India is today one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, and on a clear trajectory of becoming the world’s third largest in the foreseeable future.

As the saying goes, with great opportunities come great challenges. One such challenge is ensuring that this growth reaches and benefits everyone, especially those at the bottom of the pyramid. Another major challenge is that of malnutrition. Though malnutrition has been witnessing a drop in India, it has not kept pace with economic development. Eradication of malnutrition is one of the priority areas of the Narendra Modi government.

This pandemic has revealed the need for what the PM has been calling to attention for years—a much more focus on public hygiene through the Swachh Bharat campaign. Along with it is the need to make sure no one sleeps hungry at times like these, and this led to the government introducing Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana. Around 80 crore people have been covered under this currently, receiving highly subsidised food grains. Both these programmes, along with many others, have a common end goal, and that is the eradication of malnutrition.

While it may appear that hygiene may not have much to do with combating malnutrition, it is important to understand that malnutrition isn’t just the result of inadequate food intake, but also caused due to infections resulting from unhygienic drinking water, poor sanitation, and lack of access to healthcare.

Fighting malnutrition is one of the key priorities of the present government. Various schemes have been initiated by combined ministries of women & child development (MoWCD), and health & family welfare” (MoHFW).

The MoWCD, in association with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Deendayal Research Institute, is developing a POSHAN atlas under POSHAN Abhiyan which is PM Modi’s multi-ministerial convergence mission with the vision to ensure the attainment of malnutrition-free India by 2022. It focuses on nutrition of children, women, and pregnant mothers in impoverished areas, and the government appears to be looking at community level management of the problem. The key focus is to combat SAM (severe acute malnutrition), which is a major culprit behind deaths of children under five years of age. ‘POSHAN Maah 2020’ was dedicated to identification and management of SAM children using a granular community-based approach.

Addressing factors such as lack of mothers’ knowledge and inappropriate feeding practices, and the social and economic policies, is key in efforts to reduce infant malnutrition. Research has also proven how MGNREGA was associated with reduced infant malnutrition possibly mediated indirectly via improved birth weight rather than by improved infant feeding.

The government, in cognizance of this fact, has announced allocation of Rs 40,000 crore to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) over and above the budgetary allocation of Rs 61,500 crore.

On World Food Day, (a fortnight ago), the PM released 17 bio-fortified varieties of eight crops which can increase the nutritional value of food staples several folds. The rice variety CR DHAN 315 has excess zinc, the wheat variety HD 3298 is enriched with protein and iron while DBW 303 and DDW 48 are rich in protein and iron.

For the subsidised food grain part, the government has focused heavily on reforming the Public Distribution Service—the world’s largest safety net of its kind—using new technologies. The government has digitised 230 million ration cards and nearly 30 million fake and duplicate ration cards have been cancelled.

Data suggests that the cost of treating malnutrition is 27 times more than the cost of its prevention. So, the Modi government is bringing in various reforms to mitigate the effects of malnutrition which in due course will lead to its eradication. In fact, the ministry of women and child development, in consultation with relevant ministries and stakeholders, is working on a new set of guidelines for tackling malnutrition under the Poshan Abhiyan programme for the states to follow.

Among reforms, one worth mentioning will be the recent farm bills which also forms an important part in the fight against malnutrition, which the opposition is vehemently opposing at all levels. Even though India presently is a food surplus state, it does not necessarily translate to preventing hunger. So, access to poor people had to be addressed and this bill exactly does the same. The farmers now need not go through the traditional APMC mandis so sell their produce.

This removal of restriction will allow the produces to be more accessible, thereby providing better options for consumers and better prices for farmers which will translate into adequate remuneration, which is one of the primary needs in eliminating poverty.

As a Member of Parliament over nearly two decades, on various occasions and platforms, I have been outspoken about the malnutrition problem in the country. Along with several fellow parliamentarians and other influential personalities, we formed a high-level advocacy group known as The Citizens’ Alliance against Malnutrition (CAAM). The goal of the alliance was to raise its voice against malnutrition in the country so that collective national consciousness can be converted into action to address and eliminate the menace of malnutrition.

To address malnutrition among pregnant women, there needs to be regular follow-up, possibly every trimester. Also, after marriage, at the gram sabha level, ASHA workers can provide counselling about how to conceive and the importance of nutrition at the time of pregnancy. There can be folic acid and iron supplementation for better nutrient intake.

Another alternative is Universal Basic Income (UBI), which I have been promoting since my parliamentary days. I have always held that UBI could be more affordable in India than in a high-income nation like the United States or Switzerland.

There are positive changes already visible. Malnutrition in children has seen improvement in the last two fiscal years and has reduced by two per cent per annum, according to a combined survey conducted by UNICEF and the ministry of health. The rate of stunting of children in India fell from 38.4 per cent in 2015-16 to 34.7 per cent in 2017-18. This plunge of two per cent each year is mainly on account of government initiatives. With such positive trends, we can be sure about the eradication of malnutrition much sooner than had been projected just a few years ago.

The writer is the national vice president BJP. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK

It is a fact, not just an opinion, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi straddles India’s political firmament like a colossus. This is acknowledged by all, friend and foe, expert or novice. As he begins his 20th year in public life — he took oath as Gujarat’s chief minister for the first time this week 19 years ago — his ascendance and dominance is worth understanding better.

In 1987, when he joined the BJP, he had already made a name for himself as a tireless worker, quick on the uptake, making valuable contributions, and as a charismatic and strategic thinker. Nevertheless, as is all too well known, his debut as Gujarat’s chief minister was to quickly become a trial by fire, the kind few leaders survive.

No politician in independent India has been demonised in such a relentless, Goebbelsian manner as him, and none has withstood it all with such resilience and courage. Despite years of concerted attacks on him by the then-dominant mainstream media, his popularity only grew, his grip on both politics and governance only got firmer.

That ability to go beyond the circumstances in which he found himself has been a crucially important trait since his youth. From going past traditional familial constraints to wandering, exploring, seeking, and discovering his purpose, his is a classic journey that many young idealists fantasise about, but rarely dare to attempt.

The fact that his detractors tried to persistently target him, despite him prevailing in trials in courts and in public opinion, was resented by his support base. That not only helped consolidate his hold over them in the state, but also started the bandwagon of similar support nationwide.

A lesser man might have been content with that, perhaps even planned an extension of his entrenchment as Gujarat’s undisputed leader. Instead, Modi decided to, and succeeded in, transforming his image into that of Mr Development. It did not happen overnight, and it did not happen easily. He had to work against the tide of initial opposition from many quarters, not least of all significant leaders of industry and their associations. Slowly, but surely, he built a track record of decisiveness, of laying out the red carpet for investment, of out-of-the-box solutions for age-old bottlenecks like inconsistent power supply, and all that while avoiding the taint of corruption. Even as a CM he started acquiring a global reputation as a can-do leader.

That is not to say he gave up being the champion of the broadest section of the electorate, nor on his passion for a resurgent, modern India that also took pride in its ancient heritage. He has all along spoken out against the hypocrisy of those who represented what passed for secularism and liberalism in India, but made a mockery of that with their policies of appeasement, pandering to the fears and schisms in sections of society instead of trying to unite them. It is surely one of the great ironies of modern times that the person who marshalled the political will to bring about Triple Talaq reform in India was not from among those secularists and liberals, but one who has been unceasingly vilified by them.

The fact is, this prime minister has been just as staunch a reformer on a wide range issues, taking on established shibboleths. These include not just social changes, but also stunning advances on political and economic reforms that had long been given lip service by all but had also acquired the aura of being unachievable. The latest of these is the recent farm bills that have been advocated by virtually everyone, except perhaps far-left ideologues, for decades.

Looking back to the national political scenario a dozen years ago, it was obvious to many that Modi would almost inevitably lead the nation sooner or later. Even as the government of the day got ever more deeply mired in corruption scandals, infighting and palace intrigues, it continued to be blithely oblivious to the mood of the people. When the then prime minister, a member of a minority community himself, spoke of minorities having the first right on the nation’s resources, a tipping point was reached.

In the other corner stood a long-standing chief minister, exuding charisma, personal honesty, transparency, and good governance. But also unafraid to speak bluntly, against nepotism in politics, against cosseting sections of the population in ghettos, both physical and legislative, and was confidently asserting nationalism and an Indian renaissance. Born of this confluence of circumstances and preparation were such slogans as “sabka saath, sabka vikas, sabka vishwas,” and “minimum government, maximum governance.”

It is worth remembering that the long-entrenched elites he dislodged pushed back with a vehemence born from seeing their world evaporating before their eyes. They united to deny him early attempts at reform, such as on land acquisition, and, emboldened, thereafter opposed him tooth and nail on virtually every decision. They mocked those slogans and dubbed him a non-reformer.

And yet, reform he did, against all odds. The GST is arguably the single-biggest economic reform since Independence. And despite the persistent badmouthing of demonetisation by opponents, it triggered the transition to digitisation that made possible the large-scale monetary aid to hundreds of millions of Indians during this pandemic. The reset that he did with India’s response to cross-border terror attacks must also rank as immensely significant. In this time he has emerged as one of the most influential global leaders.

The second term has begun with a breathtaking shifting of gears, pushing through many long-pending, big-ticket reforms. And yet, while his opponents continue as if in a time warp, doubling down on their failed tactics, Narendra Modi keeps evolving, his best yet to come.

India has just completed 70 years as a Republic, the largest democracy in the history of humankind. To many Indians, it may seem odd, perhaps even disconcerting, that the nation continues to debate fundamental principles about the nature and structure of our government. However, to students of history, this is a familiar tussle.

One of the most contentious of these is the issue of federalism. The crux of the debate is about the division of powers between the Union government and the states. At different times, different factors have energised this debate. Currently, two developments have once again brought the issue to the forefront. One is the apparent resistance by some Opposition-governed states to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), and the other is a judicial challenge by one of them to the 2008 Act, creating the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

In understanding federalism, it is instructive to look at historical parallels. This tussle between central authority and decentralisation is relevant for democracies, especially large or diverse ones. It goes without saying that there is no such debate in authoritarian countries, where the outcome of any such tussle can only have one outcome, with central authority prevailing. As such, it is a good sign for Indian democracy that this is a matter of debate.

Even in democracies, this debate is less relevant for smaller, more homogenous nations, although there are those among them that have enough diversity for the issue to be germane. But it is really only in large, diverse democracies that this debate is the most lively.

The best example of it from another country is the United States (US), the second-largest democracy. After its colonies declared Independence from the British in 1776, it still took many years of war before they prevailed. But even after the US war of independence ended in 1783, for several years the newly independent nation continued to be an unwieldy amalgamation of the original 13 colonies, such as New York and Virginia. With inadequate central authority, the US was ungovernable. That only changed in 1789, with the adoption of its constitution, and the creation of a union government, with General Washington elected as President in 1792, and an independent judiciary. Ever since, from time to time, it’s supreme court issues judgments that either limit or enhance federal authority.

Many resisters of central authority in India often refer to the Constitution’s description of our Republic as a “Union of states.” If that was all there was to it, India too would be ungovernable, as the US was 250 years ago. Fortunately, the drafters of our Constitution were cognisant of history, especially BR Ambedkar, who had, in fact, completed his higher education in the US.

Thus it is that our Republic has features that are both federal as well as unitary. But in fact, it has numerically and qualitatively many more features that give an edge to the authority of the Union government. These include, unlike some other federal democracies, no separate State constitutions (the abrogated Article 370 had been the only exception); more items on the Union List than the State List; and even empowers the Union government to legislate on a particular state subject if two or more states request it.

Therefore, the Constitution has more accurately been described as “the centripetal bias in it is strong, it is only federal in form and unitary in spirit and, therefore, quasi-federal in nature.” The wisdom of our Constituent Assembly is on display here, recognising both that a vast country needs much devolution of authority for governance to be practical, but also that the Union government must have the necessary powers to keep matters spiralling out of control.

However, the tone and tenor of some domestic commentators often wrongly insinuates the concept of federalism as being a one-way street, with the emphasis only on devolution of authority, as if the powers of the Union are somehow subservient, or not intended to be exercised. In reality, it works both ways. The quasi-federal nature of our Constitution has sometimes been called “cooperative federalism,” recognising the inherent interdependence of the union and state governments.

Thus, in the wake of years of rising inter-state crime and terrorist attacks, a dozen years ago there was general consensus on the need for concerted national resources to be devoted to it, leading to the formation of the National Investigation Agency. And indeed that has yielded dividends, with the agency playing an important role in drastically curbing terror attacks and investigating major crimes. It is ironic that after so many years, and after largely succeeding rather than failing, the establishment of the National Investigation Agency is suddenly faced with a legal challenge. And that too, by a state now governed by the very party that legislated it when it ran the Union government. It is perhaps no surprise that states governed by it are also threatening to “not implement” CAA, despite it being a Union subject, and this very amendment having been specifically advocated in 2003 by the party’s soon to be prime minister.

Of course, hypocrisy is not exactly unheard of in politics, and these about-turns are more likely short-term posturing rather than deeply held convictions. But they can take a toll on the nation.

It’s notable that the government’s move on Kashmir has enthused many more Indians than just the BJP’s staunch supporters – many opposition leaders have also supported it.
There have, however, been bitter recriminations by Kashmiri separatists, as well as some in India’s opposition, who claim the move is unconstitutional and will end in tears.
But it is hard to predict how a defanged Article 370 could in practice be any worse than the decades during which it prevailed.
That era saw well over 40,000 deaths in Kashmir as well as two wars and a limited conflict fought over the region by India and Pakistan. It also saw the brutal persecution of hundreds of thousands of its minority Hindu Pandit community, who were forced out of the region in the 1990s as Muslim militancy grew.
The move to revoke Article 370 enthused many more Indians than just the BJP’s staunch supporters
Kashmir now has the potential to be infinitely better.
The region’s special status under Article 370 meant that many progressive Indian court rulings and laws passed by parliament did not apply there.
These included the prevention of child marriages, the rights of Dalits (formerly untouchables), attempts to eliminate discrimination against women and the LGBTQ community, and the prevention of corruption, among many others.
The Nehru government’s introduction of Article 370 into India’s constitution in 1949, granting the region its own constitution, flag, and special status, was never tenable in the long run. Even Nehru himself said so, and it was explicitly worded as a temporary provision.
In any event, Kashmir formally acceded to India in October 1947 under the same rules as all other princely states.
Thereafter, strictly speaking, both the introduction of Article 370 and its amendments were a matter for India’s Parliament. Neither Pakistan nor any other body has any legal role in the matter, any more than it would have for any other state that acceded to India.
Importantly, the people of the region continue to have the same democratic rights as before, just like citizens of any other part of India. They will still have elections and constitutional rights of equality, just like all of India’s 1.36 billion citizens, including more than 200 million Muslims.
And although, as a union territory, it will have less devolution of administrative powers from the federal government than states, it will allow the union government to better co-ordinate federal and state resources for security.
Kashmiri separatists, as well as some in India’s opposition, claim the move is unconstitutional and will end in tears
Since 1948, India’s huge infusion of federal funds into Jammu and Kashmir (four times the amount for the rest of the country on a per capita basis) has not had a proportionately lasting effect.
Though on several socioeconomic parameters Kashmir seems to be near the Indian average, that is not because of its own development, but rather because of large handouts from Delhi.
Its special provisions not only facilitated enormous leakages from the Indian treasury, in conjunction with the security situation it also inhibited investment in a sustainable local economy.
That is set to change dramatically. A major business meeting is planned for October, and some of the biggest Indian companies have indicated they will announce large investments. It is not just the big players – many others are keen to participate in its development.
Land is an emotive issue all over the Indian subcontinent and this region is no exception. Article 370 not only prevented Indians from other parts from buying land there, but even disenfranchised Kashmiri women who married non-Kashmiris. Modern, liberal democracies should have no place for such discrimination.
Though there are similar restrictions in a few other states as well, there is a crucial difference. In the northern state of Himachal Pradesh, for instance, there is a specified length of residency required before Indians from outside the state can buy land. While requiring a demonstration of commitment to a region for land purchase can arguably be a good thing, a total ban based on regionalism or gender will only foster ghettoisation.
Some of the biggest Indian companies have indicated they will announce large investments in the region
Similar arguments have been made about preserving the demographics of India’s only Muslim-majority state.
That goes to the root of Pakistan’s angst about the region because of its foundational two-nation theory – but that is surely redundant after its eastern wing broke away citing linguistic and ethnic discrimination to become the nation of Bangladesh.
On the other hand, unlike the dwindling of Pakistan’s minorities, India has seen the flourishing of its own, with Muslims going from less than 10% of the population after partition to more than 14% now.
India’s Muslims have seen all-round success too. They have held high office in political, judicial and military circles, and joined the ranks of the nation’s billionaires.
The autonomy that Kashmiris have aspired for is already built into the federal structure of the biggest democracy that humankind has ever seen. As a fully integrated part of it, whether now as a union territory or later once again as a state, it will be much better placed to deliver a better life to its people.
As India’s Ambassador to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, so eloquently put it, the amendment of Article 370 has no external implications whatsoever.
The temporary security measures there have successfully prevented the engineering of violence and casualties; and as for dialogue with Pakistan, India remains committed to the Shimla agreement, which saw both nations conceive steps to normalise relations and end conflict.