Chetan Bhagat, the Overage Cynic

Chetan Bhagat, who writes a blog under the rubric “The underage optimist,” is beginning to sound like an overage cynic.

His latest essay lambasting the Food Security Bill was also run as an op-ed in the Times of India, 12 July 2013. The piece is an unabashed rant against the very idea of providing food to the poor, and against all those “left-leaning intellectuals,” NGOs and poverty economists who support it. Bhagat rages that “the fashionably left, almost communist, intellectual mafia will almost kill” anyone who argues against “one of the most hare-brained schemes” ever. One wonders why he added the two qualifying “almosts,” which also chafe stylistically coming from the best-selling author.

Image Courtesy: wikipedia.org

Bhagat’s main contention is that the Food Security scheme has been unthinkingly conceived, as should be obvious to anybody with a modicum of common sense, with no rationale other than “to come across as [caring] for poor people,” and that the on-going debate is based on emotions rather than on reason as is the wont in India. The diatribe is all very well, but surely it would have helped if Bhagat had advanced at least some arguments, some reasoning supported by facts, instead of resorting only to harangue. As it is, he himself does just what he claims he abhors, merely putting together a string of opinions and some choice abuses, leaving dissenters with little option save to “attack the debater instead of the argument,” since there is scarcely one in his piece.

Bhagat is wrong in numerous ways.

Many intellectuals and activists, including on the Left, have publicly expressed sharp criticism of the Bill in its present form, even if they support its main thrust, namely making subsidized food grains available to the poor thereby providing vital succor and helping alleviate poverty. These critiques, supported by a wide range of empirical data, field research and cogent analysis, have covered several issues: scheme coverage such as whether the scheme should only target specific beneficiaries or have wider scope, institutional mechanisms such as whether or not the PDS should be used, and modalities such as whether food should be directly be distributed or is it better to use vouchers or direct cash transfers. Supporters as well as opponents of the Scheme have extensively debated its costs, possible impact on food and general inflation and on agricultural prices as well as the economy in general. Bhagat is completely off the mark both in dismissing this rich debate and in assuming that all those not completely opposed to the Bill are all speaking with one single bleeding-heart voice.

Bhagat should also look into how come the state of Chhattisgarh has been able to implement its own version of a food security scheme covering a larger proportion of the population and more commodities than the proposed central Bill without going bankrupt or causing all manners of havoc as he predicts.

Bhagat’s arrogance in claiming to be the only one with brains is astounding. Even if ordinary mortals such as economics professors, planners and social researchers were to be discounted, surely the favourable opinions of Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz, both awarded with a little something called the Nobel Prize, and those of international organizations such as the FAO and the International Food Policy Research Institute, should count for something.

Problem is, Chetan Bhagat has got too used to spouting opinions in columns and loving the sound of his own voice. He should also read. It can teach one a lot, provided of course one can get over a swollen head.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Newsclick