According to the
government’s statistics, poverty levels are coming down. But the
reality on the ground is different; true,
the poor earn more – but then they have to spend more as well. The
government’s definition of poverty itself is open to question, as anybody who spends any money (above 350 rupees per month in villages) is not considered to be poor. The absurdity of the measure is demonstrated by the fact that the money spent on the daily bus fare itself would suffice to keep one above the poverty level. Perhaps, the government is confusing poverty with starvation; it would be more accurate to say that while India’s population is poor, it is not starving from hunger.
And the statistics hide another grim
reality – the quantum of rural poverty has actually increased (in percentage terms) in the backward states of India (Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh). More and more, poverty is getting concentrated in these backward states; and thus assuming a geographical contour. Thus, instead of speaking in terms of poor people, nowadays it is more accurate to speak in terms of poor states – for that is the emerging reality of India, as the better managed states are pulling ahead while the laggards are being left behind.
The real reason behind the (statistical) decline in poverty levels is the low inflation rate – the low foodgrain prices to be more precise.
The availability of work (outside agriculture) in rural areas also needs to be considered. Thus, poverty can be a seasonal factor in India, as poor people are constantly moving across the “poverty line” depending upon the availability of work or otherwise.
Another finding of the study is that poverty has not been greatly affected or diminished by the economic reforms launched during the nineties. The prevailing belief that the effect of growth (in GDP terms) will eventually “trickle down” to the poor is thus being questioned. The “trickle down” is there, but it is not significant; thus suggesting that the government needs to continue with specific programs designed to alleviate poverty. The reasons are not far to seek – India is a land of inequalities, and while (statistically) overall poverty has declined, the poor remain as poor as ever.
Another constant criticism of the poverty level has been that it is based on calorie consumption of some 2,400 calories – while a manual laborer requires some 3,800 calories under India’s hot and humid conditions. This corresponds to a monthly expenditure of some 840 rupees; which means that roughly 90% of India’s population should be considered as below the poverty level. That would be a far more accurate reflection of reality.
In conclusion, the author says that the government needs to base its estimates on more realistic data – and acknowledge that mere survival (with some basic needs being met) cannot be equated with a life of dignity.