The Maharashtra government's recent change to the nutritional diet for young children has sparked criticism. On Jan 28, the government announced that eggs and sugar required for school meals would now need to be sourced through public donations. This decision has been met with strong criticism from Mukund Kirdat of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the AAP Parents’ Union, who questioned, “Is the government now hating even young children?”

Previously, the midday meal for students in grades 1 through 8 included three-course meals, such as rice, pulses, broken cereals, egg pulao, and sweet dishes like rice pudding and nachni satva, as recommended by dieticians. However, under the new directive, dishes like egg pulao and rice pudding and nachni satva have been introduced as alternatives, contingent upon public donations for funding.

The new menu removes items like rice kheer, replacing it with egg pulao and rice pudding. Wherever children cannot eat eggs, they will be given fruits instead. This shift, critics argue, effectively takes away sweet dishes from children’s plates in the name of cost-saving.

Schools with large numbers of students require significant amounts of sugar, at least 25 to 30 kg per week, translating to an expenditure of around Rs 1,000. With the government now relying on public funds for this, there are concerns about the feasibility of regularly collecting donations, especially in rural areas where parents are often struggling financially. Teachers in government schools are expected to organise these funds, but with limited resources, they may find themselves financially burdened or unable to provide for the meals.

Many rural schools have reported that the midday meal programme has led to increased attendance, with children from grades 1 to 8 receiving free education under the Right to Education Act. However, the AAP believes the new policy is counterproductive to the education system and is a move that prioritises cost-cutting over the well-being of students.

The AAP has pledged to raise awareness among parents in both rural and urban government schools about this issue, calling the policy anti-education.