Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Why Government Is Worried About The Poor?

By S. Mohammed Irshad

26 September, 2011
Countercurrents.org

One Vadapav in Mumbai costs Rs 8, if a person eat three Vadapav a day (breakfast, lunch and dinner) costs Rs 24, so where is the money for other needs? If Montek Singh Aluvalia is true, urban Indian can live with Rs 32 a day, but for a normal person who lives in Mumbai can physically survive with three Vadapav a day. And he or she would be naked, unhygienic (lack money to buy toilet soap) and finally die at the earliest. This is not an exaggeration, instead it is fact. This is perhaps the first time that Indian poor think of the modus operandi of fixing poverty line. The statistically it is possible for government to fix the criteria for estimating poverty.

Estimating poverty is still problematic in our system, for instance, the report of the task force on Projections of minimum needs and effective consumption demands (GoI, 1979)was prepared a poverty estimation based on age, sex and activity specific nutritional requirements and arrived at a per capita norm of 2400 calorie for rural and 2100 calorie for urban and based on this a monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) of Rs 49.09 in rural and Rs 56.64 in urban was identified as the poverty line in 1973-74. This estimation was continued up to 2004-05, however in 2009, Government of India appointed another expert group reviewed 2004-05 estimates and introduced a new method. According to the new method the uniform recall period of 30 days for urban India and 25.7 percent poverty estimated in 2004-05 was considered as starting point. In addition to that the expert committee imposed on the mixed recall period (MRP) where five low frequency items of clothing, footwear, durables, education and institutional health expenditure had a 365 days recall period from which an average for 30 days was constructed and the other items continued with a 30 days recall period. These statistics talk about consumption expenditure of poor in a period i.e 30 days in a year. However, for the people are concerned consumption capacity and welfare support are the matter. Poverty estimation is increasingly considered as an issue of consumption capacity, which is limited to individual capacity. Here is the importance of Planning Commission's statements on poverty.

Rs 25 and Rs 32 is an absurd figure and indeed an insulting one. However, the contested question is whether government offers any secondary income sources such as PDS, Public Health and schooling? Who fix this criterion? Statistically, identifying average related to the number, hence, 25 and 32 is fine for planning commission. 1.21 billion Population of whom majority are poor will significantly reduce average prices. This is could be the reason why 25 and 32 came into being. The matter of fact is that poverty estimation is not intended for any plan of action, instead all these are aimed at reducing the government spending for poverty eradication programme. It is fact that Rs 25 and Rs 32 help survive physically, but not for all. Rice for Rs 2/kg and other public distribution may help. Here government is not concerned about the quality of life and upward mobility. The structural inequality will remain same. This is infact a policy too.

Poverty eradication is an un-finished agenda in our system. This had been an agenda in budget and five year plans upto 10th plan, however, 11th Plans and budget these years are not speak much about eradicating poverty. However, it does not mean that poor are getting rich. The 11th plan period marked for many serious policy issues pertain to poverty and measurement of poverty. For instance Arjun Sen Gupta committee came out with disturbing figure it told that 80 percent of Indian populations earn Rs 20 per day, but, government has not accepted this findings and later appointed Tendulkar Committee to look into it. Moreover, Arjun Sen Gupta committee's findings have been suspended. Sen was trying to establish the fact that majority are poor and establish the fact that 80 percent of the population are impoverished by the government policy. This was infact a disturbing figure for a country which spends Rs 1,47344 Crore for defense and having achieved 8 percent annual economic growth. Reason for suspending Sen Committee's findings is questioned by planning commission's new revelations on poverty. What is the difference between Rs 32, Rs 25 with Rs 20? The difference is that Sen Committee found that 80 percent is live by Rs 20 per day, infact this 80 percent is the difference.

Planning commission has not mentioned about the percentage share of the population in urban and rural India , live by Rs 32 and Rs 25. This is infact a politically significant statistical exercise, the political significance is evident from the lack of effective protest from political parties. Except some comments from Left parties, political parties in the country is more or less accept the planning commission's statistics on poverty. In fact this Rs 32 and Rs 25 should have troubled the ruling party than 2G and 3G scam. Even Ghandian like Anna Hazara has no issue with this figure. Why such a consensus?

The number of poor is the problem for both political parties and neo-liberal Ghandians, the reason is simple –lack of policy to tackle poverty and affiliation with corporatization of government and economy. Rs 32 and Rs 25 is also talk about inability of government to find solution to increasing number of poor. So, 32 and 25 could be considered as an attempt to reduce the ‘number' of poor and not ‘poverty'. This attempt has got political consensus as well, hence, this will get accepted.

This is inafact an insult to the life and dignity of majority in the country. This is not just an insult, instead it could be considered as attempt to exclude a vast majority from accessing available welfare measures. BPL status is a criterion to benefit subsidy, so, if government go ahead with 32 and 25, there will not be many to avail subsidy. This is again a success to government. Health, education, water, public distribution etc become un-accessible to majority. Who needs a government of this kind?

 

S. Mohammed Irshad PhD is Assistant Professor , Jamsetji Tata Centre for Disaster Management , Tata Institute of Social Science Email: [email protected]

 

 

 



 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.