Last Friday, when I sat down to write my opinion piece, the arrest of Professor Kalaiyarasan, and the Chief Minister seeking an apology was running in my mind. In my piece, I said an apology doesn’t mean accountability. A few days later, the Madras High Court came up with a similar opinion.
But this week, I am again compelled to write on accountability and on the government’s responsibilities. However, this time, it is neither about an academic nor a student—or any human being for that matter.
Onions have exposed severe flaws in the six-month-old government led by TVK founder and leader C. Joseph Vijay.
In fact, the TVK government's onion procurement controversy is not merely an episode of rotten produce and wasted public money. It is a telling commentary on how poorly conceived procurement decisions can undermine even a well-intentioned welfare scheme.
There is something particularly embarrassing about a government that promises to bring down the price of onions, but cannot ensure that the onions it procures are fit for consumption.
It all began on September 3, when the government launched its subsidised onion distribution scheme, promising onions at ₹35 a kg through ration and cooperative outlets. The idea was simple and people-friendly, and was aimed at protecting households from rising prices by making an essential kitchen ingredient affordable.
But somewhere between the announcement and the distribution, the administration appears to have lost sight of the most basic requirement of public procurement: quality control.
The scale of the failure, of course, is unimaginable, but buried under the carpet for various reasons.
The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Consumers' Federation had placed an order with NAFED for 400 tonnes of onions at ₹29 per kg, with a stipulation that the onions should be A-grade and at least 45mm in size.
Yet, an inspection at Nashik reportedly found substandard produce. A subsequent inspection at Chennai's Korukkupet terminal found that 20-26 per cent of the sample onions were rotten, sprouted, or affected by fungus. Worse, 50.2 per cent were below the prescribed size. The order was eventually cancelled on October 31.
However, cancelling an order after the consignment has travelled hundreds of kilometres may not help and also cannot be claimed as evidence of administrative efficiency. The department had reportedly insisted that its officials inspect the onions before dispatch. Yet, NAFED sent the consignment before the verification was completed. The result was a two-day standoff, with onions stranded in trucks at Korukkupet, while officials argued over who should accept responsibility.
The controversy does not end here. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami alleged that 450 tonnes of onions sent from Maharashtra remain unaccounted for. The government maintains that the rejected 400-tonne consignment belonged to NAFED and was never accepted by the state.
These are serious questions that cannot be settled through political accusations and official denials. The government apparently has the responsibility to publish the procurement records, inspection reports, dispatch details and stock reconciliation.
There is also a larger question about the scheme's planning. The government claims that 2,380.32 tonnes of onions were sold under the programme.
If demand was so substantial, why was the supply chain not monitored more carefully? Why were complaints about spoilage at warehouses and fair price shops reported during the third phase? And why did the administration wait until the problem became a public controversy to tighten its inspection procedures?
A welfare scheme cannot be measured merely by the fanfare accompanying its launch or the number of tonnes procured.
The irony is that onions are among the most frequently purchased essentials in an Indian kitchen. A government that cannot manage their procurement efficiently has a larger administrative problem than a few rotten sacks—it has failed to connect policy announcements with the discipline of implementation.
The TVK government came to power promising a different style of administration. It cannot afford to replicate the very bureaucratic indifference and lack of accountability it once criticised.
The onion fiasco calls for an independent audit, clear responsibility for procurement failures and a transparent account of public expenditure. After all, the public cannot be made to shed tears over onions that the government could not keep from rotting.
The onion fiasco calls for an independent audit, clear responsibility for procurement failures and a transparent account of public expenditure. After all, the public cannot be made to shed tears over onions that the government could not keep from rotting.
