In an open letter to the Tamil Nadu government, several activists, including economist Jean Drèze, have raised concerns about the proposal of retired high court judge K Chandru to replace on-site cooking of school meals with centralised kitchens. Justice Chandru headed a one-man committee that was tasked with framing guidelines to avoid violence based on caste and community among college and school students. In his 600-page report that was submitted in June 2024, one of his main suggestions was the centralisation of cooking facilities and food distribution.
Referring to other states where centralised kitchens did not work out, the letter written on August 19 pointed out several issues with its implementation, specifically dealing with centralised kitchens.
On-site cooking in schools promotes accountability because meals are cooked in front of students, teachers, and even some parents. When food is cooked in centralised kitchens, there tends to be little public scrutiny. Both the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of SCs and STs have expressed concern about irregularities in some of the country's best-known centralised kitchens.
Centralised kitchens require additional expenditure on storage, transport, and sometimes (during hot months) even refrigeration. In the absence of adequate arrangements, there is a danger of food spoilage en route to the schools.
Food transported from centralised kitchens to schools tends to get cold and is less palatable to children. Reports from Jharkhand suggest that children have been throwing away food from centralised kitchens. In Rajasthan too, there were some such complaints some years ago.
On-site decentralised kitchens employ large numbers of poor women as cooks and helpers, 27% of whom are Dalit or Adivasi women in Tamil Nadu. The Chandru Committee report suggests redeploying cooks and helpers in other public-sector jobs, but this is much easier said than done.
When centralised kitchen contracts are given to private contractors, they are more interested in making profits than in providing good nutrition to children. In some cases, these contracts have been awarded to organisations that tend to impose irrational restrictions on the midday meal menu, such as the exclusion of eggs or even onions and garlic.
Justice Chandru, in his report, made this suggestion as a solution to avoid the problem of discrimination against Dalit midday meal cooks. However, the activists pointed out that it might “do more harm than good.”
“Experience shows that a much better approach is to insist on the right of Dalit women to cook midday meals. When the administration stands firm, opposition tends to fizzle out. This helps to address the problem instead of evading it. For another, it is very doubtful that the concerned women (Dalit cooks who are victims of discrimination) would support the centralisation proposal. There is no evidence that the committee sought their views. Tamil Nadu has a good record of pioneering and implementing school meals. Replacing on-site cooking with centralised kitchens would be a step backward. We urge you to ignore this recommendation,” they said.
The letter was undersigned by MP Senthil Sasikanth, economists Jean Drèze and Reetika Khera, educational activist Prince Gajendra Babu, Dr Sylvia Karpagam and others.
