mid-day meals and the right to food in india in primary schools (draft, 3 oct) mid-day meals and the...

MDM in Primary Schools (Draft, 3 Oct)

Mid-Day Meals and the Right to Food in India

Reetika Khera∗

Contents 1. Introduction 2. History and Management of the MDMS 3. Research Areas: Achievements and Challenges 4. Tamil Nadu and Gujarat 5. Conclusions Tables References

∗ This review paper was written for a seminar on “Universalising Elementary Education in India: Challenges, Experiences and Emerging Policy Issues”, 16-17 June 2006, organized by the Institute for Human Development. I would like to thank the seminar organizers, Preet Rustagi and Alakh Sharma. I would also like to thank Jean Drèze, Nandini Nayak and Meera Samson for insightful comments and suggestions and Arudra Burra for editorial improvements. Biraj Patnaik and Vandana Bhatia at the office of the Commissioners in the Right to Food case, kindly provided access to useful government documents.


1 Introduction The situation of children in India has aptly been described as a “silent emergency”. In terms of both education and health, India has some of the worst indicators of child wellbeing in the world. Nearly half of all Indian children are undernourished, whether we use the weight-for-age or height-for-age criterion. Though there has been some improvement in educational indicators in recent years, the goal of universal elementary education remains quite distant, especially for girls. Wider awareness of these issues has led to significant initiatives such as the recognition of elementary education as a fundamental right, the introduction of an “education cess” and the launch of “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan”. Another major intervention is the “Mid-Day Meal Scheme” (hereafter MDMS), launched in 1995 with the aim of "universalization of primary education by increasing enrolment, retention and attendance and simultaneously impacting on nutrition of students in primary classes".1 As this statement indicates, mid-day meals can play an important facilitating role in the universalization of elementary education by enhancing enrolment, attendance and retention. Mid-day meals can also contribute to better educational achievements by improving the nutritional status of children, or at least eliminating “classroom hunger”.2 Further, some states have used the MDMS as an opportunity to overcome common micronutrient deficiencies (e.g. iron, iodine and Vitamin A) and to facilitate related health interventions such as mass de-worming. Given the class- and caste- ridden nature of Indian society, MDMs can also play useful socialization roles. Sharing a meal with children from diverse caste and class backgrounds can help children overcome traditional social prejudices. There are other possible educational benefits, such as imparting nutrition education and personal hygiene to school children. These and other contributions of the MDMS are discussed in greater detail below.3

Until 2001, however, the MDMS was implemented neither in letter nor in spirit and was limited to providing “dry rations” in most states.4 Things began to change after a 28 November, 2001 Supreme Court interim order in the "right to food" case which directed

1 The official name of this scheme is “National Programme for Nutritional Support for Education”, but it is widely known as “Mid-Day Meal Scheme” and the same term will be used in this paper. 2 Janaki Rajan cited in Drèze and Goyal (2003). See also Rana (2005), p. 7. 3 For instance, Zaidi (2005) reports that in Navi Mumbai and Orissa the introduction of MDMS has had an impact on child labour as well. See also Setia (2006) on this point. See Government of India (2004), Drèze and Goyal (2003) and De, Noronha and Samson (2005) for further discussion of the potential benefits of mid-day meals. 4 "Dry rations" refer to the practice of giving uncooked wheat or rice on a monthly basis, often based on the attendance of a pupil. Children got 3 kg of foodgrain per month if they had 80 per cent attendance in school.


all states to provide “cooked meals” to all primary school children.5 When this order was passed, some observers felt that this was yet another case of over-ambitious judicial intervention, and that the provisions of the order would remain on paper. But as it turned out, the political appeal of mid-day meals, combined with a lively grassroots campaign for the implementation of Supreme Court orders, helped to ensure that implementation hurdles were gradually removed. In a relatively short period of time (about four years), school meals have become a part of the daily routine across the country. Today, the MDMS provides a cooked meal to approximately 120 million school children, making it the largest school feeding programme in the world. It has gained immense popular support, especially among disadvantaged sections of the population. This study reviews evidence from nine field studies (see Table 2) and government documents to understand how the scheme actually works on the ground.6 The aim is to highlight the achievements so far as well as the remaining challenges.

2 History and Management of the MDMS

2.1 A Brief History of Mid-day Meals When the Mid-Day Meals Scheme was launched in 1995. State governments (who were responsible for implementing the scheme) were given two years' time to put necessary systems in place so as to be able to provide cooked meals to primary school-children. However, in the first six years after the scheme was launched (i.e. until 2001), most states failed to put the required arrangements in place and instead provided students with monthly dry rations (wheat or rice) based on their attendance in school. Tamil Nadu had launched a cooked mid-day meal scheme in the fifties and expanded it significantly in 1982, and Gujarat introduced mid-day meals in the 1980s. Besides this, the entire state of Kerala, and some pockets of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, began providing cooked meals in 1995.7

In the five years since 2001, the situation changed quite dramatically. In an interim order dated 28 November, 2001 the Supreme Court directed all state governments “to implement the Mid-Day Meal Scheme by providing every child in every Government and Government assisted Primary School with a prepared mid day meal with a minimum content of 300 calories and 8-12 grams of protein each day of school for a minimum of 200 days.” Very few states, however, introduced cooked meals in primary schools before

5 “Right to food case” refers to a public interest litigation officially known as People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union Of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001. The order on mid-day meals applies to government and government-aided schools. For further details, see www.righttofoodindia.org 6 Many of these studies are available online under the “Mid-day Meals” section of the Right to Food Campaign website, www.righttofoodindia.org. 7 See chart in Drèze and Goyal (2003: p. 4676) for the status of implementation of the MDMS in 2003.


the Supreme Court’s initial deadline of 28 February 2002.8 The deadline was later extended to January 2005 by the Supreme Court. State inaction prompted grassroots activists to start public mobilization efforts. The first major campaign activity was an "Action Day on Mid-day Meals" on 9 April, 2002.9 In 100 districts across 9 states, people expressed their dissatisfaction with the state of implementation of the SC's order. In Bangalore, children lined streets with empty plates; in other places, copies of the SC order were distributed. The most effective form of protest was the provision of a symbolic “people’s mid-day meal” to school children in public places, aimed at shaming the government into action. Following the Supreme Court's orders and public mobilization, the Government of India revised its Guidelines for the Mid-Day Meal Scheme in 2004. According to these Guidelines, the MDMS was being implemented fully in 20 states and all 7 union territories, and partially in the remaining eight states.10 Since then, the coverage of the MDMS has been further extended, and today it is close to universal. It is worth noting that some states have gone beyond the scope of the mandated coverage. For instance, in Tamil Nadu and Kerala the destitute and the aged are permitted to partake of the mid-day meal in school. In Gujarat, the scheme covers children from classes 1 to 7. The new Guidelines, in line with the Supreme Court order dated 20 April, 2004, provide for meals to be served during the summer vacations in drought-affected areas. Some states, including Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, have been following this directive.11

2.2 Finance for the MDMS As mentioned above, the MDMS is a centrally-sponsored scheme.12 Grain (wheat or rice) for mid-day meals is supplied by the Central government to the State Governments free of charge, at the rate of 100 grams per student per day. Besides this, the Central Government also subsidizes transport of grain from the nearest FCI depot to the primary school.13

Others costs include the cost of ingredients (such as pulses, vegetables, cooking oil), fuel costs and cooks’ wages. Until the new Guidelines were issued in 2004, these costs were to be borne by the State Governments. This was one of the main reasons behind State 8 See Khera (2005) for more on the campaign for the implementation of the Supreme Court order. 9 See Right to Food Campaign (2005). 10 The eights states where the Scheme was not fully implemented were Assam, Bihar, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. 11 See Commissioners of the Supreme Court (2005) in the Right to food case. Available online at http://www.righttofoodindia.org/comrs/comrs_reports.html. 12 See Government of India (2004), page 2. 13 There was a ceiling of Rs. 50 per quintal on the transport subsidy from 1997 to 2004. In the revised Guidelines issued in 2004, this was increased to Rs. 75 per quintal (GOI, 1997: p. 2 and p. 6).


Governments not providing cooked meals: dry rations saved the states the additional cooking expenses. Initially, the wage costs were met from the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY). In 1999, the JRY was revamped and these costs began to be borne by state governments. Following the Supreme Court’s orders the Central Government began providing additional assistance. For instance, in December 2003 State Governments were asked to earmark 15 percent of funds under the Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojana (PMGY) for meeting cooking costs. In the revised Guidelines of 2004, contributions under PMGY were discontinued, but the Central Government began providing Re. 1 per child per school day towards cooking costs. Note that these were previously supposed to be borne by the State Governments. Per child per day costs for have been reported in Table 1.14 The responsibility of providing physical infrastructure lies with the State Governments. Physical infrastructure, as laid down in the Guidelines, includes a kitchen-cum-store, adequate water supply for drinking and washing, cooking devices (stove), and utensils for cooking and serving.15 State Governments can use funds from several centrally funded schemes for these purposes. For instance, Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) funds can be utilized for the construction of kitchen sheds in rural areas. Similarly, in urban areas funds available under the National Slum Development Programme or Urban Wage Employment Programme can be used for the construction of kitchen sheds. For drinking water, funds from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) or Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme can be utilized. Finally, utensils can be bought from the annual SSA school grant of Rs. 2000.

2.3 Management of the MDMS The central Guidelines allow State Governments to manage the MDMS through a designated "Nodal Department", such as School Education, Rural Development, Women and Child Development, or Social Welfare. Non-governmental organizations have also been permitted to be involved in the provision of MDMs.16 There are significant variations in management system across states: some states, such as Tamil Nadu, have a dedicated management to oversee the implementation of the MDMS. In others, it is the responsibility of the education department to implement the scheme. The management system makes a significant difference to the way in which the Scheme is implemented. Generally states which implement the Scheme through a separate and dedicated structure seem to have relatively well-implemented MDMS. 14 The Central Government’s contribution was recently raised to Rs. 1.50 per child per day, on the understanding that the State government makes a matching contribution of at least 50 paise per child per day. 15 Children are usually expected to bring their own bowls or plates. 16 For further details, see the Report of the Committee on Mid-Day Meals, 1995, Department of Education available online at http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/r/2V/7B/2V7B0501.htm.

http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/r/2V/7B/2V7B0501.htm


Various management issues have emerged in recent studies, e.g., irregular supplies17, inadequate monitoring18, incomplete reimbursement of fuel or transport costs19, low and delayed remuneration of cooks and helpers, etc. Aside from disrupting MDMs, these hurdles create incentives for corruption. For example, inadequate transport funds create a temptation to recover the costs by selling some of the rice meant for children.20

In urban areas, a common approach is to cook the meals in centralized kitchens and transport them to the schools. Also, NGOs often provide the meals on a contract basis. This approach seems to work reasonably well in some cases. For instance, Naandi Foundation in Hyderabad has one kitchen which provides quality meals to 1.3 lakh students in 880 schools of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.21 Similarly, Akshay Patra provides meals through its kitchens to children in Bangalore, Puri, Hubli, Jaipur, Vrindavan, Baran, Nathdwara, Mangalore, Mysore, and Hasan.22 In Delhi there are 13 suppliers who provide for 9.5 lakh children in 1863 schools; the suppliers are closely regulated and supervised, and the scheme appears to be doing quite well.23 However, these success stories may not reflect the general state of mid-day meals in urban areas. Indeed there is also anecdotal evidence (e.g. from media reports) of serious problems in the provision of mid-day meals in many urban areas, partly due to crowding, inadequate infrastructure and lack of hygiene. Further evidence on this is required. In some states (notably Rajasthan), the concept of public-private-partnerships for mid-day meals is taking root, especially in urban areas. There have been some positive experiences in this field, but it is also fraught with potential dangers, including the perverse influence of commercial lobbies and the possible use of mid-day meals as a platform for the pursuit of private agendas. These initiatives are relatively new but gaining popularity rapidly, and call for close scrutiny and evaluation.24

Several states have tried to involve the community in the management and monitoring the MDMS. In Chhattisgarh this has worked quite well, but it seems unlikely that monitoring by mothers will work everywhere.25 Monitoring by district administration plays a very important role for the smooth functioning of the MDMS. For instance, Menon (2003)

17 See Pushpendra and Sood (2005), Rana (2005) among others. 18 See Drèze and Goyal (2003), Ghosh (2006), Pushpendra and Sood (2005) on this. 19 See Zaidi (2005). 20 See Zaidi (2005) for one such report from Palashguri in Assam, Pushpendra and Sood (2005) for a similar story from Supaul (Bihar). 21 See www.naandi.org 22 See http://www.akshayapatra.org/ 23 De, Noronha and Samson (2005). 24 See Gangadharan (2006) who recommends a major overhaul of the management structure in Kerala based on the experience of Rajasthan and Karnataka. 25 See Indian Express (2006), The Telegraph (2006a) and Zaidi (2005).


found that following a food contamination scare in Mandya (Karnataka) that "the mid-day meal had in fact become the focus of the school". School administrations were paying attention to the preparation of the meal in the school premises. Similarly, Afridi (2005: p. 1530) found that meals were provided irregularly from July-December 2003 and that monitoring by the district administration led to meals being provided regularly from then on.

3 Research Areas: Achievements and Problems When the Supreme Court order of 28 November, 2001 was issued it was hard to believe that even the most rudimentary infrastructure could be put in place in the so-called "Bimaru" states such as Bihar and Rajasthan.26 The fact that MDMs have become a part of the daily routine in most primary schools across the country is a major achievement. Table 2 describes the studies on which this review of the MDMS is based.27 Most of these studies have been conducted in the period since the Supreme Court order was passed in 2001. Several of them used an adapted version of the questionnaire developed at the Centre for Equity Studies (CES) for the first major survey of mid-day meals (Drèze and Goyal, 2003). Table 3 summarizes the main findings of these studies.

3.1 Enrolment, Retention and Attendance By all available accounts, the Mid-Day Meal Scheme has led to a substantial increase in the enrolment of children in primary schools. In fact, several micro studies point to major increases in enrolment immediately after the introduction of mid-day meals. For instance, following the introduction of MDMs in Rajasthan in July 2002 a small study of 63 schools in the remote district of Barmer suggested a 23 per cent increase in the enrolment of children. The CES survey pointed to a 14.5 per cent increase in enrolment in class one; according to the Samaj Pragati Sahyog survey (SPS 2005) by Jain and Shah (2005), there was a 36 per cent increase in class one enrolment in Madhya Pradesh in 2004. Naik (2005) also finds a drastic increase in enrolment in Karnataka. Whether macro data confirm these gains in enrolment remains to be scrutinized. As Drèze (2006) notes, the increase recorded by micro-studies may be on the high side, “due to small samples or reporting biases”. Deaton and Drèze (2006) note that the consumption of mid-day meals in primary schools appears to be heavily under-recorded in National Sample Survey (NSS) data, making it hard to verify the impact of MDMs on school attendance from NSS surveys.

26 See Jain and Shah (2005), p. 5082. 27 Many of these studies are available on the website of the “right to food campaign” (www.righttofoodindia.org), along with related material on mid-day meals.

http://www.righttofoodindia.org/


Even more encouraging than the overall increase in enrolment figures is the increase in enrolment of girls. Drèze and Kingdon (2001) found convincing evidence for this based on household data pertaining to primary schooling in 1996. They found that the provision of mid-day meals, on average, halves the proportion of girls excluded from the schooling system (ibid, p 20). In most of the studies reviewed here, girls' enrolment records a much higher increase than overall increase in enrolment. For instance, the Lok Adhikar Network study (in 2002) in Barmer records a 36 per cent increase in enrolment of girls. The CES survey in 2003 records a [36] per cent increase in enrolment of girls and SPS 2005 records a 38 per cent increase for girls.28 Thus, mid-day meals seem to make an important contribution to the reduction of gender bias in school participation. Similarly, there is a greater impact on the enrolment of children from disadvantaged families: Dalits, Scheduled Tribes, and the poor (see Table 3). This is as one would expect since those are the families that need MDMs most. 29 Poor working mothers are particularly happy with the programme as it frees them from the burden of feeding children during the day.30

Many of these studies also hint at an improvement in attendance rates as well as retention rates. However since both are difficult to measure, the evidence remains inconclusive.31

3.2 Nutritional and Health Impact The nutritional impact of mid-day meals depends both on the quality and the quantity of food provided at school. These in turn depend inter alia on the budget, which affects the menu as well as cooking practices (e.g. safety and hygiene). According to the Supreme Court order, the school meal is supposed to provide 300 kcal and 8-10 grams of protein. On the quantity of food provided, there are two key issues: a) whether the SC order is being complied with; b) whether the quantities prescribed by the SC order are adequate. Some studies have noted that the amount of food provided by schools does not meet the SC norms (see e.g. the SPS 2005, CORD 2005 and Afridi 2005). In Delhi, parents felt that the amount of food provided is very small (though children themselves were quite satisfied with the food being provided). In other places such as Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, there have been no complaints regarding the quantity of food provided to children. Another concern regarding the quantity of food is that the needs of a class 1 child are very different from those of a class 5 child.32 However, this has not been taken into 28 There is one important caveat. The government’s enrolment drives, such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and other state-specific drives such as "Shiksha Aapke Dwar" in Rajasthan,also began around the same time, so it is difficult to disentangle the effect of MDMS on enrolment from the effect of these drives. 29 One of the attractive features of the MDMS is that it combines universal entitlement with an element of self-selection since children who attend government schools tend to come from disadvantaged families. 30 [See Drèze (FOOD FOR EQUALITY).] 31 According to a newspaper report by Ghosh (2006), regular attendance has grown by 15-20% in UP since the introduction of the MDM. See also Menon (2003), Rather (2006) and Zaidi (2005).


account while fixing the quantity of food provided to children.33 Though many studies report that children are getting their fill (even though it may not be the amount stipulated by the SC order, generally there is no uniform rule to ensure the equitable distribution of food.34 For instance, in Delhi children belonging to lower grades are given food first and are consciously served less (both because they are smaller and because teachers do not want food to run out). The possibility of a shortage arises because food is cooked in centralized kitchens based on attendance records of the previous day. The quality of the meal is the main remaining challenge as far as the MDMS is concerned. Reports of children being taken ill after consuming the mid-day meal have occasionally made headlines in various parts of the country.35 Besides these occasional incidents, nutritive value of the meal needs to be monitored carefully. This depends on the menu as well as cooking practices in schools. When states such as Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh began providing cooked mid-day meals, they were providing the same dull meal every day - ghooghri in Rajasthan and dalia in Madhya Pradesh. These preparations amount to nothing more than cooking wheat and serving it with either salt or sugar. However, most states have gradually moved away from monotonous and unappetizing meals: Rajasthan now has a weekly menu which provides dal, roti, bati, vegetables, etc. on different days of the week.36 Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, the “Suruchi Bhojan” was introduced in November 2003.37 Bringing in a varied menu was one of the big challenges for many states when the programme was initiated. The two main problems were lack of adequate staff for preparing the meal and the lack of adequate funds. For instance, Jain and Shah (2005) find that the assumptions regarding prices of vegetables and dals while fixing the budget are “absurd”. The budgeted cost of dals is Rs. 25/kg whereas a more realistic price according to them would be Rs. 30-35/kg. This meant that smaller quantities than

32 On this, see Jain and Shah (2005), p. 5083. 33 Tamil Nadu is an exception – see section 4 for a discussion. A recent discussion paper of the Government of India, MDM Division reports that under the revised MDM programme of 2006, the quantities are being increased to 450 calories with 12 grams of protein (p. 13). Also, it proposes to provide 700 calories and 20 grams of protein for upper-primary school children (p. 21). 34 Jain and Shah (2005) find that the quantity of food cooked is inadequate in one of the seven districts surveyed. In general, they report a "great sloppiness in determining the quantities to be cooked" (p. 5083). Blue (2005) reports that though the quantity distributed “appeared to be smaller” than 100 grams, out of 67 children who were interviewed, 52 said that the “school meals filled them up”. 35 See Menon (2004), Khan (2006), Seth (2005) and Sharma (2005) among others. An impressive collection of newspaper reports (in Hindi) on food poisoning and other “mid-day meal incidents” in Uttar Pradesh (which has one of the worst mid-day meal schemes in India) is available from the Dynamic Action Group in Lucknow. 36 During a recent field trip to Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), many children told us with glee that they "got everything" in school - "eggs, papad-achar, dal, rice". See Mascarenhas (2006) for a similar report from Maharashtra. 37 See Afridi (2005) for more details.


required are bought and children get watery dal or just potatoes in lieu of vegetables.38 The role of infrastructure in ensuring that the nutritional and health benefits of the MDMS are realised is discussed in section 3.4 below. Even with a varied menu, the question remains as to how mid-day meals fare in terms of nutritive content. For instance, to what extent do they meet the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for children in that age group? As far as I know, only one study (Afridi 2005) has attempted the complex task of assessing the calorie and protein content of the school meal. Afridi's study is based on samples of food taken from 63 schools from 35 panchayats in one block of Chindwara (Madhya Pradesh). She finds that a varied menu performs much better in terms of meeting the RDA than the dalia meal. The Suruchi Bhojan programme, which provides for a varied menu, meets close to a fifth (22%) of the child’s RDA in terms of calories. The dalia meets only 11% of a child’s RDA, in terms of actual intake.39

The net impact of a MDM on the child’s health is ultimately determined by whether the meal is a supplement (a net addition) or a substitute for food intake at home, in terms of both quality and quantity. If the mid-day meal is largely a substitute for home food, the nutritional impact may not be large. It may even be negative, if the quality of the school meal is inferior to what would have been consumed at home in the absence of a school meal, and if the consumption of nutritious home food declines as a result of having eaten at school. Blue (2005) finds that in Udaipur district the meal is a substitute for food that was initially provided at home. This is worrisome because the food provided at schools was less nutritious than the food that would have been consumed at home - even though food consumed at home was not particularly nutritious. Insofar as the MDM is a substitute, the case for nutritious meals at school is even stronger. The issue of supplement versus substitute is not easy to disentangle and requires information on eating habits of children before and after MDMs were introduced. Not many have studied this aspect. The CORD 2005 study probes this issue by looking at children’s eating patterns before and after school. Few girls ate nothing before coming to school or after going back. To the extent that this is because of the MDM, the MDM represents a net addition for such girls. However, it is possible that breakfast is not an important part of the diet in many households in which case the MDM should be viewed as an important nutritional supplement to the girl’s diet.40

Finally, the net nutritional effect is likely to vary with the economic background of the child’s family. The supplement element is likely to be larger for poorer families. As we go up the income scale, the meal becomes more a substitute than a supplement. In both cases, there is a need to improve the quality – as the “supplement” element goes down,

38 See also Zaidi (2005) on this point. 39 The reference age group here is 5-6 years. In the case of girls aged 10-12 years, the Suruchi Bhojan provided 18% of RDA whereas the dalia meal provides only 9% of RDA. 40 In the CORD survey, parents also reported boys eating at the school and then going home to eat some more. See also Drèze and Goyal (2003) and Drèze and S. Vivek (2002).


quality becomes more important for MDMs to have a nutritional impact. And quality is extremely important for poor children anyway. Improving the nutritional content of mid-day meals and providing a varied and interesting menu are not only worthwhile ends in themselves, but also contribute to the acceptability of commensality amongst upper class and caste parents. For instance, Afridi (2005) finds that six percent of parents stated “intermingling of castes” as a reason for being dissatisfied with the MDM where dalia was served, whereas no parent cited this as a reason for being dissatisfied with the meal in schools where the Suruchi Bhojan was being served.41 Provision of micro-nutrients (such as iron, Vitamin A and iodine) and de-worming tablets are other simple and low-cost health interventions that can be fruitfully combined with the MDMS. In fact, this is being done in a few states such as Gujarat and Tamil Nadu and is now beginning to receive attention in many other states.42 The issue of micronutrient supplements, however, needs further discussion insofar as nutrients such as zinc are concerned. 43

3.3 Socialization and Educational Benefits

The socialization benefits of mid-day meals can also be substantial, though these seem to have taken a backseat as the nuts and bolts of putting the system in place have been the main preoccupation of the administration.44 MDMs can play a role in eroding caste prejudices and nurturing a culture of social equality, as children from different class and caste backgrounds share a meal together. Having said this, there are reports of caste discrimination in mid-day meals. Aside from undermining the socialization role of mid-day meals, caste prejudices can derail the whole scheme (e.g. when upper-caste parents object to the provision of cooked meals at school). Two distinct forms of caste discrimination have been reported: one, of discrimination against children on the basis of their caste (or religion), and two, discrimination against cooks. There have been several anecdotal reports of discrimination against children in the MDMS. The study by Thorat and Lee (2005) is among the few whose focus was on access among Dalits. This study covers Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. They find that, in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, access to MDMs for Dalit children is hampered by the fact that the meals are served primarily in dominant caste hamlets. In 41 See also Rana (2005), p. 11. 42 For instance, the Annual Work Plan of Andhra Pradesh states that micronutrients and deworming tablets are provided. Madhya Pradesh also provides Iron and Folic Acid supplements and deworming tablets; Vitamin A is being considered. 43 See Gopaldas (2006) on the case for micro-nutrients. For a word of caution, see Drèze (2006). 44 See Drèze and Goyal (2003) and De, Noronha and Samson (2005)


addition, they find that apart from outright exclusion (e.g. Dalit children being denied access to the MDM), there are also instances of discrimination (e.g. segregated seating, or different food being served to children of different castes). In Bihar (Harihara village, Chiraia, East Champaran), Pushpendra and Sood (2005) report that plates were labelled with the initial of the child's caste. In some schools of Kumbhalgarh block, the MKSS survey found that children from the "lower" castes had to be given water by other children, whereas the other children were allowed to help themselves to the water directly.45

There have been widespread reports of discrimination against Dalits and other minorities in the appointment of cooks. Jain and Shah (2005) report that even in Tikamgarh, where Dalits form 24 per cent of the population and where there is a shortage of cooks, not a single Dalit cook has been appointed. Similarly, in an informal survey in Barmer the Lok Adhikar Network found that only 9 Dalit cooks had been appointed in Dhorimanna block, a Dalit dominated block.46

There has been some opposition to MDMs on the grounds that they detract from the teaching activities at school.47 However, as Drèze and S. Vivek (2002) point out, MDMs allow teaching activities to continue in schools as in many cases, hungry children who go home for lunch do not return after their break. Further, Drèze (2004) stresses the fact that education must not be viewed in the narrow sense of imparting formal education. Mid-day meals also provide an opportunity to impart education regarding healthy eating habits (e.g. washing one’s hands before eating or nutritive content of various foods).48 Good mid-day meals also encourage education activities at school to the extent that they make the school environment more inviting for children.

3.4 Infrastructure Issues A good mid-day meal programme requires a sound infrastructure. This includes physical infrastructure such as water supply, kitchen sheds and storage facilities. Adequate staff is also needed for organizing and cooking the meal as well as for serving it to the children. The lack of adequate infrastructure undermines the objectives of the MDMS in two ways: one, by causing obstructions in the teaching activities in school and two, by reducing the nutritive impact of the meal. Adequate infrastructure is also very important for safety and hygiene. As we have seen in Table 3, various field studies find that the provision of infrastructure remains a big challenge. Table 4 below reports the availability of kitchens, water and utensils based on latest data provided by the state governments.

45 See Drèze and Goyal (2003), Menon (2003). 46 On this, see also Pushpendra and Sood (2005). 47 See Singh (2004) for a comment on the potentially harmful effect of MDMS on teaching activities. 48 Indeed, some NCERT textbooks have recently incorporated such practical information.


a. Water Facilities Clean water is essential for cooking a safe and healthy meal, as well as for washing hands and utensils before and after the meal. The lack of water on the premises also leads to disruption of teaching activities, as children may be asked to fetch water for cooking, or may have to leave the school premises to wash their hands before and after the meal. Many of the earlier surveys of MDMS found that water facilities were inadequate. In some cases, children were being asked to fetch water for cooking from the nearest water source.49 Once the meal was served, if water was not available in (or near) the school premises, then children would wander off either to drink water or to clean their utensils. It is encouraging to note that the more recent studies, especially those conducted in 2005, have found that many state governments have woken up to the need for providing water facilities near schools (see Table 3).50 Table 4 below which reports availability of water on school premises confirms that there has been an improvement in the availability of water sources on school premises. b. Kitchen Sheds and Storage Facilities Cooking sheds or kitchens are essential to ensure that the preparation of the meal does not disrupt classroom activity - either due to the smoke or to the distraction caused by the preparation of food.51 Kitchen sheds are still lacking in a majority of schools, though again there are inter-state variations. In many of the north Indian states, the norm is still to cook in the open, in a makeshift space, at the house of the cook, or in one of the classrooms.52 Here too, field reports indicate rapid gains in the recent past, though these are yet to be reflected in the data provided by state governments. In Tamil Nadu where secondary data and field reports suggest that all schools have kitchens, second generation issues have arisen. Swaminathan et al (2004: p. 4819) find that as there is no provision for maintenance of buildings, none had been painted a second time. In some schools, “broken doors and windows enable free entry for men and cattle alike; floors are often broken”. Adequate storage facilities are important to prevent the decay, contamination or pilferage of food. As Pushpendra and Sood (2005) find, since there were no storage facilities in the one of the sample schools the rice was stored in the house of the president of the Village Education Committee (VEC). This meant that rice had to be brought to school each day and it made monitoring the quantity more difficult. Given the absence of kitchens in most 49 MKSS study in Kelwara. See also Jain and Shah (2005). 50 See Afridi (2005), p. 1531 and Swaminathan et al (2004), p. 4819. 51 For instance, Afridi (2005) reports that meals in Chhindwara (MP) are cooked in the classrooms and the smoke distracts students from their learning activities. 52 See Afridi (2005), Blue (2005), Drèze and Goyal (2003), Jain and Shah (2005), p. 5083.


schools, to ask for storage facilities may seem like a tall order. However, some areas have overcome this problem with the help of community donations (in cash or kind). c. Staff for management of meals Provision of adequate staff for providing the meal on a daily basis is crucial to ensure that meals can be provided in a regular and timely fashion. Besides this, adequate staff to take care of the cooking means that the daily routine of the school will not be affected by the MDM. When state governments began complying with the SC order on the provision of MDMs, many were unable to appoint cooks because of lack of time or funds. Before cooks were appointed in schools, instances of children being asked to fetch water or wood (or even to help in the cooking itself) were not uncommon.53 In a few cases, there were reports of teachers cooking the meals themselves. However, these scenes are a thing of the past in most of the country. Adequate staff does not mean the provision of just one cook. In this regard, what is required is something like the Gujarat or Karnataka model where three persons are employed for the provision of the MDM. One is employed as the "organizer", another as the cook and a third as a helper.54 The responsibilities of the organizer include sending a request for grain (in advance) to the concerned authorities, procuring other cooking materials, measuring and issuing the amount required for any particular day, maintaining accounts and so on. In the absence of an organizer often it is the teacher who is expected to accomplish this task. For instance, in Bihar, Pushpendra and Sood (2005) found that teachers had to procure the rice from the block office. It is essential to have enough staff so that already over-burdened teachers are not diverted into supervising the mid-day meal. This issue has been raised in several studies and newspaper reports.55 It is also one of the main planks of opposition to the MDM because it directly affects the teaching time in school. A related issue is that of the rules regarding appointment of cooks, helpers and organizers. According to the Supreme Court's order dated 20 April, 2004, in the appointment of cooks, preference is to be given to women and Dalits. However, most studies indicate that these norms are not being followed, and furthermore, that there are no clear guidelines for the appointment of cooks and helpers. 56 A few of the studies have

53 See Afridi (2005), Blue (2005), and Khera (2002). 54 See section 4 below. 55 See Blue (2005), Drèze and Goyal (2003), Jain and Shah (2005), Pushpendra and Sood (2004), Rather (2006) and The Telegraph (2006b). 56 In others, such as Tamil Nadu detailed norms have been developed. Posts of cooks are advertised, only women are eligible, widows, deserted women and destitute are given preference. The age limit is 35-40 years, relaxed for widows. Cooks should be able to read and write.


shown that the lack of appointment norms leads to some friction and to disruption of the MDM programme. Another pertinent issued is that of remuneration to cooks. Often, cooks and helpers are paid less than the statutory minimum wage (see Table 5). For instance, in Gujarat the organizer (the highest paid in the MDM team) gets Rs. 500 per month; in Chhattisgarh, cooks are paid Rs. 300 per month. In Rajasthan, in 2002, cooks were paid according to the number of children present.57 However, these costs did not account for the fact that the cooks were spending time on collecting firewood or water as well.58 Given that organizers, cooks and helpers spend up to 5 hours in the preparation of the meal, it is necessary to pay them adequately. Adequate remuneration is also important to avoid corruption in mid-day meal schemes. When cooks, helpers and organizers are not paid properly, they are bound to be tempted to recoup costs by siphoning off food or other items. d. Cooking and Serving utensils Since children usually eat in their own plates or bowls (brought from home), the size of individual portions may depend on the size of their plates. Some studies (such as SPS 2005) have noted that in the absence of bowls or plates some children may use a leaf or a piece of paper torn from their notebooks (or, in rare cases, textbooks!) as a plate, in which case they are bound to get very little.59

4 Tamil Nadu and Gujarat60 As noted earlier, some states have gone beyond mere compliance with SC orders on mid-day meals. Notable among these are Kerala, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. I briefly highlight here some of the unique features and improvements that can be found in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu.61 First among the achievements of these two states is that mid-day meals were initiated well before the national scheme was launched in 1995. Tamil Nadu’s MDMS has a long history: in 1956, mid-day meals were already provided to 2 lakh children. In 1982, Maruthur Gopalan Ramachandran (“MGR”, the then Chief Minister of the state) extended the scheme to cover all primary-school children and also pre-schoolers. In Gujarat, the scheme began on an experimental basis in the sixties and all

57 See also Jain and Shah (2005) who report the same practice in Madhya Pradesh. 58 See Swaminathan et al (2004), p. 4819. 59 I have observed this practice in many parts of Rajasthan. 60 This section relies primarily of the MDM website of the Government of Gujarat, Drèze and Goyal (2003), and Rajivan (2005). 61 Tamil Nadu’s experience is relatively well documented; see e.g. Drèze and Goyal (2003), Pratap (2003), Rajivan (2005), Rao (2004), and the literature cited there. Gujarat’s achievements are more recent and have received less attention.


students in the 6-11 age group have been covered since 1984.62 Further, both states have gone beyond the necessary coverage as required by the central norms: in Tamil Nadu, beneficiaries include children between the ages of 2-5 years and older school children up to the age of 15 years. In 1983, old age pensioners were included, in 1995 pregnant women were brought under the scheme. Widows and destitute persons are also entitled to mid-day meals in Tamil Nadu. In Gujarat, the state provides cooked meals to children from grade 1 to grade 7. A noteworthy feature of the MDMS in these two states is the administrative arrangements that have been put in place. In Gujarat, at the state level, an officer of the rank of Commissioner manages the MDMS. The Commissioner is assisted by two Assistant Commissioners (one for implementation and another for administration) and a Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner coordinates the work between the concerned departments (i.e. Education, Revenue and Health and Civil Supplies). At the district level, the district collector is responsible for the scheme. The day-to-day functioning of the scheme is the responsibility of a Deputy Collector (MDM), who is assisted by the District Primary Education Officer. These arrangements mean that the education department is not the only department responsible for the implementation of the MDMS at the village level. Another factor that helps the smooth functioning of the scheme in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu is that there is adequate staff at the school level to provide the meal.63 As mentioned above, a team of three is appointed at the school level – an organizer, a cook and a helper. This means that teachers are free to teach and are required to perform only a supervisory role. The meal in Gujarat consists of wheat (50 grams), rice (50 grams), pulses (20 grams), vegetables and condiments (50 grams), and edible oil (10 grams), with a calorie content of 450 kcal. This is more than what is stipulated by the SC order of November 2001. Similarly, in Tamil Nadu, the calorie content of the mid-day meal ranges from 358 kcal for children aged 2-4 years to 504 kcal for those aged 13-15 years. Children are provided eggs or sattu once a fortnight.64

Finally, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu are pioneers in the practice of combining the MDM with some health interventions. This includes micro-nutrient supplementation (primarily Vitamin A and iron) and deworming tablets.65 In addition to this, in Tamil Nadu children benefit from regular health check-ups and free treatment of certain illnesses.66

62 See http://gujarateducation.gswan.gov.in/schools/mdm.htm 63 Karnataka is another state that shares this feature. 64 The practice of serving eggs once a fortnight has been introduced in Chhattisgarh as well. 65 Again this practice is found in Karnataka as well. 66 See Drèze and Goyal (2003); also Times of India (2006) on a similar initiative in Chandigarh.


5 Conclusions Though India’s mid-day meal programme has travelled a long way from its “non-starter” start in 1995, and overcome many of the teething problems that arose after the Supreme Court order in 2001, this review makes it clear that there is still a long road ahead. Foremost among the issues that need to be tackled is the quality of the meal. This in turn depends on the norms that are set by the government as well as on the conditions in which the meal is prepared. The fact that there has been a steady trend of improvement over time – in terms of infrastructure, financial allocations and (more recently) food quality - gives reason for hope for further improvements. A related point worth highlighting concerns the politics of school meals. In many states, improvements in the MDMS are closely linked to an increased political interest in the scheme. This has been on account of a realisation among political leaders of the popularity and potential vote-winning power of mid-day meals. This was true in Tamil Nadu, especially in the years when the MDMS was launched. More recently, in states such as Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan the keen personal interest of the political class has played a key role in recent initiatives to improve mid-day meals. This steady trend of improvement and dynamism in policy-making has been in evidence in recent months too. Some of the most recent changes include an increase in per child financial and calorie norms, introduction of a varied menu in many more states as also of micronutrient supplementation through the MDMS. State governments are more receptive to the demand for more cooks and helpers to ensure smooth functioning of the programme. Greater attention and funds are being directed towards improving the physical infrastructure for the scheme. Another recent area of innovation has been in monitoring and evaluation, involving improved data collection as well as some attempts to involve mother’s committees, self-help groups and other community institutions. In the end, the success of the programme will depend on continued public participation and vigilance as well as sustained political interest in the scheme. The tremendous popularity of the scheme, especially among the underprivileged, is perhaps the best guarantee of continued debate and initiative in this field.


Table 1: Nodal Department and Cooking costs for Mid-day Meals

State Main implementing agency Cooking costs per child

per day (Rs.) Andhra Pradesh Rs. 2.00 (up to 50 children)

Rs. 1.75 (51-100 children) Rs. 1.50 (>100 children)

Bihar Education department through district administration

1.64

Chhattisgarh Education department Rs. 2.00 Delhi MCD and NDMC 2.00 Gujarat Education Department 1.70 Haryana Directorate of elementary

education 1.43

Himachal Pradesh Dept. of elementary education 1.76 Jharkhand Dept. of Primary education 2.00 Jammu and Kashmir Education - Karnantaka School Development and

Management Committee (SDMC)

1.58

Kerala Director of public instruction Rs. 3.00 Madhya Pradesh Panchayats and Rural

Development in non-tribal rural areas, Department of Tribal welfare for tribal areas and Dep. Of urban administration and development for urban areas.

1.20 (Rural areas) 1.41 (Urban areas)

Maharashtra Education department 1.75 (1-75 children) 1.50 (76-250 children) 1.25 (251 or more children)

Orissa - 2.82a Punjab State monitoring committee 1.70 Rajasthan Rural development 2.00 Tamil Nadu Rural Department 2.19 to 2.34 Uttar Pradesh Basic Education 1.51 Uttaranchal Education Department 2.00 West Bengal Education department 1.90

a Includes foodgrains, transport subsidy and establishment overheads

Source: Data on cooking costs compiled from “National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2004 (Mid Day Meal Scheme), Annual work plan and budget 2006-7 Framework”.


Table 2: Field Studies on Mid-day Meals

Study and Date of survey States covered Sample details Lok Adhikar Network (2002); [October 2002]

Barmer (Rajasthan) 63 schools covering 41 villages

Centre for Equity Studies (2003)

Rajasthan, Karnatka, Chhattisgarh 81 villages spread over 27 blocks in 3 districts in each of these states; 324 households were also interviewed

Indian Institute of Dalit Studies (2005) [April-June, 2003]

Anantapur, Chittoor, Guntur, Khammam, Kurnool, Mahaboobnagar, Nalgonda, Nizamabad, Warangal, West Godavari (Andhra Pradesh), Buxar, Samastipur, Nawada, Patna, Vaishali (Bihar), Rajasthan, Dindigul, Kanyakumari, Madhurai, Sivagungai, Thanjavur, Thiruvanalmalai, Tirunelveli, Virudhinagar (Tamil Nadu) and Baliya, Bareilly, Lakhimpur Kheri, Rampur and Gazipur (Uttar Pradesh)

531 villages from 136 block in 30 districts.

Samaj Pragati Sansthan (2005) [December 2004-January 2005]

Khandwa, Dewas, Sidhi Tikamgarh, Shivpuri, Anuppur, Mandla, (Madhya Pradesh)

70 schools and 280 households.

Chindwara survey (2005); [January-February 2004]

Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh) 63 schools, one non-tribal block of Chindwara district

Pushpendra and Sood (2005) [December 2004 and February 2005]

Madhubani, Supaul, Khagaria, Samastipur, East Champaran, West Champaran, Buxar, Sitamarhi, Supaul, Nalanda, Patna, Vaishali, Muzaffarpur (Bihar)

19 schools in 16 villages (of Supaul and East Champaran) in the first survey and 52 schools in the second.

Pratichi Trust (2004) [May 2004]

Birbhum (West Bengal) 15 MDM schools and 15 non-MDM schools from 3 blocks; 300 households.

Sewa Mandir (2005) Udaipur (Rajasthan) 8 schools from 3 blocks Collaborative Research and Dissemination (2005) [Mid 2005]

Delhi 12 MCD schools and 60 households


Table 3: Summary Findings of Field Studies of the MDMS

Study Enrolment, Attendance, Retention

Infrastructure1 Parents/Teachers’ view on MDMs

Caste discrimination

LAN (2002) 36% for girls in C1 Cooks (all) - - CES (2003) 14.5% increase in C1

enrolment; 19% for girls

Cooks (100%), Kitchen (17%), water (56%) storage shed (6%),

91% parents and 84% teachers want MDM to continue; 86% parents feel that “quality of meal is satisfactory”.

1% of parents felt that their child had experienced any discrimination at school at the time of the mid-day meal.

IIDS (2005) - - - 37% report caste discrimination in MDMs; 48% report opposition to Dalit cooks, 9% report segregated meals and unfavourable treatment in the food allotment.

SPS (2005) 36% increase in C1; 38% for girls and 43% for Dalits; 15% increase in enrolment from class 1-5

Cooks (71%) Kitchens (7%); Water (66%); storage (14%); Knife (51%);

96% parents and 93% teachers want MDM to continue

5 Dalit cooks out of a total of 92;

Chindwara survey (2005)

- Kitchens (none), Water (all) Cooking utensils (all),

60% satisfied with daliya meal, 80% with suruchi bhojan

-

Pushpendra and Sood (2005)

- Kitchens (1 out of 19) Water (7 out of 12)

- -

Pratichi Trust Attendance up by 10%

(2004) Sewa Mandir (2005)

3 out of 6 teachers recalled substantial increase in enrolment following introduction of MDM; 5 out of 8 teachers reported “surge” in daily attendance attributed mainly to MDM.

Cooks (7 out of 8) Kitchens (none)

13% parents reported that child got a stomach-ache after consuming meal; 96% children like the school food.

-

CORD (2005) Teachers and parents reported that children attend school more regularly.

Water for drinking and washing hands before and after the meal were inadequate.

65% parents felt that the meal should be continued.

No caste discrimination reported.

DM in Primary Schools (Draft, 3 Oct)

Note: 1 Proportion reporting availability of particular infrastructure.

M

22

Table 4: Infrastructural indicators, 2003

Proportion (%) of schools witha: State Separate kitchen water supply cooking utensils

Andhra Pradesh 26 (20) 44 (64) 10 (100)Arunachal Pradesh 4 100 100Assam 34 (52) 98 (80) 100 (100)Bihar 5 (8) 68 (75) 79 (82)Chhattisgarh 17 (28) 81 (87) 100 (100)Goa 19 100 100Gujarat 28 (34) 0 (100) 0 (100)HP (0) (82) 100Haryana 2 100 (100) 100 (100)Jharkhand 16 (14) 71 (52) 100 (100Karnataka 41 (70) 67 (76) 33 (100)Kerala (88) (100) (100)Madhya Pradesh 3 (7) 80 (77) 100 (100)Maharashtra 2 (6) 25 (76) 13 (8)Mizoram 16 51 100Nagaland ‘Not needed’b N/A 100Orissa (42) (73) -Punjab (0) (100) -Rajasthan (0) (75) (40 and 33)Tamil Nadu 100 (95) 100 (100) 100 (100)Uttar Pradesh (74) (89) -Uttaranchal 98 (100) 85 (99) 98West Bengal - (30) - (68) -

a Figures in brackets indicate the relevant proportions for 2005. b According to the State Government (on the grounds that cooking has been outsourced to Village Education Committees). Source: Commissioners to the Supreme Court (2005) for figures pertaining to 2003 and “National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2004 (Mid Day Meal Scheme), Annual work plan and budget 2006-7 Framework” for figures pertaining to 2005.

23

Table 5: Remuneration to cooks

State Remuneration to cooks (Rs./month, unless specified

otherwise) Assam 600 (cooks); 500 (Helpers) Bihar 2500 Chhattisgarh Rs. 15 per day Gujarat 500 (organizers); 250 (cooks); 175 (helpers in rural areas). In

urban areas, the wages are 1500, 800 and 500 respectively Haryana Rs. 300-700 depending on child enrolment Himachal Pradesh Between Rs. 100 (for les than 5 children) to Rs. 400 for more

than 271 children Jammu and Kashmir 500 Karnataka 650 (head cook); 450 (cook); 400 (assistant cook); 300

(helper) Kerala 500 Madhya Pradesh Rs. 20 per day in rural areas and Rs. 25 per day in urban areas Orissa 200 (cooks) and 100 (Helpers) Uttaranchal 1-25 (Rs. 250); 26-50: Rs. 350 and 51 Rs. 450; sahayika Rs.

250 Uttar Pradesh Up to 800 Tamil Nadu 2105 (organizer), 1160 (cook) and 880 (helper) West Bengal Rs. 400 plus 10 paisa per day per child Source: “National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2004 (Mid Day Meal Scheme), Annual work plan and budget 2006-7 Framework”

24

References Afridi, F. (2005), "Midday Meals in Two States: Comparing the Financial and Institutional Organization of the Programme", Economic and Political Weekly, 9 April. Bhattacharya, Malabika (2004), "Casteist row over mid-day meals", The Hindu, 19 November, 2004. Blue, J. (2005), "The Government Primary School Mid-day Meals Scheme: An Assessment of Program Implementation and Impact in Udaipur District", Sewa Mandir, Udaipur. Commissioners of the Supreme Court (2005), Sixth Report of the Commissioners, New Delhi. Available online at http://www.righttofoodindia.org/comrs/comrs_reports.html. De, A., Samson, M. and Noronha, C. (2005), "Towards more benefits from Delhi's midday meal scheme", Collaborative Research and Dissemination, New Delhi. Deaton, Angus and Drèze, Jean, (2006), "Tracking Mid-Day Meals in Indian Schools", Draft notes, March 2006. Drèze, Jean, (2006) "Mid-Day Meals and the Joy of Learning", Learning Curve. Drèze, Jean (2003), "Digesting Inequality", Hindustan Times, July 2003. Drèze, Jean (2004), "Mid-Day Meals and Children's Rights", Economic and Political Weekly, 8 May. Drèze, Jean (2006), "Universalisation with Quality: ICDS in a Rights Perspective" Economic and Political Weekly, 26 August. Drèze, J. and Deaton, A. (2006), "Notes on Mid-day meals", unpublished note. Drèze, J. and Goyal, A. (2003), "The Future of Mid-Day Meals", Economic and Political Weekly, 1 November, pp. 4673-4682. Drèze, Jean and Kingdon, Geeta (2001), School participation in Rural India, Review of Development Economics, 5 (1). Drèze, Jean and Vivek, S. (2002), "Hunger in the Classroom", Food and Nutrition World, sample issue. Gangadharan, V. (2006), "Noon Meal Scheme in Kerala: New Management Proposal for the School Lunch Programme" (State Institute of Educational Management and Training, Government of Kerala). Ghosh, Avijit (2006), "Education smells like "khichdi" in UP villages, Times of India, 27 February, 2006. Gopaldas, Tara (2006), "Hidden Hunger", Economic and Political Weekly, 26 August, 2006. Government of India (1995), Nutritional Support to Education, Report of the Committee on Mid-Day Meals, May 1995 (New Delhi: Department of Education). Government of India (2004), "National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2004 [Mid-Day Meal Scheme], Guidelines" (New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Elementary Education and Literacy). Indian Express (2006), "No foul play in midday meal, here", Indian Express, 25 January, 2006.

25

Jain, J. and Shah, M. (2005), "Antyodaya Anna Yojana and Mid-day Meals in MP", Economic and Political Weekly, 26 November, pp. 5076-5088. Khan, Arshad Afzal (2006), "Midday meal strikes again, 70 students fall ill", Indian Express, 2006. Khera, R. (2002), "Mid-Day Meals in Rajasthan", The Hindu, 13 November, 2002. Khera, R. (2005), "India's Right to Food Campaign", Just Change, October. Mascarenhas, Anuradha (2006), "Mid Day Meals: Pulao, Tomato rice to do what khichadi could not", Indian Express, 16 February, 2006. Menon, P. (2003), "Untouchable Lunch?" Frontline, July 19 - August 1. Naik, R. (2005), "Report on Akshara Dasoha Scheme of Karnataka", University of Dharwad. National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2004 (Mid Day Meal Scheme), Annual work plan and budget 2006-7 Framework, various state governements. Pratap, A. (2003), "Strike Against Hunger", Outlook, August. Pushpendra and Sood, T. (2004), "Mid-day meal survey in East Champaran and Supaul districts, Bihar", Patna. Pushpendra and Sood, T. (2005), "Bihar: A mid-day meal survey report", New Delhi. Rajivan, Anuradha (2005), History of Direct Nutrition Schemes in Tamil Nadu, available online at www.righttofoodindia.org. Rajivan, Anuradha (2004), "Towards a Malnutrition Free Tamil Nadu: A Case Study", in MS Swaminathan and P Medrano (eds.) (2004), Towards a Hunger Free India (Madras: East West Books). Rajivan, Anuradha (2006), "Tamil Nadu: ICDS with a Difference", Economic and Political Weekly, 26 August. Rana, K. (2005), "The Possibilities of Mid-day Meal Programme in West Bengal", Pratichi Trust, Rao, Raghevendra (2004), MGRs Mid-Day Meal Scheme, 11 June, The Hindu Business Line. Rather, Nazir Ahmad (2006), "If food be the way to literacy, then serve on", Indian Express, 20 February, 2006. Right to Food Campaign (2005), "Mid-Day Meals: A Primer" (New Delhi: Secretariat of the Right to Food Campaign). Seth, Maulshree (2005), "Midday meals: Teachers to get a taste", Indian Express, 30 December, 2005. Setia, Shruti (2006), "As govt sleeps students fight hunger pangs", Times of India, 5 March, 2006. Sharma, Amit (2005), "No lesson learnt, midday meal stale", Indian Express, 12 December. 2006. Singh, Shashi Bhushan (2004), "Future of Mid-Day Meals", Economic and Political Weekly, 28 February. The Financial Express (2005), "Midday meals a social leveller", The Financial Express, 10 July, 2005. The Hindu, "Mid-day meals scheme a success story in Rajasthan", 16 June, 2006.

26

The Hindu Business Line (2006), "Variety in mid-day meals menu", The Hindu Business Line, 20 April. The Telegraph (2006a), "Midday meal to rope in mothers", The Telegraph, 3 January, 2006. The Telegraph (2006b), "Teachers put foot down on manager task", The Telegraph, 22 February, 2006. The Times of India (2006), "Guv launches modified midday meal scheme", 19 January, 2006. Thorat, S. and Lee, J. (2005), "Caste Discrimination and Food Security Programmes", Economic and Political Weekly, 24 September. Vishwanathan, Brinda (2006), "Access to Nutritious Meals Programme: Evidence from 1999-2000 NSS Data", Economic and Political Weekly, 11 February, 2006. Zaidi, A. (2005), "Food, for education", Frontline, Feb 26 - March 11.

mid-day meals and the right to food in india in primary schools (draft, 3 oct) mid-day meals and the...

Documents