Question Description
Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage 1The NAC proposals go against its earlier proposal of experimenting with universal entitlements in the poorest 150 districts of the country - a retrograde step for a country where half of the population is malnourished. In the final proposals, even this minimum effort to experiment with universalization was given up. The issue is why the NAC went against such universalization.A universal PDS is not only the best possible option from the perspective of a rights based approach, it is also far more realistic in its commitment to ensure food security for the poor. Universalization would also be in line with the larger agenda of the UPA government of changing the architecture of the social service programs to make them more inclusive.Targeting is inherently problematic. The BPL census, which is the primary means of targeting public services and subsidies to the poor, has failed to serve the purpose. The process of targeting is not only administratively costly but also discriminatory to the poor; limiting food security to BPL necessarily involves the exclusion of families who are very similar to other families that have been included. Historically, limiting food security to BPL families has severely impaired the effective access of food for poor families. Large numbers of poor families did not have BPL cards, even when they had cards, access to PDS was not automatic and, even ifthey had access to the PDS, they did not receive the full entitlement of food. But does it really mean that universalization is not feasible? Do we have enough foodgrains for a universal system?The total requirement of a Universal PDS is 96.60 million tonnes if the entire population lifts its foodgrain quota. However, there will be some sections of the population who will not take their quota of foodgrain. This could be because they are well off and therefore do not need the ration food. It could also be a matter of taste and preference and they may not like the PDS foodgrain which is generally of inferior quality. These will largely be the rich and well off in urban areas.Q. Limited food security to BPL families is not a feasible option. Why? a)the middlemen in the PDS are able to take advantage of those who are not listed as BPL familiesb)it ignores the actual question of how much food grain is required and where it can be procured fromc)it limits the function and scope of the PDS which essentially is for greater universal reachd)Both b and cCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.