India Journal: Playing with Poverty Statistics

By Ranjani Iyer Mohanty

The poverty line for a given individual can be defined as the money the individual needs to achieve the minimum level of ‘welfare’ to not be deemed ‘poor,’ given its circumstances.”

This is how Martin Ravallion, director of the Development Research Group at the World Bank, defines the poverty line. In 2005, the World Bank revised the international poverty line up from $1 a day to $1.25 a day, but countries are allowed to set their own national poverty line. The Planning Commission has set India’s national line at 578 rupees a month, or the equivalent of 43 U.S. cents a day.

Even assuming only a charitable (to the government, that is) 30 days a month, that works out to less than 20 rupees a day. A half-litre packet of milk at Mother Dairy costs 10 rupees. One mango, those in season and heaped on carts by the side of the street, costs 10 rupees. And a cabbage …but no, your 20 rupees a day has already been spent. If you spend more than that, even on clothing or education or fuel, you cannot be termed as below the poverty line and therefore you are not eligible for BPL-related benefits and subsidies on food, shelter, and medical treatment. And note that the luxurious 20 rupees a day is for city dwellers; rural people have to spend less than 15 rupees a day in order to be below the poverty line.

The absurdity of such a low poverty line is astounding. Even the World Bank, which does not usually comment on national poverty lines, feels that India’s is too low and was hoping for a more realistic peg at $1.17 a day. Many concerned individuals have called India’s poverty line the “starvation line.” In fact, it is tending more toward the flat-line on a cardiac monitor.

The Multidimensional Poverty Index (developed by the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative) puts the number of poverty-stricken Indians at 645 million. A recent report by the Asian Development Bank says rising food prices will push a further 30 million Indians below the poverty line of $1.25 a day. According to the National Family Health Survey (2006) by the Government of India, the child malnutrition rate is 46%, which human rights lawyer Colin Gonzalves says translates into a horrific 2,500 child deaths every day.

Are the members of the Planning Commission living in India in 2011? Why this total disconnect with reality?

Now I know some will argue and say: “Hey, stop picking on the Government of India! Can’t you see they’re trying to do their best … for themselves, that is? So what if they spend money on seemingly unimportant things (like the Commonwealth Games, unnecessary signs, and personal security guards) and remain impassive while some of their colleagues are filling their Swiss bank accounts and lining their own pockets with our tax dollars? Besides, the state governments are at fault, too. And I earn way more than 578 rupees a month anyways – in fact, I spend almost that much on a cup of coffee whenever I stop in at 360 at the Oberoi. So what do I care about what or where the poverty line is or who’s under it? Let them eat cake.”

I think I’ve heard those famous last words somewhere else before.

But a second look at this whole issue got me doing a re-think: If we can have a floating exchange rate and a floating gold price, why not a floating national poverty line? It could actually be a big advantage in lowering our poverty rates.

While having the international poverty line at $1.25 a day may show India as having some 600 million people below it, simply moving the national poverty line to 43 cents a day reduces those below the poverty line to about 440 million. In fact, if the Planning Commission revises the poverty line to 20 cents a day, they can reduce poverty yet again. Of course, they could drop the national poverty line to 1 cent a day and thereby eradicate poverty in India altogether.

Learning from the wisdom of the government, I’ve decided to adopt similar measures for a more personal problem. I’ll be turning 50 next month … but that sounds rather old. So instead of accepting that reality and taking practical steps – like putting aside funds for later years or taking better care of my health – I’m going to pretend I’m living on Mars and then, using the Martian measurement of time to calculate my age, I can say I’m just a sprightly 26 years. Of course, I may die before I’m 40, but at least I can live and die under a happy illusion.

Source:- India Journal