malnutrition heightens vulnerability to other illnesses and almost always has serious physical and mental effects – the lack of brain cell development, inadequate growth, etc. Serious malnutrition can also be hereditary, as many malnourished mothers give birth to malnourished babies. A vicious circle ensues.

Right to Food and State Obligation It is generally accepted that the right to food implies three types of state obligations - the obligation to

Respect, Protect, and To fulfill.

These types of obligations were defined in General Comment 12 by the Committee on ESCR and endorsed by states, when the FAO Council adopted the Right to Food Guidelines (Voluntary Guidelines) in November 2004. The obligation to respect requires governments not to take any measures that deprive or prevent people from having access to food. The obligation to protect means that states should take steps to enforce laws and take other measures to prevent third parties such as individuals and corporations, from violating the right to food of others. The obligation to fulfill (facilitate and provide) entails that governments must pro-actively initiate steps for utilization of resources in ways that make food more accessible and facilitate people’s ability to feed themselves. As a last resort, whenever any one is unable to enjoy the right to adequate food for reasons beyond his control, the state is obliged to step in and help. Identification of vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalized groups and action towards removing the factors determining vulnerability are also implicit under the obligation to fulfill. To sum up, offering the right to food means that governments must not take actions that result in increasing levels of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. It also means that governments must protect people from the actions of powerful others that might violate the right to food. States must also, to the maximum of available resources, invest in the eradication of hunger.




World Hunger Facts 2010 The most recent estimate by FAO released on October 14, 2009, says that 1.02 billion people are undernourished – a sizable increase from its 2006 estimate of 854 million people. Undernutrition is a relatively new concept, but is increasingly used. The increase has been due to three factors: 1 Neglect of agriculture relevant to very poor

people by governments and international agencies,

2 The current worldwide economic crisis, and 3 The significant increase of food prices in the

last several years, which has been devastating to those with only a few dollars a day to spend. 1.02 billion people is 15 percent of the estimated world population of 6.8 billion. Nearly all of the undernourished are in developing countries.

The FAO estimate is based on statistical aggregates and not based on surveys and samplings. World Bank estimation of 2008 (2005 statistics), shows 1,345 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1.25 a day or less (see table below). This compares with the later FAO estimate (above) of 1.02 billion undernourished people. This is about 30% reduction compared to 1900 million poor people in 1981. This came largely due to reduction in poverty particularly in East Asia, with the major improvement occurring in China. But the question is: why still there are so many poor and hungry people in the world? There are several things one has to look at.

Current Status of World Hunger In 1996, at the World Food Summit in Rome, governments reaffirmed the right to food and committed themselves to cut by half the number of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition by 2015. Thus, the 1996 Rome Declaration set the hunger reduction target at 420 million undernourished by 2015. Five years later, the 2002 World Food Summit was held to measure progress. It soon become evident that little action has been taken with respect to the 1996 commitments. Regress rather than progress has continued and in 2009: more than 1 billion people are undernourished worldwide. South Asia is the region with the largest number of hungry people (596 million), followed by Sub-Saharan Africa (388 million). The latter has the largest prevalence of undernourishment relative to its population size 32 % (FAO, 2009).

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/index.html




From World Bank Sources:

Region % in $1.25 a day poverty

Population (millions)

Population in $1.25 a day poverty (millions)

East Asia and Pacific 16.8 1,884 316

Latin America and the Caribbean 8.2 550 45

South Asia 40.4 1,476 596 Sub-Saharan Africa 50.9 763 388 Total Developing countries 28,8 4673 1345

Europe and Central Asia 0.04 473 17 Middle East and North Africa 0.04 305 11

Total 5451 1372

UN experts and agencies, as well as several NGOs have repeatedly pointed out that the current political economy of food fails to protect the most in need in society. Emerging year-wise statistics clearly highlight that existing inequalities between the various regions of the world and the vulnerability of the poorest members of developing countries are deepening. Climate Change has emerged as another important threat to food security in the future. In November 2009, at the World Food Summit state leaders agreed “to work to reverse the decline in domestic and international funding for agriculture and promote new investment in the sector, to improve governance of global food issues in partnership with relevant stakeholders from the public and private sector, and to proactively face the challenges of climate change to food security.”

World leaders and public opinion seem to have finally acknowledged that agriculture cannot be continuously neglected and that the under-investment trend of the last 30 years must be reversed. Indeed, if followed by articulated and targeted action such commitment can bridge the de jure stipulations on the right to food and the de facto tragic realities. It is a statistical fact that already before the skyrocketing of the food prices and the economic recession most households under the extreme poverty line were to be found in rural areas. 7 out of every 10 poor individuals lived in a household where agriculture represented the main occupation of the head, and lower average incomes among these households is a constant pattern across all regions and countries (WB, Global Economic Prospects, 2009). Hence, investment in agriculture if targeted to address the needs of this particular group of people can have real and significant effects in terms of realizing the right to food.

http://www.fao.org/wsfs/world-summit/en/




Children and Malnutrition Children are the most visible victims of under-nutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the estimated 10.9 million child deaths each year. Under-nutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. Under-nutrition affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries. 1 More than 70 percent of malnourished children live in

Asia, 2 26 percent in Africa, and 3 4 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In many cases, their plight began even before birth with a malnourished mother. Undernutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 out of 6 infants born with low birth weight. This is a risk factor for neonatal deaths, and also causes learning disabilities, mental, retardation, poor health, blindness and premature death.

What are the Causes of Hunger?

This is the basic question that has variety of answers depending upon who is answering, but poverty seems to go hand in hand with hunger. Bad Politico-economic System

Often the governing system of a country leads to highly lopsided distribution of wealth – power and money ends up in few hands and scores of others hardly survive to live. Displacement Tue to Conflicts / Wars

Armed conflicts such as those taking place in Iraq or Afghanistan or the kind of perpetual rifts such as in Somalia and other African countries play havoc in the lives of people. Millions are displaced and end up in refugee camps to survive. Climate Change Climate change resulting from global warming is now being seen as future force that will bring increasing misery in the lives of people. Unpredictable rains, floods, and weather patterns disturb the routine of the farming practices besides causing destructions.

A FAO Report

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day.




Misconceptions About Right to Food 1. A Right to Food Implies that the Very Existence of Hunger is a Violation of Human Rights

Mere existence of hunger does not constitute a violation of human rights. Deprivation – lacking access to food – can have many causes. In some cases a government does its best to keep its obligations, yet people still go hungry due to natural calamities or inadequate resources. Only a clear failure of a government to fulfill its obligations, when it is in a position to take remedial steps, can be termed a breach of the right to food. 2. The concept of a right to food is too theoretical--It is food, not the right to food, that is needed

Pragmatically speaking, people need access to food in a normal dignified way. One’s access to food affects one’s entire fabric of life. First Information and Action Network (FIAN) uses the term, "right to feed oneself," which does not mean an individual’s right to sustenance but rather, the individual’s right to dignified freedom to procure food, whether from others or from nature. Dignified access to food means the freedom to be employed, perhaps self-employed, in agriculture or industry; it means the availability of work under conditions, which are as just and fair as reasonably possible. So, implementing right to food automatically implies efforts by the state to create employment opportunities. 3. There is no need to establish a right to food. Rights make people lazy. And who is supposed to pay for such a right?

The concept of a right to food should not be misunderstood as the right to "social transfers" of food or money to disadvantaged groups. Social transfers are only a last resort, except to children, the elderly, and the disabled. The use of transfers often reveals a state’s failure to implement the right to feed oneself. This right should ensure respect and protection of access to food-producing resources and work. When the right is appropriately enforced, access to resources, skills, and work is respected, protected, and fulfilled. Agricultural policy change, agrarian reform, and providing access to land for millions of landless farmers are productive investments towards implementing right to food.

The right based obligations of government have a bearing on decision making at the economic policy level. When economic policies fail to provide access to food, the State must first transfer adequate food-producing resources, including land, the means of production, and soft production loans. Only when these measures fail or are unfeasible should money and food be provided. In summary, the right to food reduces the need for charitable social spending by organizing economic life that is conducive to self-employment and wage employment. The Right to Food Around the World To implement the right to food at the national level, political will and adherence to international standards are key. Turning commitment into reality typically involves passing legislation implementing the right and adopting concrete policies and programs. Among the countries




currently working in this area are Bolivia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal and Uganda. Brazil is a good example of a country that has taken comprehensive action to realize the right to food. Since the 1980s, when a massive civil movement helped return the country to democracy, Brazilians have kept up pressure on the government to realize human rights. Efforts to support the right to food began with the First National Conference on Food and Nutrition in 1986, which was part of the process of drafting the new constitution. Action accelerated with the election of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2003. He initiated the Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program, which combines 31 actions and programs in several ministries aimed at ensuring access to food, increasing family incomes and promoting family farms. In 2006 the Federal Law on Food and Nutritional Security was adopted, establishing a national food and nutrition security system to ensure the right to food. One of the key components of Zero Hunger is the bolsa família (family grant), a monthly cash grant that currently benefits 12 million poor families. A school feeding program provides meals to 37 million children. South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution of 1994 is very progressive, pledging in its bill of rights: “Everyone has the right to have access to… sufficient food and water…”. It specifies that the state has to provide for the right of every child to adequate nutrition. The constitution also established a human rights commission with the mandate to monitor all human rights, investigate complaints of violations and seek redress to them and to develop awareness of human rights among the people. Efforts are also under way to develop a legislative framework for the right to food. Courts in developed countries also interpret and safeguard the right to food. For instance, Switzerland’s highest court, in a case involving illegal immigrants, recognized in 1996 the right to minimum basic conditions, including food, to prevent a situation in which people “are reduced to beggars, a condition unworthy of being called human”. In India

India’s right-to-food effort accelerated in 2001 with a lawsuit brought by a civil liberties NGO in Rajasthan. It aimed to force use of the country’s food stocks for prevention of hunger during a widespread drought. While India’s Supreme Court considers a final judgment on the case, it has issued a number of significant interim orders. These almost amount to formally recognizing the right to food, because of the orders to the central and state governments to take corrective actions. The court also ordered the governments to inform the concerned population about its legal right to food.

These orders have also had important practical effects. They prompted the implementation of India’s mid-day school meals programme, mandatory for all children in government and government-assisted primary schools. It is the largest school meal programme in the world, currently serving more than 50 million cooked meals daily.




Indian Scenario Since independence, the need for land reform in India is seen as a key to fulfill the constitutional obligation of guaranteeing adequate means of livelihood. However, as several studies observed, the Land Ceiling Act has never been effectively enforced. Still the structure of India agriculture is characterized by a large degree of inequality in the distribution of land. The absolute landless and near landless (land holdings below 0.5. acre) make up nearly half of the India population.

Lack of land reforms and neglect of remote tribal areas has also lead to another serious threat to India’s stability in the form of Naxalites (or Maoist’s) armed struggle. They have heavy influence in a large area, called Red-Corridor, which spreads from Nepal to Tamilnadu. This zone contains some of the poorest areas of the country. Reaching this mass will be a Herculean task for the governments because the Maoists will protect their constituency. In 1991 India opened up its economy to free trade and foreign investments. Export of sugar and cotton, paper industries, hydro-electric dams and mining industries – they all put increasing pressure on farming land, fresh water sources, fishing grounds and forests. It is these resources, on which most Indians depend for their subsistence.

POVERTY In 2006 the total population of India was estimated as 1027 million105, making it the second most populous country. 28.6 percent of the people live below the poverty line 1. 27.8 percent of the population lives in

urban areas with 23.6 percent of them being below poverty line and 14.8 percent living in slums.

2. 72.2 percent of the population lives in the rural areas with 30.2 percent of them living below the poverty line.

3. The rural poor mainly fall in the group of the most disadvantaged group of agricultural labor with very limited ownership of assets.

4. The urban poor are usually laborers in the unorganized sector and are at times migrants from the rural areas.

Implementing right to food in India effectively means removing poverty, which prevents people from fully realizing their potential and enjoying their rights. In the Indian context, the perpetual poverty is due to several reasons: denial of rights like access to land, forests, water; displacement for developmental/industrial purposes, inefficient agricultural practices or change in governmental policies leading to a slow down in or closure of industry.



FOOD PRODUCTION The production of food grains in the country increased from 50 million tons in 1950-51 to around 250 million tons in 2009, a sufficient amount to feed everybody in the country. India has managed to maintain a constant high level of food grains reserves. However this increase in food production did not translate in access to food for all and

decrease in food insecurity. 30 percent of Indian population lives on 1700 kcal per day much below the minimum requirement of 2100 kcal. Greater part of the Indian population is still poor, with 28.6 percent living below the national poverty line (BPL) and 80 percent live on less than 2 USD per day. This indicates that a large part of the population cannot afford adequate food to maintain a healthy and sustainable life. NUTRITION India has the largest number of undernourished people (over 230 million) in the world and the highest levels of child malnutrition, higher than most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

India has committed itself to attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the year 2015. The first of the eight MDGs is to reduce by half the proportion of people suffering hunger by 2015. Reports indicate that India is lagging far behind in reaching the goal: recent studies indicate that hunger and food insecurity in India are increasing despite almost 10 percent annual economic growth. A brief look at the statistical data reveals the dramatic situation of under nourishment and poverty in India. 1. 20 percent of the Indian population is

undernourished

2. of which 60 million children are malnourished (globally: 146 million undernourished children).

3. Almost half of the malnourished children are under five

4. Nearly a third of children are born underweight, which indicates that their mothers themselves are underweight and undernourished.

Food Security Net

The central food schemes and other assistance programs for the poor in India are:

1. Targeted public distribution system;

2. Antyodaya Anna Yojana;

3. Mid day meal scheme;

4. Annapoorna Yojana;

5. Integrated child development services;

6. National family benefit scheme;

7. National maternity benefit scheme; and

8. National old age pension scheme.



Economic Liberalization – Is It for The Poor? According to the planning commission estimates, in 1987-88, 40% population lived below poverty line and 83 million children were malnourished in 1991. After the new set of economic policies was adopted in the early 1990s, the philosophy of agricultural planning got changed. The emphasis was no longer solely on attaining self-sufficiency in food grain production or to keep hunger and starvation at bay. Farmers were asked to diversify, produce crops that were suitable for export and to compete in the international market. With the promise of cheap food available off the shelf in the global market, the focus shifted from agriculture to industry, trade, and commerce, from the small and marginal farmers to the agro-processing companies.

Nandigram, West Bengal Mass Eviction to create a SEZ

The West Bengal government signed an agreement with an MNC, Salim group of Indonesia for several projects, including a mega chemical industrial estate as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). This will affect the livelihood of over 1 lakh people, who are mainly small and marginal farmers and agricultural laborers. They have been organizing protests and dozens of lives have been lost already.

Cultivation of staple food began to be replaced by cash crops, tomatoes in place of wheat, durum wheat (for bakery purposes) replaced wheat as a staple diet in Punjab and Haryana, flowers in place of rice, and so on.

Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu Pollution from Chemical Industrial Estate

SIPCOT chemical industrial estate is causing pollution of the surrounding agricultural land. This has jeopardized the livelihood of 20,000 people of the surrounding area who depend on farming and fishing. Inaction of the state agencies and inefficient implementation of rules have left them victimized.

In the coastal areas, private enterprises took away the fish catch depriving the local communities of a livelihood and the only nutrition source. In Kerala, for instance, vast tracts of forests and paddy fields have been converted into rubber, coffee, and coconut plantations. Commercial crops are eating into the fertile land tracts meant for growing essential food grains.

There is strong link between farmers’ suicides and trade liberalization in India. The 1990’s witnessed the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. The late 1990’s reported some of the first farmers’ suicides mainly due to indebtedness. In 1998, the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds, which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved. Patents prevent saving seeds and seeds are engineered with non-renewable traits. This means that these expensive seeds have to be bought every year before planting. Failed BT-cotton crops in Vidarbha, Maharashtra led to increased poverty and indebtedness and forced scores of farmers to commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997.


Human Right to Food in Indian Constitution In India there is a deeply rooted tradition of respect for food – it stresses the importance of growing and sharing food. Sharing or offering food is a universal tradition shared by all religious entities that have roots in the Indian soil. Accordingly, in 1950, India adopted a very progressive Constitution aimed at ensuring all its citizens social, economic and political justice, equality, and dignity. Therefore any law to be valid in Indian Territory must be within the constitutional framework. Like in many countries of the World the “The Right to Food” in Indian Constitution is not recognized as a “Fundamental Right”. Therefore, there is no constitutional mandate to have a claim over it. Regarding right to food, one has to look for relevance in Article 21 of the Constitution, entitled “Protection of life and personal liberty” and Article 47 “Duty of the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living […]” as well as in judicial interventions of the Supreme Court and various Acts, which have cumulatively strengthened the right to food in India. Knowing the constitutional and legislative framework in India regarding the right to food is crucial for identifying right to food

violations and supporting victims in realizing their right to food. Indian Constitution Part III, Article 21 “Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except to procedure established by law.” The phrases “Protection of life” and “personal liberty” have called several times for interpretation. A series of judicial interventions and interpretations have deepened the normative content of this fundamental right. Indian Constitution Part IV: Directive Principles The right to food or in general the economic, social, and cultural rights are defined in Part IV of the Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy, which are guidelines to the central and State Governments for framing laws and policies. The provisions are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down therein are considered as fundamental in the Governance of the country. There are several Articles under the Directive Principles offer remote relevance for the right to food, but the clearest statement regarding the right to food is provided by Article 47.

Article 47

Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavor to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs, which are injurious to health.

Conclusion Putting together Article 21 and 47 and various interpretations of the Supreme Court of one can safely say that the Government of India has a constitutional obligation to take appropriate measures to ensure a dignified life with adequate food for all citizens. The right to food can be regarded as a fundamental right by virtue of interpretation.



Human Right To Food In India Coming a long way as a nation dependent on food imports to feed its population, India today is not only self--sufficient in grain production, but also has a substantial reserve. The progress made by agriculture in the last four decades has been one of the biggest success stories of free India. Agriculture and allied activities constitute the single largest contributor to the Gross Domestic Product, almost 33% of it. Agriculture is the means of livelihood of about two--thirds of the work force in the country. India no longer suffers through large-scale famines as it has in the past. It could feed all of its people, but it doesn’t. The problems are not rooted in the vagaries of natural phenomena, but in deeply embedded political and economic patterns. There are massive governmental programs to help poor people but the problem persists. Somehow, the benefits don’t reach the people who need them most. Over the past decade, a series of events in India have brought the question of food security into sharp focus. Vast famine-affected areas versus surplus production and stocks of grains, the impact of globalization and World Trade Organization laws on agriculture and farmers, the media’s spotlight on starvation deaths and, finally, the Supreme Court of India’s strong reaction to the plight of the hungry—all make a case for recognizing the right to food. THE SUPREME COURT CASE It is a known fact that the central government keeps a large stock of many millions tons of grain and replenishes it every year, yet it does not help those who need it the most. On this backdrop, in April 2001, the People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) submitted a “writ petition” to the Supreme Court of India asking three major questions: 1. Starvation deaths are widespread while there is a surplus stock of grains in government warehouses. Doesn’t the right to life mean that people who are starving or who are too poor to buy food, gain access to the stored grains that is lying unused and rotting? 2. Does not the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India include the right to food? 3. Does not the right to food which has been upheld by the apex Court imply that the State has a duty to provide food to those who are not in a position to purchase food. Article 21 of the constitution, entitled “Protection of life and personal liberty”, says, in its entirety, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. In September 2001, the court directed that 16 states and union territories that had not identified families below the poverty line must do so within two weeks, so that those families could be provided with food assistance. After two weeks, on September 17, 2001, the court reprimanded



them on their inaction and gave another 3 weeks extension to comply with the court order. The court also reminded the states that there are many schemes of the Central Government that are required to be implemented by State Governments, for example

The Court demanded a status report with regard to the implementation of all or any of these Schemes with or without any modification and if all or any of the Schemes have not been implemented then the reasons for the same. It also directed all state governments to take their “entire allotment of food grains from the Central Government under the various Schemes and disburse the same in accordance with the Schemes”. In November 2001, the court directed the states to identify the needy falling under the eight major schemes and provide them with grain and other services by early 2002. For example, for the

Targeted Public Distribution Scheme, “The States were directed to complete the identification of BPL (below poverty level) families, issuing of cards, and commencement of distribution of 25 kg grain per family per month latest by 1st January, 2002”. IMPACT OF COURT’S INTERVENTION As a result of active intervention and monitoring by the Supreme Court, the battle for the right to food has received a solid boost in the recent years. Today, the directions issued by the Supreme Court are one of the major components for implementing the right to food. In brief, the interventions of the court had three major impacts: 1. It converted the benefits of the eight nutrition-related schemes into legal entitlements;

2. It directed all state governments to begin providing a cooked midday meal for all children in government-assisted schools; and

3. It directed the state and central governments to adopt specific measures to ensure public awareness and transparency of these schemes/programs.

The Missing Pieces In India’s Food Rights Campaign 1. Lack of Effective Remedial Mechanism Nations with effective rights system have efficient system to address grievances when a right holder feels his right are being violated. This is the missing piece in India’s food rights system. Where there are no effective remedies, there are no effective rights. Remember, poor and destitute can hardly approach the Supreme Court whenever their rights are infringed by the powerful or the government. The recent actions of the Supreme Court became necessary because there are no effective mechanisms of accountability available to ordinary people at the local level. 2. Starvation Is Not Visible To The Government



Much of the debate in India has centered on the question of whether there have in fact been large numbers of starvation deaths. Those who say no, and thus defend the government, take a narrow view of the meaning of “starvation”. They take it to mean deaths directly attributable to an extreme lack of food, and they focus on adult deaths. In fact, most deaths associated with malnutrition are due to a combination of malnutrition and disease. The immediate final cause of death – the phrase written on the death certificate – is usually some disease, often an infectious disease, rather than starvation or hunger as such. Even in the worst of times, few people die immediately and directly from starvation. They die more slowly, from malnutrition in combination with disease. Each year about 2.5 million children die in India before their fifth birthday. This highest total for any country, out of which half can be attributed to causes associated with malnutrition. To that add a large but unknown number of adults who succumb for the same reason. If one takes a narrow view of the meaning of starvation, there are few starvation deaths in India. This is in fact a mockery of the poor and underprivileged section of the society and a serious impediment on the road to implement right to food. 3. Definition of Poverty and the Real Poor If the international standard for the definition of the poor – a household that spends more than one third (33%) of its income on food – is followed in India, 95 percent of all households would be considered poor. If the China standard (60 percent) is followed, then 70 percent of all households would be considered poor (80 percent of the rural population and 60 percent of the urban population would be poor). However, only 26 percent fall under the BPL. Hence, there are scores of poor who are excluded from BPL list of beneficiaries. As a result they don’t get access to food and remain under nourished.

References

http://www.righttofood.org/new/html/WhatRighttofood.html http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/foodashumrgt/special.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/foodashumrgt/kracht.htm http://www.flonnet.com/fl1818/18181220.htm http://www.flonnet.com/fl1818/18181220.htm http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NEWSEVENTS/Pages/NoSolutionsFoodCrisis.aspx http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/61written/270/ http://legalserviceindia.com/articles/en_food.htm http://www.fian.in/fian-india-mandate.html

http://www.righttofood.org/new/html/WhatRighttofood.html

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/foodashumrgt/special.htm

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/foodashumrgt/kracht.htm

http://www.flonnet.com/fl1818/18181220.htm

http://www.flonnet.com/fl1818/18181220.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NEWSEVENTS/Pages/NoSolutionsFoodCrisis.aspx

http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/61written/270/

http://legalserviceindia.com/articles/en_food.htm

http://www.fian.in/fian-india-mandate.html

Right to Food as Human Rights

Documents

Transcript of Right to Food as Human Rights