JOIN USThe Planning Commission’s affidavit, filed before the Supreme Court last week, which said that those with a monthly expenditure of Rs 965 in urban areas and Rs 781 in rural areas would not be considered poor has rightly invited disbelief and widespread indignation.
The figures correspond to Rs 32 in urban areas and Rs 26 in rural areas on a daily expenditure basis. The absurdity of these statistics would not escape anyone in these days of climbing prices and the weakening of the economic power of people at all levels.
It has to be a very callous and insensitive body that decides that anyone earning more than the benchmark set by these ridiculous figures is not poor. Poverty estimates have always been contentious. In fact a national standard itself becomes wrong when it is known that the poverty line varies from region to region, not just from cities to towns.
But it goes without saying it has to be realistic and true to the needs of people. The Commission’s estimates are based on the methodology employed by the Suresh Tendulkar committee on the basis on 2004-05 prices. It had told the Supreme Court early this year that a person who earns Rs 20 a day in cities and Rs 15 a day in villages cannot be considered poor.
The court had refused to accept the figures and sought a revision, and now the commission has come out a with a generous hike of a few rupees. The experts in the commission should have paused for a sane moment to consider whether Rs 26 a day would cover the food, health and education needs of a person in a village in a day, even if the articles and services are subsidised by the government. The break-up exposes the stark inadequacy of the standard – Rs 5.5 on cereals, Rs 2.3 on milk and Rs 1.6 on edible oil. Would a day’s needs be met with these earnings?
There is the need to define and fix the poverty line in view of the various social welfare schemes being planned and implemented by the government. The proposed food security bill can be effectively implemented only if there is a bench mark. But the standard should be rational. The purpose of the programmes will be defeated if large numbers of people are excluded from their purview through a statistical sleight-of-hand.