Satyajit Puhan
What is the face of contemporary India? Is it that of the bright and shining India with its rapidly growing economy, great advancement in science and technology, an ever-expanding and upwardly mobile middle class, the sprawling city and the malls? Or, is it that of an India marked by poverty and insecurity, with millions untouched by the benefits of economic growth, without access to education and healthcare, deprived of basic needs and struggling to survive? Or may be beyond this rhetoric of poverty or progress, these sharply contrasting images do not cancel each other but coexist in the face of contemporary India.
As dealt in previous chapters, since the beginning of the 1990s, the Indian government has undertaken major macroeconomic reforms and moved towards a greater integration of the Indian economy with the global market. It is a fact that India has moved onto a higher economic growth
trajectory in the last two decades in comparison to the pre-reforms period. And at an average of 7 per cent GDP growth rate annually (the present projections are even higher), India would be doubling its national income approximately every 10 years. A rapidly growing economy has led to hopes of India finally actualizing its potential as an economic superpower. What does this unprecedented growth in national income mean for the lives of the poor in India?
Does it mean that with the rising per capita income, the poor will no longer remain poor? Does it mean that there will be less hunger and destitution, less children dying because of lack of
immunization or basic health care? Does it mean more employment and better wages for the landless, casual labourers in rural areas, greater access to educational opportunities, general improvement in the living conditions, more social equality and freedom of opportunity?
The Indian State periodically comes up with estimates of the level of poverty in India. The numbers suggest that poverty has been rapidly declining but still remains high with every fourth Indian still being poor in 2004–05. What does it mean? Does it mean an acknowledgement that a large section of India is still poor, but at the same time a claim that India is definitely on its way to eliminate poverty?
A lot depends on what we understand by ‘poverty’.
The persistence of extensive poverty in times of general prosperity raises the other troublesome question confronting democratic societies: how to ensure equality of opportunity in the face of the rising socio-economic inequality? The deprivations that characterize the lives of the poor put them at a disadvantage in terms of their capability to actualize the opportunities presented by economic
growth. This means that in the absence of political and social action mediating the process of
economic growth, poverty tends to reproduce itself and results in rising socio-economic inequality.
The essay begins by discussing varying notions of poverty. It distinguishes between ‘poverty’ as
defined by the concept of the frequently referred poverty line and the much broader notion of
‘poverty’ as human-capability deprivation. The debate on ‘poverty’ in India must not be limited to lack of income or purchasing power but must include a wide array of living standard and social indicators bearing on human-capability deprivation. This essay argues that the persistence of these deprivations could be significant in determining how equitably the opportunities of economic growth are shared and what happens to socio-economic inequality in the future. It ends by appraising how contemporary India is positioned in terms of poverty and the related phenomena of food insecurity and unemployment.
The essay goes on to discuss the response of the State to poverty. It follows the shifts and changes in the orientation of the Five-Year Plans towards poverty alleviation in India. The limitations of the State policy are discussed to understand why it has remained ad hoc and narrow in focus with regard to poverty in the country.
The last section of the essay discusses the rising regional disparities and the changing perceptions of the State in the post-reforms period. It argues that this is only one aspect of the broader pattern of increasing economic inequality in this period. The essay ends by enquiring into the implications of these developments in the light of social conflicts in contemporary India.
THE NOTION OF ‘ABSOLUTE POVERTY’ AND MAKING OF THE ‘POVERTY LINE’
Economic poverty is generally understood as the lack of means for providing material needs or
comforts. Since income or wealth (representing purchasing power) is often seen as the most common means of obtaining such needs, ‘poverty’ is generally associated with a lack of income or wealth.
When income or wealth in a society is unequally distributed, some people have more means at their command than others. The lowest segment of the population having lesser means is considered poor in comparison to the upper segments. This is poverty in a relative sense.
Among the relatively poor are those whose extreme lack of means result in deprivations that not only severely affect their well-being, but threatens their very survival. In this case, poverty is
characterized by deprivation of the most basic of needs like adequate food, shelter, clothing, access to health care. Anyone suffering from such extreme deprivations is considered poor in the absolute sense. Absolute poverty also reflects what is socially considered a minimum level of resources that should be the right of every member. This threshold of minimum, socially acceptable living condition is often quantified as a minimum income level or poverty line and the absolute poor are considered to be those who live Below the Poverty Line (BPL). One of the most widely used measures of poverty has been the headcount ratio, which is nothing but the proportion of population living on a per capita income lower than the given poverty line.
The nature of absolute poverty makes it socially, morally and politically difficult to accept or overlook. The reduction of absolute poverty has been a major concern world over. The high priority attached to the task is understandable given the urgency of survival and abject suffering associated with starvation, malnutrition and vulnerability to diseases. In 2000, the United Nations adopted the millennium development goals (MDGs) as a roadmap for building a better world in the 21st century.
The first of the eight goals set by the governments of the world is the eradication of extreme poverty
and hunger.1 In terms of poverty, the target is to reduce by half, between 1990 and 2015, the
proportion of population living below the poverty line given by the per capita income of US $1 per day, which is one of the poverty lines used internationally.2
Officially Speaking, Who Is Poor?
The Indian government uses an official poverty line in terms of per capita income but calibrated to suffice for the cost of a minimum consumption basket. In 1979, the Planning Commission of India adopted a poverty line that has become common reference for poverty in India. The concept of poverty line in India is primarily based on a minimum-calorie norm or the amount of food deemed necessary for the healthy and active functioning of a human being. Using the help of nutrition experts, this calorie norm has been fixed as per capita daily calorie requirement of 2,400 kcal in rural areas and 2,100 kcal in urban areas.3 The poverty line is quantified as the cost of an average consumption basket that satisfies the above calorie requirement. In other words, the per capita income that is necessary to buy the rudimentary food basket satisfying the minimum calorie norm is the poverty line dividing the poor from the non-poor in India.4
The concepts of ‘poverty line’ and ‘headcount ratio’ have been central to State planning towards poverty eradication in India. At the same time, both these concepts have generated considerable controversy. For instance, it has been argued that the definition of a realistic poverty line must also include the cost of provision of other basic needs apart from food.5 Although food is one of the most fundamental human needs and is critical for survival, it is not the only component of well-being.
Well-being is also dependent on many other basic material needs as significant as food such as shelter and sanitation, drinking water, medicine and health care.
The Puzzle of the ‘Head Count’
The estimation of the ‘headcount ratio’ has been another major contentious issue. Varying
methodologies and assumptions have led to varying estimates adding to the confusion. It is enough to say that there exist two official estimates of ‘headcount poverty ratio’ in India. The official figures for poverty in 1999–2000 indicated that 26 per cent of the population lived below the poverty line. It was hailed as a rapid decline from the official estimate of 36 per cent in 1993–94. The strict comparability of the two figures was questioned on methodological grounds by experts and many found the 1999–2000 official figures grossly underestimating the numbers of the poor.6 The
preliminary official estimates for 2004–05 show almost 28 per cent of the population living below the poverty line.7 According to the Planning Commission, this data is fully comparable to the 1993–
94 estimates but not to the 1999–2000 estimates. It simply means that the higher headcount ratio given by the current estimate in comparison to 1999–2000 estimates should not be misconstrued as an
increase in poverty during this period (see Table 4.1 for official estimates of poverty in India).
Table 4.1 Official Estimates of Poverty in India*
* Proportion of population living below the poverty line in India (%)
Source: Government of India, Economic Survey (various years). The estimates are based on per capita expenditure distribution data collected by National Sample Surveys and the Planning Commission on the all-India poverty line.
The varying headcount estimates have been used for contradictory claims on the purported rate of decline of poverty in India in the 1990s.8 The debate has mostly centred on the issue of the correct estimation of poverty in India with reference to the ‘poverty line’. It is not clear whether the decline has been faster or slower in the 1990s in comparison to the earlier decade because of the
incomparability of estimates. But there is evidence to suggest that as far as the ‘headcount ratio’ is concerned, poverty level in India has been consistently declining. If one takes the comparable official estimates of headcount ratio between 1993–94 and 2004–05, the figures show a decline from 36 per cent to nearly 28 per cent. India may yet achieve the target set by millennium development goals (MDGs), though the current estimates are not as reassuring as the 1999–2000 estimates were. But while acknowledging the fact that meeting the MDG target would be a significant achievement, one must also keep in mind the narrow definition of poverty that the ‘headcount ratio’ uses.
So what does it mean when the Planning Commission of India states that the headcount-poverty ratio was almost 28 per cent in 2004–05? It means that almost 28 per cent of the Indian population was found to subsist below the per capita income specified by the poverty line or the minimum-calorie norm; it does not say how low the income was of those below the poverty line or how acute their hunger was. The figure also means that according to the Government of India, every fourth Indian lived in absolute poverty in 2004–05; but since this absolute poverty is pegged to a bare subsistence level defined by the ‘poverty line’, it does not say how many of those who stayed above the line also managed to escape destitution.9
Poverty Beyond the ‘Poverty Line’
The ‘poverty line’ is quite unsatisfactory when it comes to grasping the extent of poverty in India. It is not only because of its extremely narrow definition of ‘who is poor’ and the debatable methodology used to count the poor but also because of a more fundamental assumption underlying it. As stated earlier, it exclusively relies on the notion of poverty as insufficient income or purchasing power. One can better categorize it by calling it income poverty. If poverty is ultimately about deprivations
affecting human well-being, then income poverty is only one aspect of it. Income is no doubt a vital means to the attainment of individual well-being, but it is not adequate to ensure against many other kinds of deprivation. For example, illness due to communicable diseases can seriously affect the
well-being of a person in various ways ranging from depriving her of a healthy life to curtailing her income-earning abilities. It is a well-known fact that outbreak of many of the communicable diseases can be effectively prevented by the provision of safe drinking water, public sanitation and health services. Ensuring against communicable diseases and the resultant deprivations to well-being then depends on many factors like access to safe drinking water, public sanitation and health services, and social-insurance systems apart from private income. A strictly income-based approach to poverty often fails to reflect pervasive deprivations relating to many of the basic needs when the satisfaction of the need is also dependent on social provision of goods and services and not just private income and the market.10
It is also limiting to think of poverty essentially in tenus of material deprivations relating to basic needs. One must also take into consideration sociological deprivations rooted in underlying structural inequities and inherent disadvantages. Even when resources are available, people may not be able to take full advantage of them because of pre-existing disadvantages ranging from social constraints like caste and gender to personal impediments like old age and physical disabilities. Income-based
approach to poverty is again found severely wanting in taking into account these other kinds of deprivations.
Poverty as Capability Deprivation and Lack of Social Opportunity
A broader understanding of poverty needs to look beyond the income approach. One of the most influential concepts in this regard has been the notion of human capability. Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen write:
Poverty of a life, in this view, lies not merely in the impoverished state in which the person actually lives, but also in the lack of real opportunity—given by social constraints as well as personal circumstances—to choose other types of living. Even the relevance of low incomes, meagre possessions, and other aspects of what are standardly seen as economic poverty relates ultimately to their role in curtailing capabilities (that is, their role in severely restricting the choices people have to lead valuable and valued lives).11
The freedom of opportunity available to people is influenced by their personal circumstances as well as social situations. The personal circumstances that significantly matter are not just access to
‘means’ like income or wealth but also the access to basic needs and amenities, like food, clothing, shelter, education and health services, safe drinking water and sanitation to list a few. Along with these material means of well-being, it is the actual states of well-being or ‘outcomes’ achieved by the person, like nutritional status, educational and health achievements that also impact upon the real opportunities available.
Personal circumstances are found to be embedded in social situations. Social, political and economic relations and inequalities determine how resources are distributed and what choices are available to different sections of the society. Some of the most visible examples of these are based on caste, class and gender disparities that constrain the real opportunities available to people.
Deprivations in the form of access to basic needs, actual states of well-being and social inequalities have a great role to play in the creation of economic poverty. On the other hand, economic poverty often reinforces these deprivations. And the circle is difficult to break—a
unidimensional approach to poverty as essentially income poverty overlooks the other dimensions of
deprivation that make inequality of opportunity persist and poverty replicate itself.
The major dimensions of poverty that persist in India relate to deprivations in nutritional, educational and health achievements, access to basic needs and amenities, quality of physical
environment and various social inequalities like caste and gender disparities. In this context, some of the other targets given in the millennium development goals (MDGs), besides reduction in head-count ratio, give a sense of the challenge facing contemporary India in terms of poverty (see Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 India’s Progress Towards Some Selected MDG Targets
Sources: Government of India, Economic Survey, New Delhi (various years); Registrar General of India, Sample Registration System Bulletin, New Delhi (various years); UNDP, Human Development Reports, New Delhi (various years); Indian Institute of Population Sciences, NFHS-I, (1995) and NFHS-II (2000).
India’s progress has been much slower than needed to meet the targets in the reduction of incidence of mortality and morbidity among women and children, reduction of hunger and improvement in
nutritional status, reduction of gender and caste-related disparities and improvement in general living conditions in terms of better access to basic amenities. India may not achieve many of these targets in spite of the likelihood of it becoming an economic superpower by 2015.
This must be qualified by the fact that social progress in India in terms of human development goals is characterized by wide inter-regional and intra-regional divergence. It means that in the absence of effective measures directed at bridging the gaps, the regions doing better in terms of human
development will be better placed to seize the benefits of growth. The result can be one of growing economic inequality in India. Such a scenario cannot be considered conducive either to the process of rapid economic growth or the prospect of India becoming an economic superpower, if the growing inequalities lead to increasing regional and social conflicts within India.
A detailed discussion of the social indicators that reflect contemporary India’s progress towards offering equal opportunity to its citizens is beyond the scope of this essay. This essay focuses on a few significant issues relating to poverty in India in light of the discussion so far.
Poverty, Hunger and Food Insecurity
Hunger and malnutrition are outcomes of food insecurity or the inability to access adequate food and nutrition. Hunger-related poverty remains one of the major deprivations in India. In 2001–03, every fifth Indian (20 per cent) was found to be undernourished.12 The rate of decline in the proportion of the undernourished through the 1990s was much slower in comparison to the decline in poverty-headcount ratio. In fact, the proportion of undernourished people remained stagnant at 21 per cent in the second half of the 1990s and the number of the undernourished actually increased (see Table 4.3).
It is most likely that India is going to miss the millennium development goal in this regard.
Even a greater cause of concern is the status of malnutrition among children. Malnutrition directly affects the development of the child by retarding their physical and cognitive growth and increases the
Even a greater cause of concern is the status of malnutrition among children. Malnutrition directly affects the development of the child by retarding their physical and cognitive growth and increases the