Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Policy-BELOW POVERTY LINE: THE NUMBER GAME

Varying findings of different Committee Reports, an Absolute lack of consensus and The Dependence of poverty alleviation schemes on BPL Estimates makes its Calculation process Extremely crucial. And now, Despite Accepting that 37% of India could be in The BPL category, The Government has failed to notify this.

If we consider the United Nations data, 220 million people in India suffer from hunger and the prevalence of hunger is found in all age groups ranging from infants to old. Food production has been going down, food imports are rising and food insecurity is on rise. Whereas, per capita availability of foodgrains was 190 kilogram per person per annum in 1979-80,it declined to only 186 kilogram in 2004-05. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), calculated by the Human Development Report Office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), that looks beyond income at a wider range of household-level deprivation, including services, which could then be used to help target development resources, throw up stark statistics compared to regular poverty measures. The study has found that half of the world’s MPI poor people live in South Asia, and just over a quarter in Africa. There are 421 million MPI poor people in 8 Indian states alone – Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal – as compared to 410 million in the 26 poorest African countries combined.

While clarity over the extent of poverty has always been a matter of debate, in a recent development, the entire process of the manner in which the poor are counted in India is under a legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court has asked the government to prove the efficacy of the BPL survey to be held in June this year, if all the poor identified fail to get government benefit. The court has asked the government to give reasons behind the Planning Commission putting up a cap on the number of poor in India, which many believe is unrealistic. The existing conflict between the Centre and states over who decides the number of poor is more of a political battle for an upper hand when it comes to taking credit for the impact of a welfare measure.

However, a scenario such as this calls for further introspection before the concerned parties quarrel over committee reports. Before deliberating upon the contours of who the government would recognise as ‘poor’, there has to be a consensus and stricter vigilance to ensure that the existing welfare measures are reaching the actual needy.