Poverty in India: Country's Rural Population Lives on Less Than Rs 35 a Day

Poverty is a stark realty in India. There are more poor people here than in the 20 poorest African countries. More Indians have an access to mobile phones than toilets. Hunger and malnutrition persist. Figures about the extent of poverty released occasionally do spark debates and political point-scoring for a day or two but are then forgotten. They do expose, however, even if for a short while the ugly side of India’s much-touted growth story. By and large, what is wrong and what needs to be done are known.

Keeping the aforementioned points in view, the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) has recently carried out the 66th round of National Sample Survey (NSS). The report states that around 60 per cent of India's rural population lives on less than Rs 35 a day and nearly as many in cities live on Rs 66 a day, reveals a government survey on income and expenditure.

The statistics pertaining to income and expenditures of the citizens presented by the NSSO has revealed that food accounted for about 57 per cent of the value of the average rural Indian household consumption during 2009-10 whereas it was 44 per cent in cities. And this, when 60 per cent of India’s rural population lives on less than Rs 35 a day and an identical percentage in several cities lives on Rs 66 per day.

If the average monthly per capita consumption of cereals was 11.3 kg in rural areas and 9.4 kg in cities, then the survey also pointed out that 10 per cent of the population at the lowest rung in rural areas lives on Rs 15 a day and on Rs 20 per day in urban areas.

In terms of average per capita daily expenditure, it comes out to be about Rs 35 in rural and Rs 66 in urban India. Approximately 60 per cent of the population lives with these expenditures or less in rural and urban areas.

July 2009–June 2010 Situation

According to NSS carried out between July 2009 and June 2010, all India average monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) in rural areas was Rs 1,054 and urban areas Rs 1,984. The survey also pointed out that 10 per cent of the population at the lowest rung in rural areas lives on Rs 15 a day, while in urban areas the figure is only a shade better at Rs 20 day.

The report states that the poorest 10 per cent of India's rural population had an average MPCE of Rs 453. The poorest 10 per cent of the urban population had an average MPCE of Rs 599.

The NSSO survey also revealed that average MPCE in rural areas was lowest in Bihar and Chhattisgarh at around Rs 780 followed by Orissa and Jharkhand at Rs 820.

States’ Condition

Among other states, Kerala has the highest rural MPCE at 1,835 followed by Punjab and Haryana at Rs 1,649 and Rs 1,510 respectively. The highest urban MCPE was in Maharashtra at Rs 2,437 followed by Kerala at Rs 2,413 and Haryana at Rs 2,321. It was lowest in Bihar at Rs 1,238. The median level of MCPE was Rs 895 in rural and Rs 1,502 in urban India, indicating consumption level of majority of population.

According to the study, food was estimated to account about 57 per cent of the value of the average rural Indian household consumption during 2009-10 whereas it was 44 per cent in cities.

Planning Commission’s Estimates

Based on NSSO estimates, the Planning Commission had pegged that poverty line at Rs 28.65 and Rs 22.42 daily consumption in urban and rural areas respectively in 2009-10. As per the Commission’s estimates the number of persons living below poverty line was 35.46 crore in 2009-10, as compared to 40.72 crore in 2004-05.

Hillary Clinton’s India Visit: New Delhi Reminds Washington of Country's Interests in Region

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrapped up her three-day visit to India on May 8. Her trip came at a time when India and the United States are perceived to have taken somewhat different positions from each other on various issues. After two decades of increasing proximity, disagreements between the two countries over several key matters now seem to be slowing down the momentum of bilateral relations. Those who had hoped that Clinton’s visit would put the spark back in the ties will have been a bit disappointed as both parties have not done much, in addition to reiterating already-known positions.

During her stay, Clinton met key Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi. and discussed a range of issues, including China, regional security and civil nuclear cooperation.

Pakistan’s Role in Eliminating Terror

The US secretary of state has pressed Pakistan to do more to ensure its territory is not used as "launching pad" by terror groups for attacks and also said that Hafiz Saeed was "one of the "principal architects" of the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Hillary's comments came at a joint news conference after her talks with External Affairs Minister SM Krishna who spoke of the need for elimination of "terrorist sanctuaries" in the neighborhood.The two leaders nudged Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 attacks and pledged to continue to work together in combating the menace.

In his remarks, Krishna said the recent terrorist attacks in Afghan capital – Kabul -- highlighted the need for elimination of terrorist sanctuaries in the neighborhood and for Pakistan to take steps against terrorism, including bringing to justice the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks. He also stressed the need for stronger action from Pakistan on terrorism, including on bringing to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attack.

In April 2012, the United States offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the conviction of Saeed, the founder of the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

Afghan Problem

The vision for Afghanistan was also discussed at the meeting. India stressed the need for sustained international commitment to build Afghan capacity for governance, security and economic development, and to support Afghanistan with assistance, investment and regional linkages.

To ask India to “do more” on the Iranian issue, therefore, is not fair on the part of the United States. The US secretary of state should understand that if the US has to do all it can to safeguard its geo-political interests in the Afghanistan-Pakistan area, India, too, has its interests in Kabul which cannot be properly taken care of if New Delhi loses the Iranian link.

US Investment in West Bengal

Clinton’s offer to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to invest in West Bengal is, however, a welcome development. The state will also gain immensely once the issues between India and Bangladesh are settled conclusively. An agreement between the two neighbors on the Teesta River water issue could have been signed by now had Banerjee not taken a stand different from New Delhi’s line of thinking. But, as External Affairs Minister SM Krishna told his Bangladesh counterpart Dipu Moni, in New Delhi, efforts are on to bring the West Bengal Chief Minister to the view that the country’s overall interests must be given precedence over the state’s interest.

Earlier, the West Bengal chief minister had scuttled the United Progressive Alliance’s plans to allow Foreign Direct Investment in multi-brand retail, arguing that the move would destroy small businesses. The US secretary of state seems to have failed to force a change of heart in the feisty Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Issue of Oil Imports From Iran

The Damocles sword is still hanging on India. The United States gave no firm assurance to India that the proposed American sanctions will not apply to it for oil purchases from Iran even as New Delhi stated that the Iranian issue was not a source of discord between the two countries.

Continuing to resist American pressure over the matter, India also made it clear that it would abide only by UN Security Council sanctions against Iran and not those imposed by individual countries.

The US pressure on India regarding oil imports from Iran leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Does it not tantamount to interference in our internal affairs? As long as Manmohan Singh is the prime minister any directions of the United States in India's internal affairs and treaties like nuclear deal are cake walks.

In March 2012, the United States announced sanctions which threaten to shut out importers of Iranian oil from the US financial system unless they make significant and continuing cuts to their purchases by the end of June. Japan and 10 European Union nations have been granted exemption while India and China remain at risk.

In addition to its need for oil, there are two reasons why India must not take the US pressure lying down. India's only reliable land-route into Afghanistan and Central Asia runs through Iran. Moreover, the current US approach is likely to make the Iranian — and regional — security situation worse, not better. Saudi Arabia and Israel, which is already nuclear-armed, worry that a nuclear-capable Iran would tilt the regional balance and want the squeeze put on Iran. But too much financial or military pressure could backfire, goading the regime to commit to acquiring a strategic weapon — something it has not done until today.

India has demonstrated that it has come of age and stood its ground. Iran, despite its saber rattling, is a responsible power and we have a very useful conduit to their Leaders, which could be invaluable, when the World needs stability and growth. India must neither shut off Iran's oil imports nor Iran's access routes to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Pakistan can make overtures to a new relationship, but India cannot afford to alienate the country that can provide a counter balance to the Taliban-Pakistan nexus.

India has been firm in its foreign policy right since independence, and rightly so; we are a country with one of the fastest growing economy. We have recently done an arm deal which is considered world's biggest. We have to manage our allies ourselves. The Indian external affairs minister’s decision to disagree with Clinton and reminding her of India's interests in the region.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Hajj Policy: Government Asked To End Subsidy Within 10 Years

The Supreme Court has struck down the federal government's policy of giving subsidies to Hajj pilgrims and directed that it be progressively "eliminated" within a period of 10 years. It said it will look into the functioning of Hajj Committee of India and it process for selecting people for Hajj pilgrimage.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the government challenging a Bombay High Court judgment which had directed the Ministry of External Affairs to allow certain private operators (travel agents) to handle 800 of the 11,000 pilgrims earmarked under the VIP quota subsidized by the government.

On private operators, the Bench upheld the government policy for 2012, observing that it did not warrant any interference by the Supreme Court.

Citing “Verse-97 in Surah-3” of the Quran, the apex court stated that according to the verse, the Hajj pilgrimage is only permitted to those who can afford the expenses for “one’s conveyance and provision for residence” in Mecca.

Pilgrims and Travel Cost

Quoting statistics provided by the government for the past 19 years, the Bench pointed out that the subsidy had been increasing every year. This was on account of increase in the number of pilgrims and the travel cost.

In 1994, the number of pilgrims from India was as low as 21,035 and the subsidy amounted to Rs 10.51 crore. In 2011, the number of pilgrims went up to 1.25 lakh and the subsidy amounted to Rs 685 crore.

More than 1.5 lakh pilgrims performed Hajj paying for their own expenses without availing of the subsidy, the Bench pointed out.

The Bench, however, acknowledged that the air fare to Jeddah for the Hajjis was more than double the normal fare during other seasons due to regulations imposed by the Saudi Arabian authorities. In 2011, the two-way air fare for the Hajjis was Rs 58,800 against the normal air fare of Rs 25,000. On account of government subsidy, each pilgrim was charged Rs 16,000 as air fare.

Federal Government’s Plea

The bench while hearing the plea of the federal government had expanded the purview of the plea and decided to look into the legality of the government's policy on granting subsidies to Hajj pilgrims. During the hearing in the case, the government had defended the policy of giving subsidies to the Hajj pilgrims and had said it had framed guidelines so that people get subsidies only once in their lifetime.

In an affidavit, the government had told the court that it has decided to restrict Hajj pilgrimage at government subsidy to Muslims only as a "once in a lifetime" affair as against the existing policy of "once in five years." It had said the new guidelines have been framed to ensure that priority is given to those applicants who have never performed Hajj.

The government, however, had refrained from disclosing the amount of subsidy being incurred by it for 2012, saying, "The exact figure in respect of the travel subsidy to the pilgrims going through Hajj Committee of India for 2012 will be known after the Hajjis completed their Hajj journey and return to India."

The apex court had earlier expressed its dismay at the practice of sending official delegations to accompany the pilgrims and had asked the Centre to furnish entire details regarding Hajj subsidy, as also about the criteria adopted.

The court further observed: "These goodwill delegations need to be scrapped altogether. They are no longer relevant. Even a team of 9 to 10 persons is not required. The court had also pulled up the federal government's practice of ‘politicizing’ Hajj by permitting official delegations to accompany the pilgrims, for which the government offers huge subsidy, saying, It is a bad religious practice."

Welcome Decision

There was near-unanimity among the leaders of the political class in welcoming the verdict, with a few even demanding immediate scrapping of the subsidy and suggesting use of the money for the educational needs of Muslims.

Asaduddin Owaisi of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, an ally of the UPA said: “Why wait for 10 years to scrap it. It should be done away with this year itself, because it does not benefit the pilgrims. In the name of giving subsidy, the government has been fooling people till now, for, it has been investing the money in Air India.”

Senior BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said: “The BJP welcomes the verdict but we are of the opinion that the government should continue to help out the pilgrims with basic services.”

There was no need to club the educational needs of Muslims with the Hajj subsidy. “The government should try to implement the schemes for providing scholarship to Muslim girls, which are not getting properly implemented in the first place.”

Communist Party of India leader D. Raja said giving subsidy to any community was a policy decision and the Central government needed to explain its position.

Raja said: “There have been several court verdicts against the policy decisions of the government and it is for the government to explain.”

Referring to Law Minister Salman Khurshid's reaction that the government was considering the Hajj subsidy and discussions had taken place for its rollback, Raja said this was a “vague” stand.

Zafarul Islam Khan, president of the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, an umbrella organization of several Muslim groups, said: “The so-called Hajj subsidy is of no use to the pilgrims. We never asked for it.”