The Planning Commission had no choice. The results of the 2009-10 edition of the five-yearly large sample survey of consumption by the National Sample Survey Organisation are in the public domain. So it had to release the official estimates of poverty that are based on them. They point to a seven-percentage-points reduction in the national incidence of poverty between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Rather than serve as an indicator of the UPA's achievement on the human development front, however, those estimates are turning out to be an embarrassment for the government. Public attention is focused on the fact that the “poverty lines” on which these estimates are based appear ridiculously low: a per capita daily consumption expenditure of Rs. 28.35 and Rs. 22.42 in urban and rural areas respectively. The government has only recently been subject to ridicule because of an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court suggesting that a measly per capita expenditure of Rs. 32 in urban areas or Rs. 26 in rural areas in 2010-11 would serve as the benchmark to define those who would be treated as being below or above the poverty line.
This is not a mere statistical issue. That line was also initially presented as the benchmark to determine who would or would not be eligible for access to a range of state subsidies and benefits. Having come under attack for excluding much of the poor, the government had to retract. It held that eligibility for state support would be determined using a different methodology with data collected by a Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC). That exercise is nowhere near complete. The official poverty line has a sanctity derived from its role in identifying “below poverty line” beneficiaries. That ‘line' is, however, controversial. It was meant to identify those with an average daily per capita calorie intake below 2400 calories in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas. But the result underestimated severe deprivation and was far below the figure yielded by the direct evidence on per capita calorific intake. So the Tendulkar Committee used a set of arbitrary principles to arrive at a new poverty benchmark that would be more “inclusive”. But even that figure is now seen as absurdly low. In the event, the government is caught in a statistical trap over poverty. It would do well, therefore, to give up its effort to find a benchmark for targeting its flagship social programmes and opt for universalisation, which has much else to recommend it as a principle. The poverty estimate would then not matter much.
Keywords: poverty line, BPL, Planning Commission
According United Nation Development Programme(2010) 37.2% Indian are living then BPL (international standard). According Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative- 8 Indian states have more poor than 26poorest African Nations combined which totals to more than 410million poor in the poorest African countries. It shows that Manmohan Singh's PLG Policy really working!!!!!
The government should also look at poverty as capability deprivation which means being poor not only in terms of income but being poor in terms of opportunities, capability. For instance, a handicapped person earning RS. 100 a day is a poorer and deprived than a person who earns say rs. 50 a day. Also while talking about poverty one must not forget about people who are just above the poverty line, there is no difference between a person earning Rs. 25 and rs. 30 a day. The government should bring those people under the benefit scheme. This can be done through the Public Distribution System. However, this system needs re-structuring.
Manmohan singh & Sonia Government categorically like to prove that during UPA Government rural and urban poverty has declined significantly in absolute and percentage of country's population.This is a big achievement of UPA Govt. Besides, Sonia's flagship program of food security need now have to provide rice/wheat/coarse grain to only poor based on this established poverty line, thereby reducing requirement of food, transport, storage, distribution and administration cost and also saving on subsidies. Whether this much small amount is sufficient to pay for residence, purchase minimum food grains to surive, fuel for cooking, obtain drinking water & domestic use, minimum amount to have clothings, education and health in particular. Whosoever has worked out must reveal clearly in parliament and print and electronic media component-wise amount required, how data were collected and demonstrate that the amount is sufficient rural/urban atra within a district/State.
In my motherland,life is rich and precious. But all are forced into poverty by evil minded governance causing intergenerational crimes like irrepairable genetic damage for which just reparations are infinite. Nuclear power as it ages becomes unpredictable and no nuclear process can ever be tested full scale because of the extinction level damages that would be caused.A characteristic of nuclear power programmes is that from year to year they keep on conuming more energy than they can ever practically produce. Thus poverty of power and hence of ALL the people goes on increasing ad infinitum because, for the corrupt authorities nuclear power is cheap and clean and does not (sic) pose climate change consequences. The power flow of living energy via the sun is at the rate of 1 GW or more per sq.km and they produce by enjoyable muscle power 120 GW in India at the rate of peak power of 100 watts each!Their outputs are all returned to mother earth safely.Man reproduces non clonally.Splendour!
The drawing of the poverty line to identify eligibility for subsidy by
the planning board based on a per capita daily consumption expenditure
of Rs. 28.35 and Rs. 22.42 in urban and rural areas respectively is
quite unfortunate since the expenditure shown is equal to that spent
by a middle income family on their pets. This shows with all
developments accrued during the last six decade after independence the
minimum living standard that a good number of Indian citizens
envisaged by the planning board are comparable with that of the
animals. No wonder that Indian society has been turned to treat
milking cows better than milk man since we lost milk of human kindness
in the era of globalization.
Apparel oft proclaims the man. The apparel of planning commission has the single agenda of dubiously portraying more greeneries, than the dried and barren lands which actually are greater both in numbers and in dimensions.The said yardsticks for APL and BPL, the brain child of our planning commission are wholly unrealistic that Monteksingh Ahluwalia had to admit his ignorance over the relevance on living standard in the light of his 'invention' of Rs.22/- and Rs.28/- as the case may be. We are content with cooking up of figures, and not facilitate the poor to cook a humble rotie.
There are many flaws in the calculation done by government.Calculation of per capita daily consumption makes me surprise.If we go by the standards of UN of poverty threshold it has been revised to $1.25 from $1 (which is the increased value). Last year only planning commission set Rs32 and Rs26 for urban and rural respectively. Now they have reduced it to Rs28 and Rs22. This is so ridiculous.After inflation,price hike of commodities how can planning commission took this decision is really questionable.I don't understand the method of calculation. If poor of poorest people go through PDS, then also it is impossible to live on Rs28 and Rs22.If we take on caloric basis 2100 and 2400 then also it is impossible to get this much in such less paid amount.The basic need set by UN is not at all possible.If actual data is released then we will come to know that we have crossed the threshold of developing nation in some context. We are still in the row of under developing countries.
The deliberate "reduction"in the per capita expenditure -already
criticised by the Apex Court- is released at this time has ONLY ONE
objective.
The Finance Minister has raised his hand and knows that the Food
Subsidy required to implement the NAC piloted Bill cannot be implimented without bankrupting the country.It is now finding ways
to cut down drastically the number of eligible persons who should be covered under the bill.By fixing a ridiculous benchmark which invited scorn from everyone the P.C has shown the audacity to LOWER the Per Capita Expenditure FURTHER so that crores of people
can be removed from the BPL category.
This Govt.will do Everything to Hurt the Poor.No objection was raised when the Provident Fund interest was lowered by 1.8%
How come they come up with such a ridiculous figure? This shows the government is not really interested in welfare programs be implemented to serve the needy better instead it wants a mere eye wash and propaganda making programs that is for their own records which can be sinisterly used to serve their selfish motives like in elections.
The Planning Commission is doing an excellent job. It has been bringing up people from below the poverty line implying that they may not be eligible to get the benefits doled out in Ram Rajya. at this rate before 2014 there will be no poor people in India. there will be a massive exodus of people from other countries into India. Though KF is in the red good times are ahead of us.
We paid huge sum of money to Montek Singh Aluvalia as his salary for coming out with this irrelevant number? What a pity! Is the govt declaring/admit defeat in the fight against poverty? The logic used is GMAT style question, "How to make the line longer with out touching it?" Answer: Draw a very small line beside it.
India's struggle for freedom from colonial rule was based on the assumption that poverty of the teeming millions cannot be removed without self-rule in the country. After 1947 it was decided that we will go slow instead of suddenly breaking up with the past. Changes were to be brought through equality of opportunity for acquiring higher education, occupying better jobs and earning higher incomes.However, commercialization restricted social mobility, stabilizing the same old social structures. Now we find that more than one-third of the population has been cruelly written off for all intents and purposes of social transformation. All these negate the assumptions behind the political movement for ouster of the colonial masters. Let us look back, and draw lessons for the future. Deergham pashyat, ma hrasvam !
Bringing down number of people below poverty line by 5 crore with a magical stroke of pen would have been something to cheer about But cynics would not allow one to be hilarious about it.They point out that the benchmark used to determine BPL from APl is flawed on many counts .They say a BPL had to buy his daily requirements at a price much higher than even the previous price benchmark.Their contention is that prices has increased manifold during the last five years They also point out that the present exercise to minimise the number of people living under poverty level is aimed to keep five crores eligible BPL population out of proposed "Food Security Act' Umbrella and other public welfare schemes. It is a cruel joke and a concocted survey.Hope people cutting across party-line will raise their voice against this shameful act and demand removal of the Planning commission V.C.
Those who live in government subsidised palaces can never know the ground realities.And nor they need to do so. We, actually, are ruled by a coterie of five and strangely enough three out of these FIVE - mr. M M Singh, P C and Montek - are former world bank officials and the other two _ Mm Maino and Parnab daa are the Bank's trustworthies.The Bank never cares for the poor but only the Coporates. So this is what is happening in India. The population of billionaires and those sustaining thier lives on half a doolar per day is fast increasing.
An excellent point! Instead of concentrating on mere statistics and
moulding the figures it would be more beneficial for them if they ensure
better application of the already implemented social programmes . For
inclusive growth it is necessary that everyone recieves their fair
share.
BPL line is an artificial and has no relation with human welfare. If you are earning 5000 in Bangalore then you are miserably poor and same 5000 may make you self sufficient in smaller towns. So, this rigid BPL line is in fact leading to defeat of whole welfare programs.
Its high time that we restructure our all welfare schemes on standard Human Development Index (or multidimensional poverty Index) for all regions separately. And let PRIs & ULBs decise who is poor not Centralised Planning Commission to whom we have not voted.
For a government trying to hush up the 'socialist' term introduced by the 42nd amendment into the preamble of the constitution, and furthering, instead, the neo-liberal agenda of its western ideologues, universalisation of its social programmes would be anathema. Besides, wouldn't the leaders of our great country be made look foolish in decrying the sacrosanct figures of $1.25, PPP, and the exchange rate in defining poverty? We deserve this definition of poverty in monetary terms, and more, in having an expert economist as PM and his chamcha in the Planning Commission. Any other view of poverty would jeopardise the sacred growth numbers.
Please Email the Editor