NITI Aayog Under Fire: Controversy Erupts Over Claims of India Abolishing Poverty. In a surprising turn of events, the NITI Aayog has come under scrutiny for suggesting that poverty in India has been eradicated. Critics argue that this assertion, based on the Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES), is unsubstantiated and misleading.
The CEO of NITI Aayog recently claimed that the proportion of poor individuals in India is now only 5 percent, a stark contrast to previous estimates. However, experts challenge this conclusion, emphasizing that the HCES data does not support such a drastic reduction in poverty rates.
The HCES, conducted between August 2022 and July 2023, surveyed over 2,60,000 households across rural and urban areas. While the survey aimed to calculate Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE), critics question the methodology and the accuracy of the findings.
Amidst growing skepticism, the controversy underscores the importance of transparent and reliable data in assessing poverty levels and formulating effective policies to address socio-economic challenges in India.
| Income Bracket | Rural India | Urban India |
|---|---|---|
| Top 5% | 10,501 | 20,824 |
| Average (Mean) | 3,773 | 6,459 |
| Bottom 5% | 1,373 | 2,001 |
| Median | 3,094 | 4,693 |
| Income Bracket | 0 – 5% | 5 – 10% | 10 – 20% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rural India | 1,373 | 1,782 | 2,112 |
| Urban India | 2,001 | 2,607 | 3,157 |
The statement questions the NITI Aayog’s assertion regarding poverty levels based on expenditure data, particularly for the bottom 20 percent of the population. It raises doubts about whether individuals with such low monthly expenditures, such as Rs 2,112 in rural areas and Rs 3,157 in urban areas, can truly be considered non-poor. The suggestion is made for NITI Aayog officials to experience firsthand the challenges of living with such limited resources by providing them with a monthly budget equivalent to the reported expenditure levels and asking them to live in a rural area for a month. This proposal aims to highlight the discrepancy between official assessments of poverty and the lived realities of individuals with meager financial means.
The Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES) revealed a significant reduction in the share of food expenditure in both rural and urban areas, accounting for 46 percent and 39 percent, respectively. This trend is attributed to increasing income and expenditure levels, with the value of food consumption either remaining stagnant or rising at a slower pace.
Additionally, the data from HCES reaffirmed long-standing observations regarding poverty levels among different social groups. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are identified as the poorest segments of society, falling below the national average, while Other Backward Classes (OBC) hover around the average. Interestingly, those categorized as ‘others’ tend to have above-average economic status.
State-wise analysis further confirms these trends, with the poorest individuals residing in states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Meghalaya, where the Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE) is below the national average for rural areas. Similar patterns are observed in urban areas, with minimal variation in state rankings compared to the national average.
Notably, despite being ruled by the BJP since 1995, Gujarat exhibits MPCE figures that closely align with the national averages for both rural and urban areas, dispelling the notion of exceptional economic performance often associated with the state.
The frustration is evident over the claim that only 5 percent of India’s population is poor, implying that poverty is a dwindling issue and resources should be redirected towards the middle class and wealthy. However, this assertion is challenged by various indicators, raising questions about the adequacy of current poverty alleviation measures.
The discrepancy is highlighted by contrasting government actions, such as the distribution of free grain to 80 crore people, with the reported low percentage of poor individuals. Despite cereals and substitutes accounting for a small portion of total expenditure, the provision of free grain suggests a broader need for assistance beyond what the poverty estimate indicates.
Moreover, the alarming statistics from the National Family Health Survey-5 paint a different picture, revealing high rates of anaemia among children and women, as well as significant levels of stunting and wasting among children under 5 years old. These indicators underscore the persistent challenges faced by vulnerable populations, contradicting the notion of a diminishing poverty problem.
The critique extends to the NITI Aayog’s apparent oversight of the realities faced by marginalized groups, including children begging on the streets and individuals living in homelessness. The disconnect between official assessments and on-the-ground realities raises concerns about the effectiveness of poverty assessment methodologies and the need for more comprehensive approaches to address poverty and social inequality.
The questions raised point to the discrepancy between official figures and the ground reality of poverty in India. Despite claims of a dwindling poor population, various government schemes and indicators suggest otherwise.
For instance, the presence of 15.4 crore active registered workers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) indicates ongoing demand for guaranteed employment opportunities, contradicting the narrative of declining poverty levels.
Similarly, the fact that beneficiaries of the Ujjwala scheme, aimed at providing clean cooking fuel to households below the poverty line, purchase only 3.7 cylinders on average per year raises questions about the effectiveness of poverty alleviation measures.
The criticism extends to the NITI Aayog’s focus on serving the interests of the affluent while seemingly disregarding the plight of the poor. While the government may not be able to eradicate poverty entirely, there are concerns about its approach to addressing poverty and ensuring the welfare of vulnerable populations.
Overall, the statements reflect a broader skepticism about official poverty estimates and the need for more comprehensive and effective poverty alleviation strategies that address the complex realities faced by marginalized communities in India.