Food security crisis persists in Gujarat despite NFSA: Survey reveals grim ground reality

By Rajiv Shah  

A new field-based survey conducted in January 2025 across Dahod, Panchmahals, Morbi, and Bhavnagar districts has revealed alarming levels of food insecurity among vulnerable communities in Gujarat, ten years after the implementation of the National Food Security Act (NFSA). Conducted by Anandi – Area Networking and Development Initiatives (ASAA) and community organisations working with mahila sangathans, the Gujarat Food Security Survey covered 1,261 households, purposively chosen to reflect the experiences of marginalised populations including Adivasis, OBCs, single women, the disabled, and the elderly. The findings suggest that despite the promises of NFSA and wide coverage under the Public Distribution System (PDS), food deprivation remains widespread and systemic failures continue to exclude the most vulnerable.

According to the survey, only 12% of households are classified as food secure—having a diet that regularly includes cereals, pulses, fruits, vegetables, and some form of animal protein. A staggering 76.7% fall into the category of "Apoorti"—indicating food quantity is barely enough and of poor nutritional quality, while 11.3% are "Nathi"—households experiencing outright hunger. Seasonal trends worsen the crisis, with food insecurity peaking during summer and monsoon, reflecting cyclical agricultural dependence and market instability. The figures echo similar findings from a 2003 study in Panchmahals and Rajkot districts, which found that only 10% of rural households were food secure year-round, and more than 70% of tribal households experienced food insecurity for over six months annually.

Despite high levels of smartphone ownership (86%) and nearly universal possession of ration cards (97.7%), serious gaps remain in the implementation of food and welfare schemes. E-KYC failures pose a major threat to entitlements: 27.8% of respondents reported incomplete KYC for some members and 6% had not initiated the process. With entitlements tied to individual records, such digital lapses lead to actual loss in food quantity, even if cards remain active.

While most households reported regular receipt of cereals under PDS, only 68.3% received their full entitlement. About 21.6% got reduced quantities and 5% received cereals inconsistently. Access to pulses and oil was even more erratic. Only two-thirds received pulses regularly in the previous three months, and less than half got their full entitlement. Though oil distribution seemed better, field investigators noted this could be due to Diwali month falling within the recall period.

Access to other NFSA-mandated schemes remains inadequate. Among 492 pregnant or recently delivered women, 56% had not received a single instalment under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), while 27% of ICDS beneficiaries reported irregular distribution of supplementary nutrition. The survey showed a strong case for extending the Mid-Day Meal Scheme beyond class 8, as only a quarter of students in higher classes carried tiffin lunches. Irregularities in the school meal programme were especially high in Morbi, where 41% of households reported problems.

Livelihood support schemes also fell short. Only 95 respondents had received work under MGNREGA, and among them, 10 had pending wages while seven were unsure about their payment status. Access to pensions was uneven. Widow pension coverage stood at 70% among qualifying households, but only 3 of 73 disabled households received a disability pension, indicating systemic neglect. Only 35% of cultivating households received PM-KISAN benefits, despite being eligible.

The Lok Adhikar Kendras operating in various blocks of the surveyed districts recorded 3,429 cases of individuals seeking assistance to access basic NFSA entitlements between April 2024 and March 2025. The majority were struggling with issues such as AAY card applications, e-KYC delays, and inclusion in the priority household list. Despite being institutionalised spaces meant to ensure access, these centres exposed how deeply entrenched the barriers remain.

Four case studies vividly illustrate the human cost of these systemic failings. Rangliben Nayak, an Adivasi woman from Kakalpur, finds her family receiving only 30–35 kg of ration per month against an entitlement of 50 kg for 10 members. Migration for work complicates access further, as ration shops at the destination refuse service. Similarly, Kamtiben Nayak from Abhlod lost her BPL benefits due to the re-issuance of a ration card not marked for NFSA eligibility, leaving her without affordable food despite poverty. Meenaben Baariya, a widow from Vav Lavariya, stopped receiving widow pension and was denied an Antyodaya ration card despite her eligibility. Her case reflects the bureaucratic arbitrariness at the local level. In yet another example, Kaliben from Bamroli had to make three visits and pay Rs. 100 per person to complete e-KYC, underlining the exploitative nature of digital processes meant to enhance inclusion.

Despite NFSA’s ambition to provide food security as a legal right, the 2025 Gujarat Food Security Survey presents a sobering reality. It shows that technological barriers, bureaucratic inertia, and systemic exclusion continue to deprive the poorest of their fundamental right to food. The full report, expected soon, will provide further disaggregation and insights into the structural flaws that urgently need redress.