BS Number Wise: A number for the poor in India

State welfare schemes often benefit the privileged as the government puts off setting up updated measures to define poverty

The last time India estimated its number of poor was in economist C Rangarajan’s report in 2014, adding 93.7 million more to the count.

Traditional poverty lines have had their drawbacks, but the government, for almost a decade, has refrained from setting a fresh measure. During this time, the definition of poverty itself has undergone significant revisions. Poverty is not limited to the absence of income but access to resources like health and education.

Encompassing these new parameters, a new global multidimensional poverty report by the UN highlights how far behind India is in achieving “sab ka vikas”— the government’s avowed policy of ensuring the progress of all Indians. An analysis of National Family Health Survey data for 2015-16 shows that multidimensional poverty is the worst among scheduled tribes, followed by scheduled castes and other backward classes. Five in six multidimensionally poor belonged to one of these social groups.

 

Latest data on poverty are not available. Reports by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) help, but how poor India’s different social groups are remains unclear. In the absence of a clear marker, it is difficult to assess the income dimension of poverty. Still, inferences can be made about inequality in the country.

There are two ways to approach the issue. The first is to look at the average value of assets, land holdings and income of agricultural households. By that measure, the scheduled tribes do better than the scheduled castes despite having the highest incidence of poverty. However, a significant reason for the scheduled tribes’ deprivation is the absence of assets. Scheduled tribe households had the least number of asset holdings among all social categories.

Yet, this is not a damaging proposition for measuring poverty. A comparison with the privileged shows how far behind backward communities are. The average value of assets — comprising land, jewellery and other assets — owned by the “others” category in the government’s All-India Debt and Investment Survey for 2018-19 was 2.1 times more than scheduled tribes, three times more than scheduled castes, and 1.9 times more than other backward classes. Data show that households in the “others” category had more assets than all other categories, barring the OBCs.

The agricultural indebtedness survey shows another divide among social groups. The average per-acre monthly earning of a household was 12 times higher for the “others” than for the scheduled tribes. For scheduled castes, the difference was 5.8 times, and for the other backward classes 4.6 times. Total earnings of the “others” were at least a third higher than all other groups.

This privileged section cornered a higher proportion of government benefits as well. According to the agricultural indebtedness report, earnings from pensions and remittances were 2.5 times higher for “others” when compared with scheduled castes.

 

The coronavirus pandemic may have further skewed these ratios.

A dollar or rupee definition of a poverty line is still necessary to address extreme poverty. However, the government also needs to address the problem of inequality. One way to do this is to ensure better access to government schemes.

In a recent admission to the Supreme Court, the government’s argument for Rs 8 lakh per annum income as the creamy layer limit to avail of reservation benefits was the 2010 criteria set by the Sinho commission report.

India needs more scientific and updated measures.