According to the Planning Commision of India, a person living in urban India is not poor if he can spend more than Rs. 32/day and in rural areas the ceiling gets lowered to Rs 26/day. First thought which came on reading this news article was has the government any idea of the real ground situation? Have they done any reasearch into real cost of living at all? So if a person can't spend Rs 961/month he is "below poverty line" and it seems over 40 crore Indians are below this cutoff, which is an even bigger disgrace. And this is the government mandated poverty line. The more realistic number would be even higher.
Below is the break-up of how the figure had been arrived.
- Rs 3,860/month for a family of 4 living in the 4 metro cities.
Daily Expenditure
- Cereals - Rs. 5.50/day
- Pulses - Rs. 1.02/day
- Milk - Rs. 2.33/day
- Edible Oil - Rs. 1.55/day
- Vegetables - Rs. 1.95/day
- Fruits - Rs. 0.44/day
- Sugar - Rs. 0.70/day
- Salt & Spices - Rs 0.78/day
- Other Foods - Rs. 1.51/day
- Fuel - Rs. 3.75/day
Monthly Expenditure
- Rent & Conveyance - Rs. 49.10/month
- Healthcare - Rs. 39.70/month
- Education - Rs 29.60/month
- Clothing - Rs. 61.30/month
- Footwear - Rs. 9.60/month
- Other Personal Items - Rs 28.80/month
Wonder which era the Suresh Tendulkar Committee is living in? Have they tried themselves living with such resources for a week, forget a month. And all this from a government headed by a "renowned" economist. This seems to be an exercise undertaken in reverse gear. Instead of trying to find out the number of people under poverty line by fixing the line, it seems to have pegged the number and then fixed the line accordingly. And if this is not the case then it makes me wonder what kind of 5 year Plans are built on this basis.
Here is an interesting blog on the subject: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/developmentdialogue/entry/let-s-count-the-poor-but-first-here-s-the-answer
Here is an interesting blog on the subject: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/developmentdialogue/entry/let-s-count-the-poor-but-first-here-s-the-answer