About a year and half back, Modi – government had constituted a 16-member Task Force [TF] under the chairmanship of Dr Arvind Panagariya, vice chairman, NITI Aayog to define an official “poverty line” [a threshold income; a person whose earning is below the threshold is considered poor] which will enable determination of how many people in India are poor? In its report, the TF has stated:-
“In view of this lack of consensus (among states), the Task Force recommends that an expert group consisting of the country’s leading specialists on poverty consider the issue in-depth and recommend the poverty line India must adopt for tracking of poverty.”
The recommendation is ‘unusual’ and ‘puzzling’. If, a high power committee headed by a person from among the highest echelons in the government and having full backing of the political establishment is unable to come up with a decision, how it can expect a group of experts to throw up a decisive recommendation.
The hard fact is that TF was ‘indecisive’ and by referring the issue to a group of experts, it is merely hiding its reluctance to take a position despite brainstorming over various methodologies for poverty determination [Dr Tendulkar and Dr Rangarajan among others]. It would be naive to believe that it was hamstrung for want of experts. Given its stature, nothing prevented it from roping in specialists to guide the deliberations and arrive at a number.
However, on a closer look at the recommendation, “in view of lack of consensus (among states) ………….”, it becomes abundantly clear that the problem was certainly not with lack of expertise or capability of Team Panagaryia to deliver. Instead, it was one of tussle among states over what method should be chosen even as they were viewing the exercise as one of satisfying their political constituencies.
While, some states such as Odisha and West Bengal batted for the Tendulkar poverty line [submitted in 2009, the report fixed minimum spending threshold at Rs 33 per day for urban areas and Rs 27 per day for rural areas, while others including Delhi, Jharkhand, and Mizoram preferred the Rangarajan line [submitted in 2014, this committee fixed the spending thresholds at Rs 47 per day and Rs 32 per day for urban and rural areas respectively].
Depicting a typical syndrome of ‘catching the bull by the horn’, the TF dabbled in territory where it should not have gone. It had asked states to set up their own task forces on this issue and submit their suggestions. By doing so, it unnecessarily gave political color to a subject matter that was strictly technical and economic. The outcome went on expected lines [i.e. no decision which inevitably happens if the ball is thrown in the court of political bosses].
The subject matter of poverty determination is susceptible to political manipulation? This is how it works. Given that the subsidies and other forms of state assistance runs in to hundreds of thousands crores every year, India can be very aptly described as a country of doles/largesse. Since, most of the doles are designed to keep the poor as prime beneficiaries, where the poverty line is fixed automatically assumes importance.
Higher the threshold, more the number of people below the poverty line. Thus, under the Tendulkar methodology with threshold at Rs 33/27 per day for urban/rural areas, the populations below the poverty line were 270 million. On the other hand, under the Rangarajan methodology, with threshold at Rs 47/32 per day for urban/rural areas respectively, the number of poor increases to 363 million. This is bound to shape assessments of respective states.
Clearly, states who are ever keen to ensure a larger proportion of their population covered under government largesse would prefer to go for threshold to be set at higher level [as recommended by Rangarajan]. And, states which are keen to look better on development index and therefore, do not want to be seen as having larger number of poor, would want poverty line at lower level [Tendulkar].
The previous committees/panels were able to finalize their recommendations and arrive at poverty numbers because they did not allow themselves to get entangled in a discussion/debate [or politicization, to put in plain words]. They were focused on the task assigned to them as professionals. But, the Panagariya panel was more involved in arriving at a consensus instead of determination on merit.
It might feel elated at fostering the spirit of cooperative federalism [a major objective of the present incarnation of erstwhile Planning Commission]. But, doing so in regard to assessment of where a person stands in terms of being able to afford bare minimum needs for a proper living [food, clothing, shelter, health etc] can only boomerang. How can such a factual assessment be turned in to a point of consultations? How can one do politics over this?
A deeper cause behind this derailment is the very idea of linking distribution of doles only to people below the poverty line [BPL] or giving them subsidy on a much higher scale than given to those who are above poverty line [APL]; for instance, food subsidy under public distribution system [PDS]. Yet, this idea has got deeply impregnated in the mindset of governments – both at the center and states.
For this very reason, the recommendations of both Tendulkar and Rangarajan committees got in to the thick of controversies. Now, the Panagariya panel has been incapacitated because it allowed politics to creep in its deliberations [reportedly, in its draft report, it had favored Tendulkar poverty line, but eventually had to give up]. Even if a group of experts is set up – as recommended by Dr Panagariya – it will meet the same fate as previous committees.
Modi – government should take a lead in getting rid of this flaw. The poverty line should only be used for assessing where people stand in respect of their living standard. It can only serve as guide to our policy makers and planners as to what they have achieved and what needs to be done. It must not be used for any other purpose, certainly not for deciding distribution of subsidies.
More importantly, our political establishment should get rid of the cult of subsidies and instead focus on empowering people by giving them jobs and helping them set up businesses so that they do not feel the need to look up for crutches to make a living.