and suggests possible remedies.

REETIKA KHERA

T

he 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 well-being 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” (SSA). Another major intervention is the “Mid-Day Meal Scheme” (hereafter MDMS), launched in 1995 with the aim of “universalisation 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 universalisation of elementary education by enhancing enrolment, attendance and retention. Mid-day meals (MDMs) 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 deworming.

MDMs can also play useful socialisation roles, especially in India’s class- and casteridden society. 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 changeafter November 28, 2001, when a Supreme Court order in the “right to food” case directed 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. However, the political appeal of mid-day meals, combined with a lively grassroots campaign for the implementation of Supreme Court orders, helped ensure that implementation hurdles were gradually removed. In a relatively short period of time (about four years), mid-day meals have become a part of the daily school 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 considerable popular support, especially among disadvantaged sections of the population.

This study reviews evidence from nine field studies and government documents to understand how the scheme actually works on the ground.6 The aim is to identify the achievements so far as well as the remaining challenges.

I History and Managementof the MDMS

Following the Supreme Court’s orders and public mobilisation, the government of India revised its guidelines for the MDMS in 2004. According to these guidelines, the MDMS was being fully implemented in 20 states and all seven 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 April 20, 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

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 gm per student per day. Besides this, the central government also subsidises the transport of grain from the nearest FCI depot to the primary school.13

Other 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 state governments. This was one of the main reasons behind state 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 per cent 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 state governments. Per child per day costs have been reported in Table 1.14

The responsibility of providing physical infrastructure lies with 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 utilised for

Table 1: Nodal Department and Cooking Costs for Mid-Day Meals

Notes: * Includes honorarium and administration costs.

+ 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 2006-07 framework”.

Table 2: Summary Findings of Field Studies of the MDMS

Study Details* Enrolment, Attendance, Infrastructure+ Parents/Teachers’ View Caste Discrimination Retention on MDMs

Lok Adhikar Network (LAN) 36 per cent for girls in C1 Cooks (all) – – Rajasthan (63 schools in 41 villages of Barmer) [October 2002]

Centre for equity studies (CES) 14.5 per cent increase Cooks (100 per cent) 91 per cent parents and 1 per cent of parents felt that Rajasthan, Karnataka, in C1 enrolment; Kitchen (17 per cent) 84 per cent teachers want their child had experienced any Chhattisgarh (81 villages, 19 per cent for girls Water (56 per cent) MDM to continue; discrimination at school at the 324 households, 9 districts) Storage shed (6 per cent) 86 per cent parents feel that time of the mid-day meal. [Early 2003] “quality of meal is satisfactory”

Indian Institute of Dalit Studies – – – 37 per cent report caste (IIDS) discrimination in MDMs; Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, 48 per cent report opposition Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, to dalit cooks, 9 per cent report Uttar Pradesh (531 villages, segregated meals and 30 districts) unfavourable treatment in the [April-June, 2003] food allotment.

Samaj Pragati Sansthan (SPS) 36 per cent increase in C1; Cooks (71 per cent) 96 per cent parents and 5 dalit cooks out of a total of 92 Madhya Pradesh (70 schools, 38 per cent for girls and Kitchens (7 per cent) 93 per cent teachers want 280 households, seven districts) 43 per cent for dalits; Water (66 per cent) MDM to continue [December 2004-January 2005] 15 per cent increase in Storage (14 per cent)

enrolment from class 1-5 Knife (51 per cent)

Chindwara survey – Kitchens (none) 60 per cent satisfied with – Madhya Pradesh (63 schools Water (all) daliya meal, 80 per cent with in Chindwara) Cooking utensils (all) suruchi bhojan [January-February 2004]

Pushpendra and Sood – Kitchens (1 out of 19) – – Bihar (19 schools, two districts) Water (7 out of 12) [December 2004 and February 2005]

Pratichi Trust (2004) Attendance up by (30 schools, 300 households 10 per cent in one district) [May 2004]

Sewa Mandir (2005) Three out of six teachers Cooks (7 out of 8) 13 per cent parents reported –

(8 schools, one district) recalled substantial Kitchens (none) that child had a stomach-ache increase in enrolment after consuming the meal; following introduction 96 per cent children like the of MDM; five out of eight school food. teachers reported “surge” in daily attendance attributed mainly to MDM

Collaborative research and Teachers and parents Inadequate water for 65 per cent parents felt that the No caste discrimination dissemination (CORD) reported that children attend drinking and washing meal should be continued reported (12 schools and 60 households) school more regularly hands before and after [Mid 2005] the meal

Notes: * The findings of LAN (2002) are available in Khera (2002), of CES (2003) in Drèze and Goyal (2003), of IIDS (2005) in Thorat and Lee (2005), of SPS in Jain and Shah (2005), of Chindwara (2005) in Afridi (2005), Pratichi Trust (2005) in Rana (2005), Sewa Mandir (2005) in Blue (2005) and of CORD (2005) in De, Samson and Noronha (2005).

+ Proportion reporting availability of particular infrastructure.

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 relatively new initiatives are spreading rapidly, but require close scrutiny and evaluation.22

Monitoring mechanisms vary across states. While some have tried to involve the community, it seems unlikely that monitoring by the community (generally the mothers) will be sufficient.23

Enrolment, Retention and Attendance

By all available accounts, the MDMS 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 midday meals 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 in 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 scrutinised. As Drèze (2006) notes, the increase recorded by micro-studies may be on the high side. Deaton and Drèze (2006) note that the consumption of mid-day meals in primary schools appears to be heavily underrecorded in the National Sample Survey (NSS) data, making it hard to verify the impact of MDMs on school attendance from NSS surveys.

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: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 19 per cent increase in enrolment of girls and the SPS survey in 2005 records a 38 per cent increase for girls.26 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 (Table 2). This is as one would expect since those are the families that need MDMs most.27 Poor working mothers are particularly happy with the programme as it frees them from the burden of feeding children during the day.28

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.29

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 gm of protein. On the quantity of food provided, there are two key issues:

(a) whether the SC order is being complied with; and (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 [e g, the SPS in Jain and Shah 2005; CORD in De and Noronha 2005; 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 one child are very different from those of a class five child.30 However, this has not been taken into account while fixing the quantity of food provided to children.31 Though many studies report that children are getting their fill (even though it may not be the amount stipulated by the Supreme Court order), generally there is no uniform rule to ensure the equitable distribution of food.32 For instance, in Delhi children belonging to lower grades are given food first and are consciously served less (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 centralised 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.33 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 unappetising meals.34

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.

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.46 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 (Table 2).47 Table 3 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.48 Kitchen sheds are still lacking in a majority of schools, though again there are interstate 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.49 Here too, field reports indicate rapid improvements 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: 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 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 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 and so that already overburdened teachers are not diverted into supervising the mid-day meal. 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. It is essential to have enough staff. This issue has been raised in several studies and newspaper reports.50

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.51 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. What is required is something similar to the Gujarat or Karnataka model where three persons are employed for the provision of the MDM: an organiser, a cook and a helper. The responsibilities of the organiser 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 organiser 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.

A related issue is that of the rules regarding appointment of cooks, helpers and organisers. According to the Supreme Court’s order dated April 20, 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.52 A few studies have shown that the lack of appointment norms leads to some friction and to disruption of the MDM programme.

Another pertinent issue is that of remuneration to cooks. Often, cooks and helpers are paid less than the statutory minimum wage (Table 1). For instance, in Gujarat the organiser (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.53 However, these costs did not

III Tamil Nadu and Gujarat56

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.57 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 two 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 preschoolers. In Gujarat, the scheme began on an experimental basis in the 1960s and all students in the 6-11 age group have been covered since 1984.58 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 two to five 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 midday meals in Tamil Nadu. In Gujarat, the state provides cooked meals to children from grade one to grade seven.

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.

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.59 As mentioned above, a team of three is appointed at the school level – an organiser, 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 gm), rice (50 gm), pulses (20 gm), vegetables and condiments (50 gm), and edible oil (10 gm), 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 two to four years to 504 kCal for those aged 13-15 years. Children are provided eggs or ‘sattu’ once a fortnight.60

Finally, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu are pioneers in the practice of combining the MDM with some health interventions. This includes micronutrient supplementation (primarily vitamin A and iron) and deworming tablets.61 In addition to this, in Tamil Nadu children benefit from regular health check-ups and free treatment of certain illnesses.62

IV Concluding Remarks

Though India’s mid-day meal programme has travelled a long way from its “non-starter” start in 1995, and has 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.

Even in its basic form, when children were provided only dalia, the mid-day meal programme had a substantial impact on improving enrolment in schools. It is especially encouraging to note that the most significant increase in enrolment was amongst children from disadvantaged groups including girls, dalits and the poor. Anecdotal evidence of improvement in attendance and retention suggests that the MDMS could have important spillovers on educational outcomes as well. The impact of MDMs on attendance and retention, however, needs to be examined more closely. The case for further improvements in the MDMS is strengthened even more when we take into account the potential nutritional and socialisation benefits of such a programme.

Another 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 votewinning 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 evident 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.

53 See also Jain and Shah (2005) who report the same practice in Madhya Pradesh.

54 See Swaminathan et al (2004), p 4819.

55 I have observed this practice in many parts of Rajasthan.

56 This section relies primarily of the MDM website of the government of Gujarat, Drèze and Goyal (2003), and Rajivan (2005).

57 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.

58 See http://gujarateducation.gswan.gov.in/ schools/mdm.htm

59 Karnataka is another state that shares this feature.

60 The practice of serving eggs once a fortnight has been introduced in Chhattisgarh as well.

61 Again this practice is found in Karnataka as well.

62 See Drèze and Goyal (2003); also Times of India (2006) on a similar initiative in Chandigarh.

References

Afridi, F (2005): ‘Mid-Day Meals in Two States: Comparing the Financial and Institutional Organisation of the Programme’, Economic and Political Weekly, April 9.

Blue, J (2005): The Government Primary School Mid-day Meals Scheme: An Assessment of Programme 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, M Samson and C Noronha (2005): Towards More Benefits from Delhi’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Collaborative Research and Dissemination, New Delhi.

Deaton, Angus and Jean Drèze (2006): ‘Tracking Mid-Day Meals in Indian Schools’, Draft notes, March.

Drèze, Jean (2003): ‘Digesting Inequality’, Hindustan Times, July.

Drèze, J and A Goyal (2003): ‘The Future of Mid-Day Meals’, Economic and Political Weekly, November 1, pp 4673-82.

Drèze, Jean and Geeta Kingdon (2001): ‘School Participation in Rural India’, Review of Development Economics, 5 (1).

Drèze, Jean and S Vivek (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, February 27.

Gopaldas, Tara (2006): ‘Hidden Hunger’,Economic and Political Weekly, August 26.

Government of India (1995): Nutritional Support to Education, Report of the Committee on Mid-Day Meals, Department of Education, New Delhi, May.

– (2004): National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2004 [Mid-Day Meal Scheme], Guidelines, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, New Delhi.

Indian Express (2006): ‘No Foul Play in Mid-Day Meal, Here’, Indian Express, January 25.

Jain, J and M Shah (2005): ‘Antyodaya Anna Yojana and Mid-Day Meals in MP’, Economic and Political Weekly, November 26, pp 5076-88.

Khan, Arshad Afzal (2006): ‘Mid-Day Meal Strikes Again, 70 Students Fall Ill’, Indian Express. Khera, R (2002): ‘Mid-Day Meals in Rajasthan’, The Hindu, November 13.

– (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, February 16.

Menon, P (2003): ‘Untouchable Lunch?’ Frontline, July 19-August 1.

Naik, R (2005): ‘Report on Akshara Dasoha Scheme of Karnataka’, University of Dharwad.

Pratap, A (2003): ‘Strike against Hunger’, Outlook, August.

Pushpendra and T Sood (2004): ‘Mid-Day Meal Survey in East Champaran and Supaul Districts, Bihar’, Patna.

– (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.

Rana, K (2005): ‘The Possibilities of Mid-Day Meal Programme in West Bengal’, Pratichi Trust,

Rao, Raghevendra (2004): ‘MGRs Mid-Day Meal Scheme’, The Hindu Business Line, June 11.

Rather, Nazir Ahmad (2006): ‘If Food Be the Way to Literacy, Then Serve On’, Indian Express, February 20.

Right to Food Campaign (2005): ‘Mid-Day Meals: A Primer’, Secretariat of the Right to Food Campaign, New Delhi.

Seth, Maulshree (2005): ‘Mid-Day Meals: Teachers to Get a Taste’, Indian Express, December 30.

Setia, Shruti (2006): ‘As Govt Sleeps Students Fight Hunger Pangs’, Times of India, March 5.

Sharma, Amit (2005): ‘No Lesson Learnt, Mid-Day Meal Stale’, Indian Express, December 12.

Singh, Shashi Bhushan (2004): ‘Future of Mid-Day Meals’, Economic and Political Weekly, February 28.

Swaminathan, P, J Jeyaranjan, R Sreenivasan, K Jayashree (2004): ‘Tamil Nadu’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme: Where Assumed Benefits Score Over Hard Data’, Economic and Political Weekly, October 30.

The Telegraph (2006a): ‘Mid-Day Meal to Rope in Mothers’, The Telegraph, January 3.

– (2006b): ‘Teachers Put Foot Down on Manager Task’, The Telegraph, February 22. The Times of India(2006): ‘Guv Launches Modified Mid-Day Meal Scheme’, January 19.

Thorat, S and J Lee (2005): ‘Caste Discrimination and Food Security Programmes’, Economic and Political Weekly, September 24.

Zaidi, A (2005): ‘Food, for Education’, Frontline, February 26-March 11.