Defining
poverty is a critical task as the poverty index determine thefund allocation for all poverty alleviation programmes
and a faultymethodology could deprive the poor of their entitlements.Defined in terms of per capita requirement of 2400 calories for therural areas, the national price index served as the basis forcalculating the expenditure. This was later changed to State specificprice index.Due to retaining an outdated method of needs estimation butadopting new calculation methodology, in 1997, there seemed asharp decrease in
poverty estimates and many states had their shares ofpoverty alleviation programmes slashed, which led to voiciferousprotests from the affected states.In 2000, the new poverty estimates evolved by the PlanningCommission, showed an unprecedented decline of 10% in the BPL(Below Poverty Line ) population. These estimates evoked strongcriticisms as being gross underestimations based on contaminateddata.The Standing Commitee on Food, Civil Supplies and publicdistribution chided the Government for claiming reduction in povertylevels based on comparing two survey data using two differentmodalities.This wrong picture could negatively affect the povertyalleviation programme. Reacting to the criticism, the PlanningCommission, decided to revert to the older figures of 1994estimates,without giving allowance for the increased population,thus once more revealing a plethora of manipulations andarbitrariness.Meanwhile, MoRD(Ministry for Rural Development) which also makespoverty estimates,based on house to house survey, showed 10%higher estimates.Yet,under the prodding of Planning commission, itchanged its parameters exposing many gaps which can hinder getting trueestimates.With no uniformity in cut off scores, the data soobtained has more to do with exraneous factors rather than with povertyestimates.What is more,these scores can also be manipulated by thepolitical party in power to reward or punish certain areas.Shockingly,a circular from the Economic advisor to MoRD states thatwhile states have the flexibiliy in deciding cut-off scores, in no caseshould the scores exceed the prescribed limit of poverty estimates madeby the Planning Commission.The public may be unaware of such irrational and unjust ways but theauthor pleads for greater vigilance among the welfare activists anddiscerning public on the BPL estimates and the resulting fundallocation.