Editorial: Food is Not the Destination, Education Is

The recent controversy surrounding the comments of noted Telugu orator Garikipati Narasimha Rao on the Mid-Day Meal scheme has triggered sharp reactions. Many people felt that his remarks sounded arrogant and insensitive, especially when they appeared to belittle children studying in government schools. Public speakers and intellectuals wield enormous influence, and therefore their words carry responsibility. Any tone that seems dismissive of poor students naturally invites criticism. Millions of children depend on government schools not merely for education but also for nutritional support, and it is important that the dignity of those children is always respected.

However, beyond the immediate outrage lies a deeper and more uncomfortable question about the condition of school education in India. The Mid-Day Meal scheme was conceived with a noble objective: to improve nutrition and encourage school attendance among children from poor families. In that sense, it was always meant to be a means to an end to education. But over time, in many places, the means appears to have become the end itself. When we discuss education today, the conversation often revolves around numbers: the number of schools built, teachers recruited, budgets allocated and students enrolled. These indicators are important, but they do not tell the entire story. Education is a far subtler process that involves comprehension, curiosity, critical thinking, communication skills and the ability to apply knowledge in real life.

Unfortunately, several independent assessments indicate that these deeper aspects of learning remain weak. The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) and other national surveys repeatedly point to worrying gaps in learning outcomes across the country. For example, earlier ASER findings showed that only about half of Class V students in rural India could read a Class II-level text and barely 28% could solve a basic division problem. Even in recent assessments, many students in higher classes continue to struggle with basic reading comprehension and numeracy. Nationwide evaluations by the Ministry of Education’s PARAKH programme have also highlighted serious deficiencies in reading, writing and understanding concepts among students even in Classes 6 and 9, indicating a systemic learning gap. These findings suggest that while enrollment in schools has increased significantly, actual learning has not kept pace.

One reason often cited by teachers and education observers is the increasing administrative burden placed on schools. The Mid-Day Meal programme is a massive welfare initiative involving millions of children across the country. Managing procurement of food grains, maintaining stocks, cooking arrangements, distribution of eggs and meals, and keeping detailed records requires considerable time and effort. Teachers and school staff frequently find themselves spending substantial energy on managing these logistical aspects. While nutrition is essential and the scheme itself has undeniable benefits, it becomes problematic when administrative tasks begin to overshadow the core purpose of schooling, teaching and learning.

This imbalance is sometimes visible even in official inspections. When senior administrators or district collectors visit schools, a large portion of the inspection often focuses on the quality and distribution of the Mid-Day Meal. Ensuring hygiene and safety in food preparation is certainly necessary, but education cannot be reduced to kitchen management. If an officer were to spend even a few minutes casually interacting with students asking them to read a paragraph, explain a concept, or express their thoughts the gaps in comprehension, awareness and critical thinking would quickly become apparent. One may ask whether the limited time of highly trained administrators should primarily be used to check food quality, or whether it should be invested in improving pedagogy, supporting teachers and inspiring students.

At the same time, it must also be recognised that the Mid-Day Meal scheme operates on an enormous scale. When millions of meals are cooked every day across thousands of schools, occasional lapses are almost inevitable. Isolated failures should therefore be viewed in perspective rather than used to undermine the entire programme. After all, even in a household kitchen where cooking happens every day, food occasionally turns out badly. The same principle applies to any large public scheme. The success of the programme lies in the fact that it has significantly improved school attendance and provided basic nutrition to millions of children who might otherwise go hungry.

Yet the broader policy question remains. Welfare programmes in education must support learning rather than substitute for it. History offers an interesting parallel. In feudal societies, rulers sometimes distributed food or small benefits to the poor to maintain social stability and prevent unrest, while deeper structural issues remained untouched. Modern welfare states are far more complex and democratic, but the underlying lesson remains relevant: relief measures should not distract society from addressing fundamental problems.

The fundamental problem in Indian school education today is not access but quality. Children are entering classrooms in large numbers, but many are leaving without adequate reading ability, writing skills, comprehension or confidence in communication. Without addressing these learning deficits, the promise of education as a pathway to social mobility remains incomplete.

Therefore the debate triggered by the recent controversy should move beyond personalities and focus on the real issue. Nutrition programmes like the Mid-Day Meal are important and must continue. They help children attend school and learn with dignity. But they must always remain a support system, not the central purpose of schooling. The true measure of an education system lies not in the number of meals served but in the minds it nurtures.

In the final analysis, the principle is simple yet crucial: food is a means, not the destination. The destination must always be education.