Answer

Introduction

Launched in 2020 as a Covid-relief measure, PMGKAY provides free foodgrains to nearly 800 million people, supplementing the PDS and NFSA. While it ensured food security in crisis, its universal coverage amid declining poverty raises issues of efficiency and fiscal burden.

Body

Significance of PMGKAY as a Relief Measure

• Immediate food security during crisis: The scheme acted as a lifeline during Covid by providing assured foodgrain when jobs and incomes collapsed.
  Eg: Each AAY family received 35 kg/month while every Priority Household (PHH) member received 5 kg/month.
• Creation of the world’s largest food safety net: By covering nearly two-thirds of the population, PMGKAY became the backbone of India’s pandemic welfare architecture.
  Eg: Scheme extended till December 2028, ensuring continuity of support.
• Protection of the poorest sections: It particularly safeguards Antyodaya households (poorest of the poor), who are the most vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition.
  Eg: 81 million AAY beneficiaries continue to enjoy higher entitlements.
• Prevention of social instability: Ensuring basic subsistence reduced the risk of food riots, distress migration, and large-scale social unrest.
• Indirect economic relief: By meeting household food needs, families could divert limited incomes to health and education, cushioning the wider economic shock.
  

Challenges in Implementation of PMGKAY

• Unsustainable fiscal burden: The scheme places heavy pressure on the exchequer with an annual outgo of  food subsidy of ₹2.36 trillion.
  Eg: Over five years, the subsidy bill is projected at ₹11.8 trillion.
• Inclusion errors and misuse: A large proportion of ineligible households continue to benefit, diluting impact on the poor.
• Centre–State friction in implementation: While the Centre gains credit for extending the scheme, states must bear the political backlash of identifying and excluding ineligible beneficiaries.
• Mismatch with poverty levels: Current multidimensional poverty stands at 210 million, but PMGKAY still covers around 760 million people, highlighting serious over-coverage.
• Political reluctance to prune beneficiaries: Removing ineligible households may bring only small fiscal savings but carries the risk of public backlash.

Suggested Reforms

• Retarget the scheme: Restrict coverage to AAY families or bottom 25% of the population to align benefits with actual poverty levels.
  Eg: Out of 759 million beneficiaries, only 81 million belong to AAY, who should remain the priority group.
• Introduce dynamic exclusion criteria: Use Aadhaar, income-tax data, vehicle ownership, and land records to automatically weed out non-poor households.
  Eg: Over 9.47 million ration card holders paying income tax can be excluded through such mechanisms.
• Adopt cash transfer models: Replace part of the foodgrain subsidy with Direct Benefit Transfers to reduce leakages, empower beneficiary choice, and rationalise costs.
• Rationalise entitlements: Differentiate benefits clearly between AAY and PHH groups, reducing excess allocations to households that no longer require full support.
• Strengthen verification and monitoring: Conduct periodic surveys, digital audits, and real-time beneficiary verification to ensure only genuine households remain in the scheme.

Conclusion

PMGKAY has been vital for food security and social welfare, aligning with SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). To sustain its impact, reforms in targeting, digital delivery, and nutrition-focus are needed, making it a stronger pillar of citizen welfare and inclusive development.

DOWNLOAD PDF