Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/the-poverty-line-yours-mine-and-ours-by-patralekha-chatterjee-10470.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The Poverty Line – yours, mine and ours by Patralekha Chatterjee | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

The Poverty Line – yours, mine and ours by Patralekha Chatterjee

Discussing the ‘poverty line’ has become a bit like talking about sex or death. Everybody has a view on it. And no two persons have the same view. The planning commission, members of the national advisory council, the rural development minister, assorted chief ministers, social scientists, economists, the media, the bloggerati — all have made their points loud and clear.

However, such is the topic that it continues to trigger verbal jousts.

The debate about poverty is old. What is new is its virulent tone, and the increasing number of people wading into the issue, since an affidavit from the planning commission to the Supreme Court noted that India’s official poverty line was set at Rs26 per person per day in rural areas and Rs32 in urban areas.

Predictably, economists were among the first to take sides in the debate. More than two dozen of India’s leading economists, including two former ministers, came out with a strong statement rejecting the planning commission’s poverty line.

All this is refreshingly different from the old days when disagreements over such topics remained confined within the fusty walls of the academia.

But truth be told, what has sustained public interest in the subject is not the dizzying variety of opinions but the many attempts by government functionaries and advisors to clear the air. The process has generated much heat and sound. We have also learnt a lot about the sheer variety of India’s ‘poor.’

‘At the bottom of the heap are the unambiguously poor. Then, you have people who are vulnerable — they are not poor by the standards of the poverty line, but they are pretty low income, so maybe they do deserve support under various schemes. Then, you have the aam admi. Then you have the upper class and on top of the heap, there are the rich…’ explained Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chair, planning commission, in one of his recent interviews.

Currently, there is a truce between the feuding parties. The planning commission and the rural development ministry have made up. They agree that ‘the present state-wise poverty estimates using the planning commission methodology will not be used to impose any ceiling on the number of households to be included in different government programmes and schemes.’

In his interactions with the media, Ahluwalia stresses that the cut-off figures for poverty threshold are not going to be linked to official entitlements, and the benefits would not be limited to those determined as ‘poor’ under these criteria.

A nagging question remains: if the poverty line is delinked from food and other entitlements given to the poor, for whose benefit does it exist? Here is the nub of the matter. Most economists agree that there is an element of arbitrariness in drawing a poverty line. But unreliable or otherwise, governments love the poverty line because it is a useful tool to measure progress over a period.

What is India’s record in tackling poverty? It depends on how you count the poor. There is no reliable, updated figure. The planning commission says it is not using the poverty line to fudge figures about India’s poor. ‘The number of people living below a dollar a day is down from 296 million in 1981 to 267 million people in 2005. However, the number of poor below $1.25 a day increased from 421 million in 1981 to 456 million in 2005. This the biggest challenge facing India today,’ noted a 2008 World Bank report.

The quibbling over numbers of the absolute poor, those just above that, and those with merely pretty low incomes, does not help. The bottom line: we have an unacceptably large number of people who don’t have the resources and cannot access basics in terms of food, healthcare or education. Whatever way one chooses to describe such people, or whatever way one measures their condition, the reality is that without these basic amenities, they will not be fully productive. It is in India’s interest that they do.

The poor have not been part of the debate on the poverty line. No one invited them to the high table. This morning, I did a random test. I asked Kaliamma, a semi-literate Tamil migrant who has made Delhi her home for the past 20 years, and who now speaks Hindi, about the poverty line, or Garibi Rekha. Pat came the answer: “I don’t have any time to waste. I do my work — sweeping, swabbing, washing — and then I go home. I have not met Gareebi Rekha, whoever she is....”