The Supreme Court lambasted the government for the yawning gap between India’s vibrant economy and people on the other end dying of hunger. The Apex Court said: “We can’t have two Indias. You want the world to believe that we are the strongest emerging economy but millions of poor and hungry people are its stark contrast.” This is not mere a vitriolic comment rather it puts country’s policy makers and mandarins in the dock. Nobody could buy the fact that the country will have two façades—Prosperous India and Hungry India. Whatever may be claims of the government, it is patently true that such two Indias have been emerging for a long spell and the dichotomy between them too has been growing. The reports of national-international agencies as well as government and non-governmental organizations have also corroborated this stark reality. The whole world knows that India stands at the bottom of Human Development Index. It is true that the flow of development goes slow to the last row of the society, but at least it should have a standard, but this is conspicuous by its absence in India. Prosperity of the poor is just an imagination .The question is not that hundreds of thousands of people have no access to even two square meals rather many more douse flames of their hunger by hook or by crook. The number of malnourished people in India is more than the population of many other countries, which dents the image of a nation which claims to have developed economy. Much chagrin to the people, the number of malnourished is more than that of poor African countries.
Albeit our policy makers and mandarins are committed for ameliorating the condition of the poor and downtrodden, their tall claims are confined to documents only and never get translated into action. The profound irony is that on one hand hundreds of thousands are malnourished, while on the other thousands of tonnes of foodgrains are decaying in the state granaries. This is bound to happen this year too. The moot point is that if the Central government pays attention to the suggestions of the Apex Court that additional foodgrains should be provided to the hunger-stricken states. It is worth mentioning that when the Supreme Court said it is better to dole out foodgrains among the poor, the Centre retorted it is not important for the court to interfere into strategic issues. If the government shows such an attitude, people are sure to face more problems in future. The public distribution system is equally pathetic. It is disappointing that a tug of war between the Centre and state government over number of the poor is still going on. The government should take serious note of all these issues as they are directly related with public interests.