Force Them Out:

March 20/2012: There are two ways of looking at the problem of poverty. One is to delve deep into it, thoroughly studying the issues and sincerely and whole-heartedly doing all that is necessary to eradicate it. The other is to cloak the issue in clichés and terminologies and effectively skirt it. In the name of eradicating poverty, the government seems to have opted for the convenient latter route which, if pursued vigorously, could also eliminate the poor altogether from the scene.

This conclusion is inescapable if we look at the manner in which Planning Commission is kicking and dribbling the ball of poverty. It is a pity, even after six decades, the babus at Yojna Bhawan are still stuck on page one of their book on poverty, defining and redefining (but never refining) what constitutes poverty in the first place. They first came up with a set of ridiculous figures, on the basis of per capita consumption in the country. Last July, the Plan panel drew the poverty line at Rs 32 in urban areas and Rs 26 a day per capita in rural areas. On this basis, all those who spend more than these magical sums would be construed as beyond the pale of poverty and they would be deprived of attendant social and economic benefits that the poor are supposed to derive.

This definition did not find favour with the media and people who are in the know, unfortunately these are people who do not matter. As the attack mounted, even Montek Singh Ahluwalia, that high priest of the Planning Commission, conceded that perhaps there was need for a relook at the whole exercise, giving hope that an upward revision was round the corner. But that was not to be. On the contrary, the Planning Commission, in its zest and over-enthusiasm to project India to the rest of the world as a nation which has achieved success in reducing poverty, has now come up with another set of figures that is even more ridiculous, farcical and an insult to the poor of this country. According to these figures released Monday, there is actually a reduction, and not an increase as was expected, in the poverty cut-off at Rs 29 and Rs 22 per day in urban and rural areas per capita.

Naturally, this is bound to generate a lot of heat and opposition as everybody knows that hardly any comfortable existential level can be attained with this little money. To test whether it would really be possible to subsist on these paltry sums, two Indian students pursuing studies abroad came down and tried to live out a practically regimented life for a fortnight spending no more than Rs.32 each per day, in Karnataka a few months ago. They found that they could hardly keep the wolves away from the door. If Montek and his men fanned out to the countryside and lived for a week like the two students, sans the air-conditioned comforts and all Government trappings, they would certainly gain a lot of practical wisdom, apart from realizing the folly of their being so far removed from harsh realities.

However let us not, for a moment, forget that these are not ignorant people. They are dangerous men very highly motivated to damage this nation’s interests. The Planning Commission’s new set of figures came in for sharp criticism from all and sundry, forcing Montek to concede in a cavalier manner that there was something amiss in the statistics. If the figures being put out by this apex body are suspect and replete with discrepancies, naturally people would look down upon the institution and those who man it with utter contempt and disdain. This was an august body once headed by luminaries. By putting out statistics that is suspect and problematic, the Planning Commission is lowering its own credibility in the eyes of the public.

Loaded conclusions based on faulty statistics that India has moved five crore people out of poverty may be music to the ears of multilateral lending agencies such as the IMF and World Bank, but that is not going to fill the bellies of the poor. Under the circumstances, it is high time the Planning Commission put its acts together and revise the poverty figures that are meaningful and realistic instead of continuing with flippant exercises giving the impression that its approach is basically anti-poor. Therefore it may be safely construed that people like Montek should not be allowed to wield the clout that they do at present. These gentlemen should be forced out of their expensive leather-clad high-backed chairs.