A day after the Planning Commission came up with a calculation of defining poverty in urban and rural areas, it came under criticism from civil society and the opposition.
The Plan panel, in an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the right to food case yesterday, managed to skirt a question by the court on why it was pre-determining the number of cards for those living below the poverty line (BPL). At the same time, it courted controversy by declaring the official poverty line based on 2010-11 prices. The commission says Rs 25 is enough for a person in rural areas and Rs 31 for a person in urban areas to take care of his daily expenses on food, medicine and education. The number is an extension of what was recommended by the Suresh Tendulkar Committee to estimate poverty based on 2004-05 prices.
While the Tendulkar panel’s recommendations were Rs 579 per capita per month (Rs 18 a day) in urban areas and Rs 447 per capita per month (Rs 15 a day) in rural areas, the Planning Commission has revised it to Rs 965 per capita per month in urban areas and Rs 781 per capital per month (rural) or Rs 31 per capital per day (urban) and Rs 25 per capital per day (rural).
National Advisory Council (NAC) member N C Saxena has called the Planning Commission’s poverty line as a starvation line.
Aruna Roy, another NAC member, and economist Jean Dreze said the affidavit, while talking of poverty line estimates, also declared it would be used for determining beneficiaries in public services.
However, Biraj Patnaik, advisor for food commissioners in the Supreme Court in the right to food case, says the affidavit was a snub by the Planning Commission of the highest court of the land. The court had asked the commission on how it arrived at the cap on BPL people and that it should reconsider the cap. The Planning Commission, in its affidavit instead of responding to that, has tried to confuse the court with a description of its poverty estimate, he says.
More From This Section
“They have not replied to the specific question on why should there be a cap on BPL,” he says. “Justice Balvir Bhandari of the Supreme Court had observed in the course of hearing that when the census is done, the government does not give a cap to the census authorities. So where is the question of a cap when BPL enumeration is concerned. The Planing Commission has, therefore, snubbed the Supreme Court,” says Patnaik.
There were some disagreeing voices within the Planning Commission itself.
Member Abhijit Sen said the Planning Commission failed to answer the specific question of the court as to the criteria for giving BPL cards.
Instead, it has described the process of calculating poverty, says Sen.
“The question who gets the BPL card has not been answered. It is not answering the question the Supreme Court needs to know,” he says. Sen added the affidavit was only clarifying the poverty numbers and not going into the issue of who is to get what under any scheme.
The Bharatiya Janata Party, the main Opposition, has called the affidavit a bad joke and demanded that the government withdrew it immediately. “We want to know which shop run by the Congress party sells food items at such low prices. The union government has said the villagers who spend Rs 31 a day are not poor. The government has just not considered the cost of accommodation amongst various things. It seems the government wants people to live on footpaths,” said party spokesperson Prakash Javadekar.
In its affidavit, the Planning Commission argues why the numbers are a good reflection of the actual consumption needs of the citizens today. It says the poverty line numbers used now were more inclusive. While the earlier estimates were anchored on the calorie consumption criterion, the Tendulkar committee had departed from this practice and had sought to look at other consumption needs like health and education. The fact that food consumption has shown a decline according to NSSO surveys has been cited as a justification for revising the 2004-05 poverty line numbers at current prices rather than improving on it.