By
Vatsala Vedantam
The
angry responses to a recent article on euthanasia triggered a new train of
thought and this piece of writing. If
ending a life plagued with pain and suffering due to some terminal illness is
so appalling, why are we not upset when more than 50 per cent of children in
this country die of hunger and malnutrition?
Where is the anger that millions more should go to sleep famished every
night because there was not enough food to go around? Do we not feel revolted to hear that more
than 230 million poor persons in India (the highest among countries) die a slow
and cruel death due to starvation?
The
latest report from the Global Hunger Index (GHI) ranks India 15th
among starving nations. It also points
out that the hunger situation in this country has escalated since 1996. These statistics should make us hang our
heads in shame. The slow death of a
young population by starvation and hungers should have caused more anguish and indignation
than the painless termination of an older person’s life where there was no hope
of recovery.
The
Central government established the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in 1964 to
control and distribute food production in the country equitably among all
states. Its main responsibility was to
provide food security to the nation.
Commonsense tells us that this can be achieved only through a proper
public distribution system that ensures fair sharing of food grains among all
sections of the population. It is also
obvious that the same should be stored appropriately under suitable conditions
since food is a perishable product whose shelf life is very limited. Even though the FCI was allotted the main
task of ensuring proper distribution of food that was generated in the country,
it was also entrusted with the task of protecting the interests of the people
who generated that food in the first place.
Nothing
wrong with that, except the fact that the farmer’s welfare is a subject that
can be politicized and exploited for political gains. The farmers’ bobby is also a powerful one for
obvious reasons, whereas, the hungry child cannot speak or fight for his/her
rights. And, a starving man has no means
to project his cause on public platforms.
So, it has been argued that the government should ensure fair pricing of
the food it distributes in order to enable the consumer to buy it, even as it
looks after the interests of the farmers.
Where would the farmers be without the consumers of the food that they
generate?