According to this analysis, 27.4% of the population in rural areas, where the cut-off is set at Rs 2,515 per capita per month, and 23.7% in urban areas, with a cut-off of Rs 3,639 per capita per month, is below the poverty line. This contrasts sharply with the government’s claims of near-eradication of poverty and raises questions about the accuracy and intent of its statistics.https://thewire.in/economy/indians-living-in-poverty-could-be-five-times-higher-than-govt-estimates-study
This contradiction stems from methodological differences. The government’s approach of inflating older poverty lines fails to capture the rising costs of non-food essentials, such as healthcare, education and housing. In contrast, the Rangarajan method uses updated nutritional norms and a more detailed consumption basket (including essential non-food expenses), making it a more accurate reflection of current realities.
The Tendulkar committee (2009) estimated poverty based on per capita consumption expenditure, anchored in nutritional and calorie requirements. However, it faced criticism for setting poverty lines that were considered too low, potentially underestimating poverty levels.
Given the concerns about the inadequacy of the Tendulkar committee’s poverty thresholds and their inability to reflect actual living costs, the Rangarajan committee was established to revisit and propose a more comprehensive poverty estimation methodology.
by Payal Seth
02/02/2025