News Analysis

“India Food Security Bill Could Be Stalled” – by Prasanta Sahu and Romit Guha

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080082774594820.html

Paper’s Bias: I’ve gathered information from this article from the online Wall Street Journal. This organization aims to provide their readers with the on goings of the economy. With this, the paper’s bias remains towards the side of the government stating that the government doesn’t have enough money to start the food security bill until the next fiscal year (starting in April 2013) because of the present deficit.

Author’s Bias: Though these two authors, Sahu and Guha, are part of this corporation, there is a statement from another source, which states “[The government] use it [the introduction of the bill] as it’s carrot before the 2014 elections.” By mentioning this, it shows that the authors are more towards the side of the people who are food insecure as they agree with the statement about the government trying to use the food security bill to capture the votes of those belonging to the poor sectors of society.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is clearly an informative piece of news as the authors don’t try to persuade their readers to go against the government’s plan, only they merely state the reasons, directly, as to why the government has taken the decision to stall the food security bill until the next fiscal year.

Argument: The argument found in this article is though the government has decided to take on the responsibility of subsidizing “grains to more than 60% of India’s 1.2 billion people, with special provisions for pregnant women, destitute children, and others” it needs to make sure it has enough money to be able to do this without causing harm to the whole country. The government believes that it will need “745.52 billion rupees” to subsidize food for the poor during this fiscal year, and it does not have enough money, and for this reason it is pushing back the introduction of the bill until next year.

Importance of Food Security in Different Countries

     For developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, food insecurity holds a different meaning from countries like India and Pakistan where the literacy rates are much lower than the literacy rates in the US and UK. Due to the economic meltdown, many people in the developed countries have lost their jobs and are unable to have the luxuries they did before. However, there are many food shelters these people can go to to have meals 5 times a week. The recent video we watched in class stated that people in the United States view food insecurity in two different ways: the first being that the diet that people have either isn't big enough or the quality of the food isn't good, and the second is that people don't know where the next meal will come from. However, the difference between the causes of food insecurity in developing countries such as Pakistan and India is due to a lack of education. People come from big families where the parents are uneducated, causing them to work in a minimum wage job. The money they make isn't enough to sustain a family of seven or eight. For this reason, their children are unable to go to school and are unable to have enough food in their bellies. There aren't many places available in the rural areas of developing countries where poor people can have access to free food like the food shelters in the US.

"A Further Attack on PDS" by Madhura Swaminathan

* NOTE: PDS stands for public distribution system

Bias: THe autheor seems to take the side of the public distribution system along with the people who are food insecure and goes against the government stating its corruption.

Purpose: Though the author provides many statistical evidence, she is trying to persuade her readers of the government's corruption and "disinterest" in food insecurity and is also trying to persuade her readers to view food insecurity as a major problem.

Argument: Her argument states that the separation of low income families into below poverty line (BPL) and above poverty line (APL), the government only providing a set amount of grains for the poorest families, and increasing the prices of grains will increase the problem of food insecurity. THe only solution is by allowing the food economy and the public distribution system (PDS) to be guided by those in need of food and those who are poor.

"Fighting for Food Security in India" by Biraj Swain

Bias: Talking about food insecurity throughout his article, the author clearly take the side of those whoa re food insecure, however, doesn't try to put those who aren't in favor of those who are food insecure like the author of "A Further Attack on PDS."

Purpose: Though he supports finding a solution to food insecurity he doesn't try to put any side down unlike the other author. He tires to be equal regarding both sides, the government and those in favor of eliminating food insecurity, stating what the government has done, what the problems are, and other people's say regarding the possible solutions.

Argument: His argument states that though the government is working towards reducing food insecurity, there are other things such as equal rights on land to both men and women farmers, a better way of calculating how much food people need, media going above reviews about diet book and more on the food insecurity issue, and realizing that the global climate affects the poor as well.

Evidence and Discrepancies between "A Further Attack on PDS" and "Fighting for Food Security in India"

1. Both authors stated that India was hiding huge amounts of grains.

2. However, Swaminathan stated that it was 45.5 million tonnes that was hidden while Swain stated that it was 60 million tonnes.

3. The second article stated the supreme court took action against the government stating the need to consider food insecurity.

4. The first article stated that India tried to sell grains to foreigners - however, didn't say where this information came from.

5. Both the authors agreed that there should be a better way of dealing with the public distribution system, Swaminathan stating that there shouldn't be a divide between APL and BPL, while Swain stated that there should be a "stronger, transparent monitoring" system.

6. Article one stated that 47% children between the ages of 0 and 4 are malnourished and 48.5% of adults were malnourished between the years of 1993 and 1994.

7. It also stated that for BPL families, rice and wheat prices increased by 68%. For people APL, the rice prices increased 29%.

Food Security and Poverty - Personal Perspective

1. Who is affected?

People who suffer from poverty are those who are unable to have a proper home, have access to proper clothing or enough money to spend without having to lose access to other resources. People who suffer from poverty are those who have suffered from the financial meltdown or are uneducated and have to survive on a minimum wage job with very little benefits from those jobs.

2. How many are affected?

I believe that about 3.5 billion people suffer from poverty and food insecurity out of the 7 billion people in the world today.

3. Is this a major problem?

I believe that this is a major problem in the world beacuse it causes a divide in society. It creates an unbalance in the way poor people can do this which leads to overpopulation. The mentality poor people have is: More children equals more money. For this reason, many poor people come from a family of 5 or 6 children. The parents are unable to pay for the education of the five or six children causing the children to be uneducated. These children, when they grow up, will also contain that same mentality of the parents and the cycle continues.

4. What are some solutions?

The main reason why poverty occurs, in my opinion, is because people are unable to find access to a good educational system. I believe that the first step to decreasing poverty and increasing the idea of food security is by allowing people a free education. This is something that governments in the third world countries should aim towards.

Mr. Krishnan - a CNN Hero

What is the purpose of this video?	What are the claims being made?
The purpose of this video was for CNN to show their audience the kinds of people who do good in the world. It is also to teach people to give back to those who need help. Here, CNN is trying to show their audience that doing a little bit for people can go a long way.	I believe that there are two claims that are being made in this video. One claim is clearly stated by Krishnan at the end of the video, which states that “life is about giving back.” The second message is less obvious. The video states that it doesn’t matter where you come from – what background you belong in, or what country you are from – helping others is just that, helping and sharing your little “wealth” (not necessarily money) to those who are less fortunate.
Do you agree/disagree with the contention of this video? Why?	Is this video factual or telling a story? In what way?
I agree with this video because the second message reminds people to give back. There are many a times when all of us state that we will go out and help the needy but end up getting too preoccupied with our own lives to see that there are others out there who need help. This video shows us that if a man can give up a major job to help the poor, then there is no reason why we can’t take an hour from our day to help those in need.	This video was aimed towards telling a story. This video hit the heart instead of stating facts and figures. This video showed a moral at the end and made it’s audience question and speculate on their own lives. For this reason, those this video was true, told a story and allowed people to look deep into their own hearts.